The Earth's Magnetic Field

Home Forums General Discussion The Earth's Magnetic Field

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #30974
    Barry
    Participant

    In the UM, the two main arguments against the standard theory about how the Earth’s magnetic field is generated are 1) magnetism is destroyed by heat, so we can’t have both a hot core and a magnetic core, and 2) the Earth’s magnetic field is moves and oscillates around.

    “The existence of the Earth’s magnetic field provides us simple, yet powerful evidence that the magma model is incorrect. Why? Heat destroys magnetism” (p. 115)

    “a ‘permanent’ magnet’s energy field does not change or oscillate” (p. 117).

    The problem is that both of these arguments only apply to permanent ferromagnetism, which scientists do NOT believe is the cause of the Earth’s magnetic field. They do not apply to the standard “dynamo theory”, which involves electromagnetism.

    So why does Dean Sessions argue against positions that no scientists actually hold?

    #30975
    Barry
    Participant

    P.S. The UM Team has been pretty quiet for a while, now. Why? I don’t feel like I’m persecuting you, or anything, so why not engage with someone willing to give you competent critiques?

    #31216
    Courtney SnellCourtney Snell
    Moderator

    Barry, I don’t want to hurt your feelings, but I don’t think you are the UM’s number one priority. There are still two volumes to finish writing and to produce.

    #31228
    UM TeamUM Team
    Moderator

    Barry,

    With all due respect, your reply in this post shows a chronic unfamiliarity with the UM material which is not surprising given its very recent public debut. To correctly understand the UM and, as you say, “competently” comprehend subchapter 5.12, Earth’s Magnetic Pseudotheory, you must first read all the previous subchapters and chapters of the book. In addition, it would be helpful for you to realize that the Pseudotheory chapters generally only demonstrate what is wrong with the theories of modern geology. Answers to questions raised in subchapter 5.12 are found in the Model chapters and in the Weather Model (Chapter 9), we find subchapters 9.5-9.7 explaining the origin of the Earth’s energy field – called the Geofield in the UM. We hope you will look at these new discoveries and see for yourself a much clearer description of the Earth’s energy field and how and why it is generated, which differs significantly from that proposed by modern science.

    The purpose of this forum is for students, readers and critics alike to articulate concerns and/or questions regarding the UM, we feel the forum is serving that purpose. Addressing your concerns has been a productive exchange, however,other than asserting that UM is inconsistent with modern scientific theory, you have yet to present any real evidence that the UM’s discoveries are demonstrably false. From our perspective, you continue to raise the same issues, that we have already addressed in the book and on this forum. All we ask is that you take the time to finish reading Volume I so that you can, “competently” frame your questions and/or find the answers which are in the Model chapters.

    Your original post “The Earth’s Magnetic Field”, illustrates a lack of understanding both of what modern science proclaims in its collective textbooks and what the UM has discovered and demonstrated in the Model chapters about the Earth’s energy field. You probably didn’t have time to fully read these topics and this is understandable. The UM explains (subchapters 9.5-9.7) that the energy field around the Earth is not generated from a magma core and is not a ‘magnetic field’ per se but is associated with a piezoelectric field generated by the constant daily Earthtide and cyclical movement of the crust; it is a quartz-generated electric field. You seem to have chosen to ignore(?) this evidence, or you simply have not taken the time to read all of the content that you are criticizing.

    In this example, you state that the UM has “two main arguments” against the standard theory of modern science about how the Earth’s magnetic field is generated, but this is incorrect. Each subchapter in the UM is divided into sub-subchapters, and the bolded header of each of ‘sub-sub’ is easily discernible. Subchapter 5.12, Earth’s Magnetic Field Pseudotheory has 6 such sub-subs, each with its own evidences refuting the idea that the Earth’s energy field comes from a molten iron core. Moreover, subchapters 9.5-9.7 contain 32 sub-subs providing specific answers and evidence about where the Earth’s energy field originates. If you aim to complete a “competent” evaluation of the UM versus modern science theory of the energy field, you cannot ignore any of these 38 sections with their new discoveries and associated evidence and simply cherry pick two areas that do not agree with conventional modern science.

    Moreover, you apparently dismissed or disregarded science’s most famous icon, Einstein, when he expressed 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.”

