DOES GAUSSIAN EFFECT/AFFECT PLANETARY SPIN?

Two years ago, I had posted some musings on planetary spin and magnetic planetary readings, which I will show below. This early effort really yielded nothing of special value, in retrospect, but now that there had been some relationship shown between a planet's black-body heat and the total orbital energy within which it orbits the Sun, I thought it may be time to revisit this notion of planetary magnetic fields versus their spin.*

Michael Stransky, in his posts at "Does Modern Physics really need Rethinking-2" had shown some evidence of this relationship, numerically, though theory at this point is still only formative. It is presently understood that the planetary, and stellar, magnetic fields are the result of a so-called 'dynamo effect' with central iron cores responsible for magnetic fields. However, this somehow seems off track when it comes to the giant gas planets, and makes little sense for hot star interiors, so this is a theory very much in need of revision. For example, how does the Currie temperature effect affect magnetism in very hot bodies? At present, I have no theory to counter our current notions on planetary and stellar magnetic fields, except to think that there may be some other mechanism at work which combines both spin and magnetism, though for now it is only a guess.

So I start this thread for all who would like to contribute their ideas on how we can better approach the problem of why some planets and stars have strong magnetic fields, while others do not, and perhaps even venture into why black-holes have evidence of magnetic fields. For example, how do so-called neutron stars stack up in regards to magnetic fields, with their immense spin? Does a galaxy have a magnetic field, in the sense that it is a product of electromagnetic forces? Or, can a cold planetary body with spin, such as Pluto, have a magnetic field? Why is Mars's field so weak, or Venus's? All interesting questions to ponder. Anyone with ideas on this, please feel free to express them here for all of us to see, if you wish.

This below is what was posted back in December 28, 2002, Atomus Summus-pps/Planetary Magnetism, random thoughts:

By Ivan A. on Saturday, December 28, 2002 - 11:11 am:

PLANETARY MAGNETISM, random thoughts:

In the above, I listed some calculations of what I call Spin Ratios (SR) for the planets. What became apparent in readings on planetary magnetism is that there seems to be some correlation between SR and Magnetic intensity, as measure by the Dipole Moment. Here is how these look:

Rocky planets:

Earth: Spin Ratio = 5.9 =>> Dipole M = 7.8e^15 (Tm^3)
Mercury: SR = 85.7 =>> DM = 3e^12 -??
Venus: SR = 4.4(?) =>> DM = 8e^10 -??
Mars: SR = 1.67 =>> DM = 1e^11
Pluto: SR = 0.19 =>> DM = ??

Gas Giants:

Jupiter: SR = 752 =>> DM = 1.56e^20 (very high!)
Saturn: SR = 526 =>> DM = 4.72e^18
Uranus: SR = 95 =>> DM = 3.83e^17
Neptune: SR = 93.5 =>> DM = 2.16e^17

Sun: SR = 71,428 =>> DM = ???

What this shows at a glance is that there is a relationship between relative spin and magnetism, which may be the main reason why the "dynamo theory" of planetary magnetism has such appeal. Also obvious is that the ratios of spin to magnetism are more in tune with the gas giants, less so with rocky planets, which may be explained by the gas giants being in a cooler "gravity density" field away from the Sun, whereas the smaller planets are closer in within a "hot" field; the two fields may in fact have different energy dynamics. However, there may be another reason, given the new concept of "gravity density" within an "energy density", that the magnetic fields are products of the mini black hole present within any body radiating internal heat or radioactive decay energy, since these in cancelling out the wave lambda at their centers create conditions for such a super massive center. The more heat vs gravity density differential, the geater the min-black-hole, hence spin. Can it be that this mini-black-hole effect generates a magnetic field? For example, why else would there be a magnetic field emanating from the galactic center, since the "dynamo" effect could not operate there? Certainly not a nickel iron core! So instead this leaves open an opportunity to see planetary, and solar and galactic, magnetic fields, as a function of super gravity, which would also open the door for seeing it this way inside an atom.

