Slashdot Mirror


Earth's Core Spins Faster than Earth

Dreamwalkerofyore writes "The New York Times has an article on a recent affirmation that the earth's core rotates faster than the earth proper. From the article: 'Confirming assertions first made in 1996, a team of geophysicists are presenting data in the journal Science today showing that the earth's inner core... spins faster than the rest of the planet. Over a period of 700 to 1,200 years, the inner core appears to make one full extra spin. That extra spin could give scientists information about how the earth generates its magnetic field.'"

309 comments

  1. Give my regards to the Earth's core... by kzinti · · Score: 5, Funny

    So I'm just wondering: does this delta-omega have anything to do with the fact that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every 200,000 years or so? Please begin rampant conjecture and wild speculation. Extra credit to anyone who can credibly bring Roswell or right-wing conspiracies into the discussion. Fnord.

    1. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Interesting
      So I'm just wondering: does this delta-omega have anything to do with the fact that the Earth's magnetic field reverses itself every 200,000 years or so?

      Well, according to Wikipedia why the reversal happens isn't well understood, so it very well could be. However there are some hints that this is the case in the Geomagnetic excursion page:
      The dominant theory is that they are an inherent aspect of the dynamo processes that maintain the Earth's magnetic field. In computer simulations, it is observed that magnetic field lines can sometimes become tangled and disorganized through the chaotic motions of liquid metal in the Earth's core
      I'd suggest looking for more authorative sources if you're truly interested.

      Please begin rampant conjecture and wild speculation.

      Don't mind if I do. From Geomagnetic reversal at wikipedia:
      homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions.
      Makes me wonder how geomagnetic reversals coincide with the speciation and evolution of our ancestors (or any animals). The extra radiation might not have killed them, but it certainly could have mixed things up, create higher then normal mutation rates. The last one was 780,000 years ago. Homo sapiens sapiens hasn't ever existed while there's been a geomagnetic reversal. It could be that by the time we came around, the mutations had died down to a normal rate.
    2. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by telecsan · · Score: 1, Troll

      Please begin rampant conjecture and wild speculation.

      Now someone needs to create a worm-like vehicle capable of transporting nuc-u-lar weapons to the core to get it spinning at the correct rate!

      Forget the space station... take a $1billion ride to THE CORE!!!

    3. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by deop4s · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Probably something - what will be interesting is if someone can figure out not only the speed, but also the direction of the spin. There's no guarantee that the inner core is actually spinning along the same axis as the mantle/crust. Seems possible that an offset of a few minutes between the axes of rotation might explain why the magnetic poles are not exactly matched with the rotation axis of the earth.

    4. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by duffbeer703 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Art Bell says that leprechauns and faires join up with the grey alien people and reverse the polarity. They are probably hired by the black helicopter folks or the Masons.

      --
      Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
    5. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice Fawlty Towers reference!!

    6. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok, let's start the pseudo-science and conspiracy theory generator :-)

      Well, you know, in Rosswell there's a dark energy vortex, which extents to the core. This BTW is why the alien space ship crashed; it's quite unusual to have dark energy vortices on earth-like planets (it's not that unusual on gas planets, for example the Great Red Spot is in reality the result of a - much bigger - dark energy vortex [don't believe the scientist telling you it's just a big storm!]), therefore the aliens were not prepared to it. Indeed Earth is quite special to have a particularly rich dark energy vortex structure (a rather big one is e.g. at the Bermuda triangle, although that one reaches a few hundred kilometers into the air, instead going down), which is also the cause of earth rays (water just acts as focus lense for them).

      Now the delta-omega in conjunction with the other periodic effects from sun and moon causes certain structures of the core to coincide with the vortex axis about every 200,000 years. This results in a temporary slowdown of the core (the rotation energy gets transferred into the vortex during that time, and then back into the core to let it spin again). This slowdown lets the magnetic field vanish. Now the time of this breakdown happens to coincide with half a period of the vortex' intrinsic oszillation, therefore when the magnetic field is re-built, it points into the opposite direction.

      Ok, where do the right-wing conspiracies come in? Well, the knowledge of this is actually held back by the right-wing politicians because the dark energy vortex interacts with the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Now the increasing level of CO2 might cause the vortex to move, and secret calculations show that in doing so it would permanently kill the rotation of the core and therefore destroy the magnetic field of the Earth. In order to avoid any danger to the oil sales, right-wing politicians actively suppress this knowled... wait, why are those black helicopters in front of my ... NO CARRIER

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dear kzinti;

      Current scientific theories on this subject are, at best, incomplete. I would like to offer an equally plausible alternative theory; Intelligent Spinning.

      The Intelligent Spinner carefully regulates the speed at which the Earth's inner core rotates relative to the crust, thus regulating with great accuracy the strength and shape of the Earth's protective magnetic shield. Since this shield is so vital to life on this planet, it is inconceivable that it exists merely by chance. Therefore, we can conclude that the Intelligent Spinner was put in place by the Intelligent Designer, as one of the many mechanisms to protect His creation.

      Extrapolating from this scenario, we arrive at the conclusion that the magnetic field reversal is all part of the Intelligent Designer's plan. Indeed, so-called "scientific" estimates have failed to predict another reversal. The Science-agenda advocates would have you believe that such reversals occur every 200,000 years, however in the same breath they also claim it has been over 780,000 years since the previous one. It is apparent that these scientists are simply making excuses for their flawed theories. Indeed, as we all know the Earth is only about 6,000 years old so the very notion of a 200,000 year cycle is absurd! My Intelligent Spinner theory predicts that the magnetic poles has (and will) weaken and eventually flip whenever the Intelligent Designer deems the time is right.

      As you can see, my alternative theory explains the observed natural phenomena just as well as -- indeed, better than -- the current "scientific" theories of geology. I therefore assert that my theory is at least a viable alternative and feel that equal time should be given to its teaching in the classroom.

      Thank you for your time;
      =Smidge=

    8. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Xyde · · Score: 1

      "...and if you bother us again I shall visit you in the small hours of the night and put a bat up your nightdress!"

    9. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by vortigern00 · · Score: 1

      This is a very worthwhile discussion for slashdot as well, and for anyone else who is science-minded. I took a number of courses in geomagnetic theory when I was a graduate student studying Geophysics, and I can tell you that the state of geomagnetic theory is amazingly poor. It is a huge body of amazingly complicated theory that, by and large, doesn't work.

      So, theorize on, geeks!

    10. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by JunkmanUK · · Score: 1

      So if I was, say, a criminal mastermind who wanted to kill James Bond... or...someone...

      I could chain his arms to the core and leg to the earth proper and tear him apart?

      Just for information you understand...

    11. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Mudcathi · · Score: 5, Funny
      Makes me wonder how geomagnetic reversals coincide with the speciation and evolution of our ancestors (or any animals).

      I imagine that the mix up caused confused ducks to fly to Alaska for the winter, instead of Florida... and so if a reversal were to occur today, with the little magnetic compasses in our grandparent's pristine 1972 Chevy Impalas pointing 180 degrees in the wrong direction, we'll find their frozen carcasses somewhere in the Yukon around late November, surrounded by baffled ducks.

      --

      "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

    12. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Beale · · Score: 5, Funny

      This is just one example of the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster in his Harlem Globetrotter aspect.

      May we be forever touched by his noodly appendage.

    13. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Smidge204 · · Score: 2, Funny

      (Score:5, Insightful)

      *facepalms* Ah, Merton, you tricky bastard!

      =Smidge=

    14. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Smidge204 · · Score: 5, Funny

      May we be forever touched by his noodly appendage.

      RAmen.

      =Smidge=

    15. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by mikael · · Score: 1

      Not forgetting any precession that may be happening as well. Then there are going to be all sorts of interesting oscillation patterns.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    16. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tidal Friction

    17. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      At least the 1972 Chevy Impalas would still run! Modern computerized cars wouldn't.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    18. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I met a guy who actually has had his biology/cell research on some of the shuttle missions.

      His experiments are part of his exploration of how very small magnetic fields affect cells. He said that you would be surprised at how much you can affect a cell, especially during division, by small perturbations of a magnetic field around the cell.

      With that in mind, consider the activity of high energy particles (most would still be ablated by the atmosphere though) during a geomagnetic flip in conjunction with the effects of magnetic fields on cell division and you have a highly plausible justificaion for "fast" evolution on a widespread scale.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    19. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by zipzap54 · · Score: 1

      Is this dark energy vortex anything like those black hole thingy's???

      --
      "All programmers are playwrights and all computers are lousy actors."
    20. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by q-the-impaler · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you read about Intelligent Falling Theory.

      --
      Sierra Tango Foxtrot Uniform
    21. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by UttBuggly · · Score: 1

      Actually, the detected spin is not that of the Earth's core, but the body of Isaac Asimov after the release of "I, Robot".

      --
      I am my own gestalt.
    22. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Thrymm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Earth is also cooling, albeit at a very slow rate correct? Thus the Inner Core should be growing larger as the molten core cools one would think.. ie: Mars with only a solid core.

      One other question I do have, is the core all iron? What about the heavier metallic elements such as Uranium which is decaying, etc....

    23. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I therefore assert that my theory is at least a viable alternative and feel that equal time should be given to its teaching in the classroom.

      It is. Attend theology and philosophy classes. Further, research the Anthropic Principle. You will see that this viewpoint is INCLUDED in science, and NOT at odds with it.

      It is a mistake to assume that religious concepts are mutally exclusive to scientific ones. They complement each other.

    24. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by loyukfai · · Score: 1
      NO CARRIER

      Obviously he's still using a 56k modem... : )

    25. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Interesting

      what will be interesting is if someone can figure out not only the speed, but also the direction of the spin. There's no guarantee that the inner core is actually spinning along the same axis as the mantle/crust.

      Sure there is: Fluid Friction. Only convection (like atmospheric or oceanic weather phenomena but at geologic time scales) and forces from the dynamo are likely to have any non-straightforward effect, and those will be minor deltas.

      The basic mechanism is obvious: The planet is spinning. The core is molten while the crust is essentially solid. There is a massive moon, orbiting above synchronous orbit and creating tidal drag. The tidal drag slows the rotation and raises the moon's orbit. The tidal braking force is strongest at or near the surface of the planet and vanishes at the center.

      With braking at the outer layers the core spins a tad faster, but in the same direction and (with the braking very small compared to the fluid fricton) ALMOST exactly at the same rate - the difference is about one turn in 300,000 (assuming the middle of the article's range).

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    26. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Or pigeons.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    27. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by aniefer · · Score: 1

      The dominant theory is that they are an inherent aspect of the dynamo processes that maintain the Earth's magnetic field. In computer simulations, it is observed that magnetic field lines can sometimes become tangled and disorganized through the chaotic motions of liquid metal in the Earth's core
      There was an article last year in National Geographic about the sun. The general idea was that coronal mass ejections were caused when the rotating plasma caused the magnetic field to become so tangled that the field lines spontaneously snapped and reconfigured themselves into a lesser energy state. I could imagine the same applying to the eath's field on larger timescales. A reversal of the field lines could occur in such a reconfiguration. I would imagine that we would notice the warped field lines long before they came close to snapping.

    28. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      As much as I hate to feed trolls...

      1) It is not a theory because it is not based solely on empirical evidence, has no predictive ability (and is therefore useless in terms of scientific progress) and is de-facto untestable. It is a nice little story, though, and it may help you sleep better at night if you can write off such uncertainties with "God makes it that way" - but that is not science. My post was 100% satire.

      2) The Anthropic Principle falls apart because it assumes life as we know it is the ONLY way life could exist. In fact the reasoning used is somewhat circular, because if the fundamental properties of the universe were different, we would either not exist (and therefore wouldn't be around to contemplate our existence!) or we would exist, possibly in a different form, and be saying how amazing it is that if the fundamental properties of the universe were different, we would not exist. In other words, you should not assume that the universe is the way it is as a consequence of life existing (First quote).

      3) IMHO, Science and dogmatic religion are indeed opposites. Science dares to ask questions and oppose current ways of viewing the world. Dogmatic religion discourages and sometimes punishes those who question the teachings. Plus, saying "God did it" is a logical dead-end and halts progress. Having a partial answer that leaves more questions allows you to continue searching and discover more things. For example, if everyone accepted as fact that Zeus sat in the clouds throwing lighting bolts, chances are we would never have explored electricity which eventually led to the development of batteries, electric motors and computers. If everyone throughout history just accepted "God did it" as valid "theory" we would all still be working the fields with sticks. Well, all of us except the priests and kings...

