MAGNETIC FIELD PREDICTIONS & RELATIONS
Clifford E Carnicom
Copyright Jan 06 2004
A empirical relationship between the magnetic field strength, the mass, rotational velocity and the axis of orientation of the magnetic field of solar system bodies has been developed. This relationship provides a benefit in interpreting the expected behavior of the magnetic field strength of the earth with respect to variations in the above quantities. The existence of life on this earth is strongly intertwined with the magnetic field of the earth; any variation is this field is to be regarded with special importance. The association between changes in the magnetic field strength and the kinetic energy state of the earth is a primary consideration herein. Recent topics of research that have been presented on this site regarding anomalous time and earth rotation variations and the recent international public journalism on these topics are directly relevant and are also of benefit to review. The possible linkage to the aerosol operations, the energy density of a plasma state and kinetic energy state changes will be considered in the future as a result of this study.
This relationship has the potential of expansion of consideration to many fundamental endeavors of physics, including the origin of magnetic fields in themselves, the relationship to the forces of gravity and fundamental tenets of quantum physics including electron spin.
A review of traditional magnetic field models of the earth has also been conducted with a result that should be of some interest to the general public.
It is by necessity that a portion of this paper shall be mathematical in nature; an attempt shall be made to present the majority of that effort in the latter section of this paper.
Basic conclusions from this research are that the rotational velocity of the earth and the magnetic field strength of the earth are directly (not inversely) concomitant, and that any change in one is likely to affect the other. A second conclusion is that change in the magnetic field strength with expected consequence to the life of this planet may be accelerated beyond the level that has been publicly reported or projected at this time. A third conclusion is that time (i.e., rotation) variations and magnetic field variations likely serve as important indicators as to kinetic energy state changes of the earth, and that they are well worth monitoring, even by the general public. They also likely serve the purpose of portending significant geophysical activity. A fourth conclusion is that an independent verification of all data sources is now required beyond that of claimed authoritative sources, and that it is in the public interest for this independent monitoring and verification to take place. A fifth conclusion is that the impact of the aerosol operations on a global geophysical level must be considered, in addition to the numerous environmental, biological, electromagnetic and military aspects that have already been enumerated and remain well in place.
It has recently been reported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the international press that the rate of the earth's rotation has "sped up since 1999." It is also stated that scientists "are not sure why this is so".1 Attention has been called to this fundamental anomaly by this author on July 23 2003 with the initial paper entitled Time. Subsequent pages within this site elaborate on this topic. The NIST paper addresses only in part the important questions which now must be asked, with a signficant lack in addressing the abruptness and the "why" of the change. An abrupt change in the angular velocity of an object with twenty-four zeroes after a mass number of 5.98 kilograms is not to be dismissed in any light-hearted fashion and one might hope that a greater passion of scientific inquiry will be offered to the public than has been seen thus far. It is thought that the public should seek a more complete answer as to the "why" of the change. The completeness of reporting on this subject must also be questioned; a more thorough examination will demonstrate that the rotation rate has increased relative to the more recent past, but that the earth itself continues to slow down. To report that the earth has "sped up" to reach an implied state of normalcy is not an adequate and complete characterization of the facts of the case. The more important question is the origin of an abrupt change in the kinetic energy state of an object as massive as the earth, the disclosure of the significance of that change to the public and an adequate understanding of the causes and anticipated effects of that change upon our planet and the life that inhabits it. Additional questions about the unexplained termination of long-term predictive services and the direct contradiction of predictions with current published data must be included. What may appear to be "small" changes will nevertheless need to be evaluated in their entirety, especially in light of the tremendous mass of the earth.
It has also been recently reported by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) that the strength of the earth's magnetic field is in a state of decline.2 The magnitude of this change is reported as approximately 10% in 150 years of recent history. The magnitude of this change can safely be regarded as significant, and is stated to already affect satellite performance at a serious level. Certain locations on the earth demonstrate declines of the order of 30%. In addition, projections based upon this rate of decline suggest a range of 1500 to 2000 years for a complete decline of the field strength to occur; additional comments on this prediction follow below.
One of the findings of the current study is that rotational rate of the body and the magnetic field strength appear to be directly related to one another, not inversely related. If this claim is upheld, as the dynamo model form itself indicates, it is quite unexpected to have an increase in the earth's rotational rate in conjunction with a decrease in the magnetic field strength. This is the current state of popular science journalism on the subject. The expected relationship is that if the magnetic field strength is declining, the earth's rotation rate is expected to decline as well. Similarly, if the magnetic field strength of the planet is in decline, it is not expected that the rotational rate of the earth is increasing. This is not to say that such an event can not occur. If it were to occur, however, it would present an even stronger basis for inquiry and probing into the kinetic energy state changes of the earth.
Consideration of the NIST and the BBC articles, raw rotational rate data, historical magnetic field strength data, solar system body characteristics and independent time data will now force us to examine the true state of affairs more closely.
A detailed explanation for recent disruptions in established software processes that involve the reduction of lunar occultation observations and Schumann frequency data will be beneficial; these explanations are apparently not available at this time.
It is beneficial if the public will now take an active role in learning about such changes as they are being reported, and to examine the sensibility and congruence of the purported conditions. Independent sources of data of both magnetic field strength changes and time changes are now of great value if they can be obtained; the difficulty of this search is understood.
Another conclusion reached, even when pursued from a very conservative approach, is that the projection of total magnetic field decline (i.e., potential reversal) within a time period of 1500 years appears to be optimistic. An analysis of historical magnetic field change data indicates that a significantly accelerated value, on the order of 400 years, is in much closer agreement with the data reviewed. It appears that a simple constant projection of magnetic field change is being made with the public report. The data indicates, however, that the change is not constant. The data indicates that the change, even over the brief 150 year measurement period, is continually increasing in a negative direction. The impact of this examination is that a projected decline of the total field strength is reduced to an interval of approximately 400 years, even under the most conservative approach that can be taken.
One would surmise that a total magnetic field strength decline within a period of 400 years should be of much interest and concern to the human population in general; time will demonstrate if that level of awareness and involvment will ever take place. The motivating interest here should be the connection between the existence of magnetic fields and of life itself; our actions as humans will again demonstrate our appreciation of that nexus.
An alternative differential model is under consideration that involves an analysis of the bodies of the solar system in their entirety, rather than an interval of 150 years of data on the earth alone. This study suggests the prospect of a radically accelerated period of decline. An alternative period under consideration may literally be on the order of years, as opposed to an optimistic prediction of centuries that might be regarded with no concern within our contemporaneous society.
Time itself will demonstrate the relevancy of any such models that exist; it is hoped that the human population will seek an understanding of and a beneficial particpation in that process as it evolves before us.
The remainder of this paper is of a more mathematical nature, and will be presented separately for those with further interest.
Appreciation is personally extended to several parties that have called attention to the recent popular journalism on these subjects and for the recent referral on the status of Schumann frequency data..
References:
1. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Techbeat, Greeting Another
New Year Without a Leap Second, (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/techbeat/tb2003_1219.htm#greeting.), December
19, 2003.,
2. BBC News, Bentley, Molley, Earth Loses its Magnetism, (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/3359555.stm),
December 31, 2003.
3. Jay M. Pasachoff, Stars and Planets, (Houghton Mifflin, 1992), 534-535.
4. J. Kelly Beatty, The New Solar System, (Cambridge University Press, 1999), 42, 387-389.