The studies on cosmic magnetism are many and often fraught with controversial and fancy ideas, which lead to a kind of intellectual "noise", but it is all very interesting, if not totally puzzling. Any ideas on what causes this kind of magnetism? Could the electrons ejected from black hole centers along their axis be responsible in some way? Opening the doors for new thoughts...

Some Magnetic pages:
http://www.aip.de/~cfendt/jet_t.html
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/beamline/26/1/26-1-trimble.pdf
ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/pressrel/1997/97-256.txt

Magnetohydrodynamic Dynamo Theory: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node69.html

This short paper has some interesting points, in particular that the current ferromagnetic dynamo theory is little understood. It says in part, for example:

---

Quote:

Even the ``solid'' planets could not possibly be sufficiently ferromagnetic to account for their magnetism, since the bulk of their interiors are above the Curie temperature at which permanent magnetism disappears. It goes without saying that stars and galaxies cannot be ferromagnetic at all.

---

Very interesting from that first link you posted
The whole link was great.

"In fact, more extensive data shows that the Earth's magnetic field reverses polarity about once every ohmic decay time-scale (i.e., a few times every million years). The Sun's magnetic field exhibits similar behavior, reversing polarity about once every 11 years."-http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node69.html

This I will have to think about, in the manner that earth does not change so suddenly, and the Sun is more susceptible to more frequent changes. That might make more sense to me that it is a background force, which when I tried to base all planets from the M1 they were around. I was able to achieve a straight mathematical slope due known gauss and planet profiles, but it always seemed to drop off at the gas giants and leveled off to a new line. This makes me wonder now, not to use the sun at all because if the sun is due to change more often, while the earth stays more stable. I wonder this, does more dense bodies vs. Gas like bodies differ in this way.

If a background field induces on all the bodies, and when more slight changes (fluctuations happen) they are felt more on gas like bodies.

SOME UNANSWERED QUESTIONS:

Why are all the planets in a flat plane around the Sun, except for Pluto which is off the plane?

What is gravity, or magnetism, like off this plane, either above or below it?

Had we ever sent a probe outside of the flat plane to see what dynamics exist there?

I ask these questions because I do not know the answers to them. It could be that if gravity-magnetism dynamics are different out there outside the plane, though Pluto and some comets may inhabit those regions, then eventually they are flattened out into the solar plane of planets and asteroids? Could it be that Pluto is really a Kuiper Belt object captured by the Sun's gravity, which explains its odd orbit?

Ivan

Some suggest That pluto may have been a moon around Neptune which was struck by an object. after that it or the Contact hit, which might explaine why it crosses the orbit of Neptune and has a very odd orbit and data makeup profile. I am curious if Pluto may hold similiar profiles as other Neptune moons (profile makeups)

PLUTO'S ORBIT, EARTH'S MANTLE, and More Unanswered Questions:

Yes, Michael, I think your answer is the better one, that Pluto was likely one of Neptune's moons sent out of orbit, so that it settled into an orbit of its own around the Sun.

I have another 'unanswered question' regarding Earth's spin: What would the Gaussian effect be if Earth had virtually no spin, that is its spin was once around its orbit? Likewise, what would the Newton's gravitational constant G be if Earth had no spin?

I suspect the latter can be calculated, or had been calculated, since we can figure what is the centrifugal force effect on the Earth's surface, and then work it backwards to figure G. I would suspect it should be greater than the 6.67e-11 Nm^2 now measured, but don't know exactly how much. I can't guess what the Gaussian effect would be, or whether or not Earth would still have a magnetic field if there was no spin. The current thinking, being based on the so-called 'dynamo effect' of the Earth's iron core, would say that there would be no magnetic field. However, I am not convinced this is true. For that matter, I am not convinced the Earth has an iron core either, since the mass density there is difficult to measure using inner mantle seismic waves, since they tend to deflect off the mantle core. Some form of anisotropy is evident in this mantle region, though at present still little understood. Does this anisotropy have a shape, for example? These anomalies may have led to earlier 'hollow Earth' ideas, thought not generally believed anymore. Can this center be something else, maybe a gravitational center still not theorized? Does the Earth's molten core spin more rapidly than the surface mantle region? And if it did, what could cause that? Can we find the same core effect on other planets, such as the gas giants?