      Science and religion may not be *mutually exclusive* (in the sense that a good scientist can still be religious) but they most certainly do not compliment each other.
      =Smidge=

    29. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science and Religion are mutually exclusive by definition. By definition, science relies on empirical evidence. We then create scientific theories that predict other things based on such evidence. The *purpose* of science is to break such theories, refine the ideas and produce a more complete theory.

      Religion, on the other hand, comes up with a set of axioms. For example, the first being God is infalable and created *everything*. Then they try to explain things they see or they don't around using that axiom. If they cannot, then they revert to the axiom completely and say "because God indended it that way and we are too puny to understand Him"

      The ultimate goal of science (that will never be attain because we cannot learn *everything*) is to describe everything, not just The Universe, but everything. Religious people believe that if you can explain everything, thus it follows you disprove God.

      The purpose of Religion is to allow weakminded(1) people ability to explain the unknown such that they do not fear it.

      The only way the two clash is produced by people that understand neither science or religion. They live with mentality of "ignorance is bliss" and "it doesn't happen if you don't understand it".

      *weakminded(meaning used.) - people that cannot accept that their lives may not have a "higher" purpose, so to prevent them from self-destructing (suicide, crime) they must believe. Most people still fall in this category. In this sense, religion is good.

    30. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you are just joking. Just in case somebody takes your comment seriously :-), here is my refutation:

      It's just the oposite thing. Life as we know it has been adjusting itself, through Evolution, to this Earth, this Earth's Core and all of their whims. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any complex life on Earth, not to speak of intelligent life.

      Please, understand also that there must be a zillion planets in which life can not appear. I guess that in those planets nobody discusses the so called "Intelligent Design" :-).

      I can't understand all this brouhaha with Creationism and Evolution. I mean that:
      - If "Inteligent Design"==true, it means either that:
            * God exists and has gone to a great extent to hide His existence from us.
            * God doesn't exist, and the "Inteligent Designers" are other kind of beings, i.e. Little Green Men or dwellers of paralell universes.
      - If "Evolutionism"==true, it means either that:
            * God exists and has gone to a great extent to hide His existence from us.
            * God doesn't exist, and Evolution explains perfectly our existence

      I can't see why conservatives should back this "Inteligent Design", 'cause it doesn't prove a damn thing about religion. Except that bigotry abounds amongst conservatives, this is.:^)

    31. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      I'd think that over the last 4.5 billion years everything got lined up.

      I'd be willing to bet that the difference in rotational speeds is due to tidal drag. Tidal drag is slowing down Earth's rotation (it's what pretty much stopped the Moon's rotation relative to Earth) and would have more of an effect the further from the center of mass you are.

    32. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Tanmi-Daiow · · Score: 1

      Well, maybe Homo sapiens are the result of the extra mutation/radiation.

      --
      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." - C.S. Lewis
    33. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by smyle · · Score: 1
      Modern computerized cars wouldn't.

      Why? My "modern computerized car" seems to work just fine driving both north and south. How would this make a difference?

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

    34. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by dodobh · · Score: 1

      The r* protocols are insecure! You should be using SAmen instead.

      --
      I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
    35. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Or he's on a boat and telling the helicopters there is no aircraft carrier for them to land on.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    36. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      Of all the bad movies this one was right up there with WORST. MOVIE. EVER!

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    37. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      It's fashionable to pretend like modern, computerized cars are magically more fragile than the marvels of engineering that are early 70's American crap-mobiles.

      Go figure.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    38. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by fatted · · Score: 2, Informative
    39. Re:Give my regards to the Earth's core... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      This is Slashdot, so I'm just repeating "something I heard somewhere." In other words, I probably don't know WTF I'm talking about.

      Even so, what I've heard is that the disruption in the magnetic field during the shift could cause increased EM radiation which could fry electronics. Or something like that. At any rate, it would be an effect of the shift itself, not that the field would have the opposite polarity.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. first post by muttoj · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Seems logic to me. The core is spinning and the outside of earth has drag to cope with.

    1. Re:first post by AliasTheRoot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      dragging on what? the vacuum surrounding the earth?

    2. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way! _WE_ on the _surface_ are the center of the world.

      Not that hellish core that God doesn't want us to see.

    3. Re:first post by geekster · · Score: 1

      I think you're on to something! The core, or "Hell", is actually where this "God" person exist, claiming it a baaaad place. He then made up a place called "Heaven", supposedly a nice place, somewhere up in the sky which will keep us busy looking for him forever further away since space is infinite. Meanwhile he's down there in that magical happy place having fun!

    4. Re:first post by xnderxnder · · Score: 1

      .. the outside of earth has drag to cope with.

      Granted, there are many many horrible drag acts out there, but a good many drag queens put on a good show!

      Hold it, are we talking about the same thing?

      --
      hooked up funny
    5. Re:first post by Timberwolf0122 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close but wrong, the earth rotation is being slowed down by the moon or rather it is being slowed down by the Earth speeding up the moons orbit (hence the reason it get about a meter further away each year).

      Science part: The earth is not perfectly round and is slightly pulled out where the moon is, now because the earth is rotating faster than the moon is orbiting this buldge is actualy occures slightly infront of the moon, the result is the moon gets pulled. This effect slows earth rotation and speeds up the moons orbit.

      --
      In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
    6. Re:first post by Vicsun · · Score: 1

      Furthermore, if the core is spinning at a different speed then the rest of the Earth, it will have drag to deal with, no?

    7. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would expect that the gravitaional drag from the earths counter spin against the sun (earth daily rotation against earth orbital rotation) would account for the drag effect. Include the atmospheric drag into the equation and thats a lot of drag.

    8. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the reverse is true. The core is dragging against the interior of the Earth, whereas the Earth is dragging against (vitually) nothing (vaccuum).

      It prompts the questions: Given that the core is encountering friction, was it spnning faster in the past, and will it spin slower (and not at all, eventually) in the future?

      I'm sure the gravitational forces and pressures produced by the Earth's mass factor in here.

    9. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      This may come as a surprise, but space is not a vaccuum. There is quite a bit of miscellaneous matter floating about in space, and while the impact is small, over millions of years the inevitable physics is that rotation slows down.

    10. Re:first post by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      The atmosphere. The earth's rotation is gradually slowing down due to drag from the atmosphere (related to tides IIRC)

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    11. Re:first post by ran-o-matic · · Score: 1

      Now that is funny!

    12. Re:first post by scovetta · · Score: 1

      Correct.

      I remember reading somewhere about ideas on "very fast" transport in space. One of them was a ship with a big hydrogen collector that fuses the atoms into helium, which produces thrust. I want to say they estimated the number of hydrogen atoms in space at around 1 per cubic centimeter, or 1 per cubic meter (not sure which), but they said that even that would eventually produce enough drag to have the ship reach a maximum velocity around 0.60c.

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
    13. Re:first post by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      You mean... like the Enterprise?

    14. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the atmosphere. Doy! It's "science"!

  3. Easily Explained by Ann+Elk · · Score: 5, Funny

    The core spins faster because the bodies of the US founding fathers are spinning in their graves at such high RPM.

    1. Re:Easily Explained by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, it's clearly intelligent spin. There must be some agent of unimaginable power who is actively pushing the core to faster velocities. We cannot know why someone would want to do this, but as they must be very intelligent to figure out a way to accomplish this, we must conclude that they have their reasons.

      Now, the real question in my mind, is the intelligent spinner Vulcan/Hephaestus, YHWH, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

      My theory is that it's the FSM. While Vulcan and Hephaestus were gods of the earth and of volcanoes, they were only minor characters in the Olympian pantheon, and on top of that, cripples. Clearly they are incapable of pushing the Earth's core at all. YHWH is too busy turning homosexuals into pillars of salt to be bothered with core spinning. Therefore, only a noodley appendage can spin the Earth's Core at such a velocity.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    2. Re:Easily Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Force that in any harder and you'd have hurt yourself...

    3. Re: Easily Explained by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Informative


      > No, it's clearly intelligent spin.

      FYI, Intelligent Spin (notice the capitalization, please!) is just a special case of Intelligent Falling.

      Shoulders of giants, kind of thing.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    4. Re:Easily Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bookmark "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" was sent to 35 recipients.

    5. Re:Easily Explained by Flying+Spaghetti+Mon · · Score: 0





      Midget, I Touch You With My Noodly Appendage



      Note: core rotation speed is the cause of global warming. Some smart Midget may, one day, discover why killing Pirates increase core velocity



    6. Re:Easily Explained by rbarreira · · Score: 1
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    7. Re:Easily Explained by markov_chain · · Score: 1

      Remember when Superman reversed the Earth's spin to turn back time? Well he reversed it back too. What they didn't show is how he knew exactly how much to spin it back? Maybe he overshot, and corrected, leaving the core spinning faster.

      --
      Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
    8. Re:Easily Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, I had no idea Lot's wife was a lesbian!

      (Oh, and someone tell that Jew down there that Christians & Jews both worship YHWH.)

      [/pedant]

    9. Re:Easily Explained by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, well that's all very well. Now, lets come up with some sort of simple energy source for our modes of transport other than what we now have, burning fossil fuels inside of a piston engine to provide power. What ever happened to Atomic Cars?
      Probably not it, but please, please someone come up with something, quick. The electric motor is probably it, but how to power? Maybe it is something more obvious than that, I just don't know.

  4. Military applications by Kawahee · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't see how this could be all that technologically useful for consumers, but for the military, I'd like to see little plastic spheres that, when twisted, generate their own little magnetic fields without any other materials than what the enemy would expect to be naturally residing in an area. Drop a few around a desert or combat area, and watch their compasses/electrical equipment go out.

    --
    I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    1. Re:Military applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If we could cheaply generate fields that strong, we would not need nuclear power plants, we could generate all the energy we need using induction.

    2. Re: Military applications by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > I don't see how this could be all that technologically useful for consumers, but for the military

      I'm more interested in its effect on my pool game.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:Military applications by hcdejong · · Score: 1

      You'd have to generate an awesome magnetic field to disrupt electronic equipment, if that is even possible. Consider what happens when you have a magnet near a computer: magnetic media get corrupted, and CRT tubes go wonky as the beam is deflected, but otherwise they'll continue to function normally.

      Compasses are a bit easier, but won't be used as much now that GPS is here.

    4. Re:Military applications by ShadowBot · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, a device that creates a mangetic field in a localised area...?

      I think i've seen something like this, they weren't spherical though...

      I think they were called... Oh yes, Magnets!!!

      There's really little use in creating something that occurs naturally.

      --
      Quantum Physics a.k.a. sub-molecular statistics
    5. Re:Military applications by Kawahee · · Score: 1

      I did point out that it was something that the enemy wouldn't expect in that area.

      --
      I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
    6. Re:Military applications by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that to cause the Earth to slow down by tapping into it's kenetic energy? I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    7. Re:Military applications by bmalia · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bah.. Who needs the whole day/night thing anyway.

      --
      There's no place like ~/
    8. Re:Military applications by budgenator · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of places in michigan's nothern lower peninsula and upper peninsula where blindly following your magnetic compass will lead you arround in circles and sprials, been there done that.

      It takes a lot of magnetic field to do it on purpose or a fair sized deposit of magentite iron ore in the ground. As far as GPS, a ground station with a bad clock can reek havock, and jammers were used in Iraq.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    9. Re:Military applications by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you throw a bunch of little devices that somehow screw up the ENEMIES electronics. What about when we have moved the "enemy" from the area? Do "we" have the ability to resist such diabolical devices?

      I think the military is aware of magnets, BTW.

    10. Re:Military applications by Kawahee · · Score: 0

      Yes, but to make magnets strong enough to disrupt stuff you need electronics etc scattered around with it. A rangefinder can pick up a Gameboy a mile away, what do you think it'll do to complicated military-grade electronics? The idea is that we use something natural here. And no, "we" don't necessarily have the ability to resist such diabolical devices, without excessive magnetic shielding. It's like an EM pulse.

      --
      I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
  5. Complete? by Boronx · · Score: 5, Funny

    Whoah, it looks like it's going to complete one full spin in the next decade, that's going to make Y2K look like a walk in the park.

    1. Re:Complete? by neverutterwhen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Y2K was a walk in the park.

      --
      My appreciation of Douglas Adams is far deeper than yours.
    2. Re:Complete? by Thorwak · · Score: 0

      Maybe if you didn't work on any of the ancient systems needing conversion. It was overhyped, I agree, but that was partly what made it seem like a walk in the park to everyone else.

