Magnetic Pole Flip May Devistate the Earth

Originally posted by twitchy
Byrd I'm not saying ice is magnetic, neither was Noone. A magnetic shift does indeed occur periodically, that is generally well known, but the drifting that you are referring to is not the same concept as shifting, your talking about declination.

Are we on the same page with the "poles" here? To me, "pole" means one of two things: true magnetic north point (which wobbles all over the place)
OR "north" along the axis of spin on the planet.

Continents may wander around or through either of these norths, but the continents aren't the same as poles.

This would explain residual magnetisim in oddball areas like bermuda or Kimberley in South Africa .

Erm, magentism is a force. There's no such thing as "residual magentism." That's like "residual light" when you turn the light off inside a cave.

Ain't no such thing.

Scientists aren't too awfully keen to explain these areas of localized magnetic anamolies, I have seen explinations ranging from ore deposits to topography, and have even seen frequently 'deposited' fulgurites as possible causes and even natural gas hydrates...

That's because they're different in form and caused by different things.

As far as the spinning ball experiment, if that spinning ball gradually added mass to one or both of it's 'poles' over a period of time, eventually point of greatest mass will shift to the point of greatest spin, I promise.

But only if there's significant mass in respect to the mass of the ball and sufficient speed. There's some terribly tiresome math that shows all that, but do you mind terribly if I don't quote it right now?

Someone else has, I think, addressed the Einstein quote....

Ah byrd you should know me better than that by now.. Of course I have sources :-)
In a paper published in the July 25th issue of Science, the Caltech group reports that this evolutionary burst coincides with another apparently unique event in earth history--a 90-degree change in the direction of Earth's spin axis relative to the continents. Dr. Joseph Kirschvink, a geologist at Caltech and lead author of the study, speculates that a major reorganization of tectonic plates during latest Precambrian time changed the balance of mass within the Earth, triggering the reorientation. Thus, the regions that were previously at the north and south poles were relocated to the equator, and two antipodal points near the equator became the new poles.

So I looked him up.

He's modified his theory since then: www.gps.caltech.edu...

He is now saying that the wobble took place over a period of "six billion days" (it's right there on the front page of his website paper) -- which works out to millions of years. This is hardly sudden or catastrophic.


(apologies to all... I have some heavy research due in 2 weeks and am in and out on these discussions. Will try to follow, but particpation will be quick and somewhat shoddy.)

Originally posted by Byrd

Erm, magentism is a force. There's no such thing as "residual magentism." That's like "residual light" when you turn the light off inside a cave.

Ain't no such thing.

residual magnetism is that force that is retained in a material that is magnetised after the forece that intially magnetised it is removed. It is present in most ferrous minerals that are magnetised. What do you think a permanent magnet is? pure force? Come on surely you are not so caught up in your definitions that you cannot apply common sense to them.

Jon:

Ok, well obviously we are unable to get our points across to each other, so I'm just going to let this topic alone, as I really can't invest more time to do all the math. I'll monitor the thread and if any new factual information/math comes to light I will be more than happy to jump back in, but as it stands now, apparently one of us isn't communicating really well (I'm more than happy to accept it as my fault, given my schedule right now).

Good luck,

Osiris

This is some cool stuff. SO what is being suggested is that the earths crust could actually act like a giant electric motor. That makes a lot of sense to me. If the crust can hold a residual magnetic charge it would be able to be pushed on when the poles flip. That sure would shake up the geological world if it proves true. Continental drift would become continental drag race.

Originally posted by Johannmon

if magnetic field is strong enough to affect ferromagnetic materials enough to cause torque it will always destroy all magnetic medias anyway!