Also, there seems to be a slow wobling of the Earth's axis, which may have magnetic consequences, and which may originate in the core-rigidity zones. Here is a possible mantle-core boundary. Then thinking about it, if the Earth's gravity at the core is nearly self canceling, then a 'hollow' effect might occur there, even a vacuum of sorts?

I tend towards there being a miniature micro-black-hole at each hot planet's center, but really have no way of knowing if true given today's scientific knowledge, need more observable data. I'd love to know what the core-mantle boundary looks like.

Too many questions! No real answers... But here's one that may keep you up at night: Is This What Killed The Dinosaurs?

Ivan

Hi Michael,

Your GM = Rv^2 reminded me of something tonight, while I was walking the dogs on the beach under a starless sky. It reminded me that when I worked out the total orbital Energy for the planets: E = solar radiance x distance (which is R) x (planet's orbital kinetic Energy) which is Ek = 1/2 mv^2, I was actually doing: E = solar rad*R*1/2mv^2, where little m=1 in the original.

You'll note that, because GM = Rv^2, this is actually the same as:

E = 1/2 GMm * (solar radiance)

... just substituting Rv^2 with GM. Since the Rv^2 is already part of the GM, it drops out.

I think this is cool, so will go back into your posts on other threads and see if I can identify where yours matches up with this new E = 1/2GMm*solar rad, equation, where little m=1. In particular, I'll be paying special attention how you handled the GM part of the equation, which is also Rv^2.

I'm not sure yet, but I think you might have found another way to express both GM and Solar Rad. in using your math. Will check it out some more, stay tuned.

Ivan

Yes and also in a form of energy,
K= 1/2*m*v^2 = GMm / r^2

I see what I want to say in my mind, but will think how to express it into words.
These formulas and how I was expressing the
sqrt of (Mass1).

Well also look at my post on Zero Gravity Energy I made about Friction of forces.

Hello again Michael,

Well, I despair. In trying to match the left and right sides of:

GM = Rv^2,

I get a left side that is 3X the right, so not working, though in principle this is a good equation.

I also tried matching my original version of total orbital Energy with the new one:

E = (solar radiance) x (distance) x (1/2 mv^2) = 9.07e16 W, and

E' = 1/2 GM * (solar radiance) = 27.23e16 W

but the resulting E' is 3X more than original E =9e16 W, not unexpected, of course, as per above.

Same with using your GM/R^2 = E(kinetic) :

E" = (solar radiance) x (distance) (GM/R^2) = 36.4e16, which is 4X times the original E.

So what's the story here? We're getting all kinds of different readings for different expressions of the same orbital E? Can M be wrong?

I'd like to see actual computations of how JPL figures our planetary orbits and spaceprobe trajectories. Do they have standardized numbers to work with? Are there 'fudge' factors, or in flight 'adjustments' made?

For the record, I used:

G = 6.67e-11 Nm^2kg^-2
M = 5.97e24 kg (can this possibly be wrong?)
Earth's mean orbital v = 29.78 km.s^-1
v^2 = 886.85 km^2.s^-2
Earth's mean d from Sun = 149e9 meters, or
d = R =1.49e11 km
solar radiance = 1367.6 W.m^-2
m = 1 (kg/kg, dimensionless)

So I despair in figuring it for now, need more info. Do you have better calculations for these? As you know, I am prone to mistakes.

Cheers, Ivan

Hmmm??

E = (solar radiance) x (distance) x (1/2 mv^2) = 9.07e16 W, and

Solar radiance from the sun?
Times distance?


