magnatism

[tyflem]

When the north and south poles switched about 78000 yrs ago then wouldn't this also make the rotation of the earth reverse also?

[Jameson]

I think section fits the question better. Good luck with your answer and welcome!

Jameson

[Epsilon=One]

When the north and south poles switched about 78000 yrs ago then wouldn't this also make the rotation of the earth reverse also?I understand one as the consequence of external phenomena and the other as the consequence of internal phenomena.

Why should they be related?

Also of interest, I have never seen anything in the literature that indicates that the "switch" was other than gradual. Am I mistaken?

[alexross]

That is a good question. Simple but extremely difficult to answer.
From my own investigation lets presume it did reverse the direction of the Earths spin.
I can only presume, but it seems likely to me, that the magnetic field would reverse too.
The difficulty here is that the Earth Sun magnetic flux does not operate in isolation. There would be a dominoe effect. Now that effect may not be total.
This makes it much more difficult to predict the overall outcome.
The Magnetic flux and force from the Sun and between the planets I will call the magnetic system.
I have worked out the amount of flux the Earth contributes to the overall system. This magnetic system is self adjusting!
What I suggest MAY happen is that the Earth's RELATIVE orbit within the planetary system would have to change!
I have split the planets into 2 groups depending upon a perceived polarity (mine according to my model).
One group of planets is aligned with the Earth's polarity (say positive) and are Mercury, Venus , Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune (I call them the Inferior Planets).
The other group of planets is aligned reversed to the Earth's polarity (say negative) and are Mars, Saturn, Uranus, and Pluto (I call them the Superior Planets).
So to accomodate this change the magnetic flux between the remaining Inferior Planets would increase propotionally although the total flux remains constant (as before); since there is one less planet to share the same total flux.
So too would the gravitational pull increase for these planets.
The Superior Planets have to share the same flux as before but now there is an extra member so the proportion of flux each receives diminishes.
I have just thought that this situation has occurred in the past so this is not entirely academic.
My proposal seems to fit with the fact that no major calamity arose then in respect of the planetary system.
I hope that helps,
Regards,
Alex

P.S. Please do not ask what happens to the Moon! I have not worked that out yet! I would probably say that the Earth/Moon can be considered as a sub-system in its own right.

[Epsilon=One]

The difficulty here is that the Earth Sun magnetic flux does not operate in isolation. There would be a dominoe effect. Now that effect may not be total.
...

The Magnetic flux and force from the Sun and between the planets I will call the magnetic system.

...

This magnetic system is self adjusting!


What I suggest MAY happen is that the Earth's RELATIVE orbit within the planetary system would have to change!

I have split the planets into 2 groups depending upon a perceived polarity (mine according to my model).

One group of planets is aligned with the Earth's polarity (say positive) and are Mercury, Venus , Earth, Jupiter, and Neptune (I call them the Inferior Planets).

The other group of planets is aligned reversed to the Earth's polarity (say negative) and are Mars, Saturn, Uranus, and Pluto (I call them the Superior Planets).

...

The Superior Planets have to share the same flux as before but now there is an extra member so the proportion of flux each receives diminishes.

I have just thought that this situation has occurred in the past so this is not entirely academic.

My proposal seems to fit with the fact that no major calamity arose then in respect of the planetary system.

...I would probably say that the Earth/Moon can be considered as a sub-system in its own right.Lots to think about. You seem to be on the right track.

[alexross]

Thanks Epsilon=1,
Although I have designed these mathematical models they are very robust.
I have explained the annual drift of the Moon from the Earth to a very small error.
I forget how much but it is around 1%. The annual drift I seem to remember is 30mm according to NASA.
So an error of 0.3mm in 1/4 million miles is not bad.
The drift measurements are equivalent to the residual magnetic flux between the Earth and the Moon.
I am emailing draft word documents to any interested party but I have not typed up the annual drift of the Moon from the Earth yet.
I was pondering your consersation last night and another idea came to me.
There is an alternative or improved solution for the whole planetary system if we concentrate on restoring the balance in this system.
You will have noticed how I have chosen the planets.
There is a balance in masses between each group. For instance Jupiter with Saturn.
This is a feature that may throw more light on the underlying process.
Once I found a workable model I did not go back to look and see if I had found all the reasons why my choices were correct.
So I thought - suppose it had been Jupiter and not the Earth that reversed its polarity?
In my system this would not create any problem but I found it questionable.
Surely the Suns influence would also try to re-establish a corresponding balance in the masses of both gropus too.
My improvement was therefore not just to swap Jupiter into its opposite group and to do the same to, say, Saturn. That means Saturn might change polarity.
Now going back to the Earth lets also reverse Mars (and Pluto?).
This would seem to disturb the orbits of the Planets even less? Perhaps the outcome (without computer modelling) would be for the Earth and Mars to exchange orbits!
The last ice age was about 100,000 years ago and I believe a change in the Earths tilt/polarity may have been responsible.
Even if my dates a little incorrect we may have some data of the planetary paths? Or maybe not? Most orbital patterns are based on computer projections of known planetary orbits. My models could need these orbital systems to be remodelled to compare any changes.
Think of the hate mail I am going to get from climatologists now!
Regards,
Alex

