It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Polar reversal?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
ok and how long does it take for the poles to switch. and what caused it to start? or has it always been shifting?



We are in a galactic NMR.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
the ocean floor, I would find a spot or two where my north-seeking compass would point south... ?


Hurm... but I bet if I went to the North Pole (magnetic), my compass WOULD point south.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Expert, I was reading that intervals between pole shifts may be as often as 5000 years, or as long as 50 million years. However, I don't exatly remember how long the actual reversal takes. I think that it takes anywhere between a few years to a few decades. I tried to research it and found little. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by horten229v3
exposing us to Solar Flares, massive radiation, and many other dangerous effects due to the loss of the magnetic protection the earth offers.

There have been multiple polar shifts while man was around. It didn't destroy anyone.


expert
ok and how long does it take for the poles to switch. and what caused it to start?

I have no idea. I don't think anyone does. That doesn't alter the evidence that shows that it does happen.


or has it always been shifting?

The record doesn't go back to the begining of time, but the shifts are there from the start of the record. The record doesn't go back to the begining because of continental drift.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 12:31 AM
link   

There have been multiple polar shifts while man was around. It didn't destroy anyone

OH no of course not! it would only fry our skin, our crops, our satellites and electronics- everything would have to have an electromagnetic pulse generator around it just to be outside!

[edit on 23-6-2005 by horten229v3]

[edit on 23-6-2005 by horten229v3]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
It wouldn't fry man's skin or crops, just like it didn't back then. Just like it didn't do it to anything the many times it happened.



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 07:48 AM
link   
I just found this very interesting article on polar reversal which mentions that instead of the field becoming zero, it will become disordered and we may even have more than one north or south pole during the transition. If it were zero, Horten's right in saying that our skin and elecronics would fry. We would suffer from radiation-induced cancer, but wouldn't have to worry about that because we'd all die of cosmic rays! This is because the magnetic field of the Earth that protects us from these things would be gone.

Because there is still life on Earth, this has probably not happened. Evidence shows that the field has never been at Zero, but it has been around 20% of its strength. So there would be worries about cancer and we'd probably be staying inside most of the time (well, if it happens in the far future, who know what we'll have for protective clothing and such?) but life on Earth will persist. I have the link below, and some exerpts:




Does the magnetic field drop to zero gauss? Dire predictions follow upon the heels of this theory. Electronic devices would all be at risk: there may be damage to, or complete loss of, all near-earth-orbiting satellites and possibly the space station itself. Effects on life forms could range from migrating birds losing their sense of direction to immune system decline and even widespread die-off from radiation-induced cancers.




Losing its protective magnetic envelope, the atmosphere would expand and become thinner, possibly leading to altitude sickness near sea level. No longer filtered out, deadly cosmic rays would kill most if, not all, living creatures on the surface. Only those living in deep caves would be safe. This scenario has prompted some to build underground bunkers in hopes of surviving.




Countering this frightening vision, NASA predicts that, rather than declining to zero gauss, the magnetic field would become disordered. Thus we might for short time have more than one north and south pole on the planet. This official scientific stance says that the magnetosphere which shields us from cosmic radiation would not entirely disappear either. Thus, while communications would be erratic and perhaps at times completely inactivated, humans would find ways to survive. However, there are dissenters in the ranks, pointing to the vast South Atlantic magnetic anomaly and radiation damage to satellites over that region attributed to weakening of the protective magnetosphere




The disorderly-flip theory is supported by evidence from geology that in past reversals the decline was not total. Lava flows that solidified at Steen's Mountain during a lengthy reversal process show that the magnetic poles wandered across the equator three times. Though strength of the field was reduced to about 20% of maximum, there is no record that it fell to zero gauss during that transitional period




This data may be useful in helping inventors and researchers test the tolerance of Zero-point technologies, magnetic motors and other new generation systems in adverse situations. As we may have to live through ongoing magnetic disturbance for a long time, we will need to know whether the new systems will be robust under conditions of planetary pole reversal


www.pureenergysystems.com...

[edit on 23-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   
quote: Originally posted by horten229v3
exposing us to Solar Flares, massive radiation, and many other dangerous effects due to the loss of the magnetic protection the earth offers.

There have been multiple polar shifts while man was around. It didn't destroy anyone.

quote: expert
ok and how long does it take for the poles to switch. and what caused it to start?