"Due to the temperature variations along Mars, the range for their values has been estimated in several works. While earth’s temperature ranges from 184 K (-89.15 C) to 331 K (57.85 C), Mars’ values lie between 133 K (-140 C) and 293 K (19.85 C). To understand how the Martian average temperature is so low, it must be considered that solar irradiance is only 589.2 W/m2 compared to the earth’s, which is about 1367.6 W/m2. Nothing can be done to alter the solar radiance of Mars since this is solely determined by Mars’ distance from the Sun."-http://www.scs.gmu.edu/~msalvado/csi801proj/mar4v3.html

I wonder if we have to come up with a liner line from Solar rad vs distance. As distance increase Solar rad must decrease.

Because in
E" = (solar radiance) x (distance) (GM/R^2) = 36.4e16, which is 4X times the original E.
Solar rad is being Multipled with Disatnce, which should hold true that it would be balance as distance gets > and Solar rad also< , should have a somewhat balance in a number like an inner planet compared to an outer planet. So far this makes sense to me.

Now by taking the that GM/R^2 an have it multiplied by R^2 again, which is twice now orlooked at (Solar Rad * R) * R^2 * GM =

You have R^3 * GM * Solar rad. like 3x into it.

Wel I get your drift, I am at work at it but, I seen something of my own thought, I am getting that Spin Guass ratio into it, a thought came to me how solar flares effect the planet belts as if the expaned then or shrink them, like so. I would aslo if there was an effect to been seen in it that way. I will let you know later what I come up with.

Ok this is what my computer spread sheet spit out!!

Look at how Solar rad distance and Velocity act

Distance > as Velocity <

And as Distance > Solar rad <

Solar rad mimicks Velocity as a mathimatical Slope

---------
say like the merc an its solar rad of 9126.6

Take the sqrt(Distance)/Velocity
sqrt of merc distance
divided by merc velocity
240644.9667 / 47870 meters sec velocity
=5.027051738

then times it by the
Sqrt of Solar rad of merc 95.53324029

and get 480? and it is for every planet with the sun as its M1

heres my numbers
(sqrt( r )/ v)*sqrt(solar rad)=480 m2 Name
480.2505416 Mercury
480.2441034 Venus
480.308917 Earth
708.7541288 moon
480.2476687 Mars
351.1536139 astriod
479.7543643 Jupiter
476.9498869 Saturn
479.3655697 Uranius
479.7957433 Neptune
484.2386804 Pluto

Note the proper vaules for astoriods are not given so its not quite 480, and the Moon does not have Sol as it M1 because Earth is it M1.
I will have to think about that, but what theis shows I am not sure?
It may just be numbers, but I thought to share it.

So get this...without srqting....

Even by taking any profile

distance/v^2*solar rad= 230640.5827
about 231000.

This is like a liner value like r*v^2= k around M1

allthough it is not the same number, Put I have a k factor for Solar raditaince of our sun, and m2's Velocity and distance from the heat source.

I am still looking into it more, I dont want to ramble to much about how the raotational spins are now matching for each planets, but I have to check the math first!!

I hope this is it!!!

just a glimpse, I had that 480

and with spins I have a multiplier of 3 and also 4 , what struck me odd was that 480/4 = 120
and that 120 *3 is 360

and we all know how 360 converting to Pi is twice the number.

Well thats where my thoughts are and going over the math sheet linking the equations.

I hope to have it posted soon

So far as a conclusion....

I have a solar rad of energy force
giong from point a to b over distance
adn
Velocity force over coming Gravity pull
from point b to point a over distance

and the 480 ? means what?

also the 3 and 4 multipliers as in my equations of G.

like 4/3 or 3/4
like (2*pi*G/3) or (3/2*pi*G) but it also had p'*Radius *[2]

I hope you can see that 2*2 gets the 4 and the 3 is 3.
Anyway.....
3/2=1.5
like so
480*1.5=720 wow my notorius 7.2 comes up again
but 720 from rad's and degrees like so
720/2=360

So my sheets are showing good trends with Frequency of rotational spins, you known how to convert secs of rotion then 1/x=ferq of rotation.
I may be awhile till I computate all the numbers but we will see what happens, trying to tie in that thought of magnetic lines of force and rotational spin.

