Translation of paper

Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 21 Jun 2011 21:20

I don't want anyone to do homework for me, but I just can't make heads or tails of this paper from Nasa's site. I really want to understand it, but the equations and writing style goes way over my head. Anyone able to understand it? I get that it is relating length of day changes with changes of angular momentum in Earth's core, but I am thinking it may have some points in it that debunk some 2012 claims. May be a good reference for the PG page, Crustal Displacement, or Rotational Pole Shift page.

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstream/2014/13763/1/00-0133.pdf

Re: Translation of paper

CaneLaz 22 Jun 2011 00:26

I'm interested as well James!

Re: Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 22 Jun 2011 02:54

Yeah I spent quite a bit of time tonight trying to find some info. All I could find is that they suspect that the core and the mantle is coupled electro-magnetically, which is about the opposite of what I wanted to hear. Then I ran across another paper discussing fluctuations in the length of day during excursions of the magnetic field, which I also didn't want to find. Oh and apparently a strong correlation between LOD changes and magnetic field strength. Basically, everything I found that had been either peer reviewed or was at least a thesis, were things that I didn't want to see. I just don't get how everytime I look to the books for answers, I end up going backwards.

Re: Translation of paper

CaneLaz 22 Jun 2011 03:07

I wouldn't sweat it man. I don't think it changes anything to be honest with you. You have to think about it this way, how would the flare or CME actually grapple the inner core? The inner core isn't the part that generates the magnetism, it's the liquid outer core.

Second, wouldn't they have figured out if the core had begun rotating in the opposite direction?

Re: Translation of paper

CaneLaz 22 Jun 2011 14:05

James,

I cant begin to translate this work. However, I have a feeling not much will come of it. But let me ask you this: How does any of this relate to Geryl's theory on the Maya and Ancient Egypt?

Re: Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 22 Jun 2011 15:35

Dunno, don't understand it. lol. But if they are saying the core and mantle are coupled electro-magnetically, and that LOD changes slightly with geomagnetic excursions, then would the math we lay out on the PG page still be accurate? Somewhere in that paper, it states that the angular momentum of the core is weak. Not sure what they mean, how can something spin at nearly the same speed and have drastically less angular momentum? Not sure what they are saying there.

Re: Translation of paper

CaneLaz 22 Jun 2011 15:57

Even if it was electro-magnetically charged, how does an "overcharge" flip it while still keeping the momentum going. The inner core is not that simple. You also have to take into account that PG thinks this happens every 11,500 years or less. Remember, according to Geryl's translation of Albert Slosman, this supposedly happened 3 times since 29,000 b.c. And everyone was still around to keep exact records. Silly if you ask me. Someone with expertise on the subject will chime in soon I think.

Last edited on 22 Jun 2011 15:58 by CaneLaz Show more

Re: Translation of paper

DieselHorseLAW 22 Jun 2011 17:18

I am sure somebody will respond, but it tends to take longer when it is posted in off topic to get a response.

---

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

Re: Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 22 Jun 2011 17:28

Well it was off-topic…..ish.

Thinking about it though, if the core and the mantle were coupled in some way, then it would just become even more difficult to topple it, because you would have to overcome whatever is coupling it also.

The thing that bothered me mostly was seeing LOD changes graphed with magnetic polarity strength. Since there are a lot of pole shift advocates who believe the Earth's spin is monitored by the offset of the magnetic field with the rotational poles. They believe the core and solid-Earth, are pushed magnetically. So if the field gets weaker, our LOD gets longer.

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 22 Jun 2011 21:09

Somewhere in that paper, it states that the angular momentum of the core is weak.

Can you quote that part from that paper so we can look at what you think is written?

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 22 Jun 2011 20:18

All I could find is that they suspect that the core and the mantle is coupled electro-magnetically, which is about the opposite of what I wanted to hear.

Even then if it is connected, it is completely irrelevant for the obvious reason that no CME has enough mass to do any pulling.

And here you see that first there is no sign of attraction or repelling of a CME in the simulation by Earth. You can also calculate easily how much in percentage of the CME gets close enough to Earth to have any effect.
This CME is spread about a 90 degree by 90 degree of the surface of the complete sphere with the size 1 AU. The actual volume that gets near earth might be barely 1% or 0.1% of the complete CME mass itself.
http://www.universetoday.com/86993/sun-celebrates-solstice-with-flare-and-a-cme/#more-86993

The other big problem of any pulling by a CME is that the core is spherical. And spherical means that any attraction forces will be spread over the complete sphere with nothing to grab onto. Especially not when there is a inverse square law in effect and the backside of the core gets attracted/repelled equally cancelling out any force difference to rotate.

James, I would advice you to start to learn simple vector calculations. It will solve 90% of your answers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJBGfPfE4fQ&feature=related

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 22 Jun 2011 20:31

Also I propose you to follow this course MIT that is on-line.
It is irrelevant if you understand the maths or not, just walk through them.
Maybe in a second phase you might understand it a bit better.

