Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, A: Physics and Space Science, Volume 23 Issue 1

The constant movement of mass in the same sector of the planet inevitably leads to the "bulging" of the Earth's crust, giving the planet the shape of a geoid. Of course, one immediately wants to understand which has more impact on the formation and movement of the core, the Sun or the Moon. Unfortunately, this is not yet obvious. To understand this, a comparative analysis of the readings of gravimeters located on opposite parts of the planet is probably necessary. From existing data, it can be seen that the core can split into two parts and vice versa, causing a more significant impact on the gravimeter sensor. The difficulty of the analysis lies in the multitude of variables and their interdependence. III. C onclusion The analysis of data from gravitational force measurements leads to a clear conclusion about the influence of attraction forces from masses moving inside the planet's body on the gravimeter readings. The periodicity of these changes has daily, monthly (sidereal month), seasonal, semi-annual, and yearly (astronomical year) dependencies. The amplitude and shape of the signals also have a cyclicality and depend on both the absolute position of the Sun and Moon, and their mutual position. Note: In the work "Rotational Factors of Tectogenesis - History of the Question and Modern State" by L.I. Ioganson of the O.Yu. Schmidt Institute of Physics of the Earth of the Russian Academy of Sciences [19], a very detailed approach to the question of the movement of the planetary interior matter is systematised. Many options for explaining this movement and the evolution of understanding this issue are shown, and how many scientists have dealt with this issue is shown. By referring to this work, I try to deflect accusations of a small list of used literature. There is no need for references to what is not based, not confirmed by measurement data or natural phenomena. The words "core movement" do not yet speak of the concept of the causes that cause this movement, nor of all the consequences of this movement. And just because they are mentioned somewhere, it doesn't mean that the issue is resolved there. This is the only place in the article where I will allow myself to criticise the contemporary approach to explaining the structure of the Earth. The purpose of the article is not to criticise various models, but to reveal and explain what is measured, what manifests itself in the form of natural phenomena, taking into account the laws of physics. Since many refer to the works of Avsyuk Y.N. [9], let's take them as the generally accepted ones, although others are almost not different. For example, such a statement. "The stiffness of the bond and the frequency of the free vibrations of the Earth's inner core have been estimated by several authors. The magnitude of the force acting on the inner core can be recalculated into its displacements through the value of the stiffness coefficient k. There is some uncertainty in the value of the bonding coefficient k, depending on the difference in density values between the core σ 1 and the surrounding liquid material σ 2. Therefore, several variations of ( σ 2 - σ 1) were taken into account [Avsyuk, 1996]." Estimates show that forced internal core displacements of 0.4-11.6 m with a half-sidereal month cycle (6x10-7 sec) "stir" the surrounding liquid core with a power of 3.5-10.5x1018 erg/s. As a result, the power of the core displacement process by solar disturbances surpasses the upper limit of the power of the "generator" capable of regenerating the Earth's magnetic field. To sustain the current dipole field at 0.6 Ga, a generator with a power of 1014-1015 erg/s is necessary. For a toroidal field at 100 Ga, the "generator" must be more powerful, of the order of 1017-1018 erg/s. The calculation that the movement of the axis (the geographic pole) is caused by the movement of the planet's core is certainly acceptable as a hypothesis, but what is the connection between the cyclicity in half a sidereal month and the movement of the Sun? Such a movement- several meters, will not be reflected in real gravimeter readings, will not create daily, monthly, seasonal, semi-annual periodicities. And there are dependencies and they are obvious- it means that it's not the core, or rather not such a movement and location. On the other hand, we all know perfectly well how unbalanced bodies affect their behavior during rotation. Just a few grams on the rim lead to the vibration of quite a massive wheel of a car. And in a planet, a relatively small accumulation of mass in some place on the inner side of the crust will lead to a change in the Chandler wobble of the axis. There is abundant data on the change in the rotation time of the planet during major earthquakes, and they occur quite far from the core. The values of power presented by Avsyuk are not justified and do not reflect anything. It is not shown how and why the core moves, how the "generator" works (in traditional physics, there is no concept of a "magnetic field generator". It is created either by a permanent magnet or by an electric current), how the current appears and flows in it, and how the real magnetic field (MF) is created. In addition, it is said that the MF must be constantly regenerated - but why? A permanent magnet, which eventually becomes the body of the planet, does not need this. How, for example, can the Kursk magnetic anomaly be regenerated without making other regions anomalous? As we can see, almost nothing is confirmed by neither the results of measurements, nor the known laws of physics, nor natural phenomena. This is precisely why 1 Year 2023 5 © 2023 Global Journals Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Volume XXIII Issue ersion I VI ( A ) The New View at the Physics of the Planet Earth