Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection

[trendsetter37]

hlat, does this visual help? With the red arrow representing the direction of the Lorentz force (that will act on charged particles, seemingly everything to some extent or another) that is present because of the electric and magnetic fields being present simultaneously.

When a wire carrying an electrical current is placed in a magnetic field, each of the moving charges, which comprise the current, experiences the Lorentz force, and together they can create a macroscopic force on the wire (sometimes called the Laplace force[citation needed]). By combining the Lorentz force law above with the definition of electrical current, the following equation results, in the case of a straight, stationary wire:


F = I ℓ X B
where ℓ is a vector whose magnitude is the length of wire, and whose direction is along the wire, aligned with the direction of conventional current flow I.

If the wire is not straight but curved, the force on it can be computed by applying this formula to each infinitesimal segment of wire dℓ, then adding up all these forces by integration. Formally, the net force on a stationary, rigid wire carrying a steady current I is

F = I ∫ d ℓ X B
This is the net force. In addition, there will usually be torque, plus other effects if the wire is not perfectly rigid.

One application of this is Ampère's force law, which describes how two current-carrying wires can attract or repel each other, since each experiences a Lorentz force from the other's magnetic field. For more information, see the article: Ampère's force law.

 

[hlat]

Figure 20 shows the magnetic force going in circles in a plane perpendicular to the straight line electrical current. Figure 24 and the wiki picture show the lorentz force perpendicular to both the straight line electrical current and the magnetic force. But if the magnetic force is going in circles, then it would mean the lorentz force is also going in circles to maintain its perpendicular orientation versus the magnetic force.

This makes sense to me since the lorentz force is what is causing spinning, because the lorentz force is going in circles.

Is this correct?

 

[LQB]

Figure 20 shows the magnetic force going in circles in a plane perpendicular to the straight line electrical current. Figure 24 and the wiki picture show the lorentz force perpendicular to both the straight line electrical current and the magnetic force. But if the magnetic force is going in circles, then it would mean the lorentz force is also going in circles to maintain its perpendicular orientation versus the magnetic force.

This makes sense to me since the lorentz force is what is causing spinning, because the lorentz force is going in circles.

Is this correct?

B in the above figure is an externally applied mag field in the indicated direction - not the mag field induced by the current in the wire. The cylindrical mag field induced by the current I produces not force on the wire (flowing charge).

 

[anartist]

Re: Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection, question on Jet Streams

This is my second time through the book "Earth changes and the human-cosmic connection" and I've run into some trouble understanding something and wonder if anyone can help me out. First off, I don't know if I should be posting in this topic, but it is about the book, so it seemed logical.
The problem I'm having is at location 3565 in the kindle edition, 128chaprt28enhtml, figure 155: Historical trend of the jet streams.
In the text it says "On the left chart, you can see that after 1999(vertical orange line), the Arctic Jet Stream moved closer to the Equator (green curve).
1. I see no line denoting the Equator, I only see the Northern Hemisphere(NH), Southern Hemisphere Tropical(SHT) and the Southern Hemisphere Polar(SHP)
2. Isn't the green curve the NH, not the Equator(green curve), as is mentioned above?
3. I don't get the Latitude anomalies(in degrees) What I see is an approx reading of -.25 to 0.25 for the NH from 1980 to 2000. Does this mean that the position changed one half of degree over that time period? and in what direction? the text says that the Jet Stream moved south, so does that mean that moving 0.50 degrees (-0.25 to 0.25) was a move in a southerly direction?
4. For the SHT and SHP it looks like the direction is opposite. eg. 0.25 to -.25 for SHT means it was moving in a northerly direction?
5. For the wind speeds in m/s it looks like the SHP has picked up speed, and both the SHT and NH have dropped in speed. Why would the southern pole increase its speed over 20 years?
6. The trend lines show no appreciable changes since 1980, is that the point? I mention this because 1998 and 1999 are marked out as important, but I can't see any differences! I do see that the blue and green and red curves all drop at 1998, but looking at previous years so far it doesn't look all that different.
Can someone who understands this explain it to me please?
thanks

 

[Mal7]

Re: Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection, question on Jet Streams

In the text it says "On the left chart, you can see that after 1999(vertical orange line), the Arctic Jet Stream moved closer to the Equator (green curve).["]
1. I see no line denoting the Equator, I only see the Northern Hemisphere(NH), Southern Hemisphere Tropical(SHT) and the Southern Hemisphere Polar(SHP)
2. Isn't the green curve the NH, not the Equator(green curve), as is mentioned above?
3. I don't get the Latitude anomalies(in degrees) What I see is an approx reading of -.25 to 0.25 for the NH from 1980 to 2000. Does this mean that the position changed one half of degree over that time period? and in what direction? the text says that the Jet Stream moved south, so does that mean that moving 0.50 degrees (-0.25 to 0.25) was a move in a southerly direction?

