The core doesn't need to have the density of iron people. Look at the density of the sun, it is extremely high and it is made of hydrogen. If you compress a plasma you can have any density you like up to degenerate matter levels. Giovanni
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:42 PM, ChemE Stewart <cheme...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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> >> To: vortex-l <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 >> >>
