The fact that two much stronger, opposing magnetic fields are then the source, this also explains the complex quadrupole and octopole components of the measured magnetic field, as well as the famous dipole, and they all can then vary in complex and even rapid ways. Such fluctuating quadrupole and octopole components of the Earth's magnetic field are well confirmed.
This concept was conceived and Engineered by March 1996. This presentation was first placed on the Internet in June 1997.
Left: No measured dipole magnetic field; Right: Normal measured dipole magnetic field
The discussion below will clarify these animations, where the outer circle represents the surface of the Earth and all the activity occurs within the Earth's molten liquid Core. Instead of a single circulation as in the popular Dynamo Theory, it seems certain that there are actually pairs or quads of counter-rotating convective circulations as shown here (both driven by the [red] hot-spot that is slightly off-center). As per the right-hand-rule of Physics, the left (yellow here) circulation would create a magnetic field that is directed up toward us, while the right (blue here) circulation would create a magnetic field that was directed down into the image. An assumption is made here that each of these two fields are, say, one hundred times as strong as previously thought. If, as in the left animation, the two circulations are identical in every way, then the (dipole moment of the) net magnetic field (measured at the surface) would be zero, with the two magnetic dipoles being exactly identical but opposite, and therefore canceling out. The situation of the left image would therefore be that NO (dipole) magnetic field would be detected at the Earth's surface.
However, if the left circulation is even one percent larger or stronger or faster or broader than the right, as represented in the right animation (where we have increased it by 10% so that it might be better seen) then the sum of the two magnetic dipoles would result in a net magnetic field that is 1% as strong as either of them, in other words, as strong as we now observe at the surface. The situation of the right image would therefore be that the left circulation is 101% while the right circulation is still 100%, with the net effect of 1% of their actual strength being detected at the earth's surface, or the 1 Gauss that we commonly measure.
Self-Sufficiency - Many Suggestions|
Public Services Home Page
(Note: These animations and this discussion present a slightly simplified view for the value of clarity. The actual Earth's Core is pretty certainly composed of two separate portions, an Inner Core and an Outer Core. The Outer Core is certainly far less viscous than the Inner Core, and therefore is probably able to flow much faster, and seems therefore likely to be the primary source of the Earth's Magnetic Field. Any Inner Core convective circulations would produce a "hot-spot" where such outward circulations would reach the outer edge of the Inner Core, and such hot-spots would be a heat source to drive convective circulations in the Outer Core.)
In addition, it implies that a Fourier Analysis of the massive data collected might even indicate the positions and orientations of each contributing circulation in the Core. And if such Fourier Analyses are done for the data of different dates, we might even be able to determine dynamic changes that are occurring within those circulations. Such Fourier Analyses would certainly establish whether the source convective cell flows were in the Outer Core or in the Inner Core, or both, providing a great deal of valuable new information to us.
The complexity gets worse! Not only do the Magnetic Poles seem to wiggle around and drift westward, but they sometimes "jerk" (such as in 1969) 2 with the motion briefly rapidly accelerating then. In addition to this, the STRENGTH of the measured magnetic field also has a number of variations and drifts. In recent history, the overall strength has been reducing, implying that 1200 years from now, the Earth's Magnetic Field will be zero! 4
Geologic evidence clearly indicates that the Earth's Magnetic Field has even reversed itself quite a number of times, even within just the past four million years. 5 6 7 8 9. There is evidence of around 170 reversals during the past hundred million years!
The great age of the Earth, and the fact that there are certainly great frictional forces between various interior portions that are (according to popular theories) supposedly moving relative to each other, would seem to suggest that the Earth's Magnetic Field should have its Poles very near the Geographic Poles, at ninety degrees latitude, if those theories were even remotely true. That is not the actual case, and the Magnetic Poles are located many hundreds of miles from the Geographic Poles. Even more peculiar is the fact that, if you connected the North and South Magnetic Poles with an imaginary straight line, that line would not pass ANYWHERE NEAR the actual center of the Earth! The Earth's Magnetic Field system is not even symmetric with the body of the Earth! 10 Worse yet, the various movements of the location of the two Magnetic Poles often seem to have no relationship with each other.