Michael, I am standing by and app-lauding!!

Ivan :-))

Ok for now this is real rough for a M1 that gives out heat. to it m2

for earth
23981140.9 = (1/sqrt(solar rad w/m))*v^2
this 23981140.9 is roughly the same for every
m2 around Sol
c/23981140.9= about 12.49 then /pi=3.979247847

I am not sure about that yet, or how to take it?
but maybe you could use that in a liner line for your equation Ivan? How Solar radience, distances, velocity and G work in your A-x equation? so for the sun you have Rad and vel balanced, now see if G and distance do anything?

But I dont think it will work on a cold M1 with a m2 around it like the moon around Earth.

But it is intresting that many magnetic feild formulas with 4*pi in it and such, to view it like Solar rad and fields which travels at c, from the heat/light source.

I wish I had data on other stars and there m2 to run it on them as well.

Dont worry!!! I am still looking at other stuff with rotations still, I am not sure I will have something tonight, but maybe before the morning.

well I am on it again, just sharing this link to go with what I am saying
http://www.astro.phys.ethz.ch/research/fligge/paleo_nf.html

and this one
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v6_edit/v6n36edit.htm

And last
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/weather.html

So from these, Solar irradiance (sorry I was calling it solar rad)can drift up or down?
Which cause many changes in electronics and magnatism, they say we little ice ages and midevil warm spells from time to time.
If earths can get some global warming do to these, this means that weather changes.
Ok, if this is so, then when the sun also falls below normal then even other planets must feel such changes. Take a gas giant for a try, if the sun produces a higher level, heating up the mean atmosphere of it, would it not see such changes?
I think so.

and my thought on Fiction of forces, why not if the sun has a higher activity, that the other planets have similair outcomes. Many planets have magnetic fields, and just like a wire with 1 amp on it, if heated it draws more amps.

As planets get Hotter they draw more substance from the source bodies fields.

take a look at this
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html
note the cycles of flares, fact that it is a cycle. and they have magnetic flares.

Well Ivan, so with just these facts, All these forces happan at the same time, they can all change, maybe not by much, but they do.
I hope the numbers will show cause and effect.
We will see.

WHAT EXACTLY DOES "Em/Bm = c" MEAN?

I'm still stuck on this one, since it happens to also be a part of the Axiomatic Equation in how reads: E = Em * c = (Bm)c^2

What puzzles me is that Bm works out to be approximately =~1 for E = 90 petajoules. But what happens to Bm when E is less, or more, than that?

Is the magnetic moment Bm a net amount? If it is, can it be broken down further, for example? In other words, is there a ratio, or equation, that defines Bm under different energy conditions? Here's an example: Magnetic 'bubble' in distant galaxy. Also, as for so-called Neutron stars, they generate immense magnetic energy: Scientists have found a type of star, around which is the strongest magnetic field ever observed in the universe. This says:

---

Quote:

"Astronomers suspected that such titanic energies were
associated with the intense gravity of a neutron star. "

---

THE AXIOMATIC'S Bm MAGNETIC MOMENT AT E = MC^3.

This is another consideration regarding E = mc^3, as posted today on "Does gravity Zero-point Energy Explain Spin", where gravity is explored, that the magnetic moment on the hottest surface of the Sun is likewise affected:

if E = Em*c = (Bm)c^2, but if E = mc^3, then we get:

E*c = mc^3 = Em*c*c = (Bm*c)c^2.

However, per Maxwell's equation, Bm*c is the same as Em, its electric force, so that at the hottest regions of the Sun, magnetism is turned into electric force. Equally is Bm at its greatest potential when E is maximum.

Can this be partially responsible for the great force which sends off the solar wind, that it is launched with an electric force?

Ivan

TITAN pix and sounds:

These are the Sounds of Titan, with first images here.

Wow!

MORE STRANGE NEWS ON SMALL BODY ATMOSPHERE: ENCELADUS.

