[DieChecker]

lakeview rud, on 25 October 2009 - 05:20 PM, said:

If you reason from that, that the magnetic pole follows the True North pole then at some time in the past the True North Pole was located in Hudson Bay. That would be a good explanation of why North America got almost covered by ice sheets in the last ice age whereas Siberia didn't get much of anything. I have not heard any other reason for that.

That is an interesting theory. And really the magnetic North Pole doesn't even need to come into it.

I think that the magnetic pole moves because it is based on a liquid iron core of the Earth. If the core of the Earth was wound wire, then the magnetic pole would probably be a lot more stable.

I believe it impossible for the actual planet to flip (Physical pole reversal), and I believe that the magnetic pole reversal is a proven fact, but that it can take thousands of years to fully take place. Nothing is going to happen suddenly.

[lightlyy]

Mattshark, on 03 November 2009 - 11:53 PM, said:

The pole is not going to shift, that is fantasy. The pole wanders, a shift would be more than noticeable by us being dead.

The Physical ,ROTATIONAL POLES are not going to shift... (the earth flipping upside down)
... just to clarify that this topic is about MAGNETIC POLE SHIFT (earth's magnetic field polarity reversal).
Question tho... everyone talks about THE pole wandering.. does THE other MAGNETIC POLE ,located in the south, wander as well ? i would guess that it might 'wander' in DIRECT CORRELATION to it's northern counterpoint and remain exactly opposite of the magnetic pole? ,located in the north ??
if not... I'd think that would create instability .... Un balance in the magnetic field ??

This post has been edited by lightlyy: 04 November 2009 - 03:29 PM

[lightlyy]

to make things more confusing... currently, the Magnetic pole located in the north is actually the magnetic (SOUTH-) pole.... and the Magnetic pole located in the south is actually the magnetic (NORTH+) pole . ?? right?

as shown here ?  28_03_Earth_magnetic_field.jpg (169.5K)
Number of downloads: 5

This post has been edited by lightlyy: 04 November 2009 - 03:31 PM

[Mattshark]

lightlyy, on 04 November 2009 - 03:29 PM, said:

to make things more confusing... currently, the Magnetic pole located in the north is actually the magnetic (SOUTH-) pole.... and the Magnetic pole located in the south is actually the magnetic (NORTH+) pole . ?? right?

as shown here ?  28_03_Earth_magnetic_field.jpg (169.5K)
Number of downloads: 5
[/quote]

Yes, that is right, they reverse from time to time but this is well known and there are no adverse affects associated with it.

[questionmark]

lightlyy, on 04 November 2009 - 05:29 PM, said:

to make things more confusing... currently, the Magnetic pole located in the north is actually the magnetic (SOUTH-) pole.... and the Magnetic pole located in the south is actually the magnetic (NORTH+) pole . ?? right?

as shown here ?  28_03_Earth_magnetic_field.jpg (169.5K)
Number of downloads: 5
[/quote]

Well, let me put it this way: names are relative, see when Volta invented(rediscovered) the battery he called the pole from which the electrons come positive and the ones they go to negative... not many years later they discovered he was wrong but for the sake of the peace the names never got changed.

Same case here...you can call them truck and steamroller if that makes you feel better.

[lightlyy]

questionmark said: Well, let me put it this way: names are relative, see when Volta invented(rediscovered) the battery he called the pole from which the electrons come positive and the ones they go to negative... not many years later they discovered he was wrong but for the sake of the peace the names never got changed.
Same case here...you can call them truck and steamroller if that makes you feel better.
[/quote]

Thanks questionmark,and Mattshark, ... questionmark , could you explain what you mean by "they discovered he was wrong" ?
magnetics/magnets are mysterious to me.. in that, both 'positive' and 'negative' poles attract certain materials .. equally ?
also mysterious ,to me, is the fact that a magnet will attract/pick up a limited amount of ,say nails, but after 'awhile' will be capable of picking up additional nails... where does the additional energy come from ?? .. or is it just that the act of performing the work causes further alignment in the magnet... making it 'stronger' ? thanks.

This post has been edited by lightlyy: 04 November 2009 - 04:47 PM

[questionmark]

lightlyy, on 04 November 2009 - 06:44 PM, said:

questionmark said: Well, let me put it this way: names are relative, see when Volta invented(rediscovered) the battery he called the pole from which the electrons come positive and the ones they go to negative... not many years later they discovered he was wrong but for the sake of the peace the names never got changed.
Same case here...you can call them truck and steamroller if that makes you feel better.

Thanks questionmark,and Mattshark, ... questionmark , could you explain what you mean by "they discovered he was wrong" ?
magnetics/magnets are mysterious to me.. in that, both 'positive' and 'negative' poles attract certain materials .. equally ?
also mysterious ,to me, is the fact that a magnet will attract/pick up a limited amount of ,say nails, but after 'awhile' will be capable of picking up additional nails... where does the additional energy come from ?? .. or is it just that the act of performing the work causes further alignment in the magnet... making it 'stronger' ? thanks.
[/quote]

electrons don't travel from plus to minus as Volta assumed but from minus to plus.

