Science/Physics Questions

Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 22 Feb 2011 21:04

So if I take the average mass for a CME (1.6 * 10^12) , and maximum recorded velocity (3,200,000 m/s) I calculate that it has about 8.192 * 10^24 joules of energy.

Is there something I am doing wrong with my calculations here? Thats a heck of a lot of energy for an avg size and above avg velocity. Am I ignoring some data?

Also, we know the solid inner core of the earth has no magnetic field because its too hot. But its roughly the same temp as the sun's surface, which has all kinds of magnetism. I'm kinda confused by that, I thought magnetic fields couldn't exist at those temperatures.

And…..lol

Does every spinning object obey angular momentum? Even (in this case) if it isn't attached to the mantle of the earth? Isn't there a ton of friction if it has a liquid outer core surrounding it?

Thanks!

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 22 Feb 2011 21:56

The number is correct. It is that much Joules.
I don't have time to go deeper on this right now, I should be in bed by now.

Just realize that the force is acting with the inverse square law. So you should pretty close to have any decent effect on Earth to feel any force and long enough to have enough time for this force.
Also this is a gas, not a concentrated mass moon like our Moon. Vectorial you will have forces cancelling each other out with the net result that it wants to pull the complete earth towards the Sun. Not topple it over.

Also realize that our Moon is 7.3477 × 10^22 kg. That is an order of 10 magnitudes bigger than you biggest CME. I should calculate how big a radius of a CME would be if it had the same density of the Moon. To compare it in size with the moon if it were compressed. So far the Moon did not topple over Earth's core. The mass of the inner core should be around 1.13227*10^23 kg (I calculated this from average density, it is heavier deep down)

And except for the speed of the CME, the CME is not nailed to some fixed point in space. Even if it as infinite force acting on it between itself and Earth, the CME is going to move faster than it has time to pull on Earth. You can easly see what happens when you take a 10 kg ball and a 100 gram ball and attach a string to it and stretch it. Now imagine a ball difference of 10^11 or 1,000,000,000,000 times mass difference.

I did calculate angular momentum last time for Earth inner core than should be 5.37946*10^30 [N·m·s]
and Impuls is 7.39729*10^34 [Ns]

OK now I am off to bed.

Last edited on 22 Feb 2011 21:58 by obaeyens Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 22 Feb 2011 22:11

OK I said that I should be in bed, maybe a hint if you want to calculate this.

The force by the CME acting on Earth will be based on the inverse square law.
You can simulate this in an excel spreadsheet by creating a lot of cells from 0.5 AU to 0.5 AU past Earth.
The time and force this force is acting on Earth is then the average force of both cells times the duration to travel that cell distance. You know the speed of the CME.

The first thing you will notice is because of that inverse square law the CME has to be pretty close to Earth to have any effect. But it is moving at such a high speed that it barely has time. Also once it passed Earth, it will cancel any force it had because now it is pulling at the other side.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 23 Feb 2011 14:13

Hm…yeah I'm not really understanding…probably because of the language barrier, I am sure you explained it correctly.

Chapter 7 Page 177 of "Solar Storms and Space Weather Hazards" has an awesome section about the magnetic properties of CME's. It is interesting that in the studies they have shown that CME's actually increase in velocity off of the sun, and possibly increase in magnetism. You would think the sun's gravity would cause it to deccelerate. (By the way you can find this book on google books, but finding the chapter is a little more difficult)

Also, I think I figured out Patrick's reasoning behind the southward polarity. Read this. You will see that southward magnetic polarity CME's cause quite a bit of problems, while North is hardly effective.

Interesting quote though:

But the incoming plasma clouds don’t reveal their orientation until the last moment, and the orientation switches back and forth regularly.

I want to see the source of that, cuz that would cause problems with Geryl's large flare. Who knows, it could just be an article full of crap. Nothing scary about it though, which is a nice change of pace.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 23 Feb 2011 15:36

You're really learning a lot James. I really admire your will to learn the science behind it all.

What Obaeyens seems to be saying is that even if the sun could produce a flare with enough energy, it would still not be concentrated enough to do what Geryl suggest it would do. And this would still be assuming that there would be a mechanism for moving the core.

In addition, the CME or Flare is moving so fast that it could never really consolidate it's energy to have that type of effect.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 23 Feb 2011 15:41

I just wish I could find something that sets off a trigger in my mind to just let it go.

Instead I calculate how much energy a CME could have, and its a lot. Then find out how it increases in velocity and magnetism after it's release from the sun. Not stuff I want to hear necessarily.

