So assume that there is a 0.1 N magnetic force between the two magnets when they are separated by 1 meter can you calculate their magnetic moments given their size?
Also you should look at this for correct calculation of magnetic forces between two magnets: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet#Force_between_two_cylindrical_magnets The problem is how do you get the two sphere to be so strongly magnetized? How rare is iron in interstellar medium? Giovanni On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the compliment Giovanni. I am most definitely an amateur in > astrophysics as you suggest, and I do not have time to devote to the field > in order to obtain a complete knowledge of all of the basic theories. I do > possess an open mind and am a bit of a heretic as I have been told by some > on this list. Much of that comes about because I realize that much is to > be learned in every field of science regardless of what the experts within > suggest. > > If I were to make an attempt to estimate the knowledge that mankind > currently has in the sciences as compared to that which will eventually be > obtained I would come up with a figure of about 10%. It would be > interesting to have other members make their best guesses just for laughs. > Perhaps in 10,000 years if we are still capable of thinking, many of the > unknowns of today will be resolved. You hit upon a raw nerve of mine when > you suggested that the science is settled in astrophysics as I seriously > doubt that. The same arguments have kept cold fusion in the dark for many > years at our peril. > > I just mentioned black holes in passing and do not have any particular > questions at this time. Some may arise later, and I would be honored to > have your inputs at that time. > > Let me present a simple thought experiment that should be simple for you > to analyze and explain why it is not important. Take two 1 kg iron masses > separated by 1 meter of distance. One of the masses is magnetized to a > significant degree such that the force attracting the two together is about > .1 Newtons. If you wish, we can adjust this force to be more in line with > what you feel is possible, but why not humor me for the moment. > > I used the typical gravitational force equation and come up with an > attractive force of 6.67384 E-11 Newtons at that distance. Gravitational > force varies as the inverse square of the distance, while the magnetic > force varies as the inverse cube of distance due to it being a dipole > field. Since the ratio of the field strengths is Fg / Fm = 6.67 E -10 at 1 > meter, then we need to go 1.5 E +9 Meters away before the two are equal. > That distance is approximately 1% of the distance to the Sun. Which one > of these forces would you think would dominate the acquiring of magnetic > materials by the 1 kg object within let us say 1,000,000 meters? Unless I > made a major error in calculations, the answer is obvious. This is the > scenario that I am mainly considering. > > I suspect that this type of activity would tend to sweep up the magnetic > responding materials far better than any gravitational forces. The result > would be a tendency to observe rapidly accumulating metallic cores that > would then be followed by typical gravitational attraction of the other > materials. > > That is the hypothesis that I am suggesting. Is it your opinion that > the collection of material is not related to its type? Please spell out > what the current theory suggests leads to the construction of planets if it > does not begin with the heavy core as I am posing. > > It does not come as a surprise that others have considered magnetic and > electric fields as important in the past. I just had an idea that I felt > like would be interesting to discuss on vortex. > > Remember, this is the place to bring up wild, sometimes insane science! > > Dave > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Sun, Jan 20, 2013 4:42 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational > > David, > I admire your questioning and your making models. I wish more "civilians" > would do that and more people would think about the universe in scientific > terms. > That is wonderful. > Also your ideas are a little amateurish but not crackpotish so that is > good. > > I just pointed out some problems with your theory and it is possible there > are some situations where something like you explain or something along the > lines may apply. > > But it would not be a general model for how planets or stars form because > of the simple problems I have mentioned. > > Sorry direct you to wiki but there are many good entries with relevant > bibliography, here one on cosmic dust: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_dust > > Cosmic dust can be charged and it does interact with magnetic fields but > not like simple tiny magnets that would attract each other. They are too > small, too distant from each other for this effect as you describe to > matter. There are other processes as thermodynamics, EM radiation and so on > that are more relevant for star and planetary formation besides gravity. > > People do include magnetic forces in these models I repeat, it is not a > novel idea, but not in the simplistic manner your propose. > > Not sure what you are asking about black holes, but not all supernovae end > into black holes. There are different types of supernovae, some of them end > up in black holes others explode leaving no remnants at all. > > Can you clarify your question? > > Giovanni > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 3:11 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Well, this is the kind of input I was hoping to stimulate. You should >> remember that every field of science is in a state of limbo most of the >> time. New theories come along from essentially nowhere to challenge the >> currently held theories and many times it is the result of an outsider that >> is not firmly entrenched with the most recent ideas that perform this >> service. >> >> If I recall Einstein was not well known when he proposed the theories >> of relativity and they were