Earth's Magnetic Field Declining. Results...? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

dkveuro · #1 12-15-2012, 10:25 PM

Any geophysicists here?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XNMCTBdQtk

Watching this video raised a question. When a magnet is heated it looses it's magnetism, that is, if it had any to start with...I was told this by my science teacher many moons ago and have learned so when permanent magnet electric motors overheat.

Being 2000 miles down, no one can go see what state it is..

So, being as 'they' believe the earth's core is a molten sphere, how come it is giving off a magnetic field...magnetosphere, that is a very effective shield from solar radiation ?

One final question...Is this magnetism the same thing as gravity ? Nothing I have read explains what phenomenon gravity is.

.

.

Botnst · #2 12-15-2012, 10:35 PM

Ghostbusters in the Mayors Office - YouTube

barry12345 · #3 12-15-2012, 11:08 PM

Einsteins theory of gravity that was accepted as fact for decades.. The bending of light creates it I believe was the one . Has been discredited not that long ago.

I am not sure even if there are any new ideals about gravity with much merit. One large mystery that mankind still struggles with.

If the earths magnetic field is weakening. Since the earth is pretty much static or at least in the relatively short time frame man lives in. There may still be an unknown component that we have no ideal of what it is. We know there have to be things that are totally unknown as they leave some evidence of their existance. The true cause of gravity may be one of them.

I suspect the earths magnetic field could be subject to one of these at present unknown issues. It is somewhat strange that gravity the effects of it that are so easily understood. Yet the how it is generated remain unknown. That alone to me indicates that gravity may be based on some form of currently unknown or understood agent as well.

Einstein was cautioned about working on the problem of gravity. As the greatest minds that ever existed had tried before and failed in all their attempts to find the cause.

It is impossable to estimate just how much man will learn in his remaining time on the earth. There is also no way to estimate how much longer we humans will inhabit this planet.

More has been learnt in the last 100 years perhaps than in all the previous recorded time of mans existance on the planet. I wonder if we were given the oportunity to look at the world a thousand years from now what suprises we would see.

Not too much is predictable with any accuracy I feel. To me it is the same as a person might have thought a thousand years ago. The present period might overload that individual. What we take for granted would seem beyond his wildest imagination or even perception I suspect.

It is not acceptable to say from a scientific viewpoint that gravity just is what it is. Yet that might pretty well sum up the accurate knowledge at this point in time. This does leave a door open for a major discovery though at some point. Or perhaps still a lot of them. Some things they are able to examine now are scary in many ways. We have magnetic poles and a magnetic effect present. Plus of course iron in high quantity in the world.

This does not mean that a magnet as we know them is the only thing that might exist to produce the effect. We can only relate or link magnatisim to our current knowledge that may be very inadaquate.

It is pretty bad when the status of you dropping something and it hits the ground. We have to be content with just calling it the gravity effect. We apparently do not have a clue of the why it does this.

dkveuro · #4 12-15-2012, 11:24 PM

My puzzle is, as follows :

Gravity is known to effect light photons and seeing a star light years away is no reference to where it actually is, due to the path the photons had to take...past large masses......besides the time since the photon started it journey.

So, if gravity is an effect, why are we not able to shield ourselves from it ?
Say by standing on 10 feet thick lead floor. ? Gravity seems to work not in a direct linear manner. It's influence seems to be relative to the density of the earth beneath (Solid granite vs sand.) or the distance from it.

Are we pushed down, or are we pulled down ?

Still does not answer the earth's liquid core being a magnet.

Perhaps I should heed the advice given to Albert !

.

Botnst · #5 12-15-2012, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

My puzzle is, as follows :

Gravity is known to effect light photons and seeing a star light years away is no reference to where it actually is, due to the path the photons had to take...past large masses......besides the time since the photon started it journey.

So, if gravity is an effect, why are we not able to shield ourselves from it ?
Say by standing on 10 feet thick lead floor. ? Gravity seems to work not in a direct linear manner. It's influence seems to be relative to the density of the earth beneath (Solid granite vs sand.) or the distance from it.