Actually this is only true if you are close enough to the source of the field. Is the earth’s Magnetic field strong enough to generate torque at its source (the outer core)? Well lets consider this. The most powerful magnetic fields we are capable of producing are through EMP devices. These fields Extend maybe 10’s of miles from their source. Yet similar fields have been shown to be able to produce HP and torque capable of the propulsion of a several thousand ton aircraft carrier. Now you try to say that a magnetic field which is measurable from 10,000 miles away from its source does not have sufficient power to produce torque? I will concede that the magnetic field does not have the power to produce torque at the surface of the Earth but as noted earlier the potential energy of a field increases exponentially with proximity to the source of the field. I am certain that if you got anywhere near the source of the Earths magnetic field your storage media would be wiped clean in an instant, not to mention that they would be incinerated. Lol.

If you didn't know electric/magnetic fields and radiation can be detected from much farther distance than they can cause bigger "force".
Same way like shockwave of explosion can be detected from much farther than it causes damage... or like you can feel heat (IR) radiation from much farther distance than it's capable to burning you. Also you can feel electric fields caused by electrical charges when they're much weaker than those capable to causing harm. (before their strength/energy reach those in thunderstorm)

Magnetic field might be capable to that in the core which is rich of ferromagnetic materials and metals, and very close to "source" because that's where magnetic field "borns".
And earth's magnetic field might well have considerable energy in it, but it doesn't do nothing if density of that energy is low.
(like particles in Jupiter's inner magnetosphere whose movement equals to 300 million Kelvin temperature but because of low density of them it wouldn't feel hot at all)

But how it could affect to continental plates/crust if it can't even do as negligible job as erase data from magnetic medias?

And for thousandth time, earth's crust is very poor of ferromagnetic materials. (meaning its magnetism is very small/weak)
Lack of those is easy to determine, does small toy magnet (or bigger one from speaker element) catch to dirt or rocks?
Definitely not... and these same magnets are capable to erasing data from magnetic medias and now you're claiming that magnetic field which is much much weaker than those is capable to "grabbing" earth's crust and wrenching it to "knot"!


Also same thing which proves that polarity of earth's magnetic field has reversed many times in history of this "rock" work also as evidense in this:
If magnetic field would be strong enough for the flip to deform crust seafloor between "stripes" with different polarity would be very disturbed...
Or more likely whole seafloor because of wrong polarity of its magnetic field after every "flip".

And there's no ferromagnetic material capable to withstanding temperatures in mantle (where very slow convection of material caused by heat is the movement source for litosphere plates) which is like crust, doesn't have much ferromagnetic materials/metals (which are heavy elements and sinked to core)... or does volcanoes spew out liquid iron?
So now we still lack that other magnetic field required to create force/torque. (neither talking about need for much stronger "primary" field)

That leaves electromagnetic induction as only choise meaning that movement of matter compared to magnetic field (or one of the magnetic field compared to matter) would cause electric current in conducting material, and because electric current creates its own magnetic field interaction of these two magnetic fields would cause force/torque to pieces of matter.

This is also one of the principles of EMP weapons, they create very fast changing/moving magnetic field which induces electric current to everything conductive.
For changing magnetic field aircraft carrier is just huge conductor because most of its material is pure metals so it's poor analogy, remember that metal ore is considered as very rich if it contains just few percents of wanted metal. And BTW masses of CVNs are above 90 000 tons so provide link to source, because you're claim isn't very convinving when your guess (/WAG) for weight went so much wrong.
Also EMP bombs studied for example by US use high explosive as their energy source which places upper limit for energy of bomb's magnetic field. (neither talking about that even direct hit from 2000 pound HE warhead wouldn't really move carrier)


For induction to work one rotation in couple hundred thousand years (or even in years/months) isn't enough.
If earth's magnetic field would rotate fast enough for induction to work (and would be powerful enough) "behavior" of metal objects would be quite funny... imagine all metal objects flying through air (/moving on earth's surface/under the water) while they try keep up with magnetic field.
Neither talking about how power distribution network would react. (very good conductor with lot of length)

And in case of induction motors magnetic field rotates 50 (or 60) times per second depending from frequency of power network.
And here's graph showing clearly that torque depends on how much slower rotor rotates compared to magnetic field.