But it gives a big sense of what charges are and how they really behave.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 22 Jun 2011 20:52

This course at 36:05 has something interesting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3omwHv3Cmog

Charge repelling is 10^36 times stronger than gravity. BUT when you listen further then it turns out that almost everything has a neutral charge so there is no repelling and attracting force in the endresult. But since gravity has no repelling component and is always attracting, it wins over longer distances.

You have to realize that this incredible strong force by charge is actually the real cause that charge separation of + at one side and - at the other side is very very very hard to keep up. They both will try to attract each other with a force that is 10^36 times stronger than gravity. Any CME will become charge neutral just because of this. And neutral charged means no more attraction or repelling.

There is this argument that electrons are accelerated faster because they are 1/1836th of the mass of a proton so a CME might have a charge separation. That is correct until your realize that the more electrons and protons get separated the more force they will give to attract each other back. In the end electrons will slow down because the slower protons pull on them. The protons will accelerate a tiny bit because the electrons will pull at them too. So over a long period they will find each other back and become neutral charged again. The only electrons or protons that might actually escape are just a tiny tiny tiny fraction of the complete CME. And you already now that the mass that actually get to earth is probably 1% or less of the original CME that started of the sun.

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 22 Jun 2011 21:00

This part at 21:45 gives a very interesting feature if charges.
Ignore the maths part.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaZQzIXv2RQ&feature=relmfu

It comes to this: Charges will repel each other on something that can conduct. So they well all end up at the furthest possible place they can be that is the surface of a conducting material. And now here is the cool part. Inside this object, charge is zero! Charge zero means zero attraction or repelling force in the centre of the conducting material.

Re: Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 22 Jun 2011 23:13

So a CME is always neutral charge? Why does the magnetic field of the Earth react to it then? They say if the CME is southern polarity, the field will react differently then if it is north. I forget which does which.

I watched the first lecture, pretty interesting stuff. I still don't get how a magnetic field works. I tried reading the wikipedia article on magnetic fields, but they are pretty hell-bent on making it unreadable to people trying to actually learn it. I just don't get how our magnetic field would exist if our Earth is neutrally charged. Why do we have a north and south magnetic pole, if there is no charge in the outer core.

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 23 Jun 2011 18:24

So a CME is always neutral charge? Why does the magnetic field of the Earth react to it then?

Charged neutral in average, internally you will have fluctuations and will interact with Earth's field.
This is really complicated stuff to just explain it in simple terms here without maths and simulations. It is more complicated than the theory of relativity. I advice you to get through the complete MIT course and learn it as much as you can. Stay a way from pseudo science since they will waste your time learning the real stuff.

From 2012 point of view, you simply don't have enough mass in the CME to flip Earth.
Also we are being hit by one right now. Did you notice it?

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 23 Jun 2011 19:19

I have been searching for a good explanation about earth's magnetic field and how solar winds react with it but the internet is flooded with 2012 crap.

I think his is a good explanation, bad quality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrLmk8cCNIE&feature=related

The CME is in plasma state so the charge is in average neutral but the + and - charge are still lose from each other.

The same thing on the inner core, the complete Earth is basically charged zero on average but inside the core there is a mechanism that separates the charged locally. It is a localized effect and any effects that gets sent into space are pretty limited in distances.

The thing you are struggling with is the sense of scale. It is like thinking that a tiny bacteria could topple over a huge elephant because that tiny bacteria has mass and mass means attracting force. That tiny bacteria has even a magnetic field and we know that a magnetic field are some magical tool to do things that violate the laws of physics. LOL

Re: Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 23 Jun 2011 21:37

So how does the core stay spinning, if the motions of the outer core fluid are so chaotic and random? Is the convection that causes the field, different from the physical movement of the molten iron?

http://www.universetoday.com/56743/does-zonal-swishing-play-a-part-in-earths-magnetic-field-reversals/

It seems like either it would create a choatic current of molten iron, and cause the rotation of the inner core to slow down. Or it would eventually spin with everything else, like how a whirlpool spins.

Its frustrating when it makes absolutely no logical sense to me

Re: Translation of paper

CaneLaz 23 Jun 2011 22:11

Seriously, it's confusing as heck.

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 25 Jun 2011 00:47

Its frustrating when it makes absolutely no logical sense to me

It is only because you lack the basic maths and physics knowledge.
Also some things in physics do not follow intuition, but are very real.

So maybe you should stop running and trying to understand stuff that only experienced scientists in that field can grasp and start with simple basic fundamentals in mathematics and psychics first.

It seems like either it would create a choatic current of molten iron, and cause the rotation of the inner core to slow down.

A chaotic current of molten iron means over that it has a net effect over a long duration = zero.

Also this article talks about of convection. No where is there any mention that the inner core and outer core has different speeds.

Re: Translation of paper

bikenbeer2000 22 Jun 2011 19:40

You can rest assured that everything inside the Earth is, on average, going round at pretty much the same rate as the surface. The core rotates slightly faster, but only gains one rotation in several centuries, so the difference isn't very much. Read about it here. The mantle/crust variation in speed is centimetres per year.

