Dave, The inner core is DENSER than iron or nickel so the geologists just made stuff up. Pretty whacky stuff...
Because the inner core is denser (12.8 ~ 13.1)g⁄cm³[11]<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-11> than pure iron or nickel, even under heavy pressures, it is believed that the core also contains enoughgold <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold>, platinum <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platinum> and other siderophile elements <http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siderophile_element> that if extracted and poured onto the Earth's surface it would cover the entire Earth with a coating 0.45 m (1.5 feet) deep.[12]<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#cite_note-12> On Sunday, January 20, 2013, David Roberson wrote: > Giovanni, why do you want to make the calculations more difficult? The > principle is what we are talking about in this exercise. I suspect it > would be possible to calculate the magnetic moments of the sphere if it is > important, but the shape is not an issue. It could have been rods that are > small relative to a meter and still given us guidance. > > I hope you are not attempting to calculate this effect to the fifth > decimal place when an order of magnitude is adequate to demonstrate what is > required. > > You can measure the magnetic attraction with a scale, but the > gravitational force would be virtually impossible to determine without a > calculation. Assume that a mass of iron and nickel can be magnetized by > some means to at least a tiny degree. It would be difficult to have any > measurable level of magnetization that would not overwhelm the force of > gravity by many orders of magnitude. That is the entire point of my > hypothesis. > > The sun has a level of iron in the photosphere of .16 % by mass (according > to wikipedia) which is a lot of matter . I am confident that this > represents many times the entire mass of the Earth. > > So, it has been established that there was iron available to form the > cores of early planets such as Earth. Also, the magnetic attraction of > iron particles dominates the force of gravity between them by many orders > of magnitude. That leads me to consider my hypothesis as plausible for the > formation of planetary cores. Then it would be quite likely that the cores > would become large enough to allow gravitation to complete the process of > gathering the other elements. > > Can you suggest a mechanism that relies upon gravity only to do a > similar task? Why would that be more likely to be the organizing process > considering the relative strengths of the forces? > > There is supporting evidence for my hypothesis. The core of the earth > is iron and nickel and massive. Iron meteorites are available which > demonstrate that iron and nickel has been collected in other parts of the > solar system. > > Are you aware of any evidence that proves that the concept is not > possible? It would be great if you suggested additional information that > supports the hypothesis from your education. > > Dave > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Giovanni Santostasi <gsantost...@gmail.com <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'gsantost...@gmail.com');>> > To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com <javascript:_e({}, 'cvml', > 'vortex-l@eskimo.com');>> > Sent: Sun, Jan 20, 2013 8:34 pm > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Magnetic Not Gravitational > > 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 <dlrober...@aol.com>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 <gsantost...@gmail.com> > To: vortex-l > >