(synchronous speed means that both magnetic field and rotor rotate at same speed)
www.engin.umich.edu...

en.wikipedia.org...
I think induction motors are one reason why three-phase power network is better for anything "bigger" (more power cunsuming) than houses... they enable creating truly rotating magnetic field without need for "cheats".
(neither talking about that they make it possible to use bigger voltage for more power consuming things decreasing required current: voltage between two phases is higher than between phase(s) and ground)


PS, Are you getting all these ideas from these:
www.usatoday.org...
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Twelve of the most popular science textbooks used at middle schools nationwide are riddled with errors, a new study has found. Researchers compiled 500 pages of errors, ranging from maps depicting the equator passing through the southern United States to a photo of singer Linda Ronstadt labeled as a silicon crystal...
'These are terrible books, and they're probably a strong component of why we do so poorly in science,'' he said. Hubisz estimated about 85% of children in the United States use the textbooks examined...
One textbook even misstates Newton's first law of physics, a staple of physical science for centuries...
The study's reviewers tried to contact textbook authors with questions, Hubisz said, but in many cases the people listed said they didn't write the book, and some didn't even know their names had been listed. Some of the authors of a physical science book, for example, were biologists...
Hubisz said the researchers contacted publishers, who for the most part either dismissed the panel's findings or promised corrections in subsequent editions.
Reviews of later editions turned up more errors than corrections, the report said.

E_T: Thanks for the nice lesson on induction motors. Obviously we are not dealing with that principle for this particular thread, hence our apples and oranges debate over electric motors since you are talking about one that uses the attactive polarity fields and this theory deals with the repulsor ones. I did learn a little more about inductive electric motors so that was very interesting. I do not understand your need to convey veiled insults with your posts since I have been debating this issue in good faith and have expressed appreciation for the input of others. Perhaps you should think of doing the same.

On another note I did not feel like looking up the weight of a carrier so I intentionally underestimated it knowing that even my underestimation would have the same effect.

Now as to your assertions about the magnetic properties in the crust I have been continuing my research into this theory and have found some very interesting data. First we have no absolute data as to the depths of the different sublayers of our earth nor do we have absolute temperature reading below 20 KM. We have never drilled to a depth that even approaches the mantle so all the information we have is a best guess. That being as it may the temperature that is most agreed upon for the approximate threshold between the mantle and the crust is only 100 degrees C above the Curie point of iron. Further it is widely accepted that the mantle is made up of a much richer combination of heavy ferrous metals than is found in the upper crust. Seismology has not found a definate division between the crust mantle instead there is a transitioning from one to the other, hence the varying depth estimation of where the crust ends and mantle begins.

It is reasonable to assume then that within the portion of the crust that is bordering the mantle there should be found higher concentrations of ferrous metals that could retain a magnetic charge since their curie point has not been reached. In fact I find it most fascinating that the point where the Curie temperature of Iron is crossed is so near to the estimated border between the crust and the mantle. This would seem to indicate that perhaps the magnetization that this theory requires could take place as the mantle cools and becomes part of the crust. I don't want you to think that I am just talking off the top of my head so I will provide you some links to substantiate what I am claiming.
mantle temps

general Earth Stats

Now in the interest of being balanced, my research into this theory has come across an alternative to the dynamo theory of magnetic field generation that if proven correct would disprove the theory of catastrophic polar flips entirely. This alternative theory seems to explain some of the major anomolies in the Earth's field quite well. If you are interested it is a good read.

Field theory

One other thing that so many who have posted have failed to realize and so I will try once again to explain it is that We are not dealing with standard magnetic orientation here. The poles create a very different magnetic orientation than is found say in the mid atlantic ridge. The difference is that the orientation of the poles is perpendicular to curve of the crust, therefore creating a much more unified field to create push upon. Hence you would not expect to see any warping along the atlantic ridge or anywhere else due to magnetic forces because the paralell orientation of the poles to the crust do not present a unified field for the opposing force to push on. This is my absolute last attempt to get this across since I currently look like a smurf (blue in the face) from doing it. SO PLEASE stop suggesting that the whole crust would be involved in providing thrust for during a magnetic flip. It would not and I have never suggested otherwise. It is only the specially oriented crust that cooled below its Curie temperature, near the poles, during the period between the flips that would have sufficient magnetic polarity and alignment to provide a force for the newly aligned field to push on.