Previous theorists have assumed that the entire Core (or the Inner and/or Outer Core) rotates as a single flowing object within the Earth. (In the drawing here, the view is from the South Pole, with the outer circle representing the surface of the Earth.) If that were the case, then all of the charged (ionized) Iron material (represented here in yellow) would follow a relatively circular path around a single axis that we could call the Magnetic Axis. Basic Physics tells us that when electrical charges follow a closed (relatively) circular path (which is effectively a current), a magnetic field is always created as a result. (In this drawing, the right-hand-rule indicates that the North magnetic pole is into-the-paper, confirming that we are looking from the South Polar region). The measurable evidence of this scenario would be a simple "dipole" magnetic field, with a single North Pole and a single South Pole, geographically exactly opposite each other on the surface of the Earth.
This is STILL the prevailing theory, (called the "Dynamo Theory") popular today. Some of the basics of it must certainly be true, such as the presence of Iron, its becoming ionized in various ways, its somewhat fluidic flow, and the consequent effect of a general magnetic field from the motion of these charges. However, the Dynamo Theory is unacceptable as it is normally presented, for a number of reasons.
Even the most basic mathematical analysis of the rotational inertia and angular momentum of the Earth shows how impossibly large that necessary forces or torques would have to be to cause such physical reversals of the rotation of the Core. And, even if these forces and torques actually could exist, a necessary result of reversing the Core's rotation direction would require (by Conservation of angular momentum) the FASTER rotation of the remainder of the Earth, creating even greater frictional drag between the two counter-rotating portions.
The regular erratic migration of the Magnetic Poles would require a different sort of an internal torque to be applied, to tilt the axis. Simple mathematics shows that even the minor daily movements of the Magnetic Pole Migration would require enormous torques to be applied to tilt the entire Core. In addition to the opposite reaction that would necessarily affect the outer part of the Earth (as mentioned above) an additional effect of torque would appear. That rotating Iron Core would be essentially a giant gyroscope. If a torque was quickly applied to alter the axis of any gyroscope, an acceleration in the third-dimension would appear, a standard fact of Physics. No evidence of this exists.
First of all, we think we have a reasonable idea on the physical sizes of the Inner and Outer Core. The current estimates for their radii are 1275 km and 3500 km, respectively. The Outer Core is generally considered to be fluid, and therefore capable of the necessary flow, so we will consider it. The volume of the Outer Core can be simply calculated as about 1.62 * 1026 cm3. With its estimated density of 10 gm/cm3, that indicates a total mass of around 1.62 * 1024 kg. Using Avogadro's number, this indicates approximately 5 * 1046 atoms are involved.
It is unknown just what proportion of those atoms are Iron and/or what proportion of them are ionized into being charged. For this discussion's sake, we are going to take a conservative estimate, that one in a million of the atoms are ionized Iron.
As a side comment, virtually all comments on this subject imply that Iron specifically is necessary in the creation of the Core electrical currents. That assumption seems unnecessary, as ANY fluidic material that can be ionized would carry the necessary electrical charges in the relatively circular paths necessary to create the electrical currents.
This now suggests that we would have a total of around 5 * 1040 electronic charges flowing in the Outer Core.
There has also been much unsupported speculation as to the flow characteristics of the Iron in the Outer Core. For this discussion, we will momentarily accept the opinion of a well-respected authority that the Iron at the extreme high temperatures of the Core, flows 'like water'. If this is the case, the relative motion of the Iron might easily be on the scale of 'slow walking speed' or 1 meter/sec.
Given the dimensions of the Outer Core, we can determine that this corresponds to one full 'orbit' in around 4 years. This results in around 4.4 * 1032 ions/second passing any point in the circuit. This corresponds to an electrical current of around 7 * 1013 Amperes.
