Joe Meert writes:
Of course it's legitimate science to determine how the Earth's magnetic field is generated and reverses. They are both real puzzles.
Joe, unless you or someone else can propose - at least - one plausible mechanism that geomagnetic reversals occur with respect to the four problems I have presented in Post 192 on page 13 I maintain they are more than puzzles. They are potential show stoppers.
Joe Meert writes:
However, although we don't yet know the answer to either question, the fact that the Earth has a magnetic field and that the field reverses are not in question.
Agreed on the geomagnetic field but not on proposed geomagnetic pole reversals. Until someone can demonstrate how a pole reversal could possibly occur while respecting the laws of physics — pole reversals are only conjecture (at best).
If you read previous posts, there are other reasonable mechanisms to explain field strength variation — even with patterns.
Joe Meert writes:
As to your points 1,2 and 3: You are being a bit disingenous with several of your questions. Statements like:
Hydroplate Hippie writes:
There is no mechanism to generate the large electrical currents within the proposed geodynamo that could produce the geomagnetic field.
JM: are useless and misleading. The first problem is that you make the assumption that because we do not yet have an answer, then all proposals should be taken as equal. That is not true.
Some may consider it disingenuous to claim your paradigm or worldview is true without being able to explain how it could possibly be so.
Useless and misleading Joe? Your logic fails me. The scientific method requires that a hypothesis withstand testing — regardless of anyone’s paradigms and preferred worldviews. This testing can take many forms such as modeling whereby the real world physical laws are applied. Theories often have to be modified or discarded in the face of faulty assumptions or failed support from application of known laws.
I agree that it is not true that all proposals should be taken as equal Joe. Proposals that have reasonable mechanisms with respect to physical laws (in a causal relationship) are normally favored over proposals that do not. Wouldn’t you agree?
Joe Meert writes:
The second assumes that that we do not have any proposed mechanisms for generating a field. Dynamos have been known for a long time and Maxwell's equations tell us quite simply that a moving current will produce a magnetic field and that moving a magnetic field in a conducting medium will produce a current.
No Joe. The second states clearly that we do not have any proposed mechanisms for generating a geomagnetic field. We all agree that dynamos and Maxwell’s equations are well established.
I have asked the same questions repeatedly and you have not been able to propose one plausible mechanism for generating and sustaining a geomagnetic field with a dynamo and Maxwell’s equations.
Even assuming a dynamo occurs in the relatively viscous outer core and the mantle convects heat (despite the failure of all attempts to build realistic cause and effect computer models), Ohms’ Law presents a big problem in a proposed direct short circuit geodynamo configuration. Please give me one example anywhere in which a dynamo of any type can be demonstrated to maintain a regenerating current flow over time (experimentally or otherwise).
Perhaps you missed post 180 where I explained why Maxwell’s equations (and Ohm’s Law) cannot support a proposed geodynamo generated geomagnetic field reversal.
I will repeat it for you here:
Hydroplate Hippie writes:
This (electrical current generated field) might be possible if the Earth interior was a perfect superconductor, but it isn’t.
The reason a geodynamo could not possibly power the geomagnetic field is the speed at which electrical current flows and dissipates into heat. This is why I stressed the relative difference in velocities of proposed convection currents and electrical currents.
Let me make a loose analogy with a lightning strike to ground — it is not a perfect analogy since the atmosphere is a different type of conducting medium - but the concept is similar.
Consider a voltage potential increasing in a cloud (it could be either positive or negative with respect to ground). At the threshold where the voltage is so high that it ionizes a conductive path to ground — lightning (electrical current) flows and creates huge electromagnetic fields, waxing all AM radio broadcasts.
The electrical current continues to flow until the voltage potential is essentially the same between the cloud and the ground. At that point the current flow stops and the electromagnet field immediately collapses to zero.
Let’s assume the lightning strike occurs in a hurricane with high wind speed and a certain volume of air moves a certain distance through the electromagnetic field during the lightning strike (the adjacent air may even ionize and create a branch of current flow with it’s own electromagnetic field).
The problem is the voltage differential is quickly equalized and all the current is dissipated to heat — almost as fast as the flash of a camera.
