Re: KRS: Final thoughts on North Pole

"Daryl Krupa" <icycalmca@xxxxxxxxx> says in
news:1120365321.271411.292090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> You seem to be using the same term "magnetic pole" for
> two different concepts: the North Magnetic Pole (NMP),
> towards which a compass needle points, and the Geomagnetic
> North Pole (GNP), where the lines of magnetic force
> intersect the Earth's surface.

The dipole axis/surface intersect is the phyical point where the
earths average pole intersects the surface, it insects at a different
point from the magnetic dip maximum because the the pole does not
cross through the center of the earth and is on a skewed 'parallel'
from the rotational axis. I am not going to go into this any more,
but based on current and aurora measurments of the past it is known
that the pole makes a rotation around the earth at slightly
different latitudes over several 1000 years cycle. The earths
rotation is speeding up, but the magnetic core lags ever so slightly
in its rotational velocity as a result it character creates a skewed
axis where the dip maximum (the point a circle of magnets would go
from possessing a vector pointing at a common point, upon reducing
that circle would point down) is a location of about 50 to 100 miles
and wobbles on a daily basis. Previously it had been on the eastern
part of hudson bay but has swiftly moved toward the equator, prior to
the it was west of the NW of the hudson bay and had been trackling
east going back and forth in a zig zag pattern south of its current
latitude. If we assume based on the models and the current position
of the dipole/surface intersect we can surmise that both the
dipole/surface intersect and the dip maximum were considerably
further west in the year 1300, and my estimation would place them
approximately closer to alaska than to hudson bay, with the
dipole/surface comfortable northwest of the hudson bay. Since no-one
in the 14th century could measure that intersect, and since they
would not have been able to follow the aurora around its perimeter
circles it is rather ludicrous to presume that the norse used the
aurora borealis to predict where the dipole/surface intersect was. I
would expect Steven's to confuscate the issue but not you.

> I suppose that those are the two concepts you mean by
> "either of those poles", though it would be a great help
> if you would differentiate between them in your naming of
> those two poles.

The only other pole is the rotational axis, and would you expect that
Inventio Fortunata describes a trip their, in which case let me get
out King Arthur, my Santa Claus suit, several merry green elves. . .

>> Of course, such anamolies can appear anywhere and last for a
>> few decades and disappear, however they appear to be
>> increasingly predominant as we approach polar neutrality,
>> therefore I cannot say if one might have existed in the
>> northern hemisphere during the 14th century. _On the contrary_,
>> it is quite clear that the major dipole was considerably
>> stronger 700 years ago relative to today, and the conversely
>> magnetic surface anomolies and dipoles would have less of an
>> effect, particularly considering the strenth and relative
>> putative distance of the dipole from greenland at that time.
>
> As I was referring only to the GNP and the Aurora Borealis,
> and not to magnetic compass readings, I don't see the
> relevance of minor magnetic surface anomalies, which would
> probably not have been detectable by contemporary compasses
> anyways.

I doesn't seem that they would be of signifance in th 13th century,
but such magentic upwellings are know to have occurred in the past,
and one has been reported under wyoming, though I cannot validate
this, and there is a well known fusing of two minor poles under the
mid atlantic ridge which _is definitely measurable_ with a compass.
The problem is that rigoruous magnetic feild measurements are only
about 50 years in age, and the fact is there still can be spikes
within short time frames and we simply do not have a long enough
record to measure these.
I would make a theoretical point however, if a spike did occur and
if it was the basis for an Inventio Fortunata 'myth' then that spike
would have to create a dipole of considerable enough distance from
the actual dipole as to be distinct. Therefore if the dipole intesect
and NMP are in the western part of alaska, then what the Inventio
describes would need to be either south or in the eastern hemisphere.
Since they claimed they sailed due north, the most likely candidate
would be the spitzbergen islands.



>> The NOTAMs for the airfeilds in the artic, not just around
>> Thule but then entire western high artic for 100s or miles is
>> under warning, the magnetic feild is changing daily in
>> direction region this is not because of magnetic rocks around
>> thule, but because the geomagnetic north pole has become
>> unstable, and has taken to movements of several 100 miles over
>> the last few years.

> I have not been able to find references to such "several 100
> miles over the last few years" > excursions of the GNP.
> Where would I be able to read about such rapid movement?

Just about anywhere, Look up the thread previously on this subject
and maps are presented of the tracking of the pole from eastern
hudson bay region to its location closing on the north pole.
The latest measurement if I recall correctly is that the pole wobbles
about 50? miles a day and travels now about 50 miles per year.

> Or are you using the term "geomagnetic north pole" for
> the NMP in this instance? In that case, I don't see the
> relevance to my mention of the GNP associated with the
> Aurora Borealis.

It has no relevance here since the ancients would have been incapable
of determining the dipole/surface intersect via aurora. The only
thing that aurora are useful for, aside from tracking solar flare
activity is via accounts determining whether the pole was closer or
further from a temperate location. For example in the past aurora
observations in Japan and china were much more common than today, in
some early records aurora were measured in the middle east, and also
were commonly measured in europe.

> True, it was probably northwest of Ellesmere Island
> then, but one does not have to be near it to "measure"
> its location: one only has to be within about a thousand
> kilometres to see the centre of the auroral ring and
> estimate the location of of the point on the Earth's
> surface underneath that centre.

Bologne.

> Today, that ring centre is near Thule in northwest
> Greenland. In the 14th Century, it was perhaps closer
> to Ellesmere Island.

I would predict that in the 14th century it was close to Melville
Island or to the northwest.

> In the time of Norse exploration
> in northern Baffin Bay, it might have been further away,
> but the point on the earth's surface below the centre
> of the auroral ring might well have been used as a proxy
> for the location of the North Pole, and for the era when
> Europeans might have been exploring near Thule, it was
> to the north of Thule, and that's a good enough source of
> a myth of a north pole with four islands and strong currents
> for me.

I seriously doubt it, and even if it were true, the Inventio
Fortunata, as we know what was in it (which is not much), would be
considered a fabrication.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Aurora Borialis, Event 1363 and Position of the Magnetic Pole.
    ... the axial pole of earths internal magnetic core. ... from that axis that runs through the dipole. ... flux lines do not correspond to the position of the dipole axis. ... The aurora borealis events in ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Does a Magnets force weaken witht the distance cube?
    ... If you consider a magnetic dipole (all magnets are dipoles as in reality it ... there is no magnetic field) then each magnetic "pole" ... short dipole as a current loop. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Rare earth magnet question
    ... Realistically, though, magnets' pulling power declines very quickly as ... strength falls off very rapidly with distance. ... joining N pole to S pole. ... The very simplest arrangement would be a series of short ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: magnetic monopoles
    ... |> into those holes cylindrical bar magnets with N ... |> Irrespective of the orientation of those balls on ... | since you'd have approximately a 2^5 pole source. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Advice needed in building robot
    ... Device should be flexible in design to allow functioning on pole ... 2 uprights supporting an upper & lower roller 15mm diameter mounted about 150mm apart, a rigid plate between the rollers with ex hard drive magnets on it. ...
    (comp.robotics.misc)