I read it is as the Arctic Jet Stream (NH) being the green curve. In the quoted sentence, I think "(green curve)" refers to the whole preceding 9 words, not just the word Equator. Hence the intended meaning is the same as saying "the Arctic Jet Stream (green curve) moved closer to the Equator."

The scale is given as degrees of Latitude. I would think for the Arctic Jet Stream +0.25 would be a quarter of a degree further North than "usual", and -0.25 a quarter of a degree further south. So the equator itself wouldn't be at 0 degrees, but would be about -45 to -60 degrees away depending on whether it is winter or summer.

A degree of latitude is a distance of about 69 miles.

 

[anartist]

Thanks, yes I think the placement of the (green curve) caused more semantic confusion than any other.
You mention the 0.25 as a movement north, and you see this is what confused me as previously all the talk had been about moving south. Mind you if you like at the weather map pictures it is moving dramatically south AND north. Which leads me to scratching my head about what this particular line graph is all about?
thanks for your thoughts though.

 

[Pierre]

Re: Earth Changes and the Human-Cosmic Connection, question on Jet Streams

In the text it says "On the left chart, you can see that after 1999(vertical orange line), the Arctic Jet Stream moved closer to the Equator (green curve).["]
1. I see no line denoting the Equator, I only see the Northern Hemisphere(NH), Southern Hemisphere Tropical(SHT) and the Southern Hemisphere Polar(SHP)
2. Isn't the green curve the NH, not the Equator(green curve), as is mentioned above?
3. I don't get the Latitude anomalies(in degrees) What I see is an approx reading of -.25 to 0.25 for the NH from 1980 to 2000. Does this mean that the position changed one half of degree over that time period? and in what direction? the text says that the Jet Stream moved south, so does that mean that moving 0.50 degrees (-0.25 to 0.25) was a move in a southerly direction?

I read it is as the Arctic Jet Stream (NH) being the green curve. In the quoted sentence, I think "(green curve)" refers to the whole preceding 9 words, not just the word Equator. Hence the intended meaning is the same as saying "the Arctic Jet Stream (green curve) moved closer to the Equator."

The scale is given as degrees of Latitude. I would think for the Arctic Jet Stream +0.25 would be a quarter of a degree further North than "usual", and -0.25 a quarter of a degree further south. So the equator itself wouldn't be at 0 degrees, but would be about -45 to -60 degrees away depending on whether it is winter or summer.

A degree of latitude is a distance of about 69 miles.

Yes. Notice also that the left chart indicates a deviation from the "normal" latitude of the NH. Say, the normal latitude of the NH is 50° North, then a + 0.25° deviation would mean the latidunal position of the NH shifted "up" to 50.25°.

You mention the 0.25 as a movement north, and you see this is what confused me as previously all the talk had been about moving south. Mind you if you like at the weather map pictures it is moving dramatically south AND north. Which leads me to scratching my head about what this particular line graph is all about?

The green line represent the annual latidunal deviation of the North Jet Stream relative to its average position. Overall (1980-) it's been increasing (see straight green line) and reaching positive values indicating a NH moving North. However since 1998 the deviation has dropped and reached negative values (i.e. latitude decreasing) indicating a NH moving South.

I hope it's clearer now :)

 

[AutomatedMan]

Thanks Pierre and Laura for this wonderful book! I managed to read it so fast because it was so digestible that I feel like I didn't absorb everything. I want to finish the Wave Series first and Horns of Moses before tackling the first tome of Secret History. The beginning chapters of Earth changes were quick and helpful in establishing key physics concepts that are used throughout the book. I was jumping back and forth between the wave series and Earth Changes and I agree with what others have noted as corroborations with the C's material.