There will be some residual ionized air molecules after the strike which we smell as ozone. But there is no voltage potential difference remaining in the atmosphere to sustain a large current flow.
The electromagnetic field will completely disappear until another large voltage is built and creates another current path.
Earth’s core is different from the atmosphere in that it does not have to wait for the medium to ionize to conduct electrical current flow — electrical current will flow quite easily in liquid iron (with impurities).
Electrical current flows so fast that it is like taking a snapshot of the proposed convection currents — they are essentially static in motion during the instant of electrical current dissipation into heat.
In microseconds... all the voltage potential differences in the core (inner and outer) would be essentially equalized and the current flow would stop — collapsing the electromagnetic field to zero.
This analogy does not address the additional problems:
- why the electrical current direction of flow (and associated electromagnetic field) would be significantly affected by proposed convection currents at all — the electrical current will flow through all iron in the inner and outer core. Thus, even assuming convection currents are actually occurring, they still cannot reasonably be expected to cause conditions resulting in a flipped geomagnetic field.
- how a large electromagnetic seed field would originate and what mechanism could possibly build (and more importantly - sustain) very large potential differences (voltages) in a conductive core medium.
There is no plausible mechanism within the context of physical law that such a large voltage potential, electrical current, and electromagnetic field could be generated and/or sustained over time.
This is why I say with very high confidence that a geodynamo is not sustaining the geomagnetic field we see today and has not contributed to a geomagnetic field reversal.
By extension, I can say with high confidence that a field reversal has not occurred on Earth due to a self-sustaining dynamo. And I firmly believe Hess’ geopoetry analysis has incorrectly interpreted seafloor magnetic field strength variation measurements as geomagnetic field reversal seafloor striping.
Data that seems to indicate a geomagnetic reversal must have alternative explanations (just as Ptolemy’s data did). I have presented an alternative in previous posts.
This will be a rather long post but bear with me...
Joe Meert writes:
The more important question is does the Earth's magnetic field behave like a dynamo (even if we don't know the particulars). The answer is a resounding YES! We know from paleomagnetic studies that the Earth has a magnetic field as far back as 3 billion years and that it periodically reverses.
Joe, the Earth’s magnetic field does not behave like a dynamo as you say.
Electrical current flow behaves according to Ohm’s law - period. There seems to be a consistent propensity on the part of you and others to confuse proposed liquid iron convection dynamo theory with electrical current flow.
Sustained electrical current flow is not feasible since the core would be essentially a direct short circuit and electrical current would instantly dissipate into heat — collapsing the geomagnetic field.
You must have a means of generating voltage (via a practically infinite voltage source) to perpetually induce electrical currents on the order required for the geomagnetic field.
The answer (especially since we cannot even guess at the particulars without a lot of non-scientific hand waving) is NOT a resounding Yes as you state above unless you can provide a clue as to how that might be. It is a much bigger problem than not knowing the particulars. It is a fundamental problem with no foundation in physics.
Let’s summarize When you joined this debate in post 134 on page 9 Joe, you referred to my assertion that the geomagnetic poles have not reversed as bizarre. Yet you have not been able to describe how your position concerning geomagnetic pole reversals could ever work.
Now you are saying that you don’t know the particulars of your inferred "facts".
Don’t sweat it Joe. I don’t take this stuff personal and neither should you.
Joe Meert writes:
We know from paleomagnetic studies that the Earth has a magnetic field as far back as 3 billion years and that it periodically reverses.
We do know Earth has a magnetic field. However, with all due respect Joe, we know nothing of the sort concerning three billion years and periodic geomagnetic reversals.
In addition, I assume you meant to say aperiodic reversals since there is nothing periodic about the data you interpret as magnetic striping and seafloor spreading (according to current plate tectonic theory).
Joe Meert writes:
We know that a static field cannot be maintained for that amount of time and a static field will not produce reversals.
Agreed on both counts Joe. Your statement reveals your motivation for claiming pole reversals via geodynamo despite a lack of physical mechanisms.
If you have already concluded the age of the Earth to be over three billion years, then you have no other alternative but to assume a dynamo mysteriously generates huge electrical currents as a source for the geomagnetic field (ignoring the constraints of physics).
