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: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:37 AM
link   
You might wonder why this is in general conspiracy area, the answer is because this information is hidden, I never heard of it before, and I haven't seen it around ATS.



New research suggests that Earth’s magnetic field could be produced by ocean currents rather than molten metals swirling around its core as was previously thought.

The controversial new claims, published this week, suggest that the movements of volumes of salt water around the world have been seriously underestimated by scientists as a source of magnetism.

The research could revolutionise geophysics, the study of the Earth’s physical properties and behaviour, in which the idea that magnetism originates in a molten core is a central tenet.




Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...


I suspect this is hidden due to big corporations, if the globe is warming up that will effect the oceans, if the ocean is effected what happens to the magnetic field.

If this was layed down for us to see, we would see the catasrophy which Global warming might cause. Without magnetic field we are doomed, I think


What do you guys think of this?



[edit on 1-8-2010 by oozyism]




posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:39 AM
link   
Interesting claim, never heard of this before.

2nd line missing due to op ninja-edit


[edit on 8/1/2010 by above]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Not really hidden is it?

The Daily Mail is pretty well known.

Anyway, interesting theory.

If true, then that means all the other planets in the solar system with a magnetic field must have oceans too...?



[edit on 1/8/10 by Chadwickus]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Chadwickus
 




If true, then that means all the other planets in the solar system with a magnetic field must have oceans too...?


Give me some more detail please, which other planet has magnetic field.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have a magnetic field.

(They also don't have oceans)



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chadwickus
reply to post by oozyism
 


Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune all have a magnetic field.

(They also don't have oceans)


Interesting point, but based on what you are saying:
(They also don't have hot molten lava in them).

Not that good with Astraunamy but certainly do know that Jupiter doesn't have an inner core similar to earth.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by oozyism
 


It could be that movement itself helps to produce the magnetic field. A core found does not have to be molten only moving. As in Jupiter's case:


Jupiter is a gas giant planet, as such, it doesn't have a clearly defined surface like the terrestrial planets have, but rather it becomes progressively denser moving from the outside in. If you could get down to the center of Jupiter, you would find a mixture of nickel and iron floating in a soup of liquid hydrogen.

Let's be clear, however, that scientists don't know for sure what the core of Jupiter is made of. They can make educated guesses based on taking gravitational measurements and comparing them with Earth. The core of Jupiter is thought to represent between 3% and 15% of its total mass. Another way scientists can assume the existence of a core is by knowing how planets form. A rocky or icy core large enough, can steal hydrogen and helium from a nebula, wrapping these gases around it like spinning cotton candy. Between the core and what we see as the surface is a thick layer of liquid hydrogen.


www.universetoday.com...

Also our Moon Luna has a magnetic field. - what moves in or on our moon?

en.wikipedia.org...

(I posted a source because some scientists say our moon does not have a magnetic field, such as www.uu.edu...)

I find this contradictory debate very interesting.





[edit on 1-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:34 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


Exactly, that is why it is only a theory.

We need to understand the mechanism of it.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:37 AM
link   
What i would find intriguing is if the timewave would resonate back to some major scientific discovery first published. I cannot get the resonate function to work at the java calculator, so i cannot do the research. Hope someone does



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


They claim the moon had magnetic field in the past, not now. I think, I just read about it and still reading.

And I'm talking about earth moon.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
If I remember my high school science correctly, this theory should have already been known.

Magnetism is a byproduct of the movement of electrically charged atoms.

The oceans, or water in general is pretty stable but has a "heavy water" concentration of approximately 1:20mill

This "heavy water" has an extra electron and would therefore "move" amongst the stable water creating an electromagnetic force. There is likely enough "movement" for this to create a measurable amount of magnetism, if you were looking for it.

All objects contain some sort of extra charge, therefore would "move, thus creating magnetism. But in our general Newtonian world, not enough to really affect our environment.

But again, I'm trying to bring back memories from 25 years ago..



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:05 AM
link   
Magnetism, Gravity, Mass, etc etc etc.

Are all still, just theories.

Tell me a theory that is an absolute?

I have a theory, that time is not relative. It is actually perceptual. It has to be perceived before it can exist.

I know, I know, this was supposedly disproven, by empirical data.

Well, it can be reproduced, does this prove the factual basis, or does this prove that in the area or containment of the experiment, that it was proven to be relevant?

Were you ever on the edge of sleep and time seem to slow down? Was this a relativistic observation, being that your mind was influenced by your perception, or did your mind actually travel FASTER than your perceived observational data?

I love it when people talk in absolutes, that is when I laugh.


I know EVERYTHING.

That, in and of itself, is humorous.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyism
reply to post by JohnPhoenix
 


They claim the moon had magnetic field in the past, not now. I think, I just read about it and still reading.

And I'm talking about earth moon.