Are we pushed down, or are we pulled down.

Still does not answer the earth's liquid core being a magnet.

Perhaps I should heed the advice given to Albert !

.

Gravity (whatever it is) is a affectation of mass. To balance a frce vector one must introduce a force (magnitude and direction) proportionate to the displacement one seeks.

Magnetism is a result of charged alignments of atoms within a volume and is also a function of the direction and magnitude of current (atomic factors which can be ignored, depending on scale). Gravity is a function of mass, regardless of charge.

One could shield a volume of space by exactly replication (and opposite sign) the space-time distortion plus the magnetic force in a sign-opposite direction.

dkveuro · #6 12-15-2012, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Gravity (whatever it is) is a affectation of mass. To balance a frce vector one must introduce a force (magnitude and direction) proportionate to the displacement one seeks.

Magnetism is a result of charged alignments of atoms within a volume and is also a function of the direction and magnitude of current (atomic factors which can be ignored, depending on scale). Gravity is a function of mass, regardless of charge.

One could shield a volume of space by exactly replication (and opposite sign) the space-time distortion plus the magnetic force in a sign-opposite direction.

Yeah. What 'e said.

Hi Bonst. If that was an attempt to edumicate me, I must admit I still don't understand.
Can you answer my last two questions please? Thank you....btw..another Monty Python fan.

.

pj67coll · #7 12-17-2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Einsteins theory of gravity that was accepted as fact for decades.. The bending of light creates it I believe was the one . Has been discredited not that long ago.

Einsteins theory of gravity has not been discredited to my knowledge? Where did you hear this?

- Peter.

barry12345 · #8 12-17-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Einsteins theory of gravity has not been discredited to my knowledge? Where did you hear this?

- Peter.

Read it from two sources over the last few years. His theory I believe was bending light or a stream of photons creates gravity. Why his theory stood for so long was he said he had proved it I imagine. Combined with no alternate solution offered up perhaps.

Dudesky · #9 12-18-2012, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Einsteins theory of gravity that was accepted as fact for decades.. The bending of light creates it I believe was the one . Has been discredited not that long ago.

Einstien said light should respond to gravity. So Arthur Eddington proved it during a solar eclipse in 1919 as light was bent around the sun, during eclipse you could see the near stars light behind the sun due to bending.

The stuff about earth losing its gravitational/magnetic attraction is merely a pre-mayan calender variation that should end sometime Friday.

barry12345 · #10 12-18-2012, 06:48 PM

Light may respond to gravity is not the issue. The issue is does the light bending or being deflected create the gravity itself. I thought that was the basic premise of the original einstein origin of gravity work.

I always asumed gravity could bend light.

Botnst · #11 12-18-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Light may respond to gravity is not the issue. The issue is does the light bending or being deflected create the gravity itself. I thought that was the basic premise of the original einstein origin of gravity work.

I always asumed gravity could bend light.

Your first statement is not what Relativity describes.

Also, at the fundamental level, energy and mass are interchangeable. recall that light is a form of energy. For example, in the various particle accelerators the folks talk about accelerating particles in terms of electron volts, not in terms of mass. Knowing full well that as particles approach lightspeed their mass increases, which means it takes and exponential power increase to continue accelerating the mass.

Going to the deformation of space under acceleration, look up 'lorentz transformation'. Gravity is 3-space deformation in an accelerating field. More mass, more acceleration, more deformation.

Dudesky · #12 12-18-2012, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by barry12345

Light may respond to gravity is not the issue. The issue is does the light bending or being deflected create the gravity itself. I thought that was the basic premise of the original einstein origin of gravity work.

I always asumed gravity could bend light.

Doubt it....didn't Albert also prove gravity also responds in a similar fashion as light? I thought it too, bends and so on.
I think the gravitational force has to do with the objects mass and the attraction it causes.

I still think a proton has to have some type of mass, thus would fall prey to gravitational attraction.