      --
      Connection closed by foreign host.
    3. Re:Complete? by Himring · · Score: 2, Funny

      Y2K was a walk in the park.

      You apparently missed Pat Robertson's leadups....

      --
      "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
    4. Re:Complete? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Hold on to your hats! Weeee!

  6. Hmmm... by gowen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Given that the Earth's rotation is slowing down, isn't it immediately apparent that the liquid core must spin faster than the outside. It's just basic fluid dynamics. If apply a torque to the outside of a fluid filled region, the middle of that region will feel the effect last.

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re: Hmmm... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Funny


      > Given that the Earth's rotation is slowing down, isn't it immediately apparent that the liquid core must spin faster than the outside. It's just basic fluid dynamics. If apply a torque to the outside of a fluid filled region, the middle of that region will feel the effect last.

      At noon let's all face west and run five miles real fast, to see if we can get the shell back up to speed.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re:Hmmm... by Thagg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And what's potentially going to be *really* interesting is that earth is going to slow down fairly dramatically over the next few hundred years, according to US scientists. Note the article a few days ago in Slashdot about the US government lobbying to get rid of the leap second, and just have a leap hour every 500 or 600 years. If you do the (very simple) math, you can see that these scientists anticipate the earth rotation rate slowing down by five or six seconds a year over that time.

      My guess is that this is due to global warming, and the earth (particularly the oceans) getting farther from the spin axis -- both by just expansion due to increased temperature and from land-locked ice melting into the ocean (especially from Greenland.)

      So, whatever effects that are caused by the differential change in rotation, will be exacerbated at least another 20% or so.

      Oh, and the earth's inner core (the part that the FA describes as rotating faster) is solid, not liquid. The solid inner core is lubricated by several hundred miles of liquid outer core from the rest of the planet.

      Thad Beier

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    3. Re: Hmmm... by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm on the north pole, you insensitive clod!

      Can I just spin real fast?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Hmmm... by vortigern00 · · Score: 1

      That's pretty good intuition, but you are ignoring the fact that other processes within the earth (such as heat transfer by convection, which also generates motion perpendicular to the raduis) are dissipating energy at a much higher rate than the earth's spin is.

    5. Re: Hmmm... by pomakis · · Score: 1

      Walk one meter forward, turn 90 degrees to your right, and run in a circle around your starting position. Don't bother trying to keep your watch up to date with the different timezones you'll be crossing.

    6. Re: Hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately, when we stop running, the whole effect is cancelled out...

    7. Re:Hmmm... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      The expansion of the oceans due to global warming will raise sea level a few meters. Tens of meters, tops.

      Compared to Earth's radius (6378 km), that's chump change. Particularly when you consider that the interior of the Earth isn't going to warm up and will therefore not adjust at all, and that's where the overwelming majority of Earth's mass is.

      Also, note that adding a leap hour every 500 years isn't the same as saying that Earth's spin period will increase by 1 hour in that time. (I get the impression that that is how you're reading this. Apologies if not.) It's saying that the Earth's spin includes and extra 3600 seconds in 16 billion, or 1 parting in 4.5 million. That's not a serious increase at all.

    8. Re:Hmmm... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Except that you're ignoring the fact that the Earth's spin IS slowing because the Moon IS moving away from us. The latter has been measured. Conservation of angular momentum *requires* Earth to slow down in response.

      (In fact, frictional dissipation due to convection doesn't do anything to spin since there is no torque.)

    9. Re:Hmmm... by vortigern00 · · Score: 1

      Ah, very good point in the latter. I entirely missed the fact that there would be no net torque in convection. That should have been pretty obvious :) Getting rusty, am I.

    10. Re:Hmmm... by budgenator · · Score: 1

      Is everything caused by global warming? I don't believe we're having global warming at all, it's just global coming back toward our normal temperatures that's all. The Earth was an Idyllic tropical place back when the dinosaurs roamed it, why are we so arrogent to think that it's not the conditions that are normal for the planet, temps go up and down in their own cycle not ours.

      Sure some species are going to selected out and some are going to be selected in. I know that's going to piss off a bunch of soccer mom's driving SUV's while complaining about everybody else's gas-hogs and Hollywood liberal's being driven around in limo's to movie premiers and award shows, but hey screw'em if they can't take a joke. It's not like we chose to live between an ice-age and a warm-spell.

      Of course You'll see I said believe, that means I don't know, but anybody who says they do are dellusional. In the mean time ( and before I get modded into troll-hell), I walk to work and have cut my personal gasoline consumption down by a third, I support limiting carbon-based fuels and replacing them as quickly as possible, increasing carbon-based fuel taxes ( but not sadisticaly) in the US and using the money for realistic alternative fuel research, and makeing public transportation1. actualy usable would be a good thing even if CO2 doesn't warm the Earth, it would have a lot of geo-political advantages.

      1 ever wonder why you can't ride a bus to the train station to the airport airport to the train to the bus all on one ticket like they do in Europe, to get from one end of the continent to the other?

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    11. Re:Hmmm... by multi+io · · Score: 4, Informative
      If you have to introduce 1 leap hour or 3600 leap seconds in 600 years, all that means is that the *average* length of the mean solar day during that time was 1hour/600years=~2e-7 longer than 86400 sec. How much of that elongation was actually caused by the earths's rotation slowing down, and how much was caused by, say, the fact that the rotation was a bit too slow from the start, is a different question.

      Now, AFAIK it happens to be the case that the definition of the second in the 1960s was indeed a bit too short with respect to the length of the mean solar day even back then, so the fact that the earth's rotation was too slow from the start will be the dominating contributor to the introduction of leap seconds for the next few centuries at least.

    12. Re: Hmmm... by mfrank · · Score: 1

      He's at the North pole, dammit. He'll just set the ice cap to spinning. Now, if he were at the *South* pole...

    13. Re:Hmmm... by GypC · · Score: 1
      My guess is that this is due to global warming...

      ROFL

      Mod parent up! That was hilarious.

    14. Re:Hmmm... by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Quite the opposite: if Earth's crust slows down I would say it is being slowed down by a _slower_ core...

    15. Re:Hmmm... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter if that's where the majority of the mass is, haven't you ever seen a mobile?
      In torque the radius matters. Significant effects have already been associated with large hydro-power reservoirs on land, this idea is not so undifferent.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    16. Re:Hmmm... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Wrong. For moment of intertia (which is what we're about here, not torque: we're not changing the angular momentum), it's the mass *and* the radius. Radius comes in to the formula squared. But mass comes in linearly. So while radius is important, you can't go neglecting mass distribution at all. And with the overwelming majority of Earth's mass being in the core and mantle (and most of the mass of the crust being rock...), the oceans expanding a few meters isn't going to really siginificantly alter Earth's moment of intertia. The result may be *measureable*, but it's nothing significant.

  7. So the real question is... by MosesJones · · Score: 2, Funny


    With this different rotation at the core, what type of Baseball pitch is the earth? And was it thrown left or right handed?

    Personally I think we've been thrown a curve-ball.

    Sorry couldn't resist.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:So the real question is... by shpoffo · · Score: 1

      Naturally, it woudl ahve to be a left-handed through, given the recent findings about cosmic radiation!
       
      .
      -shpoffo

  8. If the core ever stops spinning by strannik · · Score: 5, Funny

    We'll need to do core dump analysis.

    1. Re:If the core ever stops spinning by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean this one?

    2. Re:If the core ever stops spinning by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 1

      What do think Dianetics is?

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    3. Re:If the core ever stops spinning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly. We could just restart it's spin with a few well placed nukes.

    4. Re:If the core ever stops spinning by corngrower · · Score: 1

      So a volcano is essentially the Earth doing a core dump. I'm guessing that would be from a segmentation fault. I never realized that Earth was just like a huge Unix machine.

  9. Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If the core slows down due to friction with the mantle, will there be an effect on the magnetic field surrounding the Earth? Without the magnetic field, my understanding is that the Van Allen radiation belt will also not exist, and that in turn would expose the Earth to the full-on radiation of the Sun.

    I'm no scientist, of course. But I wonder what the implications of the spinning core means. Also, how long would it take to stop spinning, or to develop a wobble?

    There have been a slew of large earthquakes around the world lately. Could it be related?

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by Aerion · · Score: 4, Funny

      I understand that there was a well-done documentary about this subject made a few years ago. You should check it out.

    2. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by !o+ovtmajn · · Score: 1

      If the core slows down due to friction with the mantle, will there be an effect on the magnetic field surrounding the Earth? The slowdown due to friction is very slow...I do not recall the numbers, but the timemust be VERY long compared to other catastrophes which would visit us in the meantime :) There have been a slew of large earthquakes around the world lately. Could it be related? I think the timescales at which any changes in the core's rotation appear are much longer than the average human lifetime. I am not sure if any such connection between earthquakes and the core's (mis)behavious should exist...

    3. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heh, good one...

      but in case you're serious, I'd recommend reading TFA... geological phenomenon like this are measure on timescales of millions or even billions of years. the core has probably slowed down about 0.02% since humans first started walking upright, so I think we have a little time before it gets to be a serious problem

    4. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by typidemon · · Score: 1

      seeing it has been spining for billions of years, I don't know if there is going to be a problem anytime soon.

    5. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      I'd recommend reading TFA... geological phenomenon like this are measure on timescales of millions or even billions of years.

      Or 700 to 1200 years, as is described in the article. Why would I comment if I hadn't read the article?

      Who cares how long it takes for this type of thing to occur? I'm sure I won't be around for the heat death of the universe, but it's an interesting thing to know that there will be a Big Crunch at some point off in the future. Same thing here. If the core is gradually slowing down or speeding up or even staying the same, there must be some implications for this. But as I mentioned before, none were explained in the article.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    6. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by cranos · · Score: 1

      Why would I comment if I hadn't read the article?

      Oh that was wonderful man, I snorted my drink when I read that! Classic

    7. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      and that in turn would expose the Earth to the full-on radiation of the Sun.

      We've been exposed to it before and survived. Which is very interesting, when you consider Mars doesn't have one. Perhaps being outside of one on a planet isn't THAT bad (AFAIK it'd be better to be on Mars then on Earth without one, as Mars is further away).

    8. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by mergatoriod · · Score: 1

      Apparently the earth has ceased to have magnetic poles many times in the past and is set to lose is field in 1-2K years. A reversal leaves a geological record and also would cause an increase in genetic mutation, increasing genetic diversity. Which is a good thing?

    9. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      Also, how long would it take to stop spinning, or to develop a wobble?

      The Earth already has a wobble. It's called axial precession and is a 26,000 year cycle. There's a page here that seems to cover a bunch of the Earth's odd tilt and wobble cycles.

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    10. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by Fyz · · Score: 1

      There will be an effect on the magnetic field, but it will never cease to function.

      As with most other geophysical phenomena, things are never that simple. When the convection between inner and outer core changes, the poles will shift, but they will do so in a very non-linear way. Simulations show that they will effectively break up into many smaller poles that will run around on the surface for something like a thousand years, and then converge on opposite sides.

      Really nothing to worry about, since this has happened about a thousand times since multicellular life appeared.

    11. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by Sheepdot · · Score: 1

      Real life is never a sub-par Hollywood blockbuster movie.

    12. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that you don't seem to possess the slightest shred of humor. Seriously.

    13. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by r6an · · Score: 1

      Thanks for jinxing it. It'll probably stop tomorrow thanks to you...

      Happy now?

    14. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by corsican · · Score: 1
      UNless it's YOUR genes that are being mutated of course...interestingly, we've never observed a good genetic mutation.

      --
      --If something I said could be taken two ways, and one of those ways made you cry, then I meant the other way.
    15. Re:Will the Earth cease to have magnetic poles? by cowgoesmoo2004 · · Score: 1
      It's okay, we don't have to worry about radiation anymore. Today's story is that garbage bags are effective as radiation shields...

      So, finally, our endless pollution will end up saving us!

  10. Hampster Theory by Evil+W1zard · · Score: 1

    Jeez no one subscribes to the Giant Hampster in a Giant Wheel at the core of the Earth theory anymore? I mean if that hampster dies then we are all really screwed.

    --
    News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
    1. Re:Hampster Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that a wee beastie that lives inside a hamper? I have visions of a cute, twitching nose peeking out of a picnic basket...

