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.

 

Radical new theory suggests Earth's magnetism may be linked to movement of ocean currents

page: 2
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:33 PM
link   
so does this mean if i put sea salt in somekind of ball and get it to mover around really fast, theoretically it should create a magnetic effect...? would i be correct if this information is true? maybe ill give it a shot, i got some sea salt.




posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by tkwasny
reply to post by Long Lance
 


If a spinning mass (armature) within a medium where there is current flow (say solar winds) is also laterally moving through this charged medium, occurs, will a magnetic field be established?


I'm not an expert, but yes, if the body is a charged object, a spinning dipole?. The langmuir sheath will also become stretched out from the lateral current in a tear drop shape hence the magnetotail.
I hate to tell everyone this but there is no WIND in space.



Like a reverse DC motor on a planetary scale. Current flow produces a magnetic field. How about the charged ionisphere moving against the solar wind particles creating the charging of the ionisphere while the earths rotation causes the flow of those ionisphere shells, creating the magnetic field. This magnetic field is the check and balance to keep the ionisphere charge level stable. A self-feeding servo loop of sorts, powered by the solar radiations.


Not bad, again I'm no expert. But that's pretty close I think. The current is in the protective Langmuir sheath and is what sustains it. Also for currents to flow there must be circuits, the flux ropes coming from the sun (Birkeland currents), the Langmuir sheath (magnetosphere) serving as parts of the circuitry. I heard of the Earth described as a self repairing capacitor.

www.thunderbolts.info...

[edit on 15-6-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
Magnetic fields are only created by electric currents.


So where are the electric currents in a bar magnet then?

You mean that electro-magnetic fields are only created by electric currents. Magnetic fields can exist just fine without electric current.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   
What a great theory! I never would have though of that.

I think that it is pretty logical and I might be able to give you an example. Imagine earth as a treadmill, forsay. Sure, there are wheels and other things on the inside, but on the outside is a belt (earth's crust/surface). Now, when a person (i.e Ocean) moves on the belt (walking), the belt moves in a repetative motion (rotation). Now, when another object comes in contact with the belt, it is repulsed (like a magnetic field). I know that this might not be the proper analogy, but it gives a different perspective.

Anyhow, star and flag for you!



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


The electric currents in a bar magnet are on the sub atomic scale you could say, as all or most of the electrons are spinning in the same direction. However we are yet to find any bar magnets out in space.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by squiz
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


The electric currents in a bar magnet are on the sub atomic scale you could say, as all or most of the electrons are spinning in the same direction. However we are yet to find any bar magnets out in space.


No they aren't.

If there's one thing that winds me up about this forum it's when people start spouting gobbledy gook as though they are some kind of expert.

I am an electrical engineer, and I'm very well versed in electric currents and magnetic fields, it is the principle behind all electrical rotating machines.

There is NO electric current within a bar magnet, in fact no one has a reliable theory as to how magnetism in a magnet exists, and continues to exist & create an attractive or repellant force with no power source.

If you can prove your theory of electric currents within a magnet & harness it then well done - you have just solved the problem of perpetual motion.

In addition, naturally magnetic materials exist in nature on Earth & beyond.


Anyway, this is an interesting theory, but geological samples seem to show a switch in the polarity of the magnetic field occuring every few thousand years, which seems to support the molten core theory.

If the ocean theory can explain this then it sounds good, but it doesn't look likely.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:11 PM
link   
well as currently humans have not been able to produce a magnetic field with moving water. unless it has to move a certain way to produce a magnetic field and if thats the case it means in divine creation to somesorts. but my guess its divine creatiion mixed with moving water and the giant supermagnet we call planet earth.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
I could see how this plays a part. The salt water oceans moving over our inner molten core Both driven by the tidal force of the moon..Indeed.. I would have no doubt that the oceans do play at least a part in our magnetic field. Now if we add more fresh water into the equation...Well I would bet that mother nature would do something in order to correct herself. I'm thinking volcanic storms on a planetary level.

A giant ash cloud would blot out the sun thus protecting some life on earth while at the same time cooling down the polar regions enough to re-freeze properly.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:16 PM
link   
I notice he's a professor of chemical and biological engineering. I think he's out of his league and that his understanding of geology is not as good as he presumes it is.

For example, the changes in magnetic poles don't coincide with the changes in ocean currents.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
i though it was because of the gravitational force distort space-time and create a magnetic field by turning the earth into a giant dipole and making it spin around the magnetic filed but that was just a wild guess. in fact it was the salty water. lets put tons of salt in the oceans and we will resolve global warming!



