[guest39538]

If the sun increased in electromagnetic field magnitude increasing the field density at any point of the radius between the sun and the earth , would the suns electromagnetic field push the earths magnetic field causing radius increase or a shift of axis of the earth?


field r.jpg (48.87 kB . 705x428 - viewed 4566 times)

[Bored chemist]

"Was the ice age caused by electromagnetic field density expansion?"
No.

[guest39538]

"Was the ice age caused by electromagnetic field density expansion?"
No.

You say no, but the strange thing is , science does not really know the answer do they?

My notion works, answer me a question please?

Will two identical magnets with likewise poles aligned set r?

If we replace one of the magnets with a greater magnitude magnet will r change?

[Bored chemist]

It's not even an issue of science, but one of logic.
"Was the ice age caused by (some word salad that makes no sense)?"
No,  because whatever caused the ice age(s) must have been real.

"My notion works, answer me a question please?

Will two identical magnets with likewise poles aligned set r? "
You need to ask a better question.
Specifically, you need to ask a question where the things you ask about have properly defined meanings.

[evan_au]

If the sun increased in electromagnetic field magnitude...

Yes, this happens frequently and semi-regularly around every 11 years, producing the Sun's sunspot cycle.
And the opposite happens for another 11 years, producing a (roughly) 22 year cycle.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle

would the suns electromagnetic field push the earths magnetic field causing radius increase or a shift of axis of the earth?

No, because astronomers and spacecraft course plotters have been measuring the positions of the planets with enormous accuracy, and have seen no such effect. The accuracy of these measurements is truly astonishing - it was enough for astronomers in the 1800s to detect that the orbit of Mercury deviated by a tiny amount from Newton's predictions - by a tiny amount accumulated over centuries. This was only resolved by Einsteins' General Theory of Relativity, around 1915.
 
No, because the Sun's magnetic field at the distance of the Earth is pretty weak, as is the Earth's magnetic field. This produces a force which is tiny compared to the Earth's enormous mass, and will not change the orbit by a measurable amount.

No, because even if it was able to produce a measurable increase in the Earth's radius after a few thousand years, the Solar magnetic field would have reversed after 11 years, undoing any radius increase.

[guest39538]

No, because astronomers and spacecraft course plotters have been measuring the positions of the planets with enormous accuracy, and have seen no such effect. The accuracy of these measurements is truly astonishing -

I have no problem accepting the accuracy of measurement, but as you aware we were not around to measure anything when there was an ice age .  What if this possible repeat can not be measured until it is too late?   How much of an increase in radius from the sun would it take for the planet to freeze over?
The tilt of earth in winter to me shows it wouldn't need to be very much?

[evan_au]

How much of an increase in radius from the sun would it take for the planet to freeze over?

Scientists think that the Earth's orbit would not need to change at all to make a change from:
- No ice at either pole
- Extensive ice sheets at both poles

Part of the reason is positive feedback:
- If the sea and land is covered by ice, most of the incoming sunlight is reflected back into space, and it stays relatively cold and icy
- If the sea and land is not covered by ice, most of the incoming sunlight is absorbed, and it stays relatively warm and ice-free

It is thought that the Milankovitch cycles could provide a nudge to switch it from one state to the other; one of these cycles affect the angle of Earth's axis, and the severity of winters.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

Humans are currently giving it a nudge towards the ice-free state (on much shorter timescales)
The patterns of the continents have an influence too (continental drift operates on much longer timescales).

[Bored chemist]

The tilt of earth in winter to me shows it wouldn't need to be very much?

That shows me that you don't understand how the tilt of the Earth affects temperature.
It's not because the Earth is "tilted away from the Sun"

How much of an increase in radius from the sun

You would need to propose a mechanism for moving the Earth towards and away from the Sun before that question was worth answering.

[alancalverd]

The ice ages were caused by humans exploiting natural resources and not paying enough tax. Or maybe Original Sin. Or perhaps you don't really understand what "ice" and "age" mean from an ontological perspective. It all depends on whether you listen to politicians, priests or philosophers.

Of course, like most interesting natural phenomena on this planet,  it might just be a consequence of the hydrogen bond. But science is hard, so we won't go there. 

[guest39538]

You would need to propose a mechanism for moving the Earth towards and away from the Sun before that question was worth answering.

I have already give a mechanism, the electrodynamics of moving bodies.   i.e field density.

[guest39538]

Scientists think that the Earth's orbit would not need to change at all to make a change from:
- No ice at either pole
- Extensive ice sheets at both poles

I agree the climate can change without a planet displacement, but, the physics suggests it can also change due to displacement in accordance to the inverse square law, the greater the distance the less magnitude of light energy. 

[Bored chemist]

You would need to propose a mechanism for moving the Earth towards and away from the Sun before that question was worth answering.

I have already give a mechanism, the electrodynamics of moving bodies.   i.e field density.

Sorry, I should clarify.
You didn't give a mechanism that made sense.

[guest39538]

density.jpg (56.4 kB . 705x428 - viewed 4274 times)

Try to understand a denser field can pass through a less dense field until is reaches a point of the field that is an equilibrium density to the permeating field.

Added- consider buoyancy is a quantum action.

added- If you want to know I know this it is because I am a carp angler and I know how to critically balance a bait. Gravity is no different.