Did Geryl say 1000 times larger? And does he ever mention the velocity of his flare?

From what I have heard he has mentioned size, and polarity.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 23 Feb 2011 18:26

Geryl didn't say 1000 times if I recall, however, Astro calculated one a million times larger.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 19:08

What Obaeyens seems to be saying is that even if the sun could produce a flare with enough energy, it would still not be concentrated enough to do what Geryl suggest it would do.

The CME is tiny compared to the big inner core of Earth.
Earth is not in trouble, the CME is in big trouble by the big bad Earth that is going to do a rampage to that CME. This CME would be shredded to pieces and Earth would not know that something happened.

But an easy question. What happens to the CME when it transfers 100% of that energy to Earth?

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 19:00

When the sun shoots off a CME, a cloud of charge emerges that also has a magnetic field. The field can have an orientation of north or south. For some reason, when it is south the effect of the CME is much more pronounced on earth.

This is what your link says my I still do not understand what this means.
You can have electrons (negative charge) that travels first and positive charge (protons) that lags behind. So the cloud could have some weak magnetic field because the charge is not distributed equal. But the biggest part of the cloud should be zero charge since the number of electrons an protons cancel each other out. Also near the Sun this effect would be very strong, but at the distance of 1 AU this effect should be near zero.

When electrons hits first or protons hit first the magnetic field might either strengthen or weaken first. But this effect should be minor. I don't have the time right now to check out how the magnetic field would look like of a CME.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 26 Feb 2011 00:56

So if I take the average mass for a CME (1.6 * 10^12) ,

I did some playing with number to put into some perspective.
CME Mass = 1.6 * 10^12 kg = 1.6 * 10^9 metric tonnes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_tanker
A big Oil tanker can move 2,000,000,000 Metric tonnes = 2*10^9 metric tonnes.

That big evil huge CME is just the weight of a loaded mega oil tanker.

If we compressed the CME to a radius that would make the density equal to earth's average density, then it would be a small ball with a radius of 410 meters only.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 26 Feb 2011 01:00

And to add on top of this, only a very tiny fractions of that 410 meter radios mass would hit Earth because the CME is spread into a mega huge volume. (That volume is for next time) So lets say 4 meters radius (1%)

Now imagine a 4 meter radius meteor hitting Earth, could that topple Earth upside down?

Last edited on 26 Feb 2011 01:03 by obaeyens Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 26 Feb 2011 02:12

So a CME is really 100 billion times less massive than the core? That is a huge difference.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 26 Feb 2011 13:05

Yes it is tiny, just spread across a huge volume like fog giving the impression that it must be something big.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 09 Mar 2011 15:58

A big Oil tanker can move 2,000,000,000 Metric tonnes = 2*10^9 metric tonnes. That big evil huge CME is just the weight of a loaded mega oil tanker.

I want to point out here that this anology is incorrect.

Based on the wikipedia article:

Tankers move approximately 2,000,000,000 metric tons (2.2*10^9 short tons) of oil every year

So a single fully loaded tanker is not 2,000,000,000 metric tons. These tankers transport that many tons in a years time.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 09 Mar 2011 16:17

Ok, but what is the correct volume? How does it affect the conlcusion?

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 09 Mar 2011 16:42

I wasn't able to find anything from wikipedia that gives the actual numbers. But the ULCC is about 250,000 gross tonnage. I can't find how much it would be fully loaded for sure, but one website said it had a DWT of 5,000,000 tons. Gross and dead weight are different though.

Edit: It carries 440,000 tons of oil

So to answer your question, it would take over 2,500 of these to equal the mass of a loaded ULCC

Last edited on 09 Mar 2011 16:53 by JamesJJlm Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 09 Mar 2011 17:18

With that being said, here is a replacement comparison:

Problem 4: Compare the mass of the largest CME to the mass of a small mountain. Assume that the mountain can be represented as a cone with a volume given by V = 1/3 π R2 H where R is the base radius and H is the height in meters, and assume the density of rock is 3 grams/cm3.

---

Answer: One possibility is for a mountain with a base radius of R = 1 kilometers, and a height of 50 meters. The cone volume is 0.33 x 3.14 x (1000)2 x 50 = 5.2 x 107 cubic meters. The rock density of 3 gm/cm3 converted into kg per cubic meters is 0.003 kg/(.01)3 = 3000 kg/m3. This yields a mountain with a mass of 156 billion tons, which is close to the largest CME mass in the table. So CMEs, though impressive in size, carry no more mass than a small hill on Earth!