Whether intentional or not, it appears you are imputing a force fit of scientific causation into a paradigm or dogma.
Actually, that amount of time (3 billion years) is inferred by you and others based on other assumptions. There are many other lines of evidence refuting that amount of time.
If you cannot propose a mechanism for a geomagnetic field sustained and reversed by electrical currents there is only one scientific alternative Joe (besides championing an unworkable hypothesis).
The only alternative would be a core consisting of magnetized material spinning at a different axis and velocity relative to the crust.
And as you correctly stated, that configuration could not be 3 billion years old and it would not reverse polarity.
When we exchanged emails long ago concerning the age of the Earth Joe, you referred me to Tim Thompson’s moon recession model as a solution of the moon recession problem with supposed billions of Earth age years.
I studied Thompson’s model in detail and was stunned to see that Tim’s solution was to place all Earth’s land mass in a continuous band at the equator or, alternatively, as a single mass only at the pole(s).
Tim stated this configuration would simplify the math. Well, it does simplify the math - but it also conveniently eliminates the source of primary transfer of energy between the Earth/Moon system (oceanic/continental tidal interactions) to support his conclusion (present Earth/moon relationship could realistically have existed over four billion years).
I was also disappointed to see Tim’s statement that the problem was so complex that he had to develop some new math (Laplace transforms) to solve the problem. Of course, Laplace transforms have been around for ages and have been commonly used in engineering for many decades.
I emailed Thompson with my comments but, as I recall, never received a reply. The Earth/moon relationship — among others - remains a significant problem for a supposed 4.6 billion year age but that is a topic for others in another discussion.
Joe Meert writes:
You can argue about the stripes on the ocean floor to your hearts content, but we DO observe normal and reverse polarities in rocks.
This is potentially the classic and most common error made when applying the scientific method - assigning causation (geomagnetic pole reversals) to observations (magnetic anomalies).
Yes, we DO observe magnetic anomalies for which there are other plausible explanations. I have previously given several alternatives for causation but here is yet another:
Although this phenomena cannot be proposed as a sustaining source of Earth’s magnetic field for reasons I have previously given, it could potentially have some localized effects on ferrous material.
Attributing anomalies to a reversing geomagnetic field
without proposing a single mechanism as to
how a reversal could actually occur is inductive reasoning and cannot be set into a valid hypothesis.
Let's review the scientific method (some emphasis mine):
For centuries, people based their beliefs on their interpretations of what they saw going on in the world around them without testing their ideas to determine the validity of these theories in other words, they didn’t use the scientific method to arrive at answers to their questions. Rather, their conclusions were based on untested observations.
Among these ideas, since at least the time of Aristotle (4th Century BC), people (including scientists) believed that simple living organisms could come into being by
spontaneous generation.
This was the idea that non-living objects can give rise to living organisms. It was common knowledge that simple organisms like worms, beetles, frogs, and salamanders could come from dust, mud, etc., and food left out, quickly swarmed with life.
In a cause and effect relationship, what you observe is the effect, and hypotheses are possible causes. A generalization based on inductive reasoning is not a hypothesis. An hypothesis is not an observation, rather, a tentative explanation for the observation.
Hypotheses should be testable by experimentation and deductive reasoning.
Hypotheses can be proven wrong/incorrect, but can never be proven or confirmed with absolute certainty. It is impossible to test all given conditions, and someone with more knowledge, sometime in the future, may find a condition under which the hypothesis does not hold true.
- Inductive reasoning goes from a set of specific observations to general conclusions: I observed cells in x, y, and z organisms, therefore all animals have cells.
- Deductive reasoning flows from general to specific. From general premises, a scientist would extrapolate to specific results: if all organisms have cells and humans are organisms, then humans should have cells. This is a prediction about a specific case based on the general premises.
Generally, in the scientific method, if a particular hypothesis/premise is true and X experiment is done, then one should expect (prediction) a certain result.
A prediction is the expected results if the hypothesis and other underlying assumptions and principles are true and an experiment is done to test that hypothesis.