I'm amazed at the explanations given for why this small Saturnian moon, only 500 km across, about the size of Arizona, and so much smaller than our Moon, can have an atmosphere in a universal constant Newton's G. Does it not make so much more sense if G near Saturn is ten times what it is here on Earth? Then an atmosphere is not such strange news.

Also very fascinating that this tiny moon has an electromagnetic field, as per this NewScientis article.

Ivan

MERCURY-SUN MOMENT OF INERTIA RELATIONSHIP? -- a curiosity only.

If we take the Sun's equatorial moment of inertia as a 'solid sphere' represented by the equation:

I = 2/5 MR^2, were I is the moment of inertia, M = 2E+30 kg as the Sun's mass, R^2 as radius squared, where R = 6.96E+8 m (6.96E+10 cm),

then we can calculate this as I_S = 3.875E+47 kg m^2

Now, how can this moment of inertia from the Sun's equatorial spin be transferred at a distance, using the inverse square law, to the orbital motion of Mercury?

1) Possible solution, in search of:
Taking the Sun's equatorial velocity of 609.12 (Earth hours) per day rotation, translates into a velocity of:

v_S_equator = 2pr/ t = 2(3.1416)(6.96E+8 m) / (609.12 * 3600 s) =

v_S_eq = 4.373E+9 m/ 2.1928E+6 s = 1.99E+3 m/s

So, taking the Sun's equatorial moment of inertia times its velocity, we get:

I* v_{Sun equat} = 3.875E+47 kg m^2 * 1.99E+3 m s^-1 = 7.711E+50 kg m^3 s^-1

2) Now to transfer this to Mercury's perihelian orbital velocity:
Mercury's perihelian distance from the Sun, R_perih = 46.0E+9 m
Merc's perihel velocity, v = 58.98E+3 m s^-1
Inverse square law for Merc's distance from Sun, I_d^2 = I_v/ R^2

I/d^2 = (7.711E+50 kg m^3 s^-1)/ (46.0E+9 m)^2 = (7.711E+50 kg m^3 s^-1)/ 2.116E+21 m^2, so we get:

I_d^2 = 3.644E+29 kg m s^-1, which is the inertial moment of the Sun's spin transferred over to Mercury's orbit.

3) What does this represent for Mercury?
Mercury's mass, m = 0.33E+24 kg
Merc's perhil velocity, v = 58.98E+3 m s^-1
KE = 1/2 m v^2 (where v^2 = 3.4786E+9 m^2 s^-2)

So taking KE/ I_d^2 = Merc's kinetic energy divided by Sun's spin moment of inertia (as adjusted per inverse square law for distance), so it becomes the velocity differential for Mercury's orbit:

delta V = [1/2 (0.33E+24 kg) (58.98E+3 m s^-1)^2] / (3.644E+29 kg m s^-1) = (0.165E+24 kg)(3.4786E+9 m^2 s^-2)/ (3.644E+29 kg m s^-1) = (0.574E+33 m^2 kg s^-2)/ (3.644E+29 kg m s^-1) = 0.1575E+4 m s^-1

So this value of Mercury's orbital kinetic energy divided by the Sun's equatorial spin moment of inertia, divided by the square of the distance for Mercury at its perihelion, gives us the transfer of the Sun's spin onto Mercury's orbital velocity. This transfer, represented as:

KE/I_d^2= deltaV = 0.1575E+4 m s^-1 or = 1.575 km s^-1 (vs. perih velocity, v = 58.98 km s^-1), or = 5670 km/hr.

This 'advance' is only at its perihelion, which means that Mercury's orbital velocity should advance by this amount when in that perihelion range. A similar effect should actually be evident for Mercury's full orbit, and all the planets, in a much more diluted form, so that the Sun's spin moment of inertia is weakened with distance by this inverse square law. On the outlying planets it should be negligible, though at Mercury's closest pass to the Sun, it is measurable.

(Is it true? I don't know, don't even know if the numbers are right, don't know if this resembles anything valid at all. So I leave it here only as a note, a curiosity, something done while bored one Saturday morning., though it kinda feels right. But really have no idea...)