I have no idea. I don't think anyone does. That doesn't alter the evidence that shows that it does happen.

quote: or has it always been shifting?

The record doesn't go back to the begining of time, but the shifts are there from the start of the record. The record doesn't go back to the begining because of continental drift.




There have been multiple polar shifts while man was around. It didn't destroy anyone.


how do you know it has always been something that happens?




The record doesn't go back to the begining of time, but the shifts are there from the start of the record. The record doesn't go back to the begining because of continental drift.


how far does it date back?




I have no idea. I don't think anyone does. That doesn't alter the evidence that shows that it does happen.


if know one knows, than it remains a theory, and a theory is not a fact, so it is not a fact that the earths magnetic field has always been shifting. you are coming to the wrong conclusion



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Actually Expert, I think that the first pole shifts may date back to the formation of the magnetic field. Nothing has really had an effect on it so far, and thus there would be no reason for a spontaneous shift to occur and start a cycle. However, measurement is only accurate up until 160 million years, so this cannot be scientifically verified. Proof of the pole shifts is found in the magnetic "strips" found all over the sea floor which was mentioned before. The allignment of the ferrous material shows Earth's magnetic orientation at the time, and opposite allignments are proof that a pole shift occured. It is not theory, it is fact, and there is overwhelming proof to support this. Below I have some more information about pole shifts that I think are very interesting, and go more in depth about what happens during a pole shift, and how we know they happen:




"In the past 15 million years scientists found pole shifts occurred four times every 1 million years. Though this averages out to once every 250,000 years, switches do not occur at regular intervals. During one period in the Cretaceous, polarity remained constant for as long as 30 million years, though this is believed to be an anomaly. The last pole shift took place 790,000 years ago; causing some scientists to believe we're due, while others speculate a reversal is already underway."

"Dynamic processes taking place deep inside the planet generate Earth’s magnetic field. A core of molten iron surrounds the inner core of solid iron, each rotating at different rates. Their interaction, and perhaps other geophysical processes not yet understood, creates what scientists call a “hydromagnetic dynamo.” This self-perpetuating electric field acts in some ways like a gigantic bar magnet. The Earth’s magnetic field extends into space for tens of thousands of miles from the planet’s poles. It not only protects the Earth from solar radiation but plays a fundamental role in overall climate, weather patterns, and migratory habits of animals. If the poles were to reverse instantly, destruction would be global, from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions to melting of Arctic ice and vast flooding. However, evidence suggests pole shifts happen gradually taking anywhere from 1,000 – 28,000 years. The last four flip-flops took about 7,000 years each."

"Evidence for pole shifts came unexpectedly in the 1950s while exploring seafloor spreading along the mid-Atlantic ridge. Here molten material wells up, cools and hardens, creating new sea crust, pushing the old crust outwards. Magnetic particles or iron oxides in the lava act like tiny compass needles, aligning themselves with the magnetic field, leaving a permanent record of the Earth’s polarity at the time the crust is created. By reading the orientation of the oxides at various distances out from the point of welling, scientists can “look back in time.” What they found was striping or alternating bands -- periods of reversal throughout history."

"Some researchers believe a pole shift is underway today because the magnetic field has decreased in intensity as much as 10% - 15% over the last 150 years, with the rate of decay increasing more significantly in recent years. If this trend continues, the magnetic field will be gone in 1000-2000 years. A weakening magnetic field is a precursor to pole shifts, though it’s acknowledged the current decay might also be attributable to other unknown causes, or might reverse itself. In the case of a pole shift, once the magnetic field weakens enough, the field directions undergo a near-180 degree switch before strengthening and stabilizing in the new orientation. However, scientists don’t really know how long this process takes. What is known is that it takes twice as long at the poles as at the equator. So while compasses at the mid-latitudes might point south after a 3,000-year transition, compasses at the poles would continue to point north for another 3,000 years."