The theory of the Electric Universe is something I never heard about in high school or college! It's amazing what makes it into scientific education curricula but i shouldn't be surprised. It was like Rupert Sheldrake explains in his banned TED talk, on the scientific community's focus on maintaining scientific 'constants'. It seems like everything is dynamic in the universe!

I have a renewed interest and appreciation for plasma thanks to this book. I always thought it was odd that this '4th' state of matter barely had any coverage in basic chemistry or physics classes yet, as I have learned from this wonderful book, it is the energetic life blood of the universe!

 

[Janek]

Very good book, I like it how the idea of electric universe is explained in it. Especially I like this idea of the Earth rotating as a homopolar motor, it make a lot of sense. However, it's known fact, that every several hunderds of thousand years the Earth's magnetic poles change it's places. Such change should have some effect on rotation speed of the Earth (it should speed up or slow down). In that case it could have some dramatic effect on events at the planet surface, as it was actually mentioned in the book. I wonder if it's actually possible to find the evidence of such events (increased volcanic activity for example) after inversion of magnetic poles at past. I also wonder if it could be possible, that changing places of magnetic poles could occur around the same time on every object in our solar system, that actually have it's own magnetic field. In that case it could mean that this whole inversion is triggered by some external forces (birkeland current?). The second idea is particularly fascinating for me.

Anyway that's my 2cents, I'm not even sure if that's make sense at all :).

 

[Deleted member 4320]

Very good book, I like it how the idea of electric universe is explained in it. Especially I like this idea of the Earth rotating as a homopolar motor, it make a lot of sense. However, it's known fact, that every several hunderds of thousand years the Earth's magnetic poles change it's places. Such change should have some effect on rotation speed of the Earth (it should speed up or slow down). In that case it could have some dramatic effect on events at the planet surface, as it was actually mentioned in the book. I wonder if it's actually possible to find the evidence of such events (increased volcanic activity for example) after inversion of magnetic poles at past. I also wonder if it could be possible, that changing places of magnetic poles could occur around the same time on every object in our solar system, that actually have it's own magnetic field. In that case it could mean that this whole inversion is triggered by some external forces (birkeland current?). The second idea is particularly fascinating for me.

Anyway that's my 2cents, I'm not even sure if that's make sense at all :).

Well, I'm hooking up to those questions since this field of knowledge is my biggest question mark.

 

[Niall]

Especially I like this idea of the Earth rotating as a homopolar motor, it make a lot of sense. However, it's known fact, that every several hunderds of thousand years the Earth's magnetic poles change it's places. Such change should have some effect on rotation speed of the Earth (it should speed up or slow down). In that case it could have some dramatic effect on events at the planet surface, as it was actually mentioned in the book. I wonder if it's actually possible to find the evidence of such events (increased volcanic activity for example) after inversion of magnetic poles at past.

I found a recent article that correlates volcanic activity with changes in the speed of Earth's rotation. But it's talking about changes on a much smaller time-scale, during which time no pole reversals took place:

Volcanoes are erupting all over the place right now. Scientists have figured out why: A minute slowdown in the planet's rotation

The Earth seems to have been smoking a lot recently. Volcanoes are erupting in Iceland, Hawaii, Indonesia, Ecuador and Mexico right now. Others, in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, erupted recently but seem to have calmed down. Many of these have threatened homes and forced evacuations. But among their spectators, these eruptions raise this question: Is there such a thing as a season for volcanic eruptions?

While volcanoes may not have "seasons" as we know them, scientists have started to discern intriguing patterns in their activity.

Eruptions caused by a shortened day

The four seasons are caused by the Earth's axis of rotation tilting toward and away from the sun. But our planet undergoes another, less well-known change, which affects it in a more subtle way, perhaps even volcanically.

Due to factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, the speed at which the Earth rotates constantly changes. Accordingly the length of a day actually varies from year to year. The difference is only in the order of milliseconds. But new research suggests that this seemingly small perturbation could bring about significant changes on our planet - or more accurately, within it.

A study published in the journal Terra Nova in February showed that, since the early 19th century, changes in the Earth's rotation rate tended to be followed by increases in global volcanic activity. It found that, between 1830 and 2013, the longest period for which a reliable record was available, relatively large changes in rotation rate were immediately followed by an increase in the number of large volcanic eruptions. And, more than merely being correlated, the authors believe that the rotation changes might actually have triggered these large eruptions.

