It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Johannmon
Let me lastly say once again that I intend this thread to be a scientific discussion of the merits of the theory. It is not a chicken little thread claiming the sky is falling nor is it meant as a scare tactic. It is meant as a forum to explore an alternative geological theory , its merits, and detractions. Please refrain from purely opinion based posts that add nothing to the discussion.
There is ample evidence in the geological record that the earth has suffered catastrophes. The wasteland of Siberia is one of the most glaring of these evidences. They are covered in hundreds and sometimes thousands of feet of a substance called muck. Muck is a homogeneous mix of minerals and organic material that really typifies its name. This muck has been discovered to overlay subtropical vegitation. There is no gradual transformation from one to the other instead what you find is tropical vegitation then muck and on top of the muck, which by the way covers 1/7 of the Earth's land mass, you have the siberian arctic growth. The muck is all frozen solid and shows. Futher animals have been found encased in the muck very well preserved showing evidence of quick freezing.
Originally posted by otlg27
Good lord... here we go again....
Magnetic pole flips do not happen instantly. Further more the poles have reversed in history with no evidence to support massive planetary tectonic upheaval...
But seeing as this has been discussed constantly on this forum, with the same evidence pointed to, over and over again, and yet this post comes up again, I guess there isn't much point to replying to this...
A joule is what you get when you pass 1 amp through a 1 ohm of resistance.
Suffice it to say that it is a measure of the size/ strength of a magnetic field. In other words the power of the earth’s magnetic field is = to running 79,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 amps through an equal amount of ohms of resistance per Tesla.
Originally posted by Johannmon
The theory states that when the magnet pole flips the crust of the earth is shifted dramatically cause a world wide catastrophe that reshapes the geological features of the earth and causes dramatic climate change on a global scale. This crustal shift is driven by the dipolar field of the earth acting on magnetically aligned "new crust" at the poles.
New crust is the crust that has formed through the cooling of magma along the border between the outer core and the inner crust of our planet. It is magnetically aligned to the earths field and near the poles that alignment causes the dipolar ends to face the outer core. (see illustration below) Because the new crust is magnetically aligned with its dipolar end facing the center of the earth, it is strongly repulsed by the newly reversed magnetic field of the earth in a manner similar to an electric motor.
Now onto the Tesla.. actually it's not hard to define:
"The SI unit of magnetic flux (flow) density (magnetic induction). The magnetic flux density of a uniform field that produces a torque of 1 newton- meter on a plane current loop carrying 1 ampere and having projected area of 1 square meter on the plane perpendicular to the field. (T = N/A m) "
Having said that, where the hell do you get this gobbly goop from:
your sentence structure is horrid.
Originally posted by twitchy
One angle I found interesting was the 'maturation' of the anartic ice mass as presented by Richard Noone, although he made the mistake of trying to predict a specific date, he had a lot of information that I found intriguing. It is a pretty simple matter of physics really that make me think that there is something to the polar shift theories, the point of greatest mass moves to
the point of greatest spin.
As the anartic ice mass builds over time, it gains mass until it shoots off to the point of greatest rotation, or in this case the equator.
If a large earthquake can cause the planet to 'wobble', it is not a wholly unattenable theory to suggest that a massive ice build up would not have some effect on rotation.
Like it or not, there is alot of evidence to support catastrophism in the Earth's history,
cause quick frozen fruit tropical vegetation in sub-artic reigons.
Originally posted by E_T
Name of that temperature is Curie point/temperature.
Here's table showing those temperatures for ferromagnetic materials:
That is also what makes it possible to detect direction of past magnetic field from seafloor basalt because when material cools under its Curie point it retains direction of magnetic field for which it was exposed at the time of cooling.
Originally posted by otlg27
NO THEY DON'T.. please show me where you found this information, and I'll show you where you've either misread something, or someone else has made a mistake.
I do not know from Scripture what proportion of the protons God aligned in each case. In the previous article I put an arbitrary factor, k, into the equations. This alignment factor represents what fraction' of the maximum field God chose.
The maximum value of k is one; the minimum is zero. Ordering by whole subgroups would give possible values of ¼, ½, ¾, or 1. In the previous paper I assumed that k for the earth was ¼. I supported this choice by pointing out that it increases the molecular order with a minimum of perturbation from the normal alignment. But it is a subjective choice. In the absence of any better criterion, let us assume that k = 0.25 unless we find out otherwise.
Humphreys had already postulated this idea, when he found support from a paper by Coe & Prevot in 1989 , which showed evidence of a rapid change in the angle of the dipole moment of the Earth's magnetic field during the cooling time of a lava flow. Coe & Prevot have expanded on the observations and theory since then [26, 27a] (and so has Humphreys ), and the effect certainly appears to be real, or at least credible. Humphreys has interpreted these results as an implication that all field reversals are very rapid, and this allows him to concentrate all of them into the single year of the Genesis Flood. However, one must remember that the results reported by Coe & Prevot include only a few out of hundreds or thousands of examples of field reversal measurements. The vast majority of the known examples would have required the entire reversal to take place while the lava flows were still hotter than the Curie temperature, or worse yet, argue against rapid reversal by recording what appear to be the intermediate stages of a single reversal event. Finally, others have shown that the evident rapid reversals described by Coe & Prevot may be explained by processes not related directly to those in the Earth's core [27b], but rather by magnetic storm effects that may become significant at the surface of the Earth during a reversal, when the dipole field is relatively weak.