[edit on 6-1-2005 by Johannmon]

Originally posted by Johannmon
First we have no absolute data as to the depths of the different sublayers of our earth nor do we have absolute temperature reading below 20 KM. We have never drilled to a depth that even approaches the mantle so all the information we have is a best guess. That being as it may the temperature that is most agreed upon for the approximate threshold between the mantle and the crust is only 100 degrees C above the Curie point of iron. Further it is widely accepted that the mantle is made up of a much richer combination of heavy ferrous metals than is found in the upper crust.
It is reasonable to assume then that within the portion of the crust that is bordering the mantle there should be found higher concentrations of ferrous metals that could retain a magnetic charge since their curie point has not been reached. In fact I find it most fascinating that the point where the Curie temperature of Iron is crossed is so near to the estimated border between the crust and the mantle. This would seem to indicate that perhaps the magnetization that this theory requires could take place as the mantle cools and becomes part of the crust.
Now in the interest of being balanced, my research into this theory has come across an alternative to the dynamo theory of magnetic field generation that if proven correct would disprove the theory of catastrophic polar flips entirely. This alternative theory seems to explain some of the major anomolies in the Earth's field quite well. If you are interested it is a good read.
Field theory

Sorry, staying awake late and answering same questions again and again and again in all those earthquake threads has taken its toll.
And to top it off newspaper had yesterday one comment in their reader's column which considered Sumatra's quake and was so full of bad science that you don't know should you laugh or cry.

But back to topic, exact data from "deepest places" is from drilling holes and deepest of those is in Kola peninsula and little over 12 km deep.
hypertextbook.com...
This one has some data more...
helios.physics.uoguelph.ca...
Other surprises have been a rate of increase of temperature with depth greater than anticipated; at 10 km a temperature of 100 degrees C was expected; it was actually 180 C.
At least some theory required little tweaking but considering how long ago that bigger temperature increase was noticed I keep it safe to assume that it has been taken into account.

Considering that crust in area is something like 40 km thick it would mean that temperature in lower crust would be ~750 C higher if we assume that temperature keeps increasing at a rate of 2.5 degree per 100 meters so it would be pretty close to Curie point.
(rate mentioned in this "debunking")


Cooling of upper parts of mantle and it becoming part of the crust would require decrease in heat flow from core/cooling of earth's inner parts...
but earth seems to be big enough so that rate of cooling is extremely low, otherwise earth would have become like Mars or Moon, very little if any seismic activity and volcanism, neither talking about lack of continental drifting. (which might happen before the end of volcanism, huge volcanoes of Mars are same type like Hawaii, but in earth drifting of plates means hot spot doesn't have time to "grow" giant volcano)


Now when thinking it... if considerable part of mantle is iron it would be two-edged sword...
When we want to protect some device from magnetic fields (and interference caused by those) it's "wrapped" inside metal which causes lines of magnetic field to travel in that metal instead of going through device. But it also works to other way, it prevents that device from sending magnetic field to other devices around it so wrapping metal around earth's magnetic field would suppress/make density of it much weaker outside this "shell".

Taken as a whole, the Earth's composition by mass is:
iron: 34.6 %
oxygen: 29.5 %
silicon: 15.2 %
magnesium: 12.7 %
nickel: 2.4 %
sulfur: 1.9 %
titanium: 0.05 %
other elements: 3.65 %

en.wikipedia.org...
Iron is considerably denser than those others so I wonder what it would look if it would be percentage from volume instead of mass...


I checked little that theory, basically it's "conversion" of original theory, power source for matter flow is just now heat instead of earth's rotation.
But I don't have more time now so I'll check more later.