not immediately accepted. The theory of plate >> tectonics was laughed at for many years before becoming accepted. Cold >> fusion is still considered bunk after over 20 years of proof. The list >> goes on. >> >> It would be in your interest to open your mind and consider the >> consequences of my hypothesis before dismissing it off hand. I agree that >> it is a long stretch, but there most likely are scenarios that can not be >> explained still remaining in astrophysics. >> >> I have a feeling that it would be difficult to explain how dust >> particles can actually collect together without being torn apart by >> extremely minute collisions unless magnetic or electrostatic fields are at >> work. Would you offer an explanation as to how this happens in simple >> terms without a force stronger than gravity? I will be interested to hear >> such an explanation. >> >> And, perhaps the first stars were only built by the influence of >> gravity. That was a long, long time ago and most everything has happened >> since that epic. Someone might ask an embarrassing question as to how >> black holes form in the first place since stars of far less mass explode in >> super novae. Does the current theory demonstrate this satisfactorily, >> differential equations and all? >> >> So, all I ask is that you and others keep your minds open and think >> about the idea without prejudice. Build upon the parts that make some >> sense and perhaps the whole might appear. >> >> For example, you suggested that there were no natural magnets >> throughout space in the many dust clouds that stars spring from. An atom >> of iron is a magnet by itself. A collection of these will stick together >> due to this attraction but not by gravity. The random collection of iron >> atoms in this supposed mass might well tend to cancel out each others >> magnetic fields. But if a large electrostatic discharge occurs nearby, or >> I could speculate on other drivers, then the fields of the individual iron >> atoms could line up and make a larger net field. >> >> Thanks for the input, but please do not claim that the science is >> settled as that is likely wrong. [image: ;-)] >> >> Dave >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Giovanni Santostasi <[email protected]> >> To: vortex-l <[email protected]> >> Sent: Sun, Jan 20, 2013 1:25 pm >> Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational >> >> Our days astronomy is a very developed science. People make full fledged >> simulations of star and planetary disk formations. They use hydrodimanics, >> magnetodynamics, gravitational theory, depending on cases special and >> general relativity and as much physics you want to include. The models are >> solved using differential equations and very powerful computers. >> >> They account for possible subtle effects created by magnetic and >> electrical fields all the time. There is really no space for >> "revolutionary" ideas of planetary formation due to some magnetic dust in >> space. >> >> Even if this group is by default a supporter of amateur science, there >> is a reason why it takes almost a decade of graduate studies to understand >> a particular subfield of modern science. >> There is nothing wrong with citizen science, in fact, it is a beautiful >> idea but you would not walk on a professional basketball field and play >> basketball on a world championship without hesitation or being completely >> mad. >> >> Giovanni >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Giovanni Santostasi < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> There are many problems with this theory. >>> One even if all these ideas would hold they could be applied only to >>> later stages of the universe life because iron and nickel are created by >>> massive stars and then released into space when they died as supernovae. >>> >>> Also consider that iron and heavy materials are very rare exactly >>> because only very massive stars can produce these materials. >>> Furthermore what you call natural magnetism is not something that occurs >>> so naturally for dust in space. >>> On earth natural magnetized material become magnetized because of the >>> Earth magnetic field. Look up how magnetic rocks get magnetized in wiki: >>> >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_magnetism#Thermoremanent_magnetization_.28TRM.29 >>> >>> You need a huge dynamo magnet like the one at the core of the earth to >>> magnetize small things like rocks. >>> >>> The dynamo magnet is created by plasma that rotates at the center of >>> the Earth and creates by induction a magnetic field. The fact that there is >>> iron at the core helps to make the magnetic field stronger and helps to >>> carry the electrical current of the plasma but it is not the source per se >>> of the magnetic field of the earth. The sun doesn't have iron at the core >>> and it has a very strong magnetic field. >>> >>> The iron ended up at the core of the Earth because it is heavier >>> than silica and the other lighter elements that make the earth crust. >>> >>> Gravity is the dominant force at astronomical scales because it acts >>> on everything not special materials (like in the case for magnetism). Yes, >>> it is weak but when you are dealing with huge quantity of stuff that >>> dominates all the other forces in particular because electrostatic charges >>> tend to neutralize themselves coming in pairs and magnetic forces are >>> produced by moving charges and decay rapidly. >>> >>> And so on... >>> The theory makes not much sense in physical terms. Sorry. >>> Giovanni >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:55 AM, David Roberson <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> The vortex-l group of individuals have a great deal of knowledge and >>>> open minds that I enjoy prodding on occasions. This morning an unusual >>>> concept came into my mind which resulted in a hypothesis that I would like >>>> to put forth. >>>> >>>> Suppose that the universe is organized by the influence of magnetic >>>> attractions between materials such as iron and nickel that can be >>>> permanently magnetized instead of