[Epsilon=One]

The drift measurements are equivalent to the residual magnetic flux between the Earth and the Moon.I don’t understand physically what “residual magnetic flux” is. Best I can figure, it is merely manipulation of mathematical symbols that have been extrapolated and contrived from observation and questionable theory.

There are myriad factors that would account for minute perturbation besides Cosmic entanglement. Things as simple as changes in rotational constancy from such as: the ice patterns and glaciers at the poles; ocean and wind currents (hurricanes, etc.), volcanoes and earthquakes, et cetera.

I am emailing draft word documents to any interested partyI’m interested. Find info at bottom of post.

There is a balance in masses between each group. …This is a feature that may throw more light on the underlying process.Your work must make you aware of how precarious is our environment that clings to this speeding mass we call Earth.

The last ice age was about 100,000 years ago and I believe a change in the Earths tilt/polarity may have been responsible. If I’m not mistaken, I believe that Earth has, at least, three different overriding cycles to polarity change and axis angularity with unseen consequences depending upon how the cycles interrelate with one another.

The last ice age was much more recent than 100,000 years ago; maybe, 18,000 to 28,000 years ago.

Think of the hate mail I am going to get from climatologists now!Concerned thinking is a hazardous undertaking.

[alexross]

Hi Epilson = 1,
You realise that I am talking about my model in a new area that this thread has opened up. I will email the word documents to you I could not attach them.
I have rethought my suggestion about the Mars and Earth orbits.
The way I now see it is this:
In the word documents you will get by email you will see my division of the planets into 2 groups fits niceley with an alternating north / south / north
polarity change as you move outwards from the Sun (I illustrate this in a table).
Now as I said in these documents I could not find a reason for the anomoly of the planets Uranus and Neptune but refused to tinker with my results just for the sake of saving my models.
It is well that I did.
I believe that the planets Uranus and Neptune form a REVERSED MAGNETIC COUPLE.
So this situation actually exists now!
I do not however believe these planets have exchanged orbits.
However climatologists cannot breathe a sigh of relief yet......
They are large planets and therefore less likely to buck the system (I really do not believe this but I keep an open mind).
Notice that the magnetic attraction between these two planets remains the same as before there polarities were reversed.
However there is now a repulsive effect between Pluto and Neptune as well as between Uranus and Saturn.
This means a painstaking redesign of my model would be necessary to recalculate the orbits of the planetary system when the Earth reversed its polarity.
ASIDE: (you can miss this bit out if you like)
I have done a few rough calculations to see what the expected effect would be of exchanging the orbits of Mars and the Earth (ignoring all other planets).

de = distance of Earth to Sun (million miles)
dm = distance of Mars to Sun (million miles)

de^2 = 93^2 = 8649
dm^2 = 141.6^2 = 20050.56

Now we use Newtons measure of gravity = mass * distance squared.

PRESENT

Earth = 1 * 8649

Mars = 0.19 * 20050.56 = 3809.6064

Total = 12458.6064

REVERSED

Earth = 1 * 20050.56 = 20050.56

Mars = 0.19 * 8649 = 1643.31

Total = 21693.87

This value is > 12458.6064 by 9235.2636 in the reversed polarity values.

So let

Earth = 20050.56 - 9235.2636 = 10815.2964 = 1 * 10815.2964

so de = sq rt of 10815.2964 = 104 (approx)

So distance to Earth from Sun is asjusted to 104 million miles against
its present 93 million miles.
This givess a factor for the increase of 1.1182795698924731182795698924731
or approx 1.118

Since light obeys the inverse square law we can expect a reduction in light
to a value of:

1 / (1.118)^2 = 0.80004864295749181550238254485873

That is an approximate reduction in the light arriving at the Earth
of 20%.
This seems too large a reduction for me but this example serves to
illustrate a potentional for a dramatic climate change is theoretically
possible although I now doubt this change occurred exactly as inferred
by these figures.