Ah come on now byrd, I have a screwdriver that I ran a magnet over several times a few years ago and it still picks up small screws. You are talking about an electromagnetic field, and even that can induce residual magnetism in ferrous material. Suprisingly quartz crystal and a variety of other materials can also retain a magnetic signature after being exposed to a field, that however, i don't understand well enough to explain well. I think the title of this post presents a misnomer though, a magnetic field reversal would not be a devastating event, there would be some really confused birds and alot of other odditites, but the devastating polar shift to which so much research has been invested isn't a magnetic phenomina, it's a physical event.

If the magnetic field of the Earth flips, some migratory birds will get confused and compasses will fail. The worst thing that could happen is a few planes crash, not the end of the world.

Originally posted by E_T

Now when thinking it... if considerable part of mantle is iron it would be two-edged sword...
When we want to protect some device from magnetic fields (and interference caused by those) it's "wrapped" inside metal which causes lines of magnetic field to travel in that metal instead of going through device. But it also works to other way, it prevents that device from sending magnetic field to other devices around it so wrapping metal around earth's magnetic field would suppress/make density of it much weaker outside this "shell".

Just so I understand, are you suggesting that the mantle, if it proves iron rich could act as a magnetic shield of sorts lessening the measurable intensity of the Earths magnetic field? IF so then the iron rich mantle would seem to be a triple edged sword. In that the measurements we use for the Earth's magnetic field at the surface would be scewed to the weaken the actual intensity of the field towards the core.

I also wonder what effect if any the proximity of the crust to such a cold portion of the earth has on mantle cooling. The distances between the surface and the mantle being as large as they are the effect may be minimal but if there was a portion of the crust where we saw significant mantle cooling one would expect it in the polar regions where surface temps drop as low as -100 degrees and input radiation from the sun is nonexistant for 3-6 months of the year. Truly your input has helped to clarify both the possibilities presented and the problems that arise.

I checked little that theory, basically it's "conversion" of original theory, power source for matter flow is just now heat instead of earth's rotation.
But I don't have more time now so I'll check more later.

Let me summerize for you why I feel the alternative mechanism described would negate my current theory. The alternative mechanism states that the earths dipolar field is actually just the sum of multiple dipolar fields produced by convection in the core percieved at distance. If the earth does not produce a mostly unified dipolar field then there is not a coherent enough field to produce repusion on a single point such as the old polar region. Hence if the earths measurable surface field is the sum of multiple fields within the crust then a reversal simple signifies a changing of that sum with a few convection currents changing their polarity and tipping the balance of the sum. Such a system would be incompatible with crustal shifts because the new dipolar sum would lack sufficient field strength and coherence to produce any kind of unified force.

Thank you once again for your input. I hope the summary above saves you some research time, since that paper is rather long and you don't get the full concept unless you get at least 2/3's of the way through the thesis. Still it is a good read if you have the time.

Originally posted by Johannmon

Originally posted by Byrd

Erm, magentism is a force. There's no such thing as "residual magentism." That's like "residual light" when you turn the light off inside a cave.

Ain't no such thing.

residual magnetism is that force that is retained in a material that is magnetised after the forece that intially magnetised it is removed. It is present in most ferrous minerals that are magnetised. What do you think a permanent magnet is? pure force? Come on surely you are not so caught up in your definitions that you cannot apply common sense to them.

That's not "residual" -- that's plain old magnetism. You've aligned the atoms within the element and they generate the magnetic force. There's nothing "left over" about it.

Originally posted by Johannmon
It is reasonable to assume then that within the portion of the crust that is bordering the mantle there should be found higher concentrations of ferrous metals that could retain a magnetic charge since their curie point has not been reached.

If this was the case, then once their magnetic properties were laid down, the earth's pole wouldn't switch or even wander. You can set a magnet down, and put another underneath that and move it around... and the lines of force from THAT one won't override the one on top of it.

One other thing that so many who have posted have failed to realize and so I will try once again to explain it is that We are not dealing with standard magnetic orientation here. The poles create a very different magnetic orientation than is found say in the mid atlantic ridge. The difference is that the orientation of the poles is perpendicular to curve of the crust,

That would explain why we're not clear on this.