The Magnetic Flux created by an electrical current is given by the standard equation: (Flux) = 0.4 * (pi) * N * I / (l / A * (mu)) equation. In this case, N is 1 turn, I is 7 * 1013 Amperes, A is around 1.8 * 1010 cm2. The magnetic relative permeability (mu) for Iron at extremely high temperatures and pressures is not accurately known, but it seems to rise with temperature and seems certain to be at least 10,000. (l) will be consider as around 4 * 109 cm. Plugging all these values into the equation gives a result of a Magnetic Flux of around 4 * 1025 Maxwells.
At the surface of the Earth, this would result in a Magnetic Flux Density of around 30,000,000 Gauss!
Seeing that the ACTUAL measured Flux Density is around 1 Gauss, this standard Dynamo Theory seems to give a field millions of times too intense! The uncertainties in the values of the magnetic relative permeability and flow rates/viscosity of the Iron do not seem to adequately deal with such an incorrect result.
Certainly, if only a small proportion of the atoms are ionized (like one in 30 million), the correct field strength could be obtained, but there are still all the other problems mentioned above.
So, even though EACH convection cell is creating a Magnetic Flux a hundred or a thousand or more times greater than necessary to explain our measured surface Flux Densities (as calculated above), the great majority of those (dipole) effects cancel out due to the presence of essentially identical counter-rotating convection cells on the opposite sides of the Outer Core. Note that EITHER convection cell shown could speed up or slow down, or increase or decrease in size. Such variations in both cells seem very logical and likely. The result would be a measured Magnetic Field Strength that can display extreme and erratic fluctuations in both short and long time periods, including regular apparent pole reversals. In addition, this premise includes explanations for the quadrupole (in this drawing) and octopole and higher components of the measured field strengths and many other previously unexplained features of the complexities of the empirical measurements.
Note also that whichever cell is currently strongest would seem to create a dipole moment THROUGH THAT CELL and not through the center of the Earth. This actually seems to imply that the North and South Magnetic Poles could never be at exactly opposite geographic locations.
We will make one other very reasonable assumption. The flow direction of the two cells are such that the material in the flows nearest adjacent to each other in both cells move parallel to each other and not oppositely. Any alternative to that would involve extensive turbulence and a great amount of friction between the two. After a 4.5 billion year existence, it seems reasonable to conclude that a relatively stable relationship would have developed where the two flow paths would now flow smoothly along side each other where the cells were adjacent. With our two-cell model, this requires the two cells to rotate in opposite directions.
We believe that there is a considerable amount of Iron in the Earth's Core. We also know that flow and friction and heat tends to create ions as electrons are dislodged from atoms. The ionized Iron in the viscous material flowing in the two convection cells now represents two enormous electrical currents. Each cell will therefore create a magnetic field of its own. Due to the "right hand rule" of electromagnetic theory, the direction of the magnetic fields thus created by the two cells will be OPPOSITE one another. For a magnetic sensing device at a great distance away, these two exactly equal and exactly opposite magnetic fields will therefore totally cancel out, and there will be NO evidence of any (dipole) magnetic field. (Because of the lateral displacement between the two field sources, there WILL, however, be evidence of a quadrupole magnetic field, if the sensing device can recognize it.)
Let us now say that EACH of the two magnetic fields present are one hundred times as strong as the dynamo strength previously accepted in theories. If either existed alone within the Core, we on the surface would measure a magnetic field one hundred times as great as we now measure. However, since they TOTALLY cancel each other out, still NO dipole magnetic field would be measured (at a sufficient distance).
Now, let's modify one of our previous assumptions. Instead of the two convection cells being precisely identical, they are very slightly different from each other. This could be due to the overall dimensions of the cell, the velocities of the flow rate, the proportion of ionized Iron present in the cell flow, or any of a number of other possible differences. These small differences between the two cells are dynamic and temporary. Over a long time interval, they would average out, implying approximately equal time periods where each of the two were slightly dominant.