From http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/4Page17.pdf

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 09 Mar 2011 18:09

So the largest CME is the size of a hill. I'll hold off on worrying about one the size of the core. :-)

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 09 Mar 2011 21:53

Yep, it is disappointingly tiny.
Can you imagine that such a hill is able to topple over Earth? LOL

Re: Science/Physics Questions

bikenbeer2000 09 Mar 2011 22:57

Don't forget that's the mass of the whole CME. The portion intercepted by the Earth would be a tiny fraction of that.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 10 Mar 2011 15:20

The more you look into it, the more it doesn't add up eh.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 09 Mar 2011 22:17

James, you rock for posting this bro! It puts it into a very good perspective!

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 19:12

I found this interesting link

http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/istp/nicky/cme-chase.html

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 19:14

And we have a number for the magnetic field: magnetic field strength of 20 nT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_cloud

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 19:16

More numbers Earths magnetic field strength

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_magnetic_field

The strength of the field at the Earth's surface ranges from less than 30 microteslas (0.3 gauss) in an area including most of South America and South Africa to over 60 microteslas (0.6 gauss) around the magnetic poles in northern Canada and south of Australia, and in part of Siberia.[citation needed] The average magnetic field strength in the Earth's outer core was measured to be 25 Gauss, 50 times stronger than the magnetic field at the surface.[9][10]

Last edited on 23 Feb 2011 19:17 by obaeyens Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 23 Feb 2011 19:29

and in comparison a CME is .0002 gauss, correct?

and in the arcticle you listed, it again mentioned that it switches north/south polarity quite often. If south, it interacts with our field. But if it is south, does it attract or repel? I though Geryl was trying to say that the CME would "push" the core using the magnetic field as a mechanism.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 23 Feb 2011 19:40

I still don't get how it's supposed to do that when the solid core isn't magnetic.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 20:54

and in comparison a CME is .0002 gauss, correct?

But I don't have enough time to dig into the maths part this week.
It is a bit more complicated than strapping a refrigerator magnet on a 6000 km bar and the attracting it through momentum.

Last edited on 23 Feb 2011 21:11 by obaeyens Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 23 Feb 2011 21:48

Well you said that a CME is about 20nT, and a nT is about (1*10^-5) gauss. So it would be 20(1*10^-5) to calculate the gauss for a CME, which is crazy weak.

Diesel,

You are correct in that. I just have trouble understanding how exactly we know it and came to the conclusion that the outer core is liquid without visual evidence. They are probably right, I just wanna tackle things that we have visual evidence for, because its a lot easier to make sense of it. I'm not a scientists so I only believe what I see, I can't use data to come to a conclusion of anything.

- - I also asked how a magnetic field is formed on the sun if the sun's surface is as hot as our core (which can't form a magnetic field because of the temp). Is it because of the iron/nickel of the core? - -

It is a bit more complicated than strapping a refrigerator magnet on a 6000 km bar and the attracting it through momentum.

Sorry Oba, I don't really understand the analogy here.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 23 Feb 2011 21:55

I was gonna say maybe it has something to do with the material involved since our core is solid and the sun is made of plasma. I don't know, just a guess/observation. I'm observing these threads for the same reason you are typing them, any more evidence against him is welcome to me, that's for sure.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 24 Feb 2011 18:33

Sorry Oba, I don't really understand the analogy here.

The magnetic field of the Earth is not like you stick a refrigerator bars on a big bar the size of the Earth's radius acting as a lever and the CME at the other side. The CME is massive in volume which means low in density and not enough particles are close and long enough to have a strong effect on the inner core.

I mean the calculations can only be done by simulation and that is very computer intensive. It is not just a number you can throw in a formula and have one number. But what you can do is calculate the minimal and maximum boundaries and see if how big the effect would be. So you start with very rough guesses and fine-tunes the number the more you learn from them.

For example, teh CME will have an influence on Earth, but Earth also has an influence on the CME, so the CME will alter its trajectory making your original numbers less accurate. So you do the second simulation with newer numbers that comes closer to that trajectory increasing your trajectory accuracy. The more you repeat the simulation with more precise numbers the better it becomes. It is an iteration process.

It took me 2 whole weeks to find a fitting orbit of a potential Nibiru to get close enough to Earth. It was a constant iteration process to improve the simulation.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 25 Feb 2011 14:58

So using a bullet as an example. Obviously if you get shot, the bullet penetrates your body because the mass and velocity provides enough energy. But if you kept the same mass and velocity, and spread it out, it wouldn't be able to penetrate your body. But would it still be able to knock you down?