Altering the spin of a planet, even by a small amount, requires a huge amount of energy. It has been estimated that changes in the Earth's rotation rate dissipate around 120,000 petajoules of energy each year - enough to power the United States for the same length of time. This energy is transferred into the Earth's atmosphere and subsurface. And it is this second consequence that the Terra Nova authors believe could affect volcanoes.

The vast quantities of energy delivered to the subsurface by rotation changes are likely to perturb its stress field. And, since the magma that feeds volcanic eruptions resides in the Earth's crust, stress variations there may make it easier for the liquid rock to rise to the surface, and thereby increase the rate of volcanic eruptions.

The Terra Nova study is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, the idea that minute changes to the Earth's spin could affect volcanic motions deep within the planet is an intriguing one.

 

[Laura]

Especially I like this idea of the Earth rotating as a homopolar motor, it make a lot of sense. However, it's known fact, that every several hunderds of thousand years the Earth's magnetic poles change it's places. Such change should have some effect on rotation speed of the Earth (it should speed up or slow down). In that case it could have some dramatic effect on events at the planet surface, as it was actually mentioned in the book. I wonder if it's actually possible to find the evidence of such events (increased volcanic activity for example) after inversion of magnetic poles at past.

I found a recent article that correlates volcanic activity with changes in the speed of Earth's rotation. But it's talking about changes on a much smaller time-scale, during which time no pole reversals took place:

Volcanoes are erupting all over the place right now. Scientists have figured out why: A minute slowdown in the planet's rotation

The Earth seems to have been smoking a lot recently. Volcanoes are erupting in Iceland, Hawaii, Indonesia, Ecuador and Mexico right now. Others, in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, erupted recently but seem to have calmed down. Many of these have threatened homes and forced evacuations. But among their spectators, these eruptions raise this question: Is there such a thing as a season for volcanic eruptions?

While volcanoes may not have "seasons" as we know them, scientists have started to discern intriguing patterns in their activity.

Eruptions caused by a shortened day

The four seasons are caused by the Earth's axis of rotation tilting toward and away from the sun. But our planet undergoes another, less well-known change, which affects it in a more subtle way, perhaps even volcanically.

Due to factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, the speed at which the Earth rotates constantly changes. Accordingly the length of a day actually varies from year to year. The difference is only in the order of milliseconds. But new research suggests that this seemingly small perturbation could bring about significant changes on our planet - or more accurately, within it.

A study published in the journal Terra Nova in February showed that, since the early 19th century, changes in the Earth's rotation rate tended to be followed by increases in global volcanic activity. It found that, between 1830 and 2013, the longest period for which a reliable record was available, relatively large changes in rotation rate were immediately followed by an increase in the number of large volcanic eruptions. And, more than merely being correlated, the authors believe that the rotation changes might actually have triggered these large eruptions.

Altering the spin of a planet, even by a small amount, requires a huge amount of energy. It has been estimated that changes in the Earth's rotation rate dissipate around 120,000 petajoules of energy each year - enough to power the United States for the same length of time. This energy is transferred into the Earth's atmosphere and subsurface. And it is this second consequence that the Terra Nova authors believe could affect volcanoes.

The vast quantities of energy delivered to the subsurface by rotation changes are likely to perturb its stress field. And, since the magma that feeds volcanic eruptions resides in the Earth's crust, stress variations there may make it easier for the liquid rock to rise to the surface, and thereby increase the rate of volcanic eruptions.

The Terra Nova study is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, the idea that minute changes to the Earth's spin could affect volcanic motions deep within the planet is an intriguing one.

And what did the Cs say?

17 Jan 1997

Q: (Laura) Frank had a dream about this the other night,
too. (Terry) About the mantle slowing? Okay, if the mantle
slows and the crust doesn't... (Laura) It's like walking
around the room, carrying a bowl of soup, and then
stopping... (Terry) It sloshes over because the crust keeps
moving... water in all of the oceans is going to slosh...
A: No sloshing.
Q: (Laura) Okay, what happens when the... is it that there
will be lots of earthquakes?
A: Maybe, but what is the bigger picture?
Q: (Laura) The bigger picture is that the earth changes its
orbital position, velocity... (Terry) No. The bigger
picture is that life on earth gets pretty well wiped out.
A: No.
Q: (Laura) It exchanges energy potentials with other bodies?
A: No.
Q: (Jan) Gravity changes...
A: Warmer...
Q: (Laura) Gravity changes, ok... gravity lessens...
A: What have we hinted about gravity.
Q: (Laura) Oh, gravity is the binder... (Terry) and is the
one truth of the universe.
A: Element.
Q: (Terry) The element. Gravity is the one true element. This
is what you're saying?
A: Close.
Q: (Laura) So, if gravity is lessened, and it is the binder,
then, everything... ohhh, I see what you're getting at!
(Jan) Yes, gravity is the binder. Without gravity, it just
all falls apart...
A: Not "Falls apart," my dear, it all "opens up!"
Q: (Laura) And when it opens up what happens?
A: Change.