The changes we are proposing here are rather subtle, where one of the convective flow electric currents, and therefore the resultant magnetic field is increased by only one per cent in strength. This rather minor change will have a tremendous effect. Now there WILL be a net measured magnetic field at a distance. The magnetic field strength measured will be effectively the DIFFERENCE in the strengths of the two opposing fields, and therefore of a strength just one per cent of the strengths of the two very strong fields actually created by the individual convection cells. With the parameters chosen for this example, that one per cent differential would register on our measuring devices at the Earth's surface as the accepted field strength we now know to exist.
This situation would ALSO create a quadrupole magnetic field. Mathematical derivation of the strength of the resultant quadrupole field is rather involved, and it is dependent on a large number of variables, including the spacing between the centers of the two convection cells.
This model is dynamically viable for the environment believed to exist in the Core of the Earth. All previous theories have been subject to substantial frictional drag slowing down the source materials and therefore reducing and then soon eliminating the magnetic field existant. This theory acknowledges such frictional drag continuously slowing each convection cell, but accepts that the central heat source would then either re-energize those cells or create new and different cells. In any event, SOME cells would HAVE to exist, to enable the heat from the central source to be carried away and outward. Equally important, virtually always, symmetric PAIRS of such convective cells must form and exist, for dynamic stability reasons.
Conservation of mass, momentum, angular momentum, and other basic laws of Physics would imply that a lot of symmetries would be likely to exist in the convection cells created and maintained in the core. The relative similarity of the two cells in our example, and their locations symmetrically opposite each other from the central heat source, can be shown statistically to be generally preferred situations.
Extensive analysis of volcanic rocks at Steens Mountain in Oregon suggests that a reversal took about 4500 years to complete, during the Miocene epoch. During that time, it would appear that the magnetic poles wandered wildly, and even crossed the equator three times! This erratic record of magnetic fields are easily explainable by this approach, while no other theory can even remotely explain it.
In 1990, some scientists speculated that the Earth's Magnetic Axis is not actually inclined as it has always been believed to be. 12 They suggested that the magnetic dipole axis was parallel to the Earth's rotational axis, but that there were some unspecified additional dipole moments that are responsible for the apparent tilt of the magnetic axis. It does not appear that they have tried to do computer simulations of their concept. Their idea of a few small dipoles affecting the observed results so greatly seems really doubtful, but there is a vague similarity between their idea and this present theory. This present theory agrees with them in that the Core generally rotates on an axis virtually identical with the Geographic Axis. It must, because of frictional considerations and the great age of the Earth. However, the present theory presents a far more reasonable explanation for the present displacement of and (independent) movements of the observed Magnetic Poles by differences between the shapes or flow rates of the two massive opposite convection Core cells which might happen to presently be oriented at an angle to the axis of the Earth's rotation.
This new theory also explains the peculiar magnetic fields around some of the other planets, notably Uranus. The great disparity between the present magnetic axis and the rotational axis of Uranus (60 degrees) 12 would be seen as evidence that the planet is in the process of a field reversal, and that it will eventually get to a meta-stable situation of being generally co-axial or anti-axial. It might be extremely valuable to regularly monitor that field, as possible insights into Earth's dynamic structure.
Additional aspects of empirical evidence can now be explained:
The evidence of the magnetic reversal of 15.6 million years ago, recorded in the lavas of Steens Mountain (mentioned above) suggests that the orientation of the magnetic field sometimes changed as rapidly at 3-8 degrees PER DAY during that episode! A brief but intense Core convection eddy could easily explain this amazing finding. This theory actually allows several similar explanations for such findings. Previous theories cannot even speculate on an explanation for it.
