In order to check this critique, it is suggested that a copy of NOVA’s program "Magnetic Storm" be available. A copy can be purchased from www.pbs.org for $19.95. A critique of "The Earth’s Magnetic Field" has been presented on my web site www.earths-magnetic-field-and-how-it-reverses-and-more.com and dated October 1, 2001. In this book by Merrill and McELHINNY they described the immensity of the problem which involved 10 equations which had to be solved simultaneously and 17 parameters which had to have boundary conditions established, then the value of the parameter had to be selected by the computer. In view of this, it must be admitted that Gary Glatzmaier has accomplished quite a feat getting the computers to solve this problem which very few geophysicist can comprehend. This solution would be applicable only under the conditions specified by the values selected for the earth. A more general solution is given by the following equation which would be applicable to the earth, moon, sun, Jupiter and other astronomical bodies which have or had a magnetic field.

B_Center is proportional to the field at the surface of the earth. Now how does this general formula apply to the moon? The remnant magnetism of rocks obtained from moon indicates that a magnetic field existed on the moon about 3.2 billion years ago which the author believes was produced by the above equation, however whether or not it reversed is another matter to be determined in the future. Now the sun is an astronomical body in which the nuclear energy is supplied and reversals occur approximately every 11 years. Jupiter has a magnetic field which is produced by the above general equation and whether or not the field reverses is still to be determined.

Since we are on astronomical bodies lets theorize about some of the magnetic fields of millions of oersteds as reported in the literature. A star which has a magnetic field like the sun explodes and hurls off almost all of its electrons and then reduces in size to that of a neutron star with mostly positive charges remaining from the explosion, than the law of conservation of angular momentum causes the rotation rate to increases from days to milliseconds. The resulting field would indeed become one of million of times greater than what it was before the explosion.

Now returning to the critique of the magnetohydrodynamic dynamo theory given by Gary Glatzmaier, his solution is for a particular body, namely the earth, for which the values of the parameters applied. The author of this article cannot verify the results of Gary Glatzmaier solution to the problem of the earth’s magnetic field, however I am aware of his dedication to the problem of the earth’s magnetic field.

For the record it is interesting to go into the history of the conflict between the geodynamo theory and the geomotor theory. The geomotor theory was perceived by the author of this article around 1975 after constructing a reversing magnetic field by using two concentric coils in the same plane, two separate direct current power supplies, and with one current going in the opposite direction to the other one to simulate the effects of positive charges going eastward. A presentation to the American Geophysical Union was given in 1976. My second attempt was in spring of 1996 and this was a fiasco. The abstract was sent in and my orders for program, hotel reservation, and transportation were accepted. When I arrived in San Francisco I obtained the program and searched for my abstract and to my dismay it was not there. Now I had not received a letter of acceptance or rejection, which I perceived as unusual but was dismissed as an oversight by AGU. Could this be due to my geomotor abstract being presented in the section which called for geodynamo papers?

The next attempt was in the spring of 1997. This turned out quite different but I still was not accepted for oral presentation. The best I could get was a poster presentation. I accepted that and went to Baltimore to the meeting there and presented my poster. The abstract that I submitted for this meeting was exactly the same one that I submitted previously which turned out missing. My revenge for that missing abstract came out with an 8.5X11 inch sheet of paper with the words "The Earth’s Geodynamo is Dead" as part of my poster presentation. This was called to the attention of P.H. Roberts who was at the meeting with a presentation by Gary Glatzmaier.

The meeting in Birmingham, England appealed to me so I tried this meeting which was the IUGG99, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics. I thought that if I presented my paper outside of the U.S. that I would have better luck. I selected the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, IAGA, and was assigned to Division I, GA1.01. Now I was also assigned to poster presentation with presentation time all day Friday and half a day on Saturday. When I checked the registrar of poster assignments, I was told that my time had changed to all day Thursday and half a day Friday. On Friday I was told that I must take my poster and vacate the premises by 10:00 AM and the attendants there remained until I left. There must have been some ulterior reason, which I can only guess at. Was this because of what I presented to P.H. Roberts in Baltimore?

Now back to the critique on the dynamo theory which was presented by Gary Glatzmaier. The origin of the earth’s magnetic field is not the double disc dynamo as explained by Gary. This premise is not correct. If the premise is wrong then what follows is also wrong. The origin of the earth’s magnetic field is the internal heat which causes ionization and separation of charges and will produce magnetism due to the earth’s rotation.

With the exception of the presentation by Gary Glatzmaier, the "Magnetic Storm" presented by NOVA is an exceptional presentation.

Submitted on May 30, 2004