Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sysice]

And I must ask, how does that relate to my post?

I wasn't saying that the magnetic field, or plates, or whatever you were talking about doesn't exist or can't change.

[Pwnzerfaust]

If not, I wouldn't be surprised if we could rig up temporary magnets to guard those areas.

They'd have to be some enormous magnets. Like, the size of a small Northeastern state.

[eerr]

I think my favorite theory to bash on is that one website that says that the only way the Earth's magnetic field could change at all is if it started rotating the other way.

I really don't think 2012 will be all that special. Maybe some weird stuff and people doing crazy things and looking very embarrassed after the night is over, but...

The earth's magnetic core isn't stable. Someday the north pole will have an actual continent over it. Idk which one though.

If you're talking magnetic poles, the north already has a continent over it; Antarctica.  Magnetic north can't be near geographic north because the north end of a compass magnet points towards the general direction of geographic north, thus the magnetic pole near geographic north must be south in order to attract the compass.

What the hell does that paragraph even mean?
Can you write that without a run-on sentance which is confusingly worded?

[Starver]

The earth's magnetic core isn't stable. Someday the north pole will have an actual continent over it. Idk which one though.

If you're talking magnetic poles, the north already has a continent over it; Antarctica.  Magnetic north can't be near geographic north because the north end of a compass magnet points towards the general direction of geographic north, thus the magnetic pole near geographic north must be south in order to attract the compass.

What the hell does that paragraph even mean?
Can you write that without a run-on sentance which is confusingly worded?

(Quickly checks the quote-levels, yep, I think that's right.)

What was being said is that the northern magnetic pole of the planet is a "south pole" in electophysical terms.  It attracts the north poles of compasses.  (They are effectively named after the direction they point, or vice-versa.)

Depending on your use of the terminology, the actually 'north-style' magnetic pole of the Earth's core is seen (at the surface) as the Southern Magnetic Pole (down there near, but surprisingly distant from, the Southern Geographic Pole at ?°E/W, 90°S).


And now you know that, then you might also be interested to know about the Northern/Southern Geomagnetic Poles, where the 'idealised' magnetic poles would be based on the sum total magnetic field).  Less useful to know about (unless you're an explorer of some kind) are the various Poles of Inaccesability (Northern, Southern and other continental/oceanic ones as defined more by geography).  And I still argue with my Dad that you can place Eastern and Western Poles at 90°E/W on the equator (and thus, I suppose also "front and back" ones, to complete the set), but I don't think anyone bothers to recognises those officially.

[eerr]

"If you're talking geographic poles, then the subject you're talking about is plate tectonics, not the earth's core."

The earth's magnetic core isn't stable, relative to it's spin around the sun.
How is that plate tectonics?

[LegoLord]

It isn't.  Magnetic north already has a continent over it (Antarctica).  Magnetic north is based on the "position" of the core.  You said that the north pole will eventually have a continent over it, so either you had a misconception about the poles or you were talking about geographic north.  In the latter case, plate tectonics govern whether or not a continent will be over a given pole, seeing as how geographic poles seem to pretty much be constant.

[Starver]

[...]or you were talking about geographic north.

Or the Northern Magnetic Pole.

[Spreggo]

Um, the northern magnetic pole is up near the Queen Elizabeth Islands, not under Antarctica. Geographic and magnetic poles might be different, but they certainly are not opposite.

Edit: According the the coords on from wikipedia, the southern magnetic pole isn't under Antarctica either.

[Cthulhu]

Jeez.  I come in here expecting people to argue about whether or not 2012 will be the apocalypse, and instead I find you fighting about the poles.

Come on.

[eerr]

It isn't.  Magnetic north already has a continent over it (Antarctica).  Magnetic north is based on the "position" of the core.  You said that the north pole will eventually have a continent over it, so either you had a misconception about the poles or you were talking about geographic north.  In the latter case, plate tectonics govern whether or not a continent will be over a given pole, seeing as how geographic poles seem to pretty much be constant.

OK THEN

In the future both magnetic poles will have crossed the earth's diameter.

Contradict that with terminology!
My God. You nitpickers.

[Ampersand]

What LegoLord is saying is that there is a difference between the Northern Pole of a magnet, and the North pole of a magnet.

Say I lay a bar magnet on the ground, with the South Pole of the magnet pointing northward, and the North Pole of the magnet pointing southward.

The Northern Pole of the magnet is therefore the South Pole of the magnet.

In the same way, the Northern pole of the Earth's Magnetic Field is the South Pole, in terms of charge.

[Starver]

If a response to:

[...]or you were talking about geographic north.

Or the Northern Magnetic Pole.

Um, the northern magnetic pole is up near the Queen Elizabeth Islands, not under Antarctica.

Yep, my point.  (Probably.  Sorry, middle of changing jobs, might be mixing up my stated intentions.)

Geographic and magnetic poles might be different, but they certainly are not opposite.

Indeed.  Even the magnetic poles aren't opposite to each other.

Edit: According the the coords on from wikipedia, the southern magnetic pole isn't under Antarctica either.

But I think it's under the Antartican ice-shelf, which some consider to be 'contentintal'.  (Different Southern Poles Of Inaccesibility calculated with/without the ice-shelf, or at least where liquid water does/does not lie beneath the ice, which may or may not touch 'ground' below nominal sea level.

[Ampersand]

Again, Lego Lord did not say the Northern Magnetic pole is under Antarctica, he said that the North Pole is under Antarctica. While you are right, the Earth's North Pole is not under Antarctica, you are not as right as you think you are.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/IGRF_2000_magnetic_declination.gif

As evidenced by this picture, the North Pole, that is the Positive Charged Pole, is just off the shore of Antarctica, and is certainly under the Antarctic Plate.

This argument has arisen, I say again due to your apparent ignoring of my previous post, over confusion between North and Northern. By North, Lego Lord means the pole that is positively charged, while by south, he means, a pole that is negatively charged. In the case of the Earth, the Northern Magnetic Pole is negatively charged.

We know this because if we take a compass, the positively charged end, the north pole of the magnet, points northward.


So, Yes, The Northern Magnetic pole is under the Queen Elizabeth Islands.

But the North pole is not.

[Muz]

Jeez.  I come in here expecting people to argue about whether or not 2012 will be the apocalypse, and instead I find you fighting about the poles.

Come on.

Heh, I was thinking the same thing. So many threads derail into science fiction.

[LegoLord]

Fiction?  So . . . the poles aren't even real?

Edit:  Forgot the smiley.  Just joking here.