You would think something that has enough energy to overcome the conservation of angular momentum (if it has it) and topple the core over to start spinning other other way, it would actually knock core backward rather than topple it. In order for something to topple, there has to be gravity, and gravity is slim at the core I think because of less mass.

Its also interesting to note how much Patrick goes on about his "amazing discovery" that proved Einstein wrong, and uses gravity in his wording quite often. Then he shows diagrams from Don Scott (or whatever his name is) that uses Electric Universe cosmology. I thought EU doesn't use gravity?

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 25 Feb 2011 15:15

You are correct in terms of Geryl and his contradictions of gravity.

In regards to the bullet analogy. I doubt the bullet(spread out into copper or lead mist) would be able to knock you down. However, even if it could. The target we'd be knocking down does not have angular momentum on it's side. I thinks it's still apples and oranges. But I'm no physicist.

It would also depend on bullet size I'd imagine. A 6.5 grendel will deliver more kinetic energy than a 62 gr 5.56 round :-)

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 25 Feb 2011 15:42

In regards to the bullet analogy. I doubt the bullet(spread out into copper or lead mist) would be able to knock you down. However, even if it could. The target we'd be knocking down does not have angular momentum on it's side. I thinks it's still apples and oranges. But I'm no physicist.

Well in contrast, a large amount of air at high velocity could knock someone down. It really depends on the velocity. However if I was suspended, and something at a high velocity were to hit my feet, I would probably flip. But if you were to suspend a tank in the air, use the same amount of velocity and mass, I think it wouldn't flip due to the tank's mass. I think?

Not to mention the core is round, so that makes things even more difficult. Trying to spin something that is a sphere in mid air is pretty difficult, because its not a stick. I think Geryl is thinking that the magnetic field acts as a lever in this case, which I'm not sure if thats true or not.

Does anyone know how the core keeps spinning despite all of the loose friction from the liquid outer core? You would think it would slow down similar to spinning a golf ball in a pool (minus the sinking from gravity).

Lots of questions, but I enjoy learning this stuff in addition to helping those who have been scared by either Patrick's claims, or claims like this.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 25 Feb 2011 15:54

Keep in mind James if the magnetic did indeed act as a lever, why do the rotational poles not move when the magnetic poles deviate somewhat in a rapid time?

I agree, this stuff is awesome to learn about. I can actually appreciate the 2012 nonsense for something.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 25 Feb 2011 17:30

I recommend everyone check out Phil Plaits article today about how far the Earth, Moon, and Sun is from each other using smaller models.

Thats really far! What can a large house (about 28.5 yards across) do to a basketball from 1.75 miles away? Now we need something to represent a CME, and then spread that something out the further it travels. Give that something a magnetic field, put the tennis ball inside the basketball and give it a magnetic field. Spin them and see if we could flip it. It seems unrealistic, even when the masses aren't comparable from a distance like that.

I don't get it, honestly. How does someone not go over this kind of stuff before making these claims in public? I just can't figure out what is going on in his head.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 26 Feb 2011 00:15

However if I was suspended, and something at a high velocity were to hit my feet, I would probably flip.

But in this case a CME is a big fog and will hit every part of your body nearly equally cancelling out any force vector except for slowing down or speeding you up as a whole. In the case of Earth this would be noticed since one year would change every time a CME hit Earth changing its orbit slightly.

IF the CME would be the size of Earth, then any North magnetic field could Push the south pole and any South magnetic field could pull the North Pole. Contrary to gravity, an electric field or magnetic field can be a repelling force or an attracting force. Gravity is attracting only.

But when you look at this simulation
http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/csem_cme_model_zoom.html

Look how tiny Earth is relative to the CME. We have no CME the size of Earth so any force would spread across that big huge volume and so diluted.

I have been trying to come up with some easy calculation or simulation to see the effect on earth and post it here, but I need a supercomputer to do this. And also it starts to down on me that it is impossible to predict. There is no way that Geryl can predict this with a simple spread sheet, it is even impossible to predict anything.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 25 Feb 2011 23:49

The bullet would be 1/10^11 times lighter than your body and spread in a enormous fog a thousand times you human size. ;-) So from that spread only 1% or less of that gaseous bullet would hit you.

