Hi UM Team,
Fortunately, I posted an entire article, entitled “Don’t Let the Core Fall Out: Nitpicking Earth’s Magnetic Field” that addresses several of the points you brought up. I’m not bothering to link it here, because all the other times I’ve tried to link my blog from here, the moderator has either deleted the post or removed the link. So Google it, I guess.
Anyway, most of your reply doesn’t have much to do with the topic I brought up, because the topic was NOT your ideas about piezoelectricity. (I don’t mind addressing that at some point, but can we please clear this one up, first?) It was about whether your characterization and criticism of the standard geological theory about the Earth’s magnetic field are demonstrably false. Here are a few quick replies to your points that seemed nominally relevant.
Moreover, you apparently dismissed or disregarded science’s most famous icon, Einstein, when he expresses concern about the “problem” surrounding the origin of the Earth’s energy field found on p115 of the UM and cited here:
“In more modern times Einstein, shortly after writing his special relativity paper in 1905, described the problem of the origin of the Earth’s magnetic field as being one of the most important unsolved problems in physics.”
Personally, I didn’t feel any overwhelming urge to respond to this, because Einstein said it over 100 years ago. So what? You go on:
So what do scientists believe causes the Earth’s energy field? You left out of your “competent” critique the UM quote on p115 from the article, Probing the Geodynamo in Scientific American which states:
“But how well do the geodynamo models capture the dynamo as it actually exists in the earth? The truth is that no one knows for certain.”
How could anyone “know for certain” whether a model of the deep Earth is correct without some way of going there to test the model directly? (For people who criticize scientists so much for “teaching theories as fact,” you sure quote them a lot saying the opposite.) And the author goes on to say that the main problem with computer simulations of the geodynamo is that supercomputers aren’t yet fast enough to properly simulate turbulence in the fluid flow on a small enough scale. Again… so what? For now, it appears the theory is at least physically plausible.
So neither you nor anyone else knows for certain the cause of the Earth’s energy field and you have left out a simple fact that every electrical engineer knows; heating a magnetic-field-creating object (such as the Earth) destroys its magnetism! So you are right Barry, “magnetism is destroyed by heat” in the hot core pseudotheory of the magmaplanet Earth.
I think you are confusing Dean Sessions with me. I said that only permanent ferromagnetism is destroyed by heat. If you doubt that, please read the Wikipedia article on the “Curie Temperature,” which says, “In physics and materials science, the Curie temperature (Tc), or Curie point, is the temperature at which certain materials lose their permanent magnetic properties, to be replaced by induced magnetism.”
By the way, if heat destroys all magnetism, then how can the Sun have a magnetic field? Do you think it has an ice core, too?
Why have dozens of engineers who have read this chapter, who work with energy fields and heat understood this and you have not? Where does the UM say that the Earth has a permanent ferromagnetic magma core? We quote on p114 exactly what the typical modern geology textbook says about the creation of the so-called magnetic field:
“The magnetic field is created by the flow of molten iron inside the Earth’s core.” (Note 5.12a p114 of UM)
Exactly. Either 1) you don’t understand that geologists don’t think the Earth is a permanent ferromagnet, or 2) you don’t understand that permanent ferromagnetism is the only kind of magnetism destroyed by heat. So which is it?
As far as your engineers go, I don’t know them, so I can’t address the reasons for their oversight.
Your second challenge states that “scientists do NOT believe… the cause of the Earth’s magnetic field” is permanent ferromagnetism (a permanent iron type magnet) and you therefore imply that the UM’s following statement is incorrect:
“a ‘permanent’ magnet’s energy field does not change or oscillate” (p. 117).
However, the UM never says that there is a magnet or any energy producing object in the core. But this is what modern science has portrayed with the following example quoted from the popular Understanding Earth college geology textbook on p116 in the UM stating:
“Earth’s magnetic field behaves as if a small but powerful permanent bar magnet were located near the center of the Earth…”
So the answer is that you don’t understand that permanent ferromagnetism is the only kind of magnetism destroyed by heat. Thanks for clearing that up. Also, I gather you are saying that your statement about how a permanent magnet’s field does not change or oscillate doesn’t prove anything about any actual geological theory. You just brought it up to prove that a theory nobody actually advocates can’t be true.