And the nails, steel magnetizes. That is, if you keep it long enough to a magnet it will be just as magnetic as the magnet. In fact you will be able to pick up a nail without the aid of a magnet with one of those nails. If you try the same number with iron you will notice that the same effect does not happen, as iron demagnetizes quickly once it is not near to a magnet.

[lightlyy]

questionmark, on 04 November 2009 - 06:44 PM, said:

Thanks questionmark,and Mattshark, ... questionmark , could you explain what you mean by "they discovered he was wrong" ?
magnetics/magnets are mysterious to me.. in that, both 'positive' and 'negative' poles attract certain materials .. equally ?
also mysterious ,to me, is the fact that a magnet will attract/pick up a limited amount of ,say nails, but after 'awhile' will be capable of picking up additional nails... where does the additional energy come from ?? .. or is it just that the act of performing the work causes further alignment in the magnet... making it 'stronger' ? thanks.

electrons don't travel from plus to minus as Volta assumed but from minus to plus.

And the nails, steel magnetizes. That is, if you keep it long enough to a magnet it will be just as magnetic as the magnet. In fact you will be able to pick up a nail without the aid of a magnet with one of those nails. If you try the same number with iron you will notice that the same effect does not happen, as iron demagnetizes quickly once it is not near to a magnet.
[/quote]

OHH ! Thanks very much for explaining those two basics to me.. and some other readers.

[sepulchrave]

lightlyy, on 04 November 2009 - 07:30 AM, said:

The Physical ,ROTATIONAL POLES are not going to shift... (the earth flipping upside down)
... just to clarify that this topic is about MAGNETIC POLE SHIFT (earth's magnetic field polarity reversal).
Question tho... everyone talks about THE pole wandering.. does THE other MAGNETIC POLE ,located in the south, wander as well ? i would guess that it might 'wander' in DIRECT CORRELATION to it's northern counterpoint and remain exactly opposite of the magnetic pole? ,located in the north ??
if not... I'd think that would create instability .... Un balance in the magnetic field ??

The south magnetic pole wanders just as the north magnetic pole does. However the motion of the south magnetic pole in relation to the south rotational pole is NOT correlated to the motion of the north magnetic pole in relation to the north rotational pole (see, for example, the wiki).

To make things even MORE confusing, there is also a north (and south) GEOMAGNETIC pole.

To put it simply:

• The north and south rotational poles are the points on the surface of the earth with 0 rotational velocity. In other words, if you drew a straight line in at one pole, through the interior of the earth, and out at the other pole the earth would rotate around that line. This line goes directly through the centre of the earth, and pretty much always has, and always will (barring some absolutely massive collision with another object).
  
• The north and south magnetic poles are the points on the surface of the earth where the earth's intrinsic magnetic field points straight up or down. In other words, if you had a compass at one of these points it would try to point straight up (or down). If you drew a straight line through the interior of the earth connecting these two points, the line would NOT go through the centre of the earth (well, it wouldn't go through the centre right now. There is no reason why it hasn't in the past or couldn't in the future). This DOES create magnetic instabilities, and probably is one of the reasons why the magnetic poles wander around. I suspect the geographical irregularities of the earth's surface are to blame for this effect.
  
• The north and south geomagnetic poles are the points on the surface that best approximate the earth's magnetic field as the field of a bar magnet. The earth's magnetic field is actually not a perfect dipole, so these points are not very physically relevant.

[lakeview rud]

Hi folks, I must admit that there's a lot of speculation in what I've posted. What's relevant (or fact) is that the earth has a molten section(I think the center is considered solid) and then a solid surface as its outer layer. The molten iron generates a magnetic field which of course has what we call north and south poles. For some reason the magnetic poles don't occur where what's called true north and south are. The force necessary to get the outer layer to move relative to the molten layer has got to be enormous. I don't know what the mathematics/physics of all this might be. (Any math whizzes out there?)
I will ask if the weight of all the ice that was generated during the last ice age would be considered sufficient to effect a movement of the outer layer. (Figure that the oceans were maybe 200 feet plus lower thruout the worlds oceans than they are now and that the ice was not evenly distributed with a pretty good percentage being on the North American continent as compared to other locations.)

[ninjadude]

lakeview rud, on 06 November 2009 - 07:50 PM, said:

I will ask if the weight of all the ice that was generated during the last ice age would be considered sufficient to effect a movement of the outer layer. (Figure that the oceans were maybe 200 feet plus lower thruout the worlds oceans than they are now and that the ice was not evenly distributed with a pretty good percentage being on the North American continent as compared to other locations.)

yes. Even as global warming continues to melt ice fields and glaciers, the land is even now rebounding upward.

[The Hippy Viking]

"global warming" is pole ****, the poler ice caps will melt and reform in another part of the world

[ninjadude]

The Hippy Viking, on 06 November 2009 - 11:42 PM, said:

"global warming" is pole ****, the poler ice caps will melt and reform in another part of the world

no, the two are unrelated. And they're not going to reform somewhere else either.