[edit on 25-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   


I think that the first pole shifts may date back to the formation of the magnetic field. Nothing has really had an effect on it so far, and thus there would be no reason for a spontaneous shift to occur and start a cycle. However, measurement is only accurate up until 160 million years, so this cannot be scientifically verified. Proof of the pole shifts is found in the magnetic "strips" found all over the sea floor which was mentioned before.


that makes no sense.

when did the magnetic field form? you cant jsut all the sudden get one. if there is a shift. something had to start it. it doesnt just start by itsself, or was it always, shifting?
see I know that you dont know everything. and scientist dont know everything.
so if they dont know when this shift started, or if it even had something start it, or even when the last shift was, can they really come to the conslusion that the magnetic field is shifting?

is it shifting? has magnetic north moved at all since the beginning of the record?

and the magnetic strips found on the ocean floor. those are not magnetic reversals. those are strips of stronger and weaker magnetism. they drew the line at the wrong amplitude just to get it to fit their theory of evolution. I mean if there really was magnetic reverals on the ocean floor. that would be the first real evidence for evolution. but if you want to try to prove your theory, you would draw the line in the wrong spot to make it look like the earths magnetic field was once reversed.

you said that it happens something like once ever 250,000 years? if thats were true, than life would not have been here no earlier than 25,000 years ago. the heat generated from the stronger magnetic field would have destroyed everything on earth.

see earths magnetic field used to be stronger at the rate that its losing its strength, it would have been so strong about 25,000 yeats ago that life could not possibly evolve on earth.

so within 20,000 years. life has to evolve, im sure someone would have witnessed something.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The Earth's magnetic field is the result of an 'ocean' of electrically charged liquid called the outer core over the spinning and solid inner core. This created the dynamo effect, and the turbulence that results produces a magnetic field. This comes straight from NASA, and I'll post the link along with a few others below. It is likely that this field formed as soon as the the solid outer core and liquid core formed, and started to create convection currents.





Earth's magnetic field comes from this ocean of iron, which is an electrically conducting fluid in constant motion. Sitting atop the hot inner core, the liquid outer core seethes and roils like water in a pan on a hot stove. The outer core also has "hurricanes"--whirlpools powered by the Coriolis forces of Earth's rotation. These complex motions generate our planet's magnetism through a process called the dynamo effect.



About the migration of the poles: The North Pole is now in Canada, and may soon be in Alaska and Russia. On average, the north pole moves about 10-40 kilometers a year, and compasses are also affected, pointing to the 'new' north as it migrates. Here is a chart of the location of the north pole over the past few years:

Year Latitude (°N) Longitude (°W)
2001 81.3 110.8
2002 81.6 111.6
2003 82.0 112.4
2004 82.3 113.4
2005 82.7 114.4



Earth's magnetic field is changing in other ways, too: Compass needles in Africa, for instance, are drifting about 1 degree per decade. And globally the magnetic field has weakened 10% since the 19th century.


Now the argument about the field being too high to support life is a very popular one among creationists. It's a good argument, but the problem is that it is based on an exponential curve over the extremely short period of 130 years, as well as an outdated model of the inner Earth. The second point makes the argument invalid by itself, but the first argument is also discounted by the fact that the inner earth is extremely erratic, and any measurements over such a short period of time would be inaccurate. The magnetic strips have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever, and as I said before, proof of a pole reversal is in the allignment of ferrous material in the ocean floor.



The young-Earth argument: the dipole component of the magnetic field has decreased slightly over the time that it has been measured. Assuming the generally accepted "dynamo theory" for the existence of the Earth's magnetic field is wrong, the mechanism might instead be an initially created field which has been losing strength ever since the creation event. An exponential fit (assuming a half-life of 1400 years on 130 years' worth of measurements) yields an impossibly high magnetic field even 8000 years ago, therefore the Earth must be young. The main proponent of this argument was Thomas Barnes.

There are several things wrong with this "dating" mechanism. It's hard to just list them all. The primary four are:

1.) While there is no complete model to the geodynamo (certain key properties of the core are unknown), there are reasonable starts and there are no good reasons for rejecting such an entity out of hand. If it is possible for energy to be added to the field, then the extrapolation is useless.

2.)There is overwhelming evidence that the magnetic field has reversed itself, rendering any unidirectional extrapolation on field strength useless. Even some young-Earthers admit to that these days -- e.g., Humphreys (1988) .

3.)Much of the energy in the field is probably locked in toroidal fields that are not even visible external to the core. This means that the extrapolation rests on the assumption that fluctuations in the observable portion of the field accurately represent fluctuations in its total energy.