    2. Re:Hampster Theory by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      Not to worry.
      The turtles will still hold us up...

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  11. I don't mean to discount the scientists here... by oiper · · Score: 1

    ...but I think we all know that the Earth's center is hollow. I mean, where else would the Molton Rock people be living? They can't survive in a liquid iron environment. That's just stupid.

    --
    What do I have to do to get a sig around here?! www.bearscanfly.org
    1. Re:I don't mean to discount the scientists here... by gojenakek · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that the molten lava creatures live below Blackrock Depths in Molten Core but that's not the center of the earth, it's just below the earth's crust.

  12. Karma whore 101 by aussie_a · · Score: 2, Funny

    1. Make reference to really bad movie.
    2. Mention title of movie for the hard of hearing.
    3. Create a pretend lesson learnt from the really bad movie.
    4. In a new post in a duplicate account, make reference to how pathetic the original post is.
    5. ????
    6. Profit^H^H^H^H Karma?

    1. Re:Karma whore 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6. itKarma?

    2. Re:Karma whore 101 by too_poland · · Score: 0

      At least the core has something productive to do, spinning faster to get rid of bunch of trolls above.

    3. Re:Karma whore 101 by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, ^H deletes from back, and he had an extra space after the ^Hs therefore:

      6. Pr Karma?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    4. Re:Karma whore 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6. Pr Karma?

    5. Re:Karma whore 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. Reminds me of how zombies move really slowly.
      2. Dawn of the Dead.
      3. Zombies are not good to invite for dinner.

  13. bugmenot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    cypunks/cypunks or get another one

    1. Re:bugmenot by portwojc · · Score: 1

      Honestly what is the problem with the New York Times login?

      I signed up way back at the stary and I have never received any email to the address I signed up with.
      That address was solely created for the nytimes.com site too.

      Get over it.

  14. They also discovered... by .sig · · Score: 1

    While researching this, the scientists also discovered that the earth is not flat, and that gravity usually pulls towards the center.

    Seriously, though, what's the big deal? This wasn't even news 10 years ago, so why make a big fuss over it now...

    --
    -Space for rent
    1. Re:They also discovered... by Skye16 · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing. I remember being taught this from about 7th grade through to Intro to Astronomy in college ( 2 years ago ). I think the only thing that shocked me about this article is the fact that it's been designated "news". I can understand a few months, maybe even a year or two, but this long?

      Whatever, though. At least it gave me to bitch about. I'm happy. :)

    2. Re:They also discovered... by lanswitch · · Score: 1

      oh come on, this is /. , home of old news. the dupe of this article is planned for aug. 19, 2015.

    3. Re:They also discovered... by SheeEttin · · Score: 1

      Because it was proved now. You should see the scientists that were doing the tests celebrating.

    4. Re:They also discovered... by idokus · · Score: 1

      well actually, I think it was... but it's just a long time ago, you'll probably won't remember.

  15. Very interesting... by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I wonder if friction accounts for an appreciable amount of the heat at the earth's core. Science has conventionally theorized that it was hot down there due to extreme pressures and later thinking suggests that there may be some heat generated by radioactive decay of Uranium and other radioactive elements.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    1. Re:Very interesting... by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Friction is not an energy source. Without nuclear reactions/something, it would cool down just as fast, just that there would be some linkage between kinetic energy and heat.

    2. Re:Very interesting... by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Frictional dissipition isn't a source of heat? Whaaa?

      Check out Io and Europa and then reconsider that statement.

  16. Could.... by RevengeOfPoopJuggler · · Score: 0

    but doesn't.

  17. So what by diegocgteleline.es · · Score: 1, Funny

    My spinning wheel is much faster and I don't do a announcement about it.

    1. Re:So what by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      My spinning wheel is much faster and I don't do a announcement about it.

      Actually, there was a poll just a while back about it. You should have posted, really.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  18. Re:Earth Core Spinning 101 by _Shorty-dammit · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Core: 2003 The article: "assertions first made in 1996" Paying attention: not you

  19. Y2K was a paid walk in the park... by Lanboy · · Score: 1

    rewriting old code for insane cash.

  20. Harness the power by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Really, we don't need oil - we need to hook up a generator to Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, and George Mason!

    1. Re:Harness the power by thebes · · Score: 1

      You referencing Dilbert? Or did you steal it from somewhere else?

  21. This theory should be taught in schools.... by killeena · · Score: 2, Funny

    alongside the "Spinning Core" theory. This theory is just as valid, and children need to be taught different points of view.

    Sorry, had to do it.

    --
    Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
  22. any effect on tilt/precession by justforaday · · Score: 1

    Anyone know if this might have any effect on the axial tilt and precession (41,000 and 26,000 year wobble cycles) of the Earth?

    --
    I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
  23. Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by deepanjan_nag · · Score: 1

    I had heard on Discovery that it is due to the rotation of the Earth's core that we have the concept of poles. Our poles keep switching their polarities. Is thare any indication that such a change is going to happen anytime soon? Going by statistics, our poles should have changed by now.

    1. Re:Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by alexhs · · Score: 1

      > I had heard on Discovery that it is due to the rotation of the Earth's core that we have the concept of poles.

      Are you meaning magnetic poles ? Because the concept of geographic poles is due to the fact that planets are rotating on themselves, and poles are the intersection of the axis of rotation with planet surface.

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    2. Re:Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by dwhipp3980 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What you heard on Discovery is correct. It has been postulated that the flow of the fluid outer core, and subsequent motion of ions within that fluid is responsible for the generation of Earth's magnetic field and geomagnetic poles. It has also been shown that the polarity of the dominantly dipolar magnetic field reverses, seemingly randomly through Earth's history. I'm not sure of the statistics you mention, but if in fact the average pole reversal period is shorter than the time during which the current polarity has been maintained, you should also consider the standard deviation of the reversals, which is huge. For example, during the Cretaceous geologic time period, there was a long period of normal (or similar to today) polarity known as the Cretaceous long normal. Geologic records show no reversals over this 43 million year time period.

    3. Re:Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1
      Our poles keep switching their polarities. Is thare any indication that such a change is going to happen anytime soon?

      Yes, it will happen soon. Around 2009 or so. When that happens we will loose the Van Allen radiation belt until the field comes back about 10 years later, maybe. Northern lights at the Equator. At least for the short time higher life will survive. We are doomed, all doomed! Let mayhem start. The space aliens landing at Roswell tried to tell us about this but crash landed instead.

      Oh yea, you probably want some scientific proof of this or something. Well we don't have any. The Mayan calendar ends in December 21, 2012. Coincidence? I think not. Lots of dooms day predictions around 2009 - 2013. Some think Christ is supposed to return in 2010 (creation of Isreal - 1948 + 72 years or 1 generation's time in the Bible). Watch for the Jews to rebuild their temple at the temple mount.

      So go ahead and hold up a sign saying "The end is near". Get all worked up over this.

    4. Re:Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by stevelinton · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "motion of iron" not "motion of ions". The Earth's outer core is (generally believed to be) mainly liquid iron. By a convoluted process involving feedback between magnetic fields and this rotating conductor the outer core seems to convert heat energy (from radioactive decay in the Earth's core) into magentic field and rotation. This process seems to develop chaotically, resulting the flips of the field perceived at the surface.

    5. Re:Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by NERV_Enforcer · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. The Earth is going to be destroyed on December 24, 2012. The Mayans Say so!

      --
      ==========
      Sincerely,
      Locke
    6. Re:Are we due for a reversal of the poles? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Cool. Now we don't have to fix the 32 bit problem in the Unix/Windows date routines.

  24. And on the sixth day.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    God overclocked the core, and saw that it was good.

    1. Re:And on the sixth day.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Like the rocking of the ocean,
      and the rolling of the earth.

      (spinal tap)

    2. Re:And on the sixth day.. by freewaybear · · Score: 1

      YES! That says it all.

      --
      Registered Linux User #404114 [url=http://www.punkoiska.com][img]http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/4379/posbannercf5.g
    3. Re:And on the sixth day.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And even the water cooling at the Atlantic didn't suffice.

    4. Re:And on the sixth day.. by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 1

      good times...

      --
      Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
    5. Re:And on the sixth day.. by CapnGrunge · · Score: 1

      Wait, {he|she|it|they} had no dual core technology?

      --
      I see 57005 people
    6. Re:And on the sixth day.. by StyxRiver · · Score: 1

      That would explain the meltdown and oceanwater cooling...

  25. Aha... by moviepig.com · · Score: 1, Redundant
    Over a period of 700 to 1,200 years, the inner core appears to make one full extra spin.

    Couple that with the fact that a human's unprompted circadian cycle is actually about 25 hours long, and it begins to explain a lot... to someone...

    --
    Seeing bad movies only encourages them. Watch responsibly
  26. Has a cure by La+Gris · · Score: 5, Funny

    Everyone head to the east with their car and go as fast as possible.

    And everyone around the world, press the breaks all at once, while riding to the east.

    That may be enough to accelerate the Earth's rotation :)

    --
    Léa Gris
    1. Re:Has a cure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You must have failed HS physics.

    2. Re:Has a cure by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1
      I don't have a car you insensitive clod!

      I will take the bus or maybe just push against a wall VERY hard.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    3. Re:Has a cure by milimetric · · Score: 1

      Good idea. I wonder if it'd work...
      Google says the mass of earth is like 10 to the 24th or so kilograms.
      A car is like 1500 or so kilograms so like 10 to the 3rd. And when you press the brakes, the most that you could hope is that all the momentum is transfered into the earth as if you collided into it (not true, it's just going to be like a fraction of that because you're only getting friction forces to transfer energy). Now, the speed of the earth at the equator is like 1700 km/h. That's pretty damn fast... cars can do like 200 with no cops around... Maybe. So then we have a much bigger mass going at a much faster rate.

      Dude... I wanted to believe in it just because it would be something cool to do like going around in baggy clothes trying to convince everyone that we need to drive east and brake hard or the world will end. Unfortunately, I think because of the physics behind it, people won't listen.

    4. Re:Has a cure by cammoblammo · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that the acceleration of those cars will reduce the earth's speed in the first place. Assuming lossless energy transfer, the best you could hope for would be a brake (boom tish!) even result.

      --

      Cogito, ergo sig.

  27. It is not so simple. by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And what is causing the spin-down? Is it friction against empty space?
    If it is gravitation from other bodies? I would think this would affect the entire earth, not just the outer part of the earth(you can not shield gravitation. )

    You can say that tidal friction causes this, but wouldn't the same gravity of the moon create tides in the flowing lava?

    1. Re:It is not so simple. by gowen · · Score: 1
      Is it friction against empty space?
      I'd always understood it to be Earth/atmosphere/ocean interactions under the influence of the moon. They're basically surface effects. I could be wrong though, it's been a long time since I looked into any of this
      If it is gravitation from other bodies?
      I'd say not, unless you're counting the moon -- and the moon's gravitional effect is usually restricted to periodic, tidal forces. It's pretty hard for exceedingly distant bodies to exert a net torque by gravity.
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    2. Re:It is not so simple. by gowen · · Score: 1
      wouldn't the same gravity of the moon create tides in the flowing lava?
      Lava's a lot denser than water. More density means lower velocites meaning less friction (modulo differing drag coefficients, and the fact that the crust/core boundary isn't as neatly defined as the fluid/solid interface at the ocean bottom).
      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:It is not so simple. by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      >wouldn't the same gravity of the moon create tides in the flowing lava?

      <drevil>I think we refer to this as red-hot magMa</drevil>

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    4. Re:It is not so simple. by CoderBob · · Score: 2, Informative

      It is gravitation that tends to cause the spin to slow down. The moon is locked into a 1:1 ratio of rotation:revolution, so it always presents the same "side" to the earth (no, not the "dark side of the moon v. light side of the moon bit. Even when the moon is a waning crescent, it is presenting the same surface features towards the Earth).

      What will be interesting for Earth is to see which of the two largest bodies in terms of gravitation wins out, or if there will always be some form of resonance. Will we always present the same portion of Earth to the sun, so that one side of the planet bakes while the other freezes (which I believe is where Mercury is headed. Try going here: http://www.mira.org/fts0/planets/092/text/txt001x. htm for a description of Mercury's rotational period), or will we always present the same surface to the moon while we orbit the sun?

    5. Re:It is not so simple. by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      You can say that tidal friction causes this, but wouldn't the same gravity of the moon create tides in the flowing lava?

      Of course they do. The whole planet is slightly deformed.