    Did you know, for example, that the “standard theory” as you state it, has “important unsolved problems?” Most scientists we talked to have either ignored these problems or did not know they existed because there is NO answer or experiment in today’s modern science that demonstrates how the Earth’s energy field could come from a molten core. It comes as no surprise, therefore, that you hold the origin of the Earth’s energy field to be a “standard theory,” because most of modern science accepts this theory as fact even though there is no science to back it up. There are dozens of theories in geology today that come from this same philosophical origin, that being the false theory of a magmaplanet Earth.

    The UM states, “Any theory or model proposed to explain the geology of inner Earth must include an explanation of Earth’s energy field. Incorrect theories are difficult and ultimately impossible to combine with each other because of the disconnect that exists between the ideas. However, truth is easily connected. This is the beauty and universality of truth.” (p115 of UM)

    Looking at the first of two challenges you posted towards all the evidence mounted against magma causing an energy field around the Earth. You quote the UM on p115:

    “The existence of the Earth’s magnetic field provides us simple, yet powerful evidence that the magma model is incorrect. Why? Heat destroys magnetism.”

    You then say that:

    “The problem is that both of these arguments only apply to permanent ferromagnetism, which scientists do NOT believe is the cause of the Earth’s magnetic field. They do not apply to the standard “dynamo theory”, which involves electromagnetism.”

    So what do scientists believe causes the Earth’s energy field? You left out of your 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.”

    So neither you nor anyone else know for certain the cause of the Earth’s energy field. Furthermore, 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. Dozens of engineers who have read this chapter, who work with energy fields and heat every day completely understand this principle. Although you allege that the UM says the Earth has a permanent ferromagnetic magma core, in fact it does not. 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)

    It appears you were apparently confused about Fig 5.12.3 (p116 of UM) where we show the typical “representation” of the “magnetic field” shown in many science textbooks that are being taught to our children where the so-called dipole energy field of the Earth is drawn with a magnet at the center of the Earth so that students could see what the field around the Earth looks like.

    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…”

    Barry, given these misses in your analysis it becomes easy to see why at the end of your post, you asked:

    “So why does Dean Sessions argue against positions that no scientists actually hold?”

    It is less than professional to ignore the thousands of direct quotes cited in the UM from modern science itself that we have so meticulously reiterated over and over throughout the entire three Volumes and 2,000+ pages? You have a choice; you must either denounce Frank Press and Raymond Siever and their popular college geology textbook Understanding Earth and write your own, or you come to recognize that whether you agree with their assertions or not – modern geology believes and teaches students in public schools.

    Once again, if you read subchapters 9.5-9.7 you will see exactly how the Earth’s energy field is created in the crust from the piezoelectric properties of quartz and the constantly moving crust, not from the core, and especially not from a heated core which would destroy magnetism coming from within. Is this not what is important? The first time a publication has declared to have physical evidence for the origin of the Earth’s energy field? Remember it was Einstein who said that this was “one of the most important unsolved problems in physics.” And can you ignore this?

    Will you deny that your own peers said that no one (including you) really “knows for certain” how the Earth’s energy field could exist with the dynamo theory? The theory and every experiment that has been conducted to try to reproduce the field from a melted substance has failed. Period. Go watch the videos and read the published experiments on this subject and see your tax dollars at work with failing magma dynamo experiments. You should know this is a fact, or if you would like to prove it otherwise, please show us the experiment that verifies the modern science claim that, “The magnetic field is created by the flow of molten iron inside the Earth’s core.”

    The UM lists 38 specific topics outlining why there cannot be a magma core magnetic field and why the energy field of the Earth is actually a surface-generated Geofield (the piezoelectric field created by quartz rocks in the crust moved by the constant gravitational action of the Moon and Sun). Included are two new Piezoelectric Natural Laws (p743 of UM). It is apparent that you have chosen not to discuss (or probably read about) more than 99% of the material included in the UM concerning the Earth’s energy field when making your dubious claims. We hope your “competent” critques would rise above this.

    The UM Team

    #31249
    Barry
    Participant

    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.

    You say:

    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.

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/probing-the-geodynamo-2005-07/

    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.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie_temperature

    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.

    #42522
    tefling
    Participant

    (Awaiting moderation)

Viewing 6 posts - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.