What I do not say in my word documents is that in my UFT I said the gravitational siting of the planets was determined by a F (fathers) wave.
I can now see that an improvement to this is to use not just one super F phase but a negative and positive phase and so divide the two planetary groups.
Another improvement is to say that there is also a super T force wave dictating the magnetic polarity of the planets.
This may be best put to one side as it distracts from these Solar models anyway.

CONCLUSION.
The orbits of Mars and the Earth would change when the planets reverse their polarity. However to what degree and what effect this would have on Solar activity needs careful modelling.
A closer examination of the calculations for the temperature drop of the Earth already carried out may be a good starting place although it would be tempting to use these models to simply correct for any error.

[alexross]

I have checked the position of Uranus and Neptune within my models and the planetary system. I was unwilling to believe that they could have changed orbits and I am horrified at what I discovered >>>>>>>>>>

Uranus and Neptune defy the planetary system!

The Mass of Uranus (relative to Earth) = 14.5
The Mass of Neptune (relative to Earth) = 17.1

Unfortunately this is exactly what I did not to find!

I would expect the planet (Uranus) nearest to Jupiter at the crest of the
super F wave to have the largest mass.

If you recall the Earth and Mars
have distances at Aphelion of 93 million km and 141.6 million km.

Now 141.6 / 93 = 1.5225806451612903225806451612903 = 1.52 approx

It is surprising to find that

the distance at Aphelion for Uranus = 3.00 billion km
the distance at Aphelion for Neptune = 4.54 billion km

resulting in a factor of 1.51

This seems to support the possibility that Uranus and Neptune have switched orbits! It may not seem so significant until you see a broader pattern.

In fact the planets group together in pairs with similar spacing characteristics:

Saturn = 1.51 billion km
Jupiter= 0.8166 billion km
giving a factor of 1.8491

Venus average distance = 108.2 million km
Mercury average distance = 57.9 million km
giving a factor of 1.868739

Applying this to Pluto and the newly discovered planet in solar system
we find:

The object, unofficially named "Sedna," is 13 billion kilometers
(8 billion miles) away from Earth.

Now the distance at Aphelion for Pluto = 7.38 billion km

taking 7.38 * 1.85 = 13.653 billion km

This suggests Sedna and Pluto also exist as a magnetic pair.
The likelihood of a planet close to Sedna is virtually removed.

So despite my horror the possibility that these planets have exchanged
orbits is evident.
The application of this to the Earth and Mars would be clamatous but
it seems to fit in with the points you made about the ice ages being
more frequent than the pole reversals.
The pole reversals seem to bring about a greater calamity.
Our expectation of the Earth being habitable for millions of years
seems in jeapardy. If this is true (let us hope not) then space
exploration has a more urgent call than before.
I do not want to be alarmist predicting the end of the world. It will be many thousands of years before the next pole reversal (I believe there is a chronological history recorded by geologists).
The fact is that these are new models and someone somewhere else may find a perfectly logical explanation for these difficulties.
For example we know of no mechanism by which these pole reversals are initiated.
As for the original question about what happens if the Earth's poles are reversed we can see we have now got into deep water.
I think these ideas need to be extensively investigated before we can confirm these preliminary findings.
Let us just agree that the possibility of the Earth drastically changing orbit during a pole reversal cannot be ruled out.
Addition Friday morning:
I can go deeper into this as I have gone away and thought about it again.
However I think that this is a new debate that can run and run. So perhaps I should give people a little time to reflect on these issues? After all it does not look like I will give a definitive answer to everyones satisfaction. I do believe that with your comments and debate I have improved my conceptualisation so that my model is worryingly robust and becoming more complicated but more extensive in its applications.
Many thanks Epsilon=One and all.
DRAFT PAPERS IN TEXT FORMAT OF MY MODELS ARE NOW ON THE THREAD FOR EXTENDING KEPLERS LAWS IN THIS FORUM.
Regards,
Alex

[zlanhgn]

这是新加的空白文章44，可以在UBB可视化编辑器中，添加和修改文章内容。