You can have something at a tangent to a curve or you can have a bisector to an arc drawn along that curve, or you can have a perpendicular line on a tangent to the curve of the surface... but there's no "perpendicular" for a ball.

Or, at least not in standard 3-dimensional geometry.

Originally posted by Johannmon
\Just so I understand, are you suggesting that the mantle, if it proves iron rich could act as a magnetic shield of sorts lessening the measurable intensity of the Earths magnetic field? IF so then the iron rich mantle would seem to be a triple edged sword. In that the measurements we use for the Earth's magnetic field at the surface would be scewed to the weaken the actual intensity of the field towards the core.

Remember, also, that a lot of the iron in and on the earth is combined with other elements. It's not usually found as pure iron and the pure iron that is found is not usually magentized (that's an ore called "magnetite.") It is also found as hematite, as red sands (the Permian Red Beds, which dip down into the crust -- and here it's actually iron oxide (rust) which is not magnetizeable), and in other rocks and minerals.

Here's a list of the magnetic minerals:
mineral.galleries.com...

So a certain proportion of iron (when you look at the composition of the Earth) isn't pure iron. It's often combined with other elements such as sulphur or oxygen.

[edit on 7-1-2005 by Byrd]

Originally posted by Johannmon
I also wonder what effect if any the proximity of the crust to such a cold portion of the earth has on mantle cooling. The distances between the surface and the mantle being as large as they are the effect may be minimal but if there was a portion of the crust where we saw significant mantle cooling one would expect it in the polar regions where surface temps drop as low as -100 degrees and input radiation from the sun is nonexistant for 3-6 months of the year.

Well... that's something I have real experience.
Temperature of air doesn't matter so much, let's take north pole as example, there crust is covered by water which in turn is covered by ice.

First of all, ice works as insulator, that's one reason why lakes don't freeze to bottom (or ocean from north pole)
Even better if there's some snow on ice because snow is extremely good insulator. It doesn't matter much how cold it is if there's enough snow, 20 cm of snow and temperature can well have been many days something like -10 C but there can still be liquid water under the snow above frozen ground surface. (this also makes it possible to small mammals to survive through winters while they would literally freeze to death in couple minutes if they would stay above snow, it's always around zero under the snow)

And other reason is one "weird" property of water, unlike other materials it doesn't become more denser when temperature drops, it becomes denser when temperature decreases toward 4 C, but after that temperature it starts to expand. (that expanding is why freezing water can break things, even steel pipes)
Because its most densest you would find 4 C water from bottoms of every oceans.
This is also which prevents lakes (/ocean) freezing to bottom because it's 4 C water that descents to bottom while water which is close to 0 tries to stay near surface which prevents transfer of heat (or "cold") by convection.
And water staying still is good insulator... as weird as it must sound considering how much heat water can absorb/store!

So "surface" temperature of oceanic crust is very propably same in every ocean.

And considering south pole, even there you can find liquid water under kilometers thick continental glacier, Google search with Lake Vostok shows information from that.

.
.
.
Joh - thanks MUCH for your efforts. ...I really appreciate your language, phrasing and simplifications. One of the most alienating functions of science is the Babel - keeps practitioners rarified and elitist but sends ordinary people packing to the temple. ...Then the fools wonder why? Americans are so ignorant and enamored of religion.

FYI - Several more "accurate" descriptions offered here as 'corrections' are actually confusing. Ie., "perpendicular" versus arcs and tangents. Arcs and tangents are certainly more scientifically and specifically accurate, but 'perpendicular' gets the point across simply and quickly. So please, keep at it.

RE: Catastrophism. Western religions like Christianity are rooted in anti-catastrophism, like genetically determined monarchies. ...Educated people who perceive the potential for catastrophic change are difficult to manipulate and control. Consequently, much is invested in "debunking" obvious conclusions and common sense, and in ridiculing clear thinkers. Don't let it get you down.