I call this a 'curiosity only' because I do not know if the above equation for angular moment of inertia is right for the Sun. It may instead be treated as a 'hollow' sphere*, which would change the inertia transfer effect; there may also be another effect due to the Sun's very strong radiant energy at its hottest portion of the corona, which would moderate this effect further (if inertial mass is lower still), so a lot of unknowns. This includes what is Mercury's real mass in terms of local G, what is the Sun's real inertial mass at the equatorial spin, and what effect on Mercury's orbit is represented by this inertial transfer. For example, is the velocity of Mercury without inertial transfer actually slower than measured, but adjusted faster because of it? These all represent unknowns. Lastly, can this methodology be appkied to all heavenly bodies, such as our Moon relative to Earth's spin?

I just leave it here as a curious note of perhaps what happens to Mercury at its perihelion. This might also affect how Mercury precesses at its perihelion... perhaps?

*(Nasa data has Sun's moment of inertia (I/MR^2) as 0.059.)

Ivan

Is this a Brown Dwarf or an Exoplanet?

At 2000K, this could be a borderline brown dwarf, not exoplanet. At 2.5 times distance of Pluto, it's way out there. Magnetic field, gravity, mass, would give a better clue. I'm skeptical.

Skep

Reprint on Magnetic Pole Reversals, from "Does Gravity need Rethinking" thread, today's post:

EARTH'S MAGNETIC FIELD REVERSAL

This is a followup to a post on the Bad Astronomy's "General Astronomy" forum, regarding Earth's core spins faster than surface discussion.

---

Quote:

When I read the article, if the Earth's core is really spinning ahead of the planet, three possibilities came to mind as to why it is so:

1. the core is denser and heavier, so gravitational centripetal force is greater;
2. drag from the outside in, starting with atmospheric drag, slows the outer portion of the planet;
3. Earth's core sports a mini-micro-black-hole, so more gravity concentrated there, causing slightly accelerated spin.

The first two may be cause, but they are not strong arguments. The last may be possible, but outside current scientific knowledge.

---

If #3 is right, that Earth's core has a micro-black-hole at its center which generates a magnetic field for the planet (and is not due to so called dynamo effect), then periodic magnetic pole reversals make sense. This would be guided by convections of hot magma within the planet's interior, dependent upon the direction of the overall convections in the aggregate. This same process would be at work inside the Sun, so Sun's magnetic field reversals would work the same way, except being hotter and more dynamic, it would do so more frequently. This would likewise imply the Sun has a mini-black-hole at its core.

The reason for magnetic polar periodic reversals is due to the aggregate direction of the convecting flow in the interior. If you took a cross section of the Earth's, or Sun's, equator looking down from the pole, it would appear as if the convection currents are all aligned in the aggregate in one direction. This would be analogous to how liquids convect when at a boil, so individual cells of liquid convect, but in some aggregate overall direction. Let's say, seen as a cross section looking down from the pole, they're convecting clockwise. But over time these currents slowly migrate, in the aggregate, so that their direction shifts gradually. Now looking down from the poles, they would appear directionless. In fact, they would be convecting top over end, so only appear directionless from the poles. This would be the time the magnetic field would be at its ebb, at perhaps only 10 percent of its normal force. Then as this convection slowly migrates further, again looking down from the poles, the aggregate would appear to be convection counter-clockwise. In this case, the magnetic field would have reversed. This effect, which happens about every 11 years in the Sun, and about every 10,000 years on Earth, is a natural phenomenon, yet not exactly chaotic, if the magnetic field is independent of the so called dynamo effect. Conversely, if it were the dynamo effect, then there should never be any change in the magnetic field's direction. So in this case, a micro-black-hole at the planet's, or star's, center makes more sense. It would also explain why these bodies spin continuously, and also why the Sun's equator spins faster than it higher latitudes.

The question that follows naturally is: by what process do these aggregate convections change direction? Does the whole body act in some sort of "capacitor" effect, so when the charge builds up too much in one direction, it gradually shifts it back? Unknowns for now...