None of this requires any new forces, torques, laws or mechanisms. Even when very rapid and abrupt changes would be happening to the magnetic field, very little mechanical stress is present in any part of the structure of the Earth. No effect of any of this would shake or vibrate or be otherwise destructive to our planet.
It would seem prudent to try to monitor the magnetic field of Uranus, to determine whether the present orientation of its magnetic axis is transitory or meta-stable. We may be observing an ongoing example of a magnetic reversal, knowledge of which should assist us in better understanding the history and dynamics of our planet.
Theoretical ideas about the vertical distribution of elements in the Earth has always been primarily based on the behavior of earthquake S- and P- waves, on the total mass and rotational inertia of the Earth, and on the composition of extra-terrestrial meteorites found on Earth. These empirical results have been combined with the concept of vertical segregation of minerals and elements by weight, to suggest that the heavy elements (including mostly Iron) would have migrated (in an earlier, more molten Earth) toward the center Core and the lighter elements and minerals (including gases and compounds such as silicates) would migrate toward the outer Crust.
The opinion that the Core is two parts, which are solid and liquid, is primarily based on a shadow-effect on earthquake-generated waves. The concept of solid is somewhat a relative term. Very tall mountains are considered solid, even though they have clearly documented very slow flow rates, so, in some sense, those mountains are fluid, and the flow rates have even been measured. Thus, a solid Core can generally be said to be true (as regarding rapid earthquake waves) while still involving relatively slow flow rates. This circumstance would have the effect of acting as solid for the earthquake generated shock waves, but would still allow fluid flow. Such slow flow would cause two additional consequences. First, the very heavy elements could migrate even more centrally, to the Inner Core, including the primary sources of long-term natural radioactivity (such as Uranium). This new perspective would put the Earth's primary inner heat source farther toward the middle of the Earth. Second, this situation would certainly represent an energy source which would drive the proposed (rather slow) convective movements in the Core.
This possible Inner Core convection would probably tend to stir up the very heavy elements in the center of the Core, so the vertical (radial) segregation may not be as distinct as it could otherwise be. More importantly, this slow convection would likely create a variety of meta-stable, limited-lifetime randomly oriented convection cells in the Core. These cells would be somewhat dynamic and fluctuating, in various locations and of variable number. Each such cell would effectively generate an electric flow in a circuit, and would thus create a magnetic field. These convectively created magnetic fields would likely have components that were generally NOT co-axial with the rotation of the Earth itself!
The Outer Core is certainly much more fluid, demonstrated by the inability of transmitting the S-waves of earthquake shock waves. It has always been assumed to be the source of the Earth's magnetic field, in that the Outer Core materials might have faster flow rates. This presentation does not argue against that. The same explanation can apply for either or both of the Inner and Outer Core, probably separately. The lower viscosity of the Outer Core certainly implies far faster flow rates, and so it might easily be the primary source of the Earth's magnetic field. The suggested Fourier Analysis of existing data of magnetic field measurements seems likely to be able to identify where the specific individual convective circulations are that cause the fields. That Analysis might finally confirm that the magnetic field is produced in the Outer Core or it might suggest that it is formed in the Inner Core, or some combination of the two, which seems most likely.
The individual magnetic fields created by the individual convective Core cells would not be easily noticed or measurable from our perspective at the surface of the Earth. The net, measurable Core magnetic field would be a vector combination of all of these cell-based magnetic fields. MUCH of the effects of the magnetic fields due to specific Core convective cells would be cancelled out by the magnetic fields created by OTHER Core convective cells with opposite circulation flows. For example, two exactly identical convective cells on opposite sides of the Core, would, (due to the Right-Hand Rule of magnetic field orientation as a result of an electric current) cancel each other out! There would be no net dipole effect of the magnetic fields generated by these two Core convective cells. (There WOULD, however, be a quadrupole magnetic field present, because the two sources were spatially separated from each other) Analysis of quadrupole and octopole components of the measured field strength might be especially productive in learning about the specific cell orientations.