And then:

22 Feb 1997

A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth.
Q: (Laura) All right, I'll take the bait; give me the three factors, and
also the fourth!.
A: 1) Wave approach.
2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus
affecting ozone layer.
3) Change in the planet's axis rotation
orientation.
4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density ...

Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which they are
occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later?
A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may
not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation.
Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy
is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is
sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages
develop much, much, much faster than thought. ...

Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis?
A: By slow down of rotation. Earth alternately heats up and cools down in
interior.
Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this?
A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by
the frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others.

 

[anka]

Finally I got back to my EC&HCC notes from last year's summer
So here they are:

p.97
"...nearly 3500 [fireballs] were observed in 2013."
Q: But the table shows 3525 so it should be over ?

p.132
" At this point a second phenomenon called piezo electricity might intervene. Some crystals, in particular quartz, which is very frequent in granite rocks, will deform if subjected to electric current (that's almost the reverse of the above described phenomenon, where mechanical deformation triggers electric currents)"
Q: This would deserve more explanation. In Wiki I found this:

The piezoelectric effect is understood as the linear electromechanical interaction between the mechanical and the electrical state in crystalline materials with no inversion symmetry.[4] The piezoelectric effect is a reversible process in that materials exhibiting the direct piezoelectric effect (the internal generation of electrical charge resulting from an applied mechanical force) also exhibit the reverse piezoelectric effect (the internal generation of a mechanical strain resulting from an applied electrical field). For example, lead zirconate titanate crystals will generate measurable piezoelectricity when their static structure is deformed by about 0.1% of the original dimension. Conversely, those same crystals will change about 0.1% of their static dimension when an external electric field is applied to the material. The inverse piezoelectric effect is used in production of ultrasonic sound waves.

So do I understand correctly, the whole earthquake phenomenon could be of piezo electric nature if the affected rocks contain enough i.e.quartz since piezo includes both processes - pressure converted to e-current and vice versa?

p.146
"Even if it [Earth's magnetic shield] disappeared entirely, the number of incoming cosmic rays would only increase by 3%. {#420}"
Reference #420 Ibid, p.61
Q: There is nothing related to the topic of cosmic rays on the page 61, it about the Sun's companion star. What am I missing here?

p.147
"Also, muons have an extremely short life {#427} and they quickly transform into electrons {#428}
#427 2 millionths of a second. Ibid p.55
#428 Ibid p.54-55
Q: Again, pages 54-55 are related to Nemesis, without an obvious connection.

p.181
"The composite illustation in figure 147..."
Q: Apparent typo, should be 'illustration'?

p.187
"The Jet Stream is not limited by coasts and its latitudinal range is very narrow (few kilometres), so no Coriolis Effect applies to it and the Lorentz force freely propels it eastwards all around the globe."
Q: Should it be few hundred kilometres? On page 185 it reads "Jet streams are fast-flowing, narrow (a few hundred miles wide and less than three miles tall)...".

p.205-206
"[George Dodwell] gathered 120 measurements spanning the last four millennia, from 1100 BC up to the 20th century. The graph in figure 169 covers the period 2450 BC to 1960 AD"
Q: The blue line representing Dodwell's data in the figure starts from around 2400 so what's up with that 1100 BC?

p.215
"Notice that most, but not at all, geomagnetic reversals are preceded by magnetic surges, accompanied with global cooling episodes and followed by mass extinctions."
Q: Apparent typo, should be 'but not all'?