      Tidal friction has also slowed down the moon rotation so much that it now shows us the same side all the time.
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    6. Re:It is not so simple. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      The tidal forces on an object depend on the difference in gravity at opposites places on the object. The opposite ends of the earth's outer core are much closer to each other than the opposite ends of the earth's surface. Thus the tidal forces exerted on the inner core are less than those exerted on the oceans.

    7. Re:It is not so simple. by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      It's not that simple at all. A perfect fluid wouldn't cause any friction at all, after all. And in fact, much of the friction in the ocean is caused by the choke points where the land channels the water into narrow passages. (At Capes Horn and Good Hope, for example.) This is why the dissipation rate of the Earth has changed considerably over geological history as continents moved about. (Thus explaining why the young Earth folks' simple calculation can appear to result in the Moon being in contact with Earth less than 4.5 billion years ago.)

    8. Re:It is not so simple. by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Moon's tides are about twice as strong as the Sun's. (Which is why spring and neap tides occur in the first place.) It's a bit surprising that they're that close, but the Moon's proximity almost balances the Sun's killer mass. (And recall that tidal forces fall off like 1/r^3, so distance is more important here than for gravitational force where the Sun kicks the Moon's non-existent ass.)

      What this means is that in around 45 billion years Earth will have a spin period of around 47 days and will be locked in a 1:1 spin:orbit resonance with the Moon (just like Pluto and Charon are now). Then something very cool happens: the Moon starts approaching Earth again and the Earth's spin continues to slow as it tries to match period with the Earth's orbital period.

      Of course, we'll probably be long gone by then, what the Sun's red giant stage and all. But still, pretty cool.

      (For more on these and other fascinating topics in solary system dynamics, check out Murray and Dermott's book.)

    9. Re:It is not so simple. by CoderBob · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the info. Most of my knowledge comes from a college astronomy course, not an actual physics background, so I'm a little shakey on the details.

    10. Re:It is not so simple. by Phleg · · Score: 1

      Firstly, let's assume the moon does in fact create tides in the flowing lava. The core of the Earth being farther from the moon than our oceans are, they will be affected less. Additionally, consider the change in the angular mass moment. Since the oceans are farther from the center of mass of the Earth, the oceanic tides will naturally cause a greater slowdown than the ones nearest the core.

      --
      No comment.
    11. Re:It is not so simple. by klinkster · · Score: 1

      Haven't you seen the articles the last few days proclaiming that the US had a higher percentage of obesity ever? The extra weight is definitely a drag.

    12. Re:It is not so simple. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      eeeuh...

      NO.

      (BUt i know a part of these number come from the fact that the BMI that is used to measure overweight is inaccurate for tall people.)

    13. Re:It is not so simple. by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

      The tides that the Moon raises on the Earth are not frictionless as continents and other land masses get in the way, plus there is some friction fron the bottom of the sea. This means that the Earth looses rotational kinetic energy to the Moon, giving the Moon extra potential energy. Hence the Earth slows down, and the Moon moves further way from the Earth. -Nivag

    14. Re:It is not so simple. by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 1

      I've heard that it is because of the ocean currents, winds, and basically anything that is accelerated by the coriolis force.
      That energy must come from somewhere, namely the earth's rotational energy.

      Of course, I might be horribly wrong, and haven't checked for redundancy :)

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
  28. New York Times? Why?????????? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    How about New Scirntist's coverage? Or LiveScience.com?

    No bugmenot required, and they're science sites.

    Slashdot gets more retarded every day, I swear.

    (this post's mind-reading captcha="resorts")

    1. Re:New York Times? Why?????????? by flibble-san · · Score: 1

      Slashdot probably get's referral payments

      --
      My other sig is crap too
  29. Mars magnetic field's hiding? by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder what the rotation rate of Mars' core is. We know it's either liquid or solid and liquid (the latter being what Earth has), so it could have a difference, which would create a magnetic field. Only problem is, Mars doesn't have a magnetic field. However, Mars' field might also be hiding, as it does on Earth when changing the north and south poles which can take hundred to thousands of years. Now we've only been watching Mars with any sophistication for decades, which means Mars could have a field that's currently undergoing a reversal. If it isn't undergoing a reversal, and the two rotations are different, then it would prove enlightening on why that is the case.

    1. Re:Mars magnetic field's hiding? by khallow · · Score: 1
      Well, if Mars is not undergoing a reversal, then you got to wonder why the core would be rotating at a speed different from the crust. With Earth, you have the magnetic field and the Moon/Sun (tidal forces brake the mantle, oceans, and crust more effectively than they do the more compact core) as likely reasons why the core would rotate at different speeds from the crust (I put my money on the Moon at being the real reason the core rotates faster).

      If there's a similar effect (of similar magnitude, Solar tidal forces decay as distance cubed BTW) on Mars and it's not due to either effect, then you just ran out of known reasons. The answer would by definition be enlightening. :-)

  30. one BILLION amps by ultracool · · Score: 1

    From TFA: "The thing is acting like a huge rotor in an electric motor," Dr. Richards said. "Except this one is running a billion amps." Wow, so you can jump start your car from anywhere in the world!

    1. Re:one BILLION amps by SheeEttin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If you get an antenna big enough (e.g. 200 ft), you will find that there is quite a lot of energy flowing through it, and if you want to use it for anything, you'll have to ground it.

  31. Revolutions by base_chakra · · Score: 1

    This just in: the center of a 12" record travels at a greater number of RPMs than the outer edge. Reactions from the Doobie Brothers were not reported.

    1. Re:Revolutions by jsgates · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Eh, wrong. They don't spin around at different RPM's, the outer edge spins faster than the center.

    2. Re:Revolutions by beefstu01 · · Score: 2, Informative

      This just in: the center of a 12" record travels at a greater number of RPMs than the outer edge. Reactions from the Doobie Brothers were not reported

      Uh... no. The tangential velocity at the edge is much greater than the tangential velocity in the center. Both points have the exact same angular velocity, otherwise the record would break into many pieces. Silly boy, don't you remember Physics I?

    3. Re:Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Please elaborate.

    4. Re:Revolutions by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Um, that's not possible?

    5. Re:Revolutions by p3d0 · · Score: 1

      I'm honoured to be the first to add you to my foes list.

      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    6. Re:Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You is dumb. Dumb as hell.

    7. Re:Revolutions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as many others have pointed out.... you're an idiot..... the inner portions only travel at higher speeds not RPMS..... how the hell did this get up to a 2? this should be -1, dipshit lacking basic science knowledge

    8. Re:Revolutions by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Yeah sure.

      But when you have a doobie, brother, things spin every whichway!

      Light it up and smoke it, *then* watch the record spin.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  32. It also bounces. by kulakovich · · Score: 4, Interesting


    The Earth's core also bounces from North to South. Not sure if it is a remnant of the colision that formed the Moon, or part of its conservation of momentum from the outer crust trying to change it's vector, the core being a giant defacto gyroscope.

    Eventually I will post the math. =)

    kulakovich

  33. nukes by Arctic+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Cool, the nukes worked. ;-)

  34. Still..... by jbuzzell · · Score: 1

    no cure for cancer.

  35. Yeah but in the southern hemisphere ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the earths core actually spins the other direction!

  36. 1996 by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny


    Great to see the timely Slashdot article. I need a reminder about these things every nine years or so.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  37. Superman's fault by Himring · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's Superman's fault. All cuz that bitch, Lois Lane, went and died, so he flew real fast and sped up the crust, then switched it back, but now the inside is still all fucked up....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  38. Reversal happens like a dynamo with a loose rotor by crovira · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's a threshold where the fields around the rotor get disorganized (expect geomagnetic migrations to get all screwed up,) and then field lines reverse as the threshold is crossed.

    Nothing actually happens to the rotor (it doesn't spin backwards all of a sudden) but the field lines generated are inverted.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  39. Speaking of Leprechauns... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A man was walking in he woods, It was a great day. Suddenly, the man hears a rustling in the bushes. He peeks over the bush and sees a short man dressed all in green dancing around and singing. "Holy shit" the man says "That's a Leprechaun , I gotta grab him so I can get my three wishes." So the man pounces on the Leprechaun and says "Gotcha, now give me my wishes!! I want Cindy Crawford in my bed every morning, A million dollars given to me everyday for the rest of my life, and immortality."

    The Leprechaun says "Ah, Those are some hard wishes, for me to grant them I'll need you to let me bone you up the ass!!!" The man thinks for a second and says "All right, I'll do it for those things" SO the Leprechaun mounts him and starts going to town. The man says, "I can't believe I'm doing this." The Leprechaun says, "I can't believe it either" The man replies, "You can't believe I'm actually letting you bone me too huh?" "Not exactly," The Leprechaun says, "I just can't believe you really think I'm a Leprechaun!!!"

  40. Please stop... (OT) by ImaLamer · · Score: 0

    Intelligent Design was created by Christians, and for Christians - it has nothing to do with (us) Jews. Can you please not drag our name through the mud by using "YHWH" in your Intelligent Design parody?

    Actually, only a few of "us" believe in "creationism" - I'm not one of them. We call those people ultra-orthodox. Actually the forbidden foods are based on the idea that God didn't create pigs, shellfish and their ilk - they evolved since the time of the "creation". They didn't exist in the Garden, so the story goes. Notice how at the end of each "day" it is said "and it was good". Well after those six "days" everything turned to shit. (And who wants to eat shit?)

    And let me say that most Christians don't even have clue what "YHWH" is. As far as "turning homosexuals into pillars of salt", that is a job best left for Robertson, Falwell or other members of the Army of God. "We" only say homosexual sex is wrong (and only in the context of denouncing practices such as pederasty and other forms of sexual manipulation and exploitation) and reject *any* type of lustful sex. Oh, and we don't get on cable daily and tell anyone that this or that is wrong - we mainly keep to ourselves. Jesus is the damn facist. Besides, it was Lot's wife who was turned into salt - Sodom was destroyed with fiery sulfur.

    Still, a funny post.

    1. Re:Please stop... (OT) by benjcurry · · Score: 1

      "We" only say homosexual sex is wrong

      Oh, good! They can be fags as long as they don't do anything faggy.

      I'm sorry, I couldn't resist. :)

    2. Re:Please stop... (OT) by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Now we are getting way off topic...

      The point is that the laws don't say much (two lines total) about homosexual sex. It says nothing of homosexuality (and even the ultra-orthodox believe an ommission is the same as saying that it's okay). It only discusses the act and no where does it mention the idea that two people can't live together and love each other, even if they are both men or both women. And if they love each other then it is pretty much okay. Christians always seem to take things out of context - and there is your problem. As I said, any lust based sex is denounced - that includes masturbation, rape, lying to get someone in the sack for a quickie, fsck'n someone you don't love, what have you. But we are talking about "our" morality - not anyone else's. You see, we don't view these restrictions as things that everyone should[n't] be doing - we view them as things that we should[n't] be doing. I keep kosher, my gf doesn't, I wouldn't even think of asking her to not eat pork. In fact I watched her eat bacon, eggs and sausage this morning (just 48 minutes ago).

      So to wrap up:

      They can be fags as long as they love each other.

    3. Re:Please stop... (OT) by ThosLives · · Score: 1
      I couldn't decide if I wanted to moderate this post or reply. Replying always wins for me, though:

      They can be fags as long as they love each other.

      This is a very interesting statement. It looks, on the surface, like you're trying to be open minded and not judgemental, but you have put in an interesting judgement: the stipulation of "as long as they love each other."

      So what is the moral concept that you believe in this particular instance? That is, is the important thing in a relationship merely the sentiment behind it or the way in which the sentiment is effected? Also, which meaning of the word "love" do you mean in your statement? What happens if we replace 'fags' with 'racists' or 'alcoholics' or 'atheists' or any other term you might want to put in there?

      I have to say I don't have answers to any of these things, but the way you phrased your statement just puts this strange little feeling that something's not right in my gut. I'll even posit that the thing "not right" is actually my viewpoint, but in either case I'm not sure in what way.

      *pause to think*

      Hrm. Now that I've thought about it: What gets me is that it appears (I note that this may not be the case; the following is based on that assumption) your statement is humanist: it places humans at the top of the 'reverence' scale. That is, humans and their feelings and well-being and their endeavors are the thing of utmost importance. Oddly enough, I think this falls into the same category as most environmentalism, politics, and sociology which is focused on "people will suffer (mentally or physically)!" rather than some other standard. Regardless of which "flavor" turns out to be correct, I believe there is a standard outside humanity; be it some "god" or just the pure physical mechanics of the universe, humanity is subject to something outside ourselves, and I think the humanist view denies this truth.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    4. Re:Please stop... (OT) by eskayp · · Score: 1

      "I believe there is a standard outside humanity; be it some "god" or just the pure physical mechanics of the universe, humanity is subject to something outside ourselves, and I think the humanist view denies this truth."