The NASA paper is comparing fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field with length of day variations. Again, we're talking about tiny amounts. The length of the day has a seasonal variation of about a millisecond, brought about by atmospheric motions plus changes of up to 5 miiliseconds over several years brought about by internal motions. A millisecond per day amounts to one part in 100 million.

So there are no Geryl-type drastic changes and never have been. There's still a huge amount of angular momentum of the whole Earth inherited from its formation. Slight variations between a solid exterior and a fluid interior are only to be expected.

Re: Translation of paper

obaeyens 22 Jun 2011 20:02

This paper makes actually sense, compared to the other so called papers that alignment would have an effect on the Sun which sounded right but when checked fails miserable.

This paper gives solid maths, explanations and stuff that can be checked by peer review.

Re: Translation of paper

DieselHorseLAW 25 Jun 2011 03:35

I totally just stole this quote from Tomy in another thread but it stuck out to me.

In the 160-year record of geomagnetic storms, the Carrington event is the biggest. Energetic particles leave a record in nitrates in ice cores," he explains. "Here again the Carrington event sticks out as the biggest in 500 years and nearly twice as big as the runner-up.

So since the energetic particles leave a record in ice cores, wouldn't there be evidence of a "GINORMOUS" solar flare in the ice cores. Just wondering, since it kind of relates.

---

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

Re: Translation of paper

DieselHorseLAW 27 Jun 2011 05:06

Hmm, no opinions on this?

---

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

Re: Translation of paper

Gary A 27 Jun 2011 07:52

So since the energetic particles leave a record in ice cores, wouldn't there be evidence of a "GINORMOUS" solar flare in the ice cores.

The only thing I can say is if his "gargantuan" flare happened the way he said it did, there would be no ice left. I have really tried to make sense of what he claims but it's impossible, it gives you a real headache. To me if earth changed rotation, it would still be that way. How can it change rotation and all on it's own change back?

The more I look into geryl, the more insane he appears. His claims are outrageous, every single one, not only the whole 2012 garbage, but his other claims about living to 140 years old because of a fruit diet, his claims he knows better than Einstein are pathetic. He's a skinny little attention seeker who seems to feel the need to be the only one who gets something right. For a guy who isn't 1000 years old, he sure knows his stuff, I mean, all Maya scholars are wrong, all egyptologists are wrong, all physicists are wrong, all geologists are wrong, hell, even Einstein is wrong, and he's right.

Puuuullllleeeeeaaaasssseeee!!!

---

The great thing about science is, it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Re: Translation of paper

JamesJJlm 27 Jun 2011 12:56

To me if earth changed rotation, it would still be that way. How can it change rotation and all on it's own change back?

Exactly. You can't just spin things the opposite direction over and over again without loss of momentum somewhere. After doing this every 11,500 years, you would think the Earth would barely be spinning.

Also, the sun must have it out for the Earth. Blasting this huge solar flare only at the Earth every so often? What a meany head.

Re: Translation of paper

Gary A 27 Jun 2011 13:17

Also, the sun must have it out for the Earth. Blasting this huge solar flare only at the Earth every so often? What a meany head.

It's a strange claim though isn't it. The claim appears to be that every 11,500 years the sun throws off a never before seen flare, at exactly the right time, with the same polarity. Different types of flares or CME's happen all the time, why is this "gargantuan" one so predictable? Why doesn't it affect other planets? You'd think that mercury, which is a lot closer to the sun would probably have been thrown completely out of it's orbit by a flare like that.

It really is in my opinion crazy to suggest the earth would be anything other than a mass of cosmic dust had it indeed been stopped and rotated one way then the other in a matter of a few days. This happening once would have destroyed the planet, but to claim it happens as regularly as every 11,500 years and still expect the planet to not only still exist, but have life thriving with no signs of any extinction correlating with his time scales, is kind of insane don't you think?

---

The great thing about science is, it's true whether you believe in it or not.

Re: Translation of paper

Tomy2011 27 Jun 2011 17:09

It's very interesting what would happen if the Earth stopped spinning. Here is a very informative article about this on UniverseToday. But yes, Gary, it's just a weird idea. The Earth has been spinning for billions of years, it could not just suddenly stop spinning. However, there is a fact: little by little the rotation of the Earth is slowing down. We should expect huge earthquakes and other disasters.
Of couse, this cannot occur. And there is no geological evidence to support this crazy claim, not in the ice cores, not anywhere.

Different types of flares or CME's happen all the time, why is this "gargantuan" one so predictable?

Is it a rhetorical question? :-)

This happening once would have destroyed the planet, but to claim it happens as regularly as every 11,500 years and still expect the planet to not only still exist, but have life thriving with no signs of any extinction correlating with his time scales, is kind of insane don't you think?

It's insane, because this event, if it really occured, must have left records somewhere, like in the ice cores. But the only records that were found are records of CMEs as strong as the Carrington Event, or stronger, but not "gargantuan", as Geryl claims.