This same result could occur from say, SIX convective cells, IF the resultant magnetic field vectors of the six added to a null vector, AT THAT POINT on the surface of the Earth or in space. Such a total cancellation would not generally be possible over an extended area of the surface of the Earth. Analysis of field strengths at adjacent areas should enable reconstruction of the necessary component source fields in the Core.
The net effect of a multitude of Core convective cells would thus have a VERY complex nature, and would certainly NOT act like a simple magnetic dipole. During short time intervals (like decades), this net Core magnetic field would create a measurable Earth magnetic field that seems stable and relatively constant. Small, continuous variations of field intensity and effective magnetic pole location would be expected, as are observed. The current premise would also explain the quadrupole, octopole (and higher) components empirically measured in the Earth's magnetic field.
Of course, many other opposite pairs and generally randomly oriented convective eddy cells could exist at various other angles around the circumference of the Core. Keep in mind that this situation is true in three dimensions, so that there are likely to be convective cells completely surrounding the center of the Core. The net magnetic field of the Earth, as measured at its surface, would be the sum of all these constituent components, making for a measured magnetic field with a LOT of fine detail.
The rotation of the Earth itself would certainly have some effect on the formation and durability of the various constituent Core convective cells. Internal friction should certainly have caused a "general" rotation of the Core that would be moderately co-axial with the rotation of the physical body of the Earth itself. This logic would imply that there would likely be a tendency (but not a necessity) for the axis of the Earth's Magnetic Field to be generally co-axial or anti-axial with the Earth's rotation axis. Further study would be necessary to determine which orientations of Core convective cells would become preferred and which would quickly disappear. This effect might contribute to the empirically identified Reversals of the Earth's magnetic field, rather than just causing random orientation of it. It it would be true that one symmetric pair of convective Core cells predominates, the situation would be similar to that described in the simple Model above.
Over longer time periods, say thousands of years, the effect of stirring up some of the central radioactive materials would cause changes in the locations of some of the Inner Core's heat sources, which would have considerable effects on changing the Outer Core's convective cells flow patterns. Even fairly minor changes in a few of these convective cells might change the NET effect (at the surface of the Earth) so much so as to reverse the Earth's effective magnetic field.
Again, the (net) total field measured at the surface of the Earth is the sum of the magnetic fields of many such pseudo-randomly oriented convection cells (or symmetric cell pairs), so that the total net measured effect could fluctuate erratically and quickly. It is important to note that the magnetic field strength of an individual Core convective cell is FAR larger and more constant than the net effect of an opposing pair. The present premise suggests that this is what allows the rapid, large, erratic fluctuation in the net Earth's magnetic field, both short-term (which we now continuously measure) and long-term (as recorded in magnetic banding in sea floor spreading and in cooled volcanic flows).
This premise also explains the heretofore unexplained quadrupole and octopole magnetic moments of the Earth's magnetic fields, and suggests that thorough analysis of those effects might give some insight into the actual distribution and orientation of the Core's constituent convective cells.
If movement of some of the central radioactive element heat source was such that even one of the Core's convective cells materially changed, the NET magnetic field of the Earth could be significantly and rapidly altered. Even if it wasn't reversed, the Poles might suddenly (over a few hundred years?) jump thousands of miles.
This theory also explains something that no one has seemed concerned about. When the Earth was originally formed, it might have somehow been true that the Core's rotational axis was (briefly) not co-axial with that of the Mantle and Crust. But over the extremely long time the Earth has existed, frictional drag at the Mantle-Core boundary would certainly have caused these axes to have become co-axial long ago. Most competing theories about the source of the Earth's magnetic field have the Core rotating at an angle, such that it is lined up with the present Magnetic Poles. That situation appears to defy the laws of science. The present premise does NOT require this, and includes a mechanism for explaining the separation of the Geographic and Magnetic Poles. This premise allows the much more logical generally co-axial rotation of all the major components of the Earth.