      I suggest you research humanism in more depth before you assert that rational humanists deny the laws of physics. Through the ages, under various labels, humanism has been mischaracterized under a variety of evil, satanic, orwellian, or socialist labels.

      Humanists are very much centered on fact-based reality and measurable results of experimentation.
      Most have philosophical 'beliefs' that are based on the latest scientific findings.

      Believe whatever misconceptions you want, but devotees of humanism will continue to base their beliefs on actual measurement, rather than mysticism, spiritualism, and fables.

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
    5. Re:Please stop... (OT) by ThosLives · · Score: 1
      Ah - perhaps my use of the word "humanist" isn't the common usage; perhaps my explanation of what I meant wasn't clear? At any rate, I'm not aware of any other word for the philosophy I described. What you describe sounds more like what I know as materialism - that is, looking at everything from a purely physical (and discoverable through the scientific method) standpoint. Incidentally, there is actually work in the materialist philosophy to describe how things like morality may evolve, but I would lump this in with the "subject to physics" category I described.

      Perhaps folks want a discussion* on what that might actually mean (considering most are too lazy to Wiki or Google for it). Incidentally, from the Wikipedia at least, some of my understanding of humanism is correct, but considering the page cites that humanism includes things as opposed as Christianity (which I'm confused to see how it fits into humanism according to the Wikipedia) and relativism, it seems that humanism isn't a very restrictive term. That could account for the "mischaracterization" of which you spoke.

      * We got a Politics section - any chance we can get a Philosophy section?

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    6. Re:Please stop... (OT) by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

      Also, which meaning of the word "love" do you mean in your statement? What happens if we replace 'fags' with 'racists' or 'alcoholics' or 'atheists' or any other term you might want to put in there?

      You see, I don't care what people do - as do many who share my stance (Jews at large, but not all by any means). What you do is great, fine - but in ourselves we expect, or rather have the dogma, like many others have that sex between two people for lust is wrong. Am I guilty? Sure, but I was looking at it more from the dogmatic view. As far as love between "racists", "atheists" or the others, I say that it doesn't matter unless they are Jews. Even then it isn't my place to say if two of any type get together - but maybe we have to talk about the racism or alcoholism. I no doubt have a duty to step in if I can save anyone's life or save you from great harm - however I have to balance that with my emotions and only think of the dogma (Law, Torah, Talmud, whatever) and not create a rule that doesn't exist.

      That is, humans and their feelings and well-being and their endeavors are the thing of utmost importance. Oddly enough, I think this falls into the same category as most environmentalism, politics, and sociology which is focused on "people will suffer (mentally or physically)!" rather than some other standard.

      The first lesson that God teaches man, in my religion and dogma, is that it is absolutely important that your actions with another must be approached with the idea that their well being is connected to your own. You must not do others harm as it is connected throughout the community. Making another person die, then held captive, then murder, steal from, lie to, and then later basically deprive of liberty or property in any way. It is a basic moral code that even real cannibals share - their practice is often punishment for violating the moral code. Watch the upcoming "Tribe" show on Discovery to see how this type of behavior is almost universal. The "shun" is to say that you aren't making it in society - no matter who celebrates it (Amish to Catholics and beyond).

      Not that any execution of this code is great, the idea stands that by taking from someone you take from yourself. As far as this relates, it isn't my place to judge your inner feelings, if you have psychological bond then that is a good thing for the world. My dogma can't tell you how to live your life, it only tells me to protect you. It tells me how to live my life, and the stance from Adam to Moses to the Rabbinical leaders of today say that your interactions with another is more important than your inward desires. It is how your desire affects the world around you.

      I guess, healthy gay men apply only. I don't want to see someone having gay sex because they have a warped view because of a way they were raised (male prostitution comes to mind, but I refer to those who suffered a traumatic experience or whatever). We are against lustful sex, where you like to have quick one-time sex with another or have sex with both types of partners because you just love sex that much. This applies however to most behaviors, and restrictions are abound to help reinforce that overall behavior. It's more of hedonism that we are against, than homosexuality, when it comes down to it.

  41. Founding Fathers??? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


    > The core spins faster because the bodies of the US founding fathers are spinning in their graves at such high RPM.

    Hell, even Ronald Reagan is starting to rotate a bit.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Founding Fathers??? by Sheepdot · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Hell, even Ronald Reagan is starting to rotate a bit.

      True story, in an interview with Reason, Reagan took the following stances (these are direct quotes):
      1. "I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves."
      2. "If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism."
      3. "I disagree completely when government says that because of the number of head injuries from accidents with motorcycles that he should be forced to wear a helmet. I happen to think he's stupid if he rides a motorcycle without a helmet, but that's one of our sacred rights-to be stupid."
      4. "I also think our greatest threat today comes from government's involvement in things that are not government's proper province. And in those things government has a magnificent record of failure."
      5. "But, we start with those legitimate areas and then we go on and regulations just keep spreading like spores of a fungus until we find that they literally are taking away the rights of management to make business decisions with regard to their competition."
      6. "I know of one particular drug firm, which just a few years ago, could license a drug with some 70 pages of supporting data. Today it takes that same company 73,000 pages for an additional drug. I know that there's been about a 60 percent drop in the development of new drugs in this country."
      7. "You know, the Federal Government could have done it differently if the Federal Government did not at the same time want control."
      8. " If you're going to have a tax the people should know what the tax is and the government should be able to tell them without the people having to go to the expense of figuring it out themselves."
      9. "Well, government's only weapons are force and coercion and that's why we shouldn't let it get out of hand. And that's what the founding fathers had in mind with the Constitution, that you don't let it get out of hand."
      10. "If they really want to put a referendum on the ballot, why don't they go out and say to the people, do you want to change this and make it so that a simple majority can increase that tax or do you want to make it that it requires a two-thirds majority of the legislature to change any tax?"
      11. "Look-you've got a legislature that takes two-thirds to pass the budget, it takes two-thirds to pass an appropriation bill, a spending bill-so why shouldn't it take a two-thirds majority to say whether you're going to raise the taxes."
      12. "But they are fools in thinking that business somehow is getting a special break. Who pays the business tax anyway? We do! You can't tax business. Business doesn't pay taxes. It collects taxes. And if they can't be passed on to the customer in the price of the product as a cost of operation, business goes out of business."
      13. "So they'll tax business and the price of the product will go up and the people will blame the storekeeper for the rise in the price of the product, not recognizing that all he's doing is passing on to them a hidden sales tax."
      14. "If people need any more concrete explanation of this, start with the staff of life, a loaf of bread. The simplest thing; the poorest man must have it. Well, there are 151 taxes now in the price of a loaf of bread-it accounts for more than half the cost of a loaf of bread. It begins with the first tax, on the farmer that raised the wheat. Any simpleton can understand that if that farmer cannot get enough money for his wheat, to pay the property tax on his farm, he can't be a farmer. He loses his farm. And so it is with the fellow who pays a driver's license and a gasoline tax to drive the truckload of wheat to the mill, the miller who has to pay everything from social security tax, business license, everything else. He has to make his living over and above those costs. So they all wind up in that loaf of bread. Now an egg isn't far behind and nobody had to make that. There's a hundred taxes in an egg by the time it gets to market and you know the chicken didn't put them there!"

      Source: July 1975 - Reason magazine
      http://reason.com/7507/int_reagan.shtml

  42. Does it get faster as it gets cooler is the ? now by zenst · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it gets faster as it gets cooler and as such generates more heat due to the extra rotation, so as such it only slowly cools. Also given gravety and the way the earth forms it would be logical to conclude that the mass of the core would be pretty dense and I wonder what effect solar particals and other exotic particals have as they fly thru space and most matter upon the dense core. I mean if they were to interact with anything it would be something large and dense as there is more chance of a collision/slow down/interaction.

    Interesting stuff non the less, but dont see us wrapping large coils around the earth and using it to generate electricity just yet. On that note does lightning manifest itself to induce an internal motor action inside the core - reverse dynamo stylee.

    Who needs space when we have many great questions left all below our feet.

  43. File under Wild Speculation by displague · · Score: 1

    Maybe, It's like the spoked rims on a pimped ride. When it spins forward really fast it appears to be spinning backward. So perhaps, millions of years ago, It was spinning VERY fast... So fast that the magnetic field lines appeared (and affected) backward from the flow. And then when the flow slowed, the field normalized. And so on, until we get our current rates.

    --
    Marques Johansson
    1. Re:File under Wild Speculation by WeeLad · · Score: 2, Funny

      I long for the day when all scientific observations can be explained in relation to pimped out spinners.
      Well done.

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    2. Re:File under Wild Speculation by budgenator · · Score: 1

      So perhaps, millions of years ago, It was spinning VERY fast
      not likely, the solid core has a certain angular momentum, like an ice skater doing a spin, as the skater pulls in her arms she spins faster, the Earth's solid core is probably cooling - getting smaller and denser so it's spin should be accelerating compared with the rest of the Earth.
      Additionaly, the solid core, is inside a liquid core, which would lubricate it slightly from the tidal friction the moon also causing it to spin slightly faster than the rest of the Earth.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  44. this just in by subtropolis · · Score: 2, Funny

    slashdot poster jumps to moronic conclusion. Many in the community believe it may have something to do with smoking too many doobies whilst spinning platters.

    --
    "Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.
  45. Tidal Drag by TrekkieGod · · Score: 2, Informative

    The effect of gravity of the moon (and really all other objects in the solar system, to a smaller scale) on the earth as they rotate. Tidal dragging is the reason why the moon has locked its rotation with the earth (so that it always faces us).

    --

    Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

    1. Re:Tidal Drag by WeeLad · · Score: 4, Funny

      Always facing us? I always thought it was always facing AWAY from us. Hence the name "moon" which I believe is latin for "to show the backside".

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    2. Re:Tidal Drag by TrekkieGod · · Score: 1

      joke, but a good point. I meant to say "same side is always facing us"

      --

      Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.

  46. Another obvious cause by gr8_phk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every time a heavy chunk of crust breaks free and sinks into the liquid, it's like the skater pulling their arms in - it spins faster. Momentum is conserved, but at the shorter radius this translates into higher angular velocity. All the heavy stuff is in the center, and it must have spun up when that first happened. Is the difference still there, or is the process still happening a little bit?

    1. Re:Another obvious cause by p3d0 · · Score: 1
      Every time a heavy chunk of crust breaks free and sinks into the liquid, it's like the skater pulling their arms in - it spins faster.
      What makes you think that ever actually occurs?
      --
      Patrick Doyle
      I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
    2. Re:Another obvious cause by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 1

      Except that the crust isn't heavier than the stuff in the middle. Earth has already mostly differentiated by desnity. (Iron IS the dense stuff.) The crust is basically the lowest density rocky bits, the scum on the top if you will.

      So if the crust broke off and fell inward (for reasons unclear), it would force a denser bit UP and actually slow our rotation.

    3. Re:Another obvious cause by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      "What makes you think that ever actually occurs?"

      I think it already happened - that's why the heavy stuff is in the middle. I question weather it's still happening, and weather the rotation rate difference observed could be leftover from this happening in the past.

      On a completely different note: It explains the observed rotation difference, so it must be happening. In fact you can use the observed rotation rates and caculate exactly how much this is happening. Hey - if the dark matter folks can use logic like this, so can I ;-)

  47. Re:extinctions by vertinox · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "homo erectus and their ancestors certainly survived many previous reversals. There is no uncontested evidence that a magnetic field reversal has ever caused any biological extinctions."

    Homo erectus didn't have a society totally dependant on electronics for it's economics and machines to feed it's population. Of course we'll survive a reversal, but it won't be pleasant for those involved.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  48. Stop by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

    Stop the world, I want to get off.

    --
    rewriting history since 2109
    1. Re:Stop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please don't stop the world, others will get it on.

  49. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And how, exactly, will the poles flipping affect anything at all? Are they affected now? How does a weak field pointing vaguely N-S affect this post, for example? Or are you just so monumentally stupid and uneducated you think your hard drive is affected by the Earth's field?
    Guess what? The Sun has a field MANY times more powerful, and we are MOVING inside of it!
    HOOHAH!
    BTW: For the love of FUCK, IT'S IS NOT ITS!