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I like this thread. I subscribe heavily to the Hollow Earth theory. I think it makes much more sense magnetically than current mainstream theories. I don't see the oceans as the source for the magnetism, but I could see it as an amplifier.

I think of it as something like this: An iron crystalline core that's magnetically and electrically charged in the middle of a revolving (800 mile) outer crust. (Think of how an electromagnet works; a slow moving magmatic outer core wouldn't be sufficient). But, with a salt water body outside, the electrical charge could somehow be amplified. Which for some reason, might be why the Earth is teaming with life both outer and inner.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Power_Semi
 


Oh, yes they are. (at the sub atomic level) Calm down, it's really all about terminology.


Ampère model: Another model is the "Ampère model", where all magnetization is due to the effect of microscopic, or atomic, circular "bound currents", also called "Ampèrian currents" throughout the material. For a uniformly magnetized cylindrical bar magnet, the net effect of the microscopic bound currents is to make the magnet behave as if there is a macroscopic sheet of electric current flowing around the surface, with local flow direction normal to the cylinder axis. (Since scraping off the outer layer of a magnet will not destroy its magnetic field, it can be seen that this is just a model, and the tiny currents are actually distributed throughout the material). The right-hand rule tells which direction the current flows. The Ampere model gives the exact magnetic field both inside and outside the magnet. It is usually difficult to calculate the Amperian currents on the surface of a magnet, whereas it is often easier to find the effective poles for the same magnet.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm not at odds with the explanation of why bar magnets have magnetic fields. And there is an explanation by the way, has been for a long time now. There's no alternative theories here at all, just others from a different area of science. Plasma science, which just may have something to say about the magnetosphere since it happens to be plasma.

Your beef or misunderstanding of my generalization stems from the misunderstood term "electric current".
The spin of the electron is an electric current at the sub atomic level, this is where you may disagree, if so then fine, but I think Ampere and Maxwell may have had something to say about that.
Particles are nothing but units of charge, wave packets apparently.

What it has to do with magnetic fields in space is beyond me, as I said we are yet to find any bar magnets in space! Unless you know of any other way a magnetic field has been produced?

I'm not an expert. (that's three times now.)

My irks me about this site is when specialists chime in who haven't a clue to what the other sciences have done. Equally true of electrical engineers, ironically much of my information comes from them.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by squiz]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:57 PM
link   
So what would happen if we blew up the moon?



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:00 PM
link   
the only way that this theory could be proven is if we sould somehow recreate all of the currents in the ocean on a smaller scale and get a giant magnet or something like that. there is no way they can prove this theory



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Look at the makeup of an atom. The nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons with a shell of electrons. (Small electromagnetic force) Now upscale it. (Research Fibonacci Series) The Earth is the same thing on a larger scale. All of this is completely simple.

Mainstream science makes it out to be overly complicated. But, even Einstein said, "things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

Over simplifying things makes them more complicated... Trust me, I'm a virgo ;-)

[edit on 15-6-2009 by flysse]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by carlitomoore

Tou guys sound like the people who had peoples guts for garters when they had a famous idea: 'Hey, What if the world isn't FLAT!!!"


Plane-t....

Think about this. When you see a rainbow, it is light refracting through a drop and is actually showing you an image that is opposite of what you are seeing. In other words, the rain bow actually bows out of the sky and not from the ground like it appears, the water, affording you to see the naked light gives away a "pot of gold"....if you can find it.

Peace



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jay.mo
the only way that this theory could be proven is if we sould somehow recreate all of the currents in the ocean on a smaller scale and get a giant magnet or something like that. there is no way they can prove this theory




600
60
6

LHC Cern Lucifer The Light bearer



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:59 PM
link   
You knew I always knew the idea there was a huge iron ball inside the Earth was a load of crap they just pulled out of their ass.



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


And how was the new theory presented in the article not analogous to the iron ball theory?

I think we need to wait for some substantiation from the advocates of this theory.



[edit on 15-6-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]



posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unlimitedpossibilities
reply to post by Donnie Darko
 


And how was the new theory presented in the article not analogous to the iron ball theory?

I think we need to wait for some substantiation from the advocates of this theory.



[edit on 15-6-2009 by Unlimitedpossibilities]


True, they haven't proven there isn't an iron ball in the Earth, but it shows how little science REALLY knows about the inside of the planet.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join