EU indeed claims that gravity does not exist. That is why they pop up on any black hole post trying to disprove gravity and promote the EU. They are basically the science version of the creationists.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 23 Feb 2011 19:28

That is interesting for another reason, since we are near solar max now and obviously as you can tell from the past couple of weeks the sun has become active, it says the average number of CMEs are 3 per day. That's CMEs not just the number of flares which just recently there have been numerous per day. So what I'm wondering is how that's gonna fit in with his "predictions" since near solar max flares and CMEs happen pretty much every day.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 21:40

Another interesting part in how CME's move.
So the North South is not related to the difference in charge between the front and back, but probably oriented as how it was oriented at the sun when it departed. I have to dig in this more deeply to understand this completely.

http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/csem_cme_model_zoom.html

And something about the inner working of Earths magnetic fields.
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Magnetosphere/earth_magnetic_field.html

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 23 Feb 2011 21:50

Something more I learned.
The Sun rotation axis is not 90 degree but is tilted 7.25 degree.
The magnetic field lines will also be tilted and a CME that follows the magnetic field lines will make sure that the CME does not hit Earth head on, but either above or below.

I am just guessing, but when you look at the video you probably have more negative charged particles at the upper part of the CME and positive charged particles down, creating some kind of electric field and thus a magnetic field. Or the other way around.

It appears that a North would contain mostly + charges than - charges and the + charges interact with the magnetic field. If Earth would be more at the other side then it would get caught in the other part of the CME and get more + charges than - charges.

http://www.windows2universe.org/sun/activity/csem_cme_model_zoom.html

Just remember, the CME has absolutely not enough mass to have any effect like the 2012 hoaxers claim. It is like blowing smoke to a 10 tonnes truck.

Last edited on 23 Feb 2011 21:52 by obaeyens Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 03 Mar 2011 15:11

Based on my post here I was just thinking about it more. Lets say this 26 meter (28.5 yards) diameter house caught on fire. Huge flames pouring out of it. How would this possibly effect the basketball spinning on someone's finger from 1.75 miles away? It would probably be able to feel a portion heat from it if its windy (solar wind), and if this house were letting go magnetic eruptions than think about how much plasma would spread before it would reach the basketball. Even a 9mm with 1120 ft/s velocity can't shoot a bullet that far up into the air before it stops (of course its fighting gravity from the moment its shot). Pretty amazing stuff.

Question though, would the velocity of the eruption effect how diffuse the mass is?

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 03 Mar 2011 18:54

As far as I have understood, still learning it too… the magnetic field of the sun itself has a bigger effect on the protons and electrons the further it gets from the Sun. The gravitational pull of the sun becomes less and less but the magnetic field lines of the sun still has some effect on it. A moving charge in a magnetic field will get a sideways force.

Just remember that unlike home electronics, we have here the moving of a proton (+ charge) and an electron (-) charge. And the electron is 2000 times lighter than the proton. In a magnetic field they will move with in opposite forces but with a 2000 times difference ratio. And it is intermingling with regular solar wind which also consists of protons and electrons.

The faster the charge moves the more sideways force it will get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_force

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 03 Mar 2011 19:53

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_torque#Effects_of_an_external_magnetic_field_on_a_magnetic_moment

Do people actually understand this stuff? Doesn't help my case any that there is no way I am going to figure out how magnetic field torque actually works, which Geryl's theory kind of leans on if I am not mistaken. I wanna kick that out from under him and stomp on his face, but particle physics is not my thing lol

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 03 Mar 2011 21:25

Do people actually understand this stuff?

Yes, but that was 23 years ago. This bit is a bit rusty in my case. lol
I think on youtube you find good university courses that explains this in detail.

The wikipedia is very boringly explained.

This would be a good start:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog

Assuming you have a week to view all parts of the lecture.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 03 Mar 2011 21:31

Oh boy. Well that will be fun.

In short, if I understood everything there is about magnetic fields, I would understand that the magnetic field of a CME has zero chance of being able to exert a magnetic torque on our field, correct? And what kind of numbers would we be looking at for how magnetic it would have to be in order to actually exert a torque? (if it were of southern polarity like he claims)

If that last question doesn't make sense, then its possible that I just don't get how magnets work even after reading all those wikipedia articles.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 03 Mar 2011 21:32

One thing to add, this lecture is about electricity. Negative charge (electron) moving in a copper wire. In space we have both positive and negative free moving charges so it is a bit more complicated.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 05 Mar 2011 00:50

Another very interesting lecture about momentum can be found here.
A CME has many particle masses and here they explain the momentum.
If you can understand the maths then you will realize why there is not enough mass in a CME to have an effect on Earth even not through electromagnetism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX9GBvCSLo4&feature=related

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 05 Mar 2011 01:15

This lecture is also very interesting to get an idea how fast Nibiru would fly near earth maximum.
It is about escape velocity.

