The iron at the core of the earth is there not because it was accumulated first but because it sunk there. Look at the sun, a lot of iron (total amount even if not relatively to hydrogen and helium) but it is diffuse around the plasma. It is diffuse because the sun is much hotter than earth. In the case of the earth as the surface cool down the iron sunk to the core during the earth formation. The iron in meteorite is there because they are fragments of proto planets that got destroyed by collisions with other proto planets. The iron got isolated at the core as with the case of the earth (faster given that these were smaller body so they cooled faster) and sunk at the center. When the body collided with similar ones at the solar system formation the chunks at the center formed iron meteorites.
No magnetism involved, at least not as you describe it. Gravity was dominant force. People do simulations of this stuff and they work. Giovanni On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:20 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> 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 <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >> 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 <dlrober...@aol.com>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 <gsantost...@gmail.com> >>> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> >>> 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 < >>> gsantost...@gmail.com> 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 <dlrober...@aol.com>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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