  50. What if by diztort · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...there is no core what so ever? I mean, why didn't nobody think about that the crust we live on is just some excretion material of the exit from a blackhole? The other end of the tube so we live on the crap of some swallowed up planets and other materials. :)

    --
    I was a stranger for the thing, i wasn't facing the crowd, ive been riding on empty with my head in the clouds
  51. Turn it on! TURN! IT! ON! by kzinti · · Score: 1

    Bless you. I was hoping somebody else out there would remember Mrs. Richards.

  52. Spin Cycle by slideroll · · Score: 1

    I think it's actually powered by the White House Press Secretary.

  53. Vulcan isn't Greek by SimilarityEngine · · Score: 1

    While Vulcan and Hephaestus were gods of the earth and of volcanoes, they were only minor characters in the Olympian pantheon

    Sorry to be a pedantic bore, but Vulcan was a Roman god, and not of the Olympian pantheon ;^) - also I don't think Vulcan was crippled like Hephaestus, but I'm not 100% sure on that one. Does this put him back in the frame ...?

    ... No! I've just found out that he lives in Birmingham, Alabama, under constant supervision - so he has an alibi.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    1. Re:Vulcan isn't Greek by a1ok · · Score: 1

      I actually live pretty close to Vulcan Park, I can vouch he hasn't moved atleast for the short time I've been here :-)

      The area falls somewhere between Birmingham proper and Homewood (the satellite township where I live) and I heard from my roommate that there was some controversy over where his hand should point. Well, they ended up making him point towards downtown, so Homewood is quite literally behind his butt ;)

  54. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should probably read up on what happens during a pole reversal. Until then, shut the fuck up.

  55. Re:Earth Core Spinning 101 by coopex · · Score: 1

    There are some sneers money can buy. For everything else, there's slashdot.

    --
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  56. It was good? by Mudcathi · · Score: 1

    Tell that to the confused ducks who fly to Alaska for the winter every time a reversal happens

    --

    "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

  57. So what you're saying is... by Mudcathi · · Score: 1

    if Mars isn't clothed behind its field, then it has been fully exposed - or "mooning" us - for the past several hundred years? For shame!

    --

    "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

  58. Actually... by Mudcathi · · Score: 1

    If a reversal increases the mutation rate, one could reasonably posit that it causes cancer. Perhaps now the hyperactive supernannies in the United States who insist on warning labels on everything, will want a giant sign readable from space: "WARNING BY THE UN SURGEON GENERAL: Residing on Earth longer than 200,000 years may cause cancer. Use at own risk."

    --

    "He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb

  59. There is a God by Urusai · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some people doubt the existence of God, but I propose a doctrine of Intelligent Deogenesis. By postulating the existence of a creator who created God, we can account for the Intelligent Design in the characteristics of God Himself. Clearly, a being of God's infinite intelligence is the product of a being of intelligence. Theories that God evolved from monkeys or one-celled organisms fail the BS test, since God is clearly irreducible in his complexity. God simply sprang fully-formed from the mind of Man. Cogito ergo sum, lorem ipso dolor, quid pro quo, alea jacta est, et cetera.

  60. Walk in the park by Dilaudid · · Score: 1
    Call me a pedant, but for one spin to balance this out, the earth's surface would only be allowed to complete 0 spins in the next decade...

    Since the date and time would then be fixed, I think the alterations required to code this would be fairly simple :)

  61. Inteligent Design? by alecks · · Score: 1

    Is it just me that thinks the parent should have been marked +5 Funny... or cynical, or is everyone on slashdot a republican?

    1. Re:Inteligent Design? by hazah · · Score: 1

      You don't get points for funny, so they gave him points instead of funny. Simple.

  62. Reverse Rotation by Jayanef · · Score: 0

    What happen if the core rotate in reverse order with the surface?

    --
    -- There is four mistake in this sentences.
  63. Insightful? WTF he's being sarcastic by Phyrexia · · Score: 1

    That's all. Come on, mods.

  64. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    It's your job to supply credible sources for extraordinary claims, friend. The Sun's field flips every 11 years, AND I'M STILL HERE.
    It's so very apt that the "To confirm you're not a script, please type the word in this image" word is "contempt"!

  65. Re:Insightful? WTF he's being sarcastic by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    Yes, and sometimes sarcasm can be interpreted as insightful.

  66. Yes, insightful by freeweed · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As another poster pointed out, sarcasm is often insightful.

    What Smidge has pointed out (quite nicely, I must say) is that pretty much EVERY scientific theory/explanation can be trivialized in this matter. Let's face it, here's what ID boils down to:

    1. The world, and everything in it, are complex. No one would argue this.

    2. In trying to understand complex things, we might miss some details, or in fact most of the detail. Again, no one would argue this.

    3. Because we can't claim a perfect, 110% understanding of something, there's simply no way we can ever understand any of it. Logical fallacy. However, because of this:

    4. Therefore everything was created by God. Everything is the way it is because of God. Otherwise how could things be this way?

    Oh, and

    5. My theory's as good as yours, because I say so, and yours is quite frankly far to complicated to understand whereas mine is simple and therefore correct.

    #3 is WHY ID is not 100% laughed at by people, and #5 is why it's accepted so widely.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    1. Re:Yes, insightful by schon · · Score: 1

      we can't claim a perfect, 110% understanding of something

      especially math, it would seem. :o)

    2. Re:Yes, insightful by igny · · Score: 1

      far to complicated to understand

      is it as complicated as grammar?

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Yes, insightful by biraneto2 · · Score: 1

      4. Therefore everything was created by God. Everything is the way it is because of God. Otherwise how could things be this way? Oh... sweet religion. What would be of ourselves without it to fulfill the gaps acquired with our ignorance.

  67. Similar to my 1978 theory by dsci · · Score: 1

    Or should I say speculation, since I had no empirical data.

    Anyway, while at SCIENCE CAMP, I proposed to one of the adults a 'different core rotation rate theory.' I remember the look he gave me very clearly: "yeah, right."

    Of course, he was right to be skeptical. I was way off, apparently, since my proposal was that it was related to gravity, not the magnetic field. Oh, to be young again.

    --
    Computational Chemistry products and services.
  68. Biggest magnet on earth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't it be the white house?

  69. Hot Action by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 0

    The "core" spins faster due to the increased angular momentum of all those people turning in their graves. Each of the bodies distributed around the thin outer crust acts as part of an armature, which accelerates the core, because that's where hell is. The positive/negative spiritual charges in the various bodies buried in the crust act like +/- poles against the charge density in hell, pushing it around.

    Where all the energy from hell goes is left as an exercise for the reader.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  70. You jest but read this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There isn't room enough for all the details so a brief overview will have to do.

    - the Earths core is hollow and contains a miniature and very weak sun whose combustion was originally triggered by heat radiation, the conditions were initially much more stable much sooner than Outer Earth and gave rise to life much earlier
    - our distant relatives of different kinds that show up in UFO encounters as well as myths and legends of past are the inhabitants of Inner Earth
    - it was Inners who according to their monotheistic religion implanted intelligence into our apelike evolutionary branch, a lot of our cultures have strong similarities and we as a species have also retained biological traits from them (moon-phased biological and emotional cycles for instance)
    - the great Inner war after the period of insemination caused their need to expand outwards, they are too specialized to feel comfortable on Outer Earth for prolonged periods (months) but have good conditions on Inner Moon (Inner Moon is a constructed artifact made by the Inners and quite unlike Inner Earth, think of it as a subterranian city, it is not a massive hollow). They have a few Outer Earth subterranian bases, one of which is connected to the lower sublevels of Area 51. The occupancy of most Inners colonies (those that do not belong to besieged factions) is cycled either between Outer Earth and Inner Moon or Outer Earth and Inner Earth. This is not a matter of surviving or procreating but rather of general health
    - although the Inner war was officially over during the human renaissance period there are still small Outer Earth subterranian colonies that are still aggresive towards other Inner factions (Dark Skies were somewhat right about Vietnam)
    - the aggressive colony located under the border between China and North Korea is colluding with the North Korean government and they are mutually protecting each other. These particular Inners are a sort of sect and have in their possesion something which precludes an outright attack. North Korea does not truly have nuclear weapons although most of the worlds leaders have no reason to believe otherwise.
    - Area 51 with its small Inners populated colony below was the main embassy between them and us until the 1960ies upon which the embassy function was relocated and the colony scaled down
    - the Inners have had and continue to have preferential agreements with the United States of America through intermediary structures because of shared ideological and religious beliefs. The cooperation increased sharply during WWII and continued during the cold war even though failures like Roswell made for some tense times as the Inners are very afraid of the general human tendency towards xenophobia
    - the largest inter-Inners Outer Earth combat operation was conducted with the help of the US military and is the reason for the location of continental US nuclear test-sites as Inners are far more susceptible to electromagnetic disturbances (behavioural effects with lethal consequences)
    - a small group of Inners have been on official duty as active military personell in various conflicts, among them WWII and the cold war. A renegade faction of Inners constituted Hitlers superweapon but were annihilated by help of the mainstream branch of Inners society. The same faction of Inners that promised collaboration with the Axis powers have influenced extreme right-wing theories. There is suspicion that other aggressive Inner factions might have continued contact with some asian and european facist-like groups although this might actually simply be a conspiracy theory (!!!)
    - if humans as a species declared war on the Inners they would lose in the end even though they have much more advanced technology because the Inners are trying to escape Inner Earth until Inner Earth has been repaired from the extreme damage of pollution and a total technological war, absolutely none of the Inners factions would permit themselves to unleash the same kinds of weapons on Outer Earth, including fusion and fission weapons, wh

  71. i aint never been one for book learnin... by todd10k · · Score: 0

    if the core of the earth is solid, and encased in a liquid medium that is less solid then could'nt it be possible that both the force of gravity from the sun/moon and the force of the crust and the surrounding magma be making the core spin just that little bit faster?

  72. The earth is round. by leuk_he · · Score: 1

    There are ocean's on both sides, and on average they are just as far from the moon as the center of the earth.! ?

  73. Re:extinctions by fijimf · · Score: 4, Funny
    Homo erectus didn't have a society totally dependant on electronics for it's economics and machines to feed it's population.
    As far as you know . . .
  74. Fair and Balanced by ndansmith · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fox News has posted a conflicting report declaring the Earth's core a "No Spin Zone."

  75. b'day by adnausium · · Score: 2, Funny

    so now...what age do i put on earth's birthday card?

    --
    Don't ya hate it when the correct spelling of your favorite screen name is taken?
    1. Re:b'day by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      so now...what age do i put on earth's birthday card?

      4.538 billion years if you're addressing it to the Jack Hills zircon cores.
      4.564 billion if you're addressing it to the extinxt Hafnium radiogenic clock in meteorites.
      Up to 20 to 100 million years older if you're addressing it to the CAIs.

      Ask a silly question, get a straight answer - now there's a slashdot first for you .

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  76. Re:extinctions by Yocto+Yotta · · Score: 1

    "Its" is proper for "it is", and the possesive of "it".

    The poles flipping probably won't make humans feel different or anything, and barring any crazy concentration or increase in the the magnetic field during such a process, shouldn't affect electronics unless they are directly related to measuring the magnetic characteristics of Earth.

    Many other animals, most notably birds migration habits, will be drastically altered when looking at the pole-flip phenomenon from a beginning-to-end perspective, but any changes to any living thing's behavior will be as subtle as any other process would be if spread out over several hundred years.

    So yes, people are "monumentally stupid" to be freaking out about this, IMHO.

    --
    A B A C A B B
  77. Re:extinctions by budgenator · · Score: 1

    yes and television and radio goes all screwey, sometimes it even knocks out power grids, fries satelites and even electrinics on the ground lots of annoying things, all from 4 light-seconds away; imagine it underfoot.

    --
    Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
  78. Re:extinctions by vertinox · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm not sure about the parent or grandparent, but its not the field that I am concerned about, but the Cosmic Rays that the Earth's magnetic field may sheild us from.

    If you aren't familiar with Cosmic Rays:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_rays

    And IBM even has done reasearch on what Cosmic Rays does to electronics:

    http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd40-1.html

    http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/421/ziegler .html

    Think of it like an EMP bomb. The flip wouldn't give us enough radiation from cosmic rays to maybe kill us, but it's speculated that while its in limbo it would be enough to flip electrons in memory and kill sensitive electronic equipment.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  79. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "Its" is absolutely not proper for "it is", the apostrophe in "it's" is required for that meaning.