It looks like our moon did have a magnetic field that they can measure because:


The external magnetic field of the Moon is very weak in comparison to that of the Earth. Other major differences are that the Moon does not currently have a dipolar magnetic field (as would be generated by a geodynamo in its core) and the varying magnetization that is present is almost entirely crustal in origin. One hypothesis holds that the crustal magnetizations were acquired early in lunar history when a geodynamo was still operating. The small size of the lunar core, however, is a potential obstacle to this theory. Alternatively, it is possible that on an airless body such as the Moon, transient magnetic fields could be generated during large impact events. In support of this, it has been noted that the largest crustal magnetizations appear to be located near the antipodes of the giant impact basins. It has been proposed that such a phenomenon could result from the free expansion of an impact-generated plasma cloud around the Moon in the presence of an ambient magnetic field.

en.wikipedia.org...

As it's a different type of magnetic field than the earth has because it's not generated from the core. It would seem there are many different ways a magnetic field can be generated. All it seems has to do with movement though perhaps not electricity. Perhaps if not electricity, then the energy given off. Perhaps the energy given off by objects striking the Moon is considered electricity. When we say something created energy, are we really saying something creates electricity? Is there really a distinction.


If not electricity then there are surely gaps in our knowledge about magnetic fields. In other words, the type of magnetic fields the planetary bodies have and the type of magnetic field that is produced by moving charges of electricity are two different things entirely.

By this illustration I an lending credence to your OP.. if you can follow my train of thought.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by JohnPhoenix]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:24 AM
link   
The article is over a year old and misrepresents what Gregory Ryskin says.

He never claimed that the Earth's magnetic field is produced by ocean currents. He theorized that fluctuations in the magnetic field are induced by ocean currents rather than by changes in the Earth's core.

Secular variation of the Earth's main magnetic field is believed to originate in the Earth's core. (The main field is operationally defined as comprising spherical harmonics of degree l≤10.) I propose a different mechanism of secular variation: ocean water being a conductor of electricity, the magnetic field induced by the ocean as it flows through the Earth's main field may depend on time and manifest itself globally as secular variation.


But, if the source of the fluctuations is the oceans it means that the theories about the origins of the magnetic field become problematic.

There is little doubt that these conclusions will be met with skepticism. And so they should: the results presented by no means constitute a proof. But the possibility of direct connection between the ocean flow and the secular variation of the geomagnetic field is bound to stimulate further research, especially in view of the implications for the question of the origin of the main field.

iopscience.iop.org...

[edit on 8/1/2010 by Phage]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by endisnighe
 




Were you ever on the edge of sleep and time seem to slow down? Was this a relativistic observation, being that your mind was influenced by your perception, or did your mind actually travel FASTER than your perceived observational data?


^^

I saw inception, very interesting movie and in the movie someone gave the answer to that question.

The answer is, that our brain works very fast, therefore makes time seem slow. Your brain just does way more in a small amount of time, rather than time slowing down etc.

zzz now I wanna watch the whole thing.



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by oozyismInteresting point, but based on what you are saying:
(They also don't have hot molten lava in them).

What they do have are very dense clouds with massive wind bands and currents and these things could well be what drives the creation of their magnetic fields, in lieu of either water on Earth or a spinning molten core (whichever one it is doing it here).

An interesting case is Venus, which is almost identical in size to Earth, yet has a very, very weak magnetic field (almost none at all). Why? Dunno. Maybe it's cause there's no liquid water there? It would explain a lot, but reading Phage's post it looks like that's not what this paper really says, anyway.

We aren't sure about volcanic activity on Venus, however it does have one of the most curious features in the solar system - the fact that there are almost zero impact craters anywhere on the surface of the planet. This suggests that somehow, in the relatively recent geological past, the entire surface of Venus was resurfaced more or less all at once. How this could have happened is a big mystery, but if it was some sort of massive upwelling of volcanic activity all over the planet at once, that would suggest it's still geologically active. A still geologically active Venus should have a molten core, right? Some think the core is frozen to explain the lack of a field, but then how do you explain how the whole world got resurfaced? There's still so much to learn about that place.

[edit on 8/1/2010 by LifeInDeath]



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 


Phage, of course magnetic fields are going to be affected by movements of objects.

This is the kind of things that are ridiculous.

So, if the sun has a mass ejection, that will affect the magnetics of the sun or earth.

WOW, excellent observation, better give that guy a million dollar grant. Pffft.


Take a LOOK at the ocean's currents. We have a fluid that moves constantly. Wow, could it affect the magnetics of the earth? could it affect the gravitational pull?

Sometimes, I think those in science are idiots.

All observations of data HAVE to assume that all data can and will be corrupted. One has to realize, we are not GOD. We have to understand, we are watching an outcome, and we attempt to measure ALL observational interference.

Do we know all the aspects or physical parameters? Of course we do not, of course those that want to differentiate between truth and grant money, I am sure that is directly proportional to the advent of art and art that is actually worth money!

Go government grants! Where the government gives you the outcome, and you prove it one way or the other!



posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


that is intresting. I wonder if mabe it was once covered with water in the past? there is suggestions by some that all or a lot of our water may have come to earth at the time of the flood .I watched a short viedo called alien sky or something like that .any way it showed that the planets were arranged quite diffrently. peace




top topics



 
2

log in

join