gravity, at least in the formative years. >>>> We all know that gravitation is by far the weakest force within the >>>> universe so why should we assume that such a modest effect would dominate? >>>> My hypothesis is that this concept is entirely backwards and that the >>>> basic structures are formed by magnetic influences. After the magnetic >>>> effects have completed their portion of the task the gravitational >>>> influence completes the puzzle. >>>> >>>> Picture a region in open space that has a large collection of dust >>>> and gases. It is certain that many specs of iron or nickel laden dust >>>> exist within this region and that many of these posses natural magnetic >>>> fields. The attraction due to the magnetic field would dominate the net >>>> attraction between these particles by an extremely large margin. As time >>>> progresses the magnetized portions would strongly attract and then collect >>>> together into larger magnetic units. This should occur far faster than >>>> gravitational collection due to the enormous difference in forces. >>>> >>>> So, masses such as the earth's core come together quickly and consist >>>> of large concentrations of iron and nickel and any other magnetic >>>> materials. The same would occur in the early formations that eventually >>>> become other planets and stars. When the collection of magnetic materials >>>> is mostly completed, then it would be natural for the less magnetic matter >>>> to be gravitationally concentrated toward these large metallic centers. >>>> >>>> In my model, it seems likely that pebbles held together magnetically >>>> should withstand much more pounding in collisions than those merely >>>> confined by gravity. This difference in cohesive strength should further >>>> tend to result in large magnetic bundles at the expense of those formed of >>>> other materials. With this in mind, it seems likely that all the planets >>>> that form in a region of space that contains the metals that can be >>>> magnetized will grow an iron like core first and quickly until these >>>> materials have been swept clean of the region. This process is then >>>> followed by the gravitational attraction of the metal cores to the gasses >>>> and other materials. >>>> >>>> The same type of influence should be exhibited throughout the >>>> universe at large. Some of the formations have appearances that seem >>>> unusual if gravitation is the prime force at work. Gravity does not >>>> generate shapes with spatial directivity to the degree that magnetic >>>> attraction does. Gravity only pulls items towards each other in a straight >>>> line. Magnetic materials generally have a dipole field or a complex field >>>> that is composed of the addition of many such dipoles. >>>> >>>> If we consider that my hypothesis results in the collection of the >>>> magnetic materials rapidly and dominantly throughout space, then each of >>>> these would tend to influence others of their kind in the near vicinity. >>>> This should dominate the early formation of matter that eventually leads >>>> to galaxies, etc. I suppose that it is a good thing that the magnetic >>>> fields of iron masses falls off rapidly with distance due to the dipole >>>> nature or the universe might be dominated by truly enormous collections of >>>> magnetic core objects. The shorter range of these dipoles compared to the >>>> monopole of gravity allow what we observe today. >>>> >>>> Is it possible that the enormous black holes at the centers of >>>> galaxies began in this magnetic manner? It would not be difficult to >>>> imagine that most of the iron and other magnetic materials would be swept >>>> together first and fast if present within a nearly created dust cloud. >>>> Once a core has been established, it should easily dominate the remainder >>>> of the cloud and attract the gasses by its quickly formed gravitational >>>> field that reaches far into space. >>>> >>>> Another idea to consider is that the strong magnetic field at the >>>> core of the black hole reaches out far enough to impart directivity to the >>>> motion of materials moving in the direction towards its center. Any >>>> smaller magnetic masses would be pushed or pulled by the mother field of >>>> the hole into directions that tend to follow its field pattern. The >>>> smaller magnetic components would then impart some of this force upon the >>>> gases and other materials by direct coupling among them. As the total >>>> combination of materials approach the hole, the kinetic energy imparted >>>> upon the mass send it past the north or south polar region into orbit. It >>>> is premature to attempt to define the structure of a black hole under the >>>> influence of magnetic effects until a more complete picture emerges. >>>> >>>> I can visualize the wild and amazing behavior that would be imparted >>>> upon a gas with magnetic particles immersed within as it approaches a large >>>> magnetic black hole. Once the gas is turned into a plasma by the heat and >>>> forces applied, it would possess a tremendous electric current induced >>>> within by the motion through the hole's magnetic field. Great forces could >>>> occur that may result in the beams that are seen emitted by the galactic >>>> center black holes. Perhaps someone could allow a super computer the >>>> chance to predict this behavior. >>>> >>>> The hypothesis is supported by the known core of the earth. this is >>>> known to be composed of iron and nickel. >>>> >>>> Meteorites are composed of various materials. The metallic ones have >>>> a large concentrations of magnetic matter within that may have collected >>>> together rapidly at the formation of the parent body. >>>> >>>> The shape of the clouds associated with the enormous explosions of >>>> super nova tend to be non symmetrical on many occasions with patterns >>>> associated with dipole or quadrapole fields. >>>> >>>> Do other vortex members see support of reasons to believe that this >>>> hypothesis is not workable? I am seeking inputs from our esteemed members >>>> that might help to put this puzzle together. >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