  80. Re:extinctions by johnmat · · Score: 1

    Its more like 8 light minutes from where I am sitting. Which planet are you on?

  81. Whipped Cream by umbrellasd · · Score: 1

    Gravimagnetic energy pulses from the galactic core to our sun and from the sun to the earth. The energy pulse from the sun is like a blade turning in the blender. The whipped cream at the center is rotating faster because the liquid metal core is the most efficient converter of the incoming energy, and the rotation speed tapers off toward the outside. Since it is not a homogeneous medium (different densities in the layers) you get discontinuous jumps in velocity from layer to layer. In other words, the core rotates faster than the surface. Such wisdom in baking.

  82. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ~8 light-minutes. The moon is ~1 light-second away. Even light can't travel 93 million miles in 4 seconds... unless you're travelling at 93% of light speed...heck, to light itself, NO time has passed since it left the sun...

    ...so I guess we should say "~8 light-minutes relative to Earth"...

    ...but wait, not everbody is travelling the same speed on Earth... I mean someone at the equator is going more than 1000mph faster than someone at the South Pole...

    ...so I guess we should say "~8 light-minutes relative to the average (i.e., arithmetic mean) person on Earth"...

    ...but then, there's...Shit. Well anyway, you get the idea.

  83. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Earth's magnetic field doesn't shield us from cosmic rays.

  84. very old result by peter303 · · Score: 1

    People have known this since the mid-1990s. I wonder why the journal even bother publishing this old result. Actually it is new data confirming an old result.

    1. Re:very old result by Koriani · · Score: 1

      it is new data confirming an old result. Thats why the journal posted it.

  85. Gravity by biraneto2 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if it has any effects on gravity

  86. caused by the immense energy of the magnetic field by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The speculation of differential rotation was due to an expensive computer simulation by Harvard physicist Glatzmier in the mid-1990s. People hadnt done this calculation before because it was incredibly expensive: two months of a supercomputer time in the mid-1990s. First the cost comes from calculating fluid flow and electrodynamics simultaneously. Second, because the magnetic field is somewhat chaotic (unstable), yu have to have lots of tiny grid cells and time steps in a three dimensional sphere. One result of his calculation is the magnetic field in the liquid outer core has enough energy to push it differentially with respect to the earth's rotation. A second result is he predicted magnetic pole reversals in manner observed in the rock records- periods of great stability, punctuated by "flickering". Some of these flickers turn into complete reversals. Incidentally, the earth is in a "flickering phase" right now.

  87. Ah, a Mac user by srussia · · Score: 1

    Get more RAM!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  88. English lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's == It is
    Its == possessed by it

    "Its a nice day out."—WRONG!
    "It's mine, give it back."—WRONG!

    "It's all my fault, and I'm sorry to all the Slashdoters who read my post with its horrible grammar."—CORRECT.

    1. Re:English lesson by grimarr · · Score: 1

      No, that's not right.

      "It's mine, give it back."--WRONG!
      This phrase is actually correct. If you can replace
      "it's" with "it is", then "it's" is correct. That applies here.

  89. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sometimes it even causes the letter "o" to spontaneously turn into an "i."

  90. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Funny :)

  91. Re:extinctions by vertinox · · Score: 1

    The Earth's magnetic field doesn't shield us from cosmic rays.

    I hate to respond to AC's but you need education:

    From:

    http://www.srl.caltech.edu/personnel/dick/cos_ency c.html

    Discovery and Early Research: Cosmic rays were discovered in 1912 by Victor Hess, when he found that an electroscope discharged more rapidly as he ascended in a balloon. He attributed this to a source of radiation entering the atmosphere from above, and in 1936 was awarded the Nobel prize for his discovery. For some time it was believed that the radiation was electromagnetic in nature (hence the name cosmic "rays"), and some textbooks still incorrectly include cosmic rays as part of the electromagnetic spectrum. However, during the 1930's it was found that cosmic rays must be electrically charged because they are affected by the Earth's magnetic field.

    Now these articles don't specifically come out and say that the magnetic field protects us, but explains how it works and one of the main concerns about colonization on mars because it doesn't have a strong magnetic field:

    http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/magnet.html

    http://www.sievert-system.org/WebMasters/en/conten u_rayonnement.html

    http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wcosray.ht ml

    If the earth's magnetic field doesn't protect us from cosmic rays then what does? The Atmosphere... Maybe, but it's apparent in those sites that the rays from the Sun and deep space are affected by Earth's magnetic field.

    Also note it's mentioned in Wikipedia's Rare Earth Theory article.

    The impact may also result in a large moon to stabilize the axis, and the cores of the original planet and the impacting body merging to form an over-massive core could produce a powerful magnetic field to protect against solar radiation.

    --
    "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
    -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  92. Core Spins Faster! by Toaster+Assassin · · Score: 1

    The earth's core spins faster than the earth's shell eh? Isn't this obvious. I had this figured out before high school, I'm wondering now why this is so amazing.

  93. simple: tidal pulls from moon slow the rotation by scotty777 · · Score: 1

    so yes, it is so simple. The tides swishing water round the earth do tow things in this regard: They speed the Moon up in its orbit (so its orbit is actually dropping!) and they slow the rotation of the earth. So it's exactly as gowen says: Given that the Earth's rotation is slowing down, isn't it immediately apparent that the liquid core must spin faster than the outside. It's just basic fluid dynamics. If apply a torque to the outside of a fluid filled region, the middle of that region will feel the effect last.

  94. tidal friction cause the spin down because: by scotty777 · · Score: 1
    simple physics: the tidal foces are greatest on the crust at the equator. It's the differential between the gravity farthest fromthe moon and closest to the moon that drives the tides. Clearly, right near the center of the earth there isn't any force to speak of then, and there's more and more as you get closer to the surface.

    In addition, the stiffness of the crust, and the extremely high viscosity of the mantle both limit deformation. Thus the effects of the tidal pulls transport far more mass in the very fluid oceans. That fluid motion is what visibly causes the tie to rise and fall. Nothing like obseveable facts to help us sift wheat from chaff in a scientific discussion!

  95. Re:extinctions by sickofthisshit · · Score: 1

    Homo erectus was also probably "used to" the idea that most of them didn't live to 30 years of age.

    The idea that skin cancer rates, just to pick a totally hypothetical example, might go up tenfold, just to pick a totally made-up factor, would be met by a shrug: "Who the hell ever lived long enough to die of cancer?"

    Things could get pretty damn bad in modern terms without creating something that would show up in the million-year-old fossil record. Consider how little direct evidence we see today of the flu pandemic of the early 20th century, or the various Black Death pandemics of the late Middle Ages.

  96. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, was I ever off. My apologies.

  97. Core Does Not Spin Faster by Cheirdal · · Score: 1

    The diameter of the earth is much much greater than the diameter of the core. This means the earth spins faster than the inner most core since there is a lot more mileage that is covered per spin. Now to to say the core spins around more times than the earth would be correct but even that is a pretty small difference considering the 700-1200 years to make the extra spin according to the article.

    1. Re:Core Does Not Spin Faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      idiot

      i imagine in your universe the sun orbits the earth too.

    2. Re:Core Does Not Spin Faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Faster" is relative. To make a long story short, the core has a greater angular velocity than the 'surface'. Simplified and dumbed down to cater to some of the people who read the paper, this means it 'goes faster'.

    3. Re:Core Does Not Spin Faster by Cheirdal · · Score: 1

      This is the level of "intelligence" I've come to expect from Slashdot. A fucking moron that doesn't know the outer most track of a CD spins faster than the inner most track calling someone else an idiot. This is high school physics for Christ's sake. Get an education.

  98. Wait a minute! by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

    The Overclocking Theory completes the previously ill-conceived Intelligent Design theory.

    It provides a logical explanation to all our glitches...

    All heil the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

    --
    ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  99. Re:extinctions by Random832 · · Score: 1

    Except for all that ionizing radiation that will get in when the Van Allen belts are attenuated to the point of nonexistence.

    --
    We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  100. Re:extinctions by hexed_2050 · · Score: 1

    If the server BF2 server that I'm playing on crashes when the magnetic field changes, I'm going to be really pissed!

    --
    Valkyrie is about to die! Wizard needs food -- badly!
  101. The moon by Artraze · · Score: 1

    The moon is causing the Earth's rotation to slow. Wikipedia cites this to be 15ns/yr. Sure this is slow, but so is the difference.

    Perhaps it's causing this?

  102. Re:extinctions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said anything about the field attenuating to the point of nonexistence? We are talking about a FLIP, which has occured HUNDREDS of times before! SHEESH!

  103. Re:extinctions by k98sven · · Score: 1

    Homo erectus didn't have a society totally dependant on electronics for it's economics and machines to feed it's population. Of course we'll survive a reversal, but it won't be pleasant for those involved.
    What a load of nonsense!

    Electronics and machinery are not dependent on the orientation of the earths magnetic field. Why on earth would they be that?

    The earth's magnetic field is about 50 microteslas in strength. I have personally seen computers operate happily in static fields over 10 times stronger than that.
    (although the CRT displays tend to get warped after long periods of time)

  104. big deal, Drunks... by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

    have been privy to this information for centuries.

  105. Re:extinctions by OhioJoe · · Score: 1

    4 light seconds? How about ~8 light minutes.

    The sun is approximately 93 million miles form earth. Light travels 186,000 miles per second. with you math, we are a mere 744, 000 miles from the sun.

    --
    "Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
  106. Stupid me by OhioJoe · · Score: 1

    Flames warranted. Didn't realize by my web layout that someone already pointed this out. I shall go and beat my head into the wall several times until I understand the implications of my fauz pas.

    OJ

    --
    "Artificial Intelligence usually beats real stupidity."
  107. free energy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah, the mag-field of earth is facinating. i was always
    wondering if i had a big enough magnet and bolt it to the front
    of a boat and put it in the ocean just a few miles north of the equater
    if i'd end up at the north pole eventually for free ...
    i don't think it just the "earths magnetic field". the earth moves
    around a central huge fusion machine that produces mag. charges all
    the time. the sun produces a very strong magnetic evironment.
    well anyway, a shot in the dark. take a sphere magnet and place it
    on your table. if you put a coil beside it, nothing happens. but now
    blow-up the sphere biggo enouh so your experiment table can sit on it,
    and start spinning the mag sphere at rough 1'000 km per second. the
    coil on your table still doesn't do much, since you're moving around with
    the sphere .. *sigh* try again: keep the sphere, but make it "earthen"
    or non-magnetically, move the mag sphere to the center of the sphere
    your table is standing on and start spinning it much faster then the big
    sphere and watch that coil. is it getting a volt? even worse, have the
    inner mag. sphere turn in the opposite of the big sphere surface.
    of course it is up to the reader to figure out where to put the experiment
    table with the coil and how to point the coil ...
    then again it all might not work, because according to some homopolar
    generator websites, moving the copper disk alone, or moving it ALONG with
    the permanent magnet yields a voltage (or amps, which is more important
    with homopolar generators). strangly enough having the copper disk
    stationary, but moving the permanent disk yields no volts (or amps).
    strange ... maybe there is some "free" energy suckable from the earths
    magnetic field? maybe the martian figuered that one out and died a
    nasty BBQ dead after draining mars from it's magnetic field energy :P

    (good i hate the iMAC. where's the delete key and how do i open a new
    link in a new window?)

  108. Re:extinctions by Random832 · · Score: 1

    go look up what happens in the middle of the flip - i suppose you think that the field just rotates 180 degrees, not losing any of its strength in the meantime?

    --
    We've secretly replaced Slashdot with new Folgers Crystals - let's see if it notices.
  109. Mars magnetic field's monolith-based by vortexau · · Score: 1

    Mars' magnetic field is produced by a light-plum coloured monolith (with gigantic N and S markings) that was sunk to the planet's core millions of years ago.

    diagram of light-plum monolith at Mars' core

    Just like the famous black monolith that's guarding the region of the gas giants, its probally responding to Earth's radio traffic and has reduced Mars' manetic field to unmeasurable field strength.

    If we ALL look the other way it may resume normal strength, but I wouldn't bet my life on that!

    --
    (David Bowman, EVA near HUGE Monolithic Win-PC in orbit around Jupiter) "My God - its full of Malware!"