Science is a process new things are being discovered and old, long-held theories are modified or replaced with better ones as more data/knowledge is accumulated Scientists are human, too, and so these major changes are often controversial and accompanied by violent debate!
A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data
and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries.
The Scientific Method
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/sci_meth.htm
As you may know Joe, Earth science is not the only discipline for which the Hydroplate theory has predictions.
To my knowledge, The hydroplate theory was the only source that correctly predicted traces of
saltwater would be found on Mars.
Other predictions are pretty bold and counter to current paradigms. A planned landing and direct sampling of a comet by 2012 should be very interesting.
"Rosetta is the mission we are all waiting for," Dr Keller comments. "After I spent six years analysing our images of the Halley nucleus, I say that basic scientific assumptions about the nature of comets are still contradictory. We shall settle the arguments only by the close, prolonged inspection that Rosetta will make possible."
Stardust - NASA's Comet Sample Return Mission
Continuing with your post
Joe Meert writes:
The only mechanism to sustain a reversing field for 3+ billion years is via a dynamo.
Joe, this is what I have referred to as Rathergate science (insisting the story is true even though we do not have the proper mechanism or documentation).
Joe Meert writes:
Saying that there is no known mechanism is false, you should more accurately state that there are many known mechanisms, but we don't yet know how applicable they are to the earth's field.
Your logic escapes me Joe. You have failed to propose a single known mechanism in response to my repeated requests detailed in the four objections of post 192. Did you consult with your colleagues as I had requested?
Seems to me those questions are fundamental and should be a main topic for future symposiums.
It is a fact there has been no known workable mechanism presented in this discussion! Therefore, my statement stands as unequivocally TRUE until you can provide any such mechanism that respects classical physical laws.
Joe Meert writes:
Given that we know the Earth has a magnetic field and that the magnetic field reverses, questions 2-4 are meaningless.
In science, we proceed along lines of enquiry that will bear fruit based on first-order observations.
You can deny that magnetic reversals are real and you can deny that the earth has a magnetic field, but that won't produce much useful science.
This is truly getting long and redundant — but I must respond to each of your points.
I have not denied the Earth has a magnetic field Joe. Obfuscation does not solve the problem. Please don’t muddle the issue.
The question at hand is whether the geomagnetic field is caused by electrical current flow in a proposed geodynamo and how the geomagnetic poles could have possibly reversed.
Questions 2-4 are the right questions and they stand - unanswered.
When you say we proceed along lines of enquiry that will bear fruit based on first-order observations your inquiry should include whether the first-order observations can be attributed to causation other than those you have inferred.
A sound scientific approach should avoid pursuing fruit only in support of the lines of inquiry of our inferred causation to observations (paradigms). There are many examples of failure along that path.
Joe Meert writes:
A better approach is to take the observations and ask "Hmm, how does one sustain a self-reversing magnetic such as the one we observe"?
Joe, with respect to scientific laws, we might as well be asking Hmm, how does water consistently defy gravity and naturally flow uphill in a river? Sustained localized anti-gravity?
I am not trying to make light of the issue here Joe but you are talking about direct violation of fundamental physical laws. That is truly the magnitude of the problem with self-reversing electromagnetic fields generated and sustained by a proposed geodynamo.
Joe Meert writes:
There are real questions about how we generate a self-reversing dynamo in the Earth and the focus should be on those questions.
The focus has been precisely on those questions Joe — for a long time now. There appears to be no solution offered by anyone.
Doesn’t the fact that no one can even suggest a possible cause & effect hypothesis give you reason to ponder whether you really know geodynamo generated geomagnetic pole reversals have occurred?
After forty years of searching for the magic mechanism it’s time to reconsider the conclusions Joe, and ask different questions along a new line of inquiry that at least has a possibility of bearing fruit within the context of known physical laws!
Hess’ geopoetry may have sounded good initially, but it has no rhyme or reason with respect to mechanisms!
The sooner we acknowledge this dilemma apparently has no reasonable solution, the sooner we can cease wishful thinking - and move on toward a better understanding of our world.
Thanks for your time Joe.
Hydroplate Hippie
™ Version 4.2