...I read pages 1, 2 and most of 4 - am working on my own project so can't contribute right now - but this one is a GOOD one. Please - keep it going. Will catch up, and keep reading. Thanks again.



.

Originally posted by Byrd
If this was the case, then once their magnetic properties were laid down, the earth's pole wouldn't switch or even wander. You can set a magnet down, and put another underneath that and move it around... and the lines of force from THAT one won't override the one on top of it.

No actually if you understand what is being presented the magnetic fields polar alignment is determined by the larger, much more powerful field generated by the outer core of the planet. That field overrides any stabilising effect that a magnetised portion of the crust would have. The magnetised portion of the crust only provides a point of thrust which the Earth's reversed magnetic field would push on. According to the theory that force moves that portion of crust away from the polar region after a flip (along with the rest of the outer crust) hence bringing new magnetically neutral (on sum anyway) crust to the polar region.

Originally posted by Byrd

That's not "residual" -- that's plain old magnetism. You've aligned the atoms within the element and they generate the magnetic force. There's nothing "left over" about it.

I use the word residual to indicate that it was what was left behind in the material from the effects of a stronger and independant field. I think it is a good desciptive term and if you don't like it don't use it. I do not understand the point in arguing the validity of one semantic over the other when the object is to convey concepts not dictionary definitions. The same holds true for perpendicular compared to arc and tangent. Can we please see past semantical arguments and try to grasp and discuss the concepts rather than bicker over use of verbage and description. This is after all a public forum where the attempt is to explain these theories for the average joe and the researcher alike. If we get bogged down in semantics then we will never get anywhere.

Please forgive my little rant I really hold no emnity toward any poster on this thread but am simply trying to express my frustration in a coherent way that will hopefully streamline and focus the debate on this subject.

Originally posted by Byrd
here it's actually iron oxide (rust) which is not magnetizeable

Um... That's patently false byrd, otherwise I wonder how in the world my tape player, bank card, VHS and god knows how many other magnetic devices work? By reading the RESIDUALLY Magnetic coatings of Ferric Oxide, that's how. Lava flows in particular are known to 'photograph' the Earth's electromagnetic field. It's hard to reasonably debate this topic with you Byrd if you can't come forward far enough to accept such concepts as residual magnetism and centrifugal force.
I try to avoid television when possible, but I saw something last night about a Dragon's Triangle which is antipotle to the Bermuda Triangle, don't know alot about it but I find it an amazing cooincidence that it has had some similar phenomena. Residual magnetism from being the last physical poles, and therefore consequentially, the previsous magnetic poles. It would also help explain why the deepest holes on earth are located at both of these antipotle points, in a physical pole shift, the crust of the earth in these area's would have been the most violently displaced as they were shot out towards to the point of greatest spin.

[edit on 13-6-2007 by twitchy]

This is an older thread but I thought it would be worth a bump given recent events. Not just a bump, but an interesting addition as well...
A couple years back I found an exploit through Google to access Parent Directories and started a thread on it, here. It doesn't work as well as it did and as quick as I was accessing some of the sites, they were shutting the doors behind me.
At the time I was more interested in government related conspiracies and the exploit yielded an amazing trove of information. Well I got to tinkering around with this exploit one night and rather than .gov I entered Masonic Lodges and spent the next couple of days bouncing around in places like the Grand Militant Lodge of Israel's Parent Directories and ended up with a wealth of masonic literature. The creepier stuff included cyphers for local news publications, as well as the more mundane applications for tax exempt status, etc. but amung the wealth of information I gleaned was one book which discussed a periodic and recurring cataclysm that befalls mankind which nessecitates their placement of the various building tools in the well marked cornerstones of buildings. I won't post this stuff on ATS (long story but some of you know why), but the MM author of the book wasn't specific as to the nature of this cataclysm, honestly I don't think anyone knows for sure, and now in retrospect I wonder if a Pole Shift isn't a suspect.
Rather than arguing with Byrd about magnetism and centrifugal force, I thought I would give this thread a bump to see if anyone else had similar information to offer.