p.217-219
"The fact that natural catastrophes and the 'symptoms' described above are becoming more frequent and intense suggest that Nemesis and its accompanying cometary swarm have not yet reached perihelion (...) and may still be approaching somewhere in the far reaches of the solar system."
Q: This sounds logical to me but I also remember that not long ago C's have said the companion star has already passed the perihelion. Can anyone confirm? There would naturally be some delay before the inner system is reached by the swarm's peak wave if the perihelion was around Oort cloud (a few years 3,4,5?) but if the perihelion was at the distance of Pluto's orbit, then the swarm should have already been here or should be observable around Jupiter / Mars by now. Any thoughts on that? So perhaps the swarm is not Nemesis' all-time companion but it is what's generated by Nemesis' passage through Oort cloud and travels towards the centre of our Solar system much slower compared to the sister star?

p.234-235
"The Bush family purchased a 45000-hectare (100000 acres) ranch by in Paraguay in 2006."
Q: Apparent typo, should be 'ranch in Paraguay'?

p.263
"In 1340s there was a veritable rash of sismic activity, ...."
Q: Typo, should be seismic?

p.279
"#839 The human body is estimated to contain about 7 x 1027 atoms."
Q: 7 x 10^27 ?

p.293
Figure 231 - Information as a function of entropy
Q: I want to ask what are the variables k, c & e ?

That's it

---------------

Thank you, Pierre and the crew, for putting together this book. I enjoyed and learned so much from it. And a lot is still left to learn once I come back to read it again. Very enjoyable. The only con, as has been said, is the quality of images, at least in the printed version I referred to. That should be fixed before another edition. Other than that, 5 * from me (out of four ;) ).

 

[Voyageur]

Very good book, I like it how the idea of electric universe is explained in it. Especially I like this idea of the Earth rotating as a homopolar motor, it make a lot of sense. However, it's known fact, that every several hunderds of thousand years the Earth's magnetic poles change it's places. Such change should have some effect on rotation speed of the Earth (it should speed up or slow down). In that case it could have some dramatic effect on events at the planet surface, as it was actually mentioned in the book. I wonder if it's actually possible to find the evidence of such events (increased volcanic activity for example) after inversion of magnetic poles at past. I also wonder if it could be possible, that changing places of magnetic poles could occur around the same time on every object in our solar system, that actually have it's own magnetic field. In that case it could mean that this whole inversion is triggered by some external forces (birkeland current?). The second idea is particularly fascinating for me.

Anyway that's my 2cents, I'm not even sure if that's make sense at all :).

In addition to the above replies, and if not read already, you may also want to catch this transcript on magnetic influence - axis tilts etc. There is a fascinating section on ammonia - crystalline at our planets core (super conducting).

Q: (A) There is this ammonia - crystalline... (L) Surrounded by iron crystal. Is it crystal iron? (A) Probably at this pressure that is here, it may very well be crystal. (L) Okay, is the iron surrounding the ammonia, is it crystalline?
A: Yes.
Q: (L) What's the next layer?
A: Molten iron.
Q: (A) Okay, now we know that some planets have this crystalline ammonia, and some do not. When we consider planets that have this crystal ammonia inside, how did it get there? Was it a kernel first around which the planet was formed, or first the planet was formed and then during some processes the ammonia sank and crystallized inside? I would like to know how it got there?
A: It is the natural formation process for ammonia to accrete iron from supernovae.
Q: (L) I read somewhere - about supernovae - that the only reason we have iron is because it's produced in supernovas. That would mean that our solar system is formed from a supernova, right? In which case what blew up and when? (A) I understand that this crystalline ammonia core - 300 km radius - must have certain magnetic properties which are important. Because it was mentioned that it was lacking in dynamo theory or certain very important properties concerning heat convection. So there are these two main things in dynamo theory - conductivity and electric properties - on the other hand heat convection properties. Why is this ammonia important for the magnetic field because of what properties?
A: Super conducting.

 

[Janek]

Especially I like this idea of the Earth rotating as a homopolar motor, it make a lot of sense. However, it's known fact, that every several hunderds of thousand years the Earth's magnetic poles change it's places. Such change should have some effect on rotation speed of the Earth (it should speed up or slow down). In that case it could have some dramatic effect on events at the planet surface, as it was actually mentioned in the book. I wonder if it's actually possible to find the evidence of such events (increased volcanic activity for example) after inversion of magnetic poles at past.