4.)Barnes' extrapolation completely ignores the nondipole component of the field. Even if we grant that it is permissible to ignore portions of the field that are internal to the core, Barnes' extrapolation also ignores portions of the field which are visible and instead rests on extrapolation of a theoretical entity.




Barnes employs an obsolete model of the earth's interior. Today, no one doing serious work on the earth's magnetic field envisions its source as a free electrical current in a spherical conductor (the earth's core) undergoing simple decay. Elsasser's dynamo theory is the only theory today which has survived.


I found an interesting computer generation from he NASA link about what happens duringa pole shift, I though it was pretty interesting:





They've also learned what happens during a magnetic flip. Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time--contrary to popular belief--the magnetic field does not vanish. "It just gets more complicated," says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth's surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it's still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.



science.nasa.gov...
archives.cnn.com...
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...
www.talkorigins.org...
www.infidels.org...

[edit on 26-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Polar reversal would explain the weakening ozone. Could they be related to recent, increasingly un predictable weather patterns?



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Yes, logically that makes sense Jester, I never really thought about the implications a pole shift would have on the ozone layer. If the magnetic field is currently weakening, then the Earth has less protection from harmful radiation and such. The ozone layer takes up some of this slack, but it can only take so much. I believe that the Earth's weakening field, combined with pollution (i.e CFC's and such) are widening the hole.

As far as weather is concerned, I've read that there are weather effects associated with the weakening field. I'm not sure exactly what the effects are, but I would assume that it contributes to some of the weird pattens witnessed recently.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   
well the weakening of the ozone is better explained by the burning of CFCs and whenever a volcanoe erupts it lets off gases that burns holes in the ozone.

the theory of magnetic reversals was made up to make the earth look like it had a polar shift and is millions of years old.

but if the earth is billions of years old? how did it get here? is there a logical explanation? no there is not, if there is one. tell me.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Yup, that's true about the ozone Expert. I'm just telling Jester that he's right in saying that the magnetic field weakening is a factor as well.

About the pole reversal being a false tool for evolutionists to discredit creationists, that's simply no true Expert. I've given you proof after proof, and probably a dozen or so sources. I've quoted NASA and CNN, and given you diagrams and explainations from experts.

Every proof you have given, I have discredited with more than one source, and now you just simply say that it's false without giving anything else to back up your statements (which by the way are just becoming subjective). I give up. I've argued with Creationists in the past, and you just can't win. Not because we're wrong, but in the end, after all the proof is put on the table, you all just resort to opinion and belief which cannot be used in a debate. I'm done.

[edit on 26-6-2005 by zhangmaster]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
how do you know it has always been something that happens?

I presented you with several documents that answer this and other relevant questions.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by expert999
well the weakening of the ozone is better explained by the burning of CFCs and whenever a volcanoe erupts it lets off gases that burns holes in the ozone.



Except that the Ozone is weakening over the South Pole, and not over highly industrialized 'pollution' zones.



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:27 PM
link   
have you ever heard of something called difussion? thats probably why the weakening of ozone is in that location.

I dont feel like readin back to see what proof you have for evolution or the moon coming from something other than the creator.

tell me one thing that can help prove evolution, we will take this step by step.

im not backing down



posted on Jun, 27 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   


I dont feel like readin back to see what proof you have for evolution or the moon coming from something other than the creator.




tell me one thing that can help prove evolution, we will take this step by step.


I think I can simply leave it at this.


This is the sort of communication that is met with raised eyebrows and frustrated sighs in real life.



posted on Jun, 30 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Before I jump into this, let me get one thing straight Expert. Are you positing that there is a global conspiracy of geologists, biologists, and astronomers to cover up the "fact" that the world was made by God in October 4004 BC?


Originally posted by expert999
tell me one thing that can help prove evolution, we will take this step by step.


I think there's actually a new forum for this. Before you head over there, though, please take this under consideration.

While we find corroborating evidence for our currently scientifically accepted timeline in it, geology is not evolution. Neither is astronomy. Please don't use shortcomings of current theories about geology or astronomy to say "Hah! See, evolution is a lie, we came from God™"

Further, while the two subjects are certainly related, evolution does not say where life came from. It's only interest is once life appeared on the scene. Whether that live sprang forth spontaneously (abiogenesis) or was put there by the Big Beard In The Sky, the theory of evolution is only concerned with what happened to that life once it was on the scene.







 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join