Basically it means that an object that orbits our solar system, it must stay lower than the escape velocity speed around the sun at 1 AU otherwise it would be ejected outside the solar system. In my simulation Nibiru would have about 42 km/s max.
It cannot be lower than 30 km/s because that would mean it is inside Earth's orbit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Bf6aQg4tlc&feature=relmfu

Very interestingly is that because of gravitational influences Nibiru would slightly speed up or slow down relative to the Sun which wrecks havoc to the periodicity of the planet and even orbit. Basically you cannot predict the orbit of Nibiru in a clock or calender unless it is a one time event. This problem does not occur if you have a near circular orbit. But Nibiru is very elliptical if it wants to cross Earth's orbit.

Last edited on 05 Mar 2011 01:16 by obaeyens Show more

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 08 Mar 2011 18:25

So i've been trying to get into Geryl's head lately. And I think (I THINK) for some reason he believes that since the outer core generates the magnetic field, that by flipping the magnetic field you also have to flip the outer core. So kind of like if a = b than b = a.

But thats kind of like saying that if you plug something into an outlet it provides power, but if you shut off the power to the device than the outlet stops supplying power which is not the case.

If (big if) you turn the magnetic field by force, does this HAVE to do something to the rotation of the core? Since the rotation generates the field?

To be more clear-
Is this true?: changes in rotation = changes in magnetic field, therefore changes in magnetic field = changes in rotation.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 08 Mar 2011 18:34

He more to me has always seemed to think that the magnetic core is the solid inner.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 08 Mar 2011 19:04

Yeah I see him say things that make me think that, but then he goes on to mention the dynamo in the outer core. You're right though, its very possible he thinks the magnetic field is in the inner core. But even if that were true, the inner core would generate the magnetic field, the magnetic field obviously does not generate the inner core. Its like saying 1/2 = 2/1. If the spin stops, the field stops. But if the field stops by force, I don't think the spin has to be effected.

Its like saying a fat guy generates body odor, therefore if you get rid of the body odor he is going to be skinny. Just doesn't work that way. If it did, showers would be a lot more popular and deoderant would be a great dietary supplement.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 08 Mar 2011 19:07

Lol interesting analogy, but yeah, like I have said the more you look into it rationally the more it doesn't make any sense.

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 08 Mar 2011 19:26

The real question is, how does this guy not go online and find out from every website that exists that the magnetic field doesn't generate in the inner core?

Or, for that matter, how does he not go online and run into this website? Since googling his name brings 2012hoax up on the first page. Since he thinks so highly of himself, you would think that he has googled his name.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 08 Mar 2011 21:37

The real question is, how does this guy not go online and find out from every website that exists that the magnetic field doesn't generate in the inner core?

Because that would be a waste of time for him.
He is only interested in people being blind flowers and in this case it does not matter if he is right or not.

You fail his test because you started to think for yourself and investigate :-)
You would be a danger to him, you might poison his followers with real science thinking.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

DieselHorseLAW 09 Mar 2011 00:23

He did say a requirement to join his group thing is that you have to "strongly believe what he says will happen".

---

“In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.” - Oscar Wilde

Re: Science/Physics Questions

obaeyens 08 Mar 2011 21:33

So i've been trying to get into Geryl's head lately. And I think (I THINK) for some reason he believes that

I don't think he believes. I think he made it up.

Look at his face when they attack him in the media and laughs about his stories. He even doesn't blink, he even does not get upset.
I don't think he have a notion of emotions. He is talking about the end of the world but emits no emotion.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

JamesJJlm 08 Mar 2011 21:54

Yeah I have heard he has no sense of humor.

Where have you seen people laughing at him to his face? I would probably pay to see that

Re: Science/Physics Questions

Tomy2011 10 Mar 2011 20:45

He smiled on Penn & Teller's Bull**! show on 2012, when he used the grapefruit to demonstrate his claim. But, then, he became serious and… relaxed. I think he is so relaxed that he, yeah, clearly made it up.

Re: Science/Physics Questions

CaneLaz 10 Mar 2011 20:36

Right but that would still assume that every-time there is a magnetic reversal there would also be a change in the earth's rotation(which he obviously believes happens regularly). To a man with limited science education, sure that would make sense. If the liquid flows change direction then the spinning inner core must also, but it's not that simple.

I'm reading a book now called "north pole, south: the quest to solve the mystery of earth's magnetic field." I think you'd like it James.