I found a recent article that correlates volcanic activity with changes in the speed of Earth's rotation. But it's talking about changes on a much smaller time-scale, during which time no pole reversals took place:

Volcanoes are erupting all over the place right now. Scientists have figured out why: A minute slowdown in the planet's rotation

The Earth seems to have been smoking a lot recently. Volcanoes are erupting in Iceland, Hawaii, Indonesia, Ecuador and Mexico right now. Others, in the Philippines and Papua New Guinea, erupted recently but seem to have calmed down. Many of these have threatened homes and forced evacuations. But among their spectators, these eruptions raise this question: Is there such a thing as a season for volcanic eruptions?

While volcanoes may not have "seasons" as we know them, scientists have started to discern intriguing patterns in their activity.

Eruptions caused by a shortened day

The four seasons are caused by the Earth's axis of rotation tilting toward and away from the sun. But our planet undergoes another, less well-known change, which affects it in a more subtle way, perhaps even volcanically.

Due to factors like the gravitational pull of the sun and moon, the speed at which the Earth rotates constantly changes. Accordingly the length of a day actually varies from year to year. The difference is only in the order of milliseconds. But new research suggests that this seemingly small perturbation could bring about significant changes on our planet - or more accurately, within it.

A study published in the journal Terra Nova in February showed that, since the early 19th century, changes in the Earth's rotation rate tended to be followed by increases in global volcanic activity. It found that, between 1830 and 2013, the longest period for which a reliable record was available, relatively large changes in rotation rate were immediately followed by an increase in the number of large volcanic eruptions. And, more than merely being correlated, the authors believe that the rotation changes might actually have triggered these large eruptions.

Altering the spin of a planet, even by a small amount, requires a huge amount of energy. It has been estimated that changes in the Earth's rotation rate dissipate around 120,000 petajoules of energy each year - enough to power the United States for the same length of time. This energy is transferred into the Earth's atmosphere and subsurface. And it is this second consequence that the Terra Nova authors believe could affect volcanoes.

The vast quantities of energy delivered to the subsurface by rotation changes are likely to perturb its stress field. And, since the magma that feeds volcanic eruptions resides in the Earth's crust, stress variations there may make it easier for the liquid rock to rise to the surface, and thereby increase the rate of volcanic eruptions.

The Terra Nova study is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, the idea that minute changes to the Earth's spin could affect volcanic motions deep within the planet is an intriguing one.

And what did the Cs say?

17 Jan 1997

Q: (Laura) Frank had a dream about this the other night,
too. (Terry) About the mantle slowing? Okay, if the mantle
slows and the crust doesn't... (Laura) It's like walking
around the room, carrying a bowl of soup, and then
stopping... (Terry) It sloshes over because the crust keeps
moving... water in all of the oceans is going to slosh...
A: No sloshing.
Q: (Laura) Okay, what happens when the... is it that there
will be lots of earthquakes?
A: Maybe, but what is the bigger picture?
Q: (Laura) The bigger picture is that the earth changes its
orbital position, velocity... (Terry) No. The bigger
picture is that life on earth gets pretty well wiped out.
A: No.
Q: (Laura) It exchanges energy potentials with other bodies?
A: No.
Q: (Jan) Gravity changes...
A: Warmer...
Q: (Laura) Gravity changes, ok... gravity lessens...
A: What have we hinted about gravity.
Q: (Laura) Oh, gravity is the binder... (Terry) and is the
one truth of the universe.
A: Element.
Q: (Terry) The element. Gravity is the one true element. This
is what you're saying?
A: Close.
Q: (Laura) So, if gravity is lessened, and it is the binder,
then, everything... ohhh, I see what you're getting at!
(Jan) Yes, gravity is the binder. Without gravity, it just
all falls apart...
A: Not "Falls apart," my dear, it all "opens up!"
Q: (Laura) And when it opens up what happens?
A: Change.

And then:

22 Feb 1997

A: Climate is being influenced by three factors, and soon a fourth.
Q: (Laura) All right, I'll take the bait; give me the three factors, and
also the fourth!.
A: 1) Wave approach.
2) Chloroflorocarbon increase in atmosphere, thus
affecting ozone layer.
3) Change in the planet's axis rotation
orientation.
4) Artificial tampering by 3rd and 4th density ...