However...I hope you have a big fat doobie to comprehend this postulation:

Quote:

The Question

(Submitted November 02, 1996) This questions has been bugging me and my chemistry class. Does light have mass? Most people would think not but here's why I argue against it. Even though light does not effect anything it its path like a solid object, it is affected by gravity. Anything that has mass is affected by gravity. Why do I say that light has mass? Well, If a black holes gravity field is so strong that light cannot escape itself, light must have mass? Am I right? Everyone argues against it.

The Answer

These are interesting issues that you bring up. Whether or not light (or more accurately photons, the indivisible units in which light can be emitted or absorbed) has mass, and how it is affected by gravity, puzzled scientists for many, many years. Figuring it all out is what made Albert Einstein famous. Bear with me and I'll try to explain both the theory and the observation. Back in the 1700s, scientists were still struggling to understand which theory of light was correct: was it composed of particles or was it made of waves? Under the theory that light is waves, it was not clear how it would respond to gravity. But if light was composed of particles, it would be expected that they would be affected by gravity in the same way apples and planets are. This expectation grew when it was discovered that light did not travel infinitely fast, but with a finite measurable velocity.
Armed with these facts, a paper was published in 1783 by John Michell, in which he pointed out that a sufficiently massive compact star would possess a strong enough gravitational field that light could not escape --- any light emitted from the star's surface would be dragged back by the star's gravity before it could get very far. The French scientist Laplace came to a similar conclusion at roughly the same time.
Not much was done over the next hundred years or so with the ideas of Michell and Laplace. This was mostly true because during that time, the wave theory of light became the more accepted one. And no one understood how light, as a wave, could be affected by gravity.
Enter Albert Einstein. In 1915 he proposed the theory of general relativity. General relativity explained, in a consistent way, how gravity affects light. We now knew that while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum (so your statement about light not affecting matter is incorrect). We also knew that photons are affected by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational fields (in particular, strong gravitational fields) change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field. Space-time is the four-dimensional "space" we live in -- there are 3 spatial dimensions (think of X,Y, and Z) and one time dimension.
Let us relate this to light traveling near a star. The strong gravitational field of the star changes the paths of light rays in space-time from what they would have been had the star not been present. Specifically, the path of the light is bent slightly inward toward the surface of the star. We see this effect all the time when we observe distant stars in our Universe. As a star contracts, the gravitational field at its surface gets stronger, thus bending the light more. This makes it more and more difficult for light from the star to escape, thus it appears to us that the star is dimmer. Eventually, if the star shrinks to a certain critical radius, the gravitational field at the surface becomes so strong that the path of the light is bent so severely inward so that it returns to the star itself. The light can no longer escape. According to the theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than light. Thus, if light cannot escape, neither can anything else. Everything is dragged back by the gravitational field. We call the region of space for which this condition is true a "black hole" (a term first coined by American scientist John Wheeler in 1969).
Now, being scientists, we do not just accept theories like general relativity or conclusions like photons have no mass. We constantly test them, trying to definitively prove or disprove. So far, general relativity has withstood every test. And try as we might, we can measure no mass for the photon. We can just put upper limits on what mass it can have. These upper limits are determined by the sensitivity of the experiment we are using to try to "weigh the photon". The last number I saw was that a photon, if it has any mass at all, must be less than 4 x 10-48 grams. For comparison, the electron has a mass of 9 x 10-28 grams.
Hope this answers the questions that you and your Chemistry class have.
Good luck,
Laura Whitlock.

sixto · #13 12-15-2012, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkveuro

One final question...Is this magnetism the same thing as gravity ? Nothing I have read explains what phenomenon gravity is.

No. What comes to mind is wood is affected by gravity but not magnets. In the Newtonian sense, anyway.

Minute Physics: What is Gravity? - YouTube

As barry12345 said, though, saying that gravity bends light is a mischaracterization of what actually occurs.

Sixto
87 300D

Botnst · #14 12-15-2012, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sixto

No. What comes to mind is wood is affected by gravity but not magnets. In the Newtonian sense, anyway.

Minute Physics: What is Gravity? - YouTube

As barry12345 said, though, saying that gravity bends light is a mischaracterization of what actually occurs.

Sixto
87 300D

She's a witch! - YouTube