It is distressing that so many "theories" have been presented over the decades where the proponents did not do basic calculations to see if the hypothesis was credible or not. Actual physical reversal of the rotation if the Core of the Earth, the scale of the resulting magnetic field from a simple single Dynamo circulation, and many other ideas seem to quickly be shown erroneous by simple math. There is another area, not directly associated with the Magnetic Field, where such analysis seems prudent. We know the total amount of internal heat the Earth is creating (because it eventually gets to the surface to get radiated out into space, and it has been measured as being 0.02 Btu/hr/sq.ft). We know that the energy created in the Earth's Core can only get out by one or more of three processes, radiation, convection or conduction. Inside a solid body, radiation essentially does not exist. So we only have the other two processes available. We know the thermal conductivity of each type of earth material, and most are very, very slow. In general, heat can take hundreds of years to conduct through a single mile of the Earth, so a 2,700-mile trip would take an extremely long time. If one assumed no convection circulation in the Mantle, where all the heat was moving exclusively by conduction, we would know the entire situation of this energy flow. Specifically, the temperatures of all the locations along this path are fairly easily calculated by Calculus, for the equilibrium situation which must certainly exist after billions of years. No one seems to have bothered to previously do this simple calculation, as it shows that the temperature of the Core would have to be incredibly high, far higher than anyone is actually willing to believe.
This simple calculation therefore shows that the great majority of the outward heat flow is necessarily due to convective flows in the Mantle. By then knowing the total amount of energy being transferred in this way, as well as the thermal capacity of the moving materials, it should be possible to decently estimate the mass flow rates of outward moving convective flows. I have never seen that anyone has ever done this calculation either! But it seems an extremely valuable bit of information! If we knew the (vertical) mass flow rate of Mantle flow, and might estimate the lateral dimensions of such flows, we might be able to estimate the vertical velocity of that flow in the Mantle. Once that flow became horizontal, just under the Crust, where it released that energy to the Crust to continue moving upward and outward, it would seem to be likely to have roughly the same velocity, now horizontal. This might give us a general idea of the horizontal velocity of Mantle motion just under the Crust. We know that the bottom surface of the Crust of rather irregular, and this might then provide some actual numbers regarding forces and velocities of what might be driving Plate Tectonics, where various parts of the Earth's Crust are moving in different directions at different (very slow) velocities. Why has no one done this? A High School Science Project could present this information!
Conservation of Angular Momentum - An Exception or Violation (Sept 2006)
Galaxy Spiral Arms Stability and Dynamics A purely Newtonian gravitational explanation (Nov 1997, Aug 1998)
Twins Paradox of Relativity Is Absolutely Wrong (research 1997-2004, published Aug 2004)
Perturbation Theory. Gravitational Theory and Resonance (Aug 2001, Dec 2001)
Origin of the Earth. Planetary Gravitational Resonances (Dec 2001)
Rotation of the Sun (Jan 2000)
Origin of the Universe. Cosmogony - Cosmology (more logical than the Big Bang) (devised 1960, internet 1998)
Time Passes Faster Here on Earth than on the Moon (but only a fraction of a second per year!) (Jan 2009)
Globular Clusters. All Globulars Must Regularly Pass Through the cluttered Galaxy Plane, which would be very disruptive to their pristine form. (Nov 1997, Aug 1998)