Q: (Laura) All right, were those given in the order in which they are
occurring? The fourth being the one that's coming later?
A: Maybe, but remember this: a change in the speed of the rotation may
not be reported while it is imperceptible except by instrumentation.
Equator is slightly "wider" than the polar zones. But, this discrepancy
is decreasing slowly currently. One change to occur in 21st Century is
sudden glacial rebound, over Eurasia first, then North America. Ice ages
develop much, much, much faster than thought. ...

Q: (Jan) What causes the change in the axis?
A: By slow down of rotation. Earth alternately heats up and cools down in
interior.
Q: (Laura) Why does it do that? What's the cause of this?
A: Part of cycle related to energy exerted upon surface by
the frequency resonance vibrational profile of humans and others.

Thank you for all your answers, that's what I tried to say. All I wanted to add is that if every time geomagnetic reversal happens the Earth rotation speed changes, then there must be some traces left, for example increased volcanic activity. I did a little research and found out that it is something that actually have place, it's mentioned here:

An extremely brief reversal of the geomagnetic field, climate variability and a super volcano

41,000 years ago, a complete and rapid reversal of the geomagnetic field occured. Magnetic studies of the GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences on sediment cores from the Black Sea show that during this period, during the last ice age, a compass at the Black Sea would have pointed to the south instead of north. Moreover, data obtained by the research team formed around GFZ researchers Dr. Norbert Nowaczyk and Prof. Helge Arz, together with additional data from other studies in the North Atlantic, the South Pacific and Hawaii, prove that this polarity reversal was a global event. Their results are published in the latest issue of the scientific journal "Earth and Planetary Science Letters".

What is remarkable is the speed of the reversal: "The field geometry of reversed polarity, with field lines pointing into the opposite direction when compared to today's configuration, lasted for only about 440 years, and it was associated with a field strength that was only one quarter of today's field," explains Norbert Nowaczyk. "The actual polarity changes lasted only 250 years. In terms of geological time scales, that is very fast." During this period, the field was even weaker, with only 5% of today's field strength. As a consequence, the Earth nearly completely lost its protection shield against hard cosmic rays, leading to a significantly increased radiation exposure.

This is documented by peaks of radioactive beryllium (10Be) in ice cores from this time, recovered from the Greenland ice sheet. 10Be as well as radioactive carbon (14C) is caused by the collision of high-energy protons from space with atoms of the atmosphere.

The Laschamp event

The polarity reversal now found with the magnetisation of Black Sea sediments has already been known for 45 years. It was first discovered after the analysis of the magnetisation of several lava flows near the village Laschamp near Clermont-Ferrand in the Massif Central, which differed significantly from today's direction of the geomagnetic field. Since then, this geomagnetic feature is known as the 'Laschamp event'. However, the data of the Massif Central represent only some point readings of the geomagnetic field during the last ice age, whereas the new data from the Black Sea give a complete image of geomagnetic field variability at a high temporal resolution.

Abrupt climate changes and a super volcano

Besides giving evidence for a geomagnetic field reversal 41,000 years ago, the geoscientists from Potsdam discovered numerous abrupt climate changes during the last ice age in the analysed cores from the Black Sea, as it was already known from the Greenland ice cores. This ultimately allowed a high precision synchronisation of the two data records from the Black Sea and Greenland. The largest volcanic eruption on the Northern hemisphere in the past 100 000 years, namely the eruption of the super volcano 39400 years ago in the area of today's Phlegraean Fields near Naples, Italy, is also documented within the studied sediments from the Black Sea. The ashes of this eruption, during which about 350 cubic kilometers of rock and lava were ejected, were distributed over the entire eastern Mediterranean and up to central Russia. These three extreme scenarios, a short and fast reversal of the Earth's magnetic field, short-term climate variability of the last ice age and the volcanic eruption in Italy, have been investigated for the first time in a single geological archive and placed in precise chronological order.

And I also found this article:

Studies of deep-sea sedimentary cores from Antarctic Pacific waters show that some volcanic maxima occurred when the geomagnetic polarity was changing. Upper mantle activity and geomagnetic polarity change may therefore be related. Coincidences of faunal extinction and geomagnetic polarity change may be explained by corresponding volcanically induced climatic changes.

Unfortunately it's only an abstract, becouse access to full article isn't for free. Anyway, what I found is, there is indeed a corelation between geomagnetic reversal and increased volcanic activity. What I didn't find (but maybe I wasn't looking hard enough) from mainstream science was a clear explenation of why this corelation occurs.