Would magn. pole reversal actually mess up electronic equipment?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Integrated AGC 100kHz-10MHz
Next: Piezo Amplifier
From: Sylvia Else on 31 Dec 2009 22:15 Archimedes' Lever wrote: > On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 12:04:46 +1100, Sylvia Else > <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote: > >> Archimedes' Lever wrote: >>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:42:39 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:36 -0800, Archimedes' Lever >>>> <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as >>>>> being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator. >>>> Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200 >>>> million years, >>> So what? The discussion is not about the rotational speed of the >>> galaxy, and the rotational speed of the galaxy has nothing to do with how >>> often we pass above or back below the galactic equator. >> Where did he mention the rotational speed of the galaxy? Indeed there is >> no such thing anyway - it's not a solid object. You might as well talk >> about the rotational speed of the solar system. >> >> Sylvia. > > > Learn to read, Sylvia. "Our solar system makes a full period around > the galaxy in about 200 million years," That's what the previous poster said. Then you introduced the totally meaningless concept of the rotational speed of the galaxly. Sylvia.
From: Paul Keinanen on 1 Jan 2010 03:25 On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 08:15:46 -0800, Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:42:39 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> >wrote: > >>On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 19:39:36 -0800, Archimedes' Lever >><OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> wrote: >> >>> >>> The topic was pole reversal, which has pretty much been accepted as >>>being coincident with our crossing through the Galactic Equator. >> >>Our solar system makes a full period around the galaxy in about 200 >>million years, > > So what? The discussion is not about the rotational speed of the >galaxy, and the rotational speed of the galaxy has nothing to do with how >often we pass above or back below the galactic equator. > >> so if the orbital plane is inclined against the >>galactic plane, our solar system will cross the galactic plane about >>every 100 million years. > > Excpt that you logic is flawed. The arm of the galaxy we are in does >not follow a path that matches the rotational period of the galaxy. It >never did. The arm itself rotates as a whole at that speed, but the >place the arm sits with respect to the galactic equator rises and fall >above and below that equator at a vastly different rate. While this comment does not affect you, it may be interesting for others reading this thread to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Sun.27s_location_and_neighborhood and notice that the galactic year is currently assumed to be 225-250 million years, thus slightly more that I learned a few decades ago in the school. The claim that there are about 2.7 oscillations above and below the orbital plane is new to me, so we are talking about 50-100 million years. How is this possible ? By applying gravity forces or some postulated dark energy or dark mass assumptions ? >>On the other hand, there has been 2-4 polar flips in a million years. Which is about 2 orders of magnitude less compared to the crossing of the galactic plane so there is not even a weak correlation between the events and even harder to claim that the galactic plane crossing caused the magnetic field flips or mass extinctions of some spices. > You're an idiot. Thank you. That is your opinion, I doubt that I could do anything to change that attitude and why should I even care :-) >The arm of the galaxy our solar system is in follows >a sinusoidal trail and that trail rises above and falls below the >galactic equator about once every twenty six thousand years. Rotating around what ? Some hypothetical dark matter or dark energy ? Or are you trying to create some pre-keplerian epicyclic theory ?
From: Archimedes' Lever on 1 Jan 2010 08:50 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:25:47 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >notice that the galactic year is currently assumed to be 225-250 >million years, thus slightly more that I learned a few decades ago in >the school. Yes, and the "Galactic Year" and the period which our solar system AND the arm of the galaxy we are in rises above, and falls below the galactic equator are two VERY different figures. This end of this arm of our galaxy rides a sine wave with a period of about 52,000 years. That means we are due for a pole reversal about once every 26,000 years. Guess what is due, and guess where we are with reference to the rest of the galaxy. When we get to the other side of that equator, which will take some time before the effect rears its ugly head, we will see that our position in the galaxy DOES have much to do with our planets own magnetic field.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 1 Jan 2010 08:54 On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:25:47 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: >The claim that there are about 2.7 oscillations above and below the >orbital plane is new to me, It is a known fact that this end of this arm of the galaxy rides a sinusoidal path. Why do you think that nearly every astronomer on the planet is aware that we are passing from below (or above) the galactic equator to above (or below) it. They, like the Mayans, also know the period of that path. It is not the same as the rate at which the entire galaxy spins, nor is it the same as the rate which the Earth and this solar system orbits the galactic center. It is completely unrelated.
From: Archimedes' Lever on 1 Jan 2010 09:00
On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 10:25:47 +0200, Paul Keinanen <keinanen(a)sci.fi> wrote: > so we are talking about 50-100 million >years. How is this possible ? By applying gravity forces or some >postulated dark energy or dark mass assumptions ? "We" never said any such thing. Neither did any of the "we" that makes up the astrological community. They, in fact, state that all the elements of the galaxy rotate about its center at the same rotational rate, despite them thinking it would not. And yes, dark matter, and dark energy are contributors. It is like the foam on a cup of tea. Stir it, then disturb the spin and remove the stirrer. Done right, one can see that all the foam swirls in a slurry of foam and tea. The tea is the dark matter. The tea is the part we do not see. The tea is also spinning at the same rate, carrying all of our "known" mass along with it. That slurry is the part we are only now becoming aware of. |