Existence of Photons. A Hubble Experiment to Confirm the Existence of Individual Photons (experimental proof of quanta) (Feb 2000)
Origin of the Moon - A New Theory (June 2000)
Planetary Rotation of Jupiter, Saturn, and the Earth (Jupiter has a lot of gaseous turbulence which should have slowed down its rapid rotation over billions of years) (March 1998)
Cepheid Variable Stars. Velocity Graph Analysis (Feb 2003)
Compton Effect of Astrophysics. A Possible New Compton Effect (Mar 2003)
Olbers Paradox Regarding Neutrinos (Oct 2004)
Kepler and Newton. Calculations (2006)
Pulsars. Pulsars May Be Quite Different than we have Assumed (June 2008)
Sun and Stars - How the Sun Works - Nuclear Fusion in Creating Light and Heat (Aug 2006)
Stars - How They Work - Nuclear Fusion. Lives of Stars and You (Aug 2004)
Sundial Time Correction - Equation of Time. Sundial to Clock-Time Correction Factor (Jan 2009)
General Relativity - A Moon Experiment to Confirm It. Confirming General Relativity with a simple experiment. (Jan 2009)
General Relativity and Time Dilation. Does Time Dilation Result? (Jan 2009)
Geysers on Io. Source of Driving Energy (June 1998)
Mass Extinction, a New Explanation. A New Explanation for Apparent Periodicity of Mass Extinctions (May 1998, August 2001)
Precession of Gyroscopes and of the Earth. Gyroscope Precession and Precession of the Earth's Equinoxes (Apr 1998)
Ocean Tides - The Physics and Logic. Mathematical Explanation of Tides (Jan 2002)
Earth's Spinning - Perfect Energy Source (1990, Dec. 2009)
Earth's Magnetic Field - Source and Logic. Complex nature of the magnetic field and its source (March 1996)
Earth Spinning Energy - Perfect Energy Source From the Earth's Spinning (1990, Nov. 2002)
Nuclear or Atomic Physics Related Subjects:
Nuclear Physics - Statistical Analysis of Isotope Masses Nuclear Structure. (research 1996-2003, published Nov 2003)
Quantum Defect is NOT a Mathematical Defect- It Can Be Calculated The Quantum Defect is a Physical Quantity and not a Fudge Factor(July 2007)
Atomic Physics - NIST Atomic Ionization Data Patterns Surprising Patterns in the NIST Data Regarding Atomic Ionization (June 2007)
Nuclear Physics - Logical Inconsistencies (August 2007)
Neutrinos - Where Did they all Come From? (August 2004)
Neutrinos - Olbers Paradox Means Neutrinos from Everywhere (Oct 2004)
Quantum Nuclear Physics. A Possible Alternative (Aug 2001, Dec 2001, Jan 2004)
Quantum Physics - Quantum Dynamics. A Potential Improvement (2006)
Quantum Physics is Compatible with the Standard Model (2002, Sept 2006, Oct 2010)
Quantum Dynamics (March 2008)
Ionization Potential - NIST Data Patterns. Surprising patterns among different elements (March 2003)
Mass Defect Chart. (calculation, formula) (research 1996-2003, published Nov 2003)
Assorted other Physics Subjects:
Precession of Gyroscopes and of the Earth. Gyroscope Precession and Precession of the Earth's Equinoxes (Apr 1998)
Earth's Magnetic Field - Source and Logic. Complex nature of the magnetic field and its source (March 1996)
Earth Spinning Energy - Perfect Energy Source (1990, Nov. 2002)
Earth Energy Flow Rates due to Precessional Effects (63,000 MegaWatts) (Sept 2006)
Accurate Mass of the Earth. Gravitational Constant - An Important Gravitation Experiment. (Feb 2004)
Tornadoes - The Physics of How They Operate, including How they Form. Solar Energy, an Immense Source of Energy, Far Greater than all Fossil Fuels (Feb 2000, Feb 2006, May 2009)
Radiometric Age Dating - Carbon-14 Age Determination. Carbon-14, C-14 (Dec 1998)
Mass Extinction, an Old Explanation. An Old Explanation for Apparent Periodicity of Mass Extinctions (Aug 2003)
Hurricanes, the Physics and Analysis A Credible Approach to Hurricane Reduction (Feb 2001)
Sundial Time Correction - Equation of Time. Sundial to Clock-Time Correction Factor (Jan 2009)
C Johnson, Theoretical Physicist, Physics Degree from Univ of Chicago