Notices
Results 1 to 28 of 28

Thread: Earth - as an electro-magnet?

  1. #1 Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    I hope this doesn't read like a silly question, but I've been wondering if our planet EARTH, would be more correctly viewed as an enormous electro-magnet?

    After all, we know it has an magnetic field, and it is continually spinning - with a vast amount of electro-magnetic radiation flowing (or) being constantly attracted inwards - towards it's centre, which to a Reject, all sounds a little like the way an electro-magnet functions.


    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
    In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is induced and constantly maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core. A requirement for the induction of field is a rotating fluid. Rotation in the outer core is supplied by the Coriolis effect caused by the rotation of the Earth. The coriolis force tends to organize fluid motions and electric currents into columns (also see Taylor columns) aligned with the rotation axis


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theory
    In the case of the Earth, the magnetic field is induced and constantly maintained by the convection of liquid iron in the outer core. A requirement for the induction of field is a rotating fluid. Rotation in the outer core is supplied by the Coriolis effect caused by the rotation of the Earth. The coriolis force tends to organize fluid motions and electric currents into columns (also see Taylor columns) aligned with the rotation axis
    Thank you Harold. Obviously I will have to do some reading over the coming days, which it appears may have an amount of relatively complex language/concepts to be negotiated. Nevertheless, to this point I have to admit to not being at all sure whether (or how) the above addresses the OP.

    An initial perusal of your suggested Wiki reading, would seem to present as there being three separate theories under consideration, so what? Perhaps now my newly realised suggestion makes four???
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    After all, we know it has an magnetic field, and it is continually spinning - with a vast amount of electro-magnetic radiation flowing (or) being constantly attracted inwards - towards it's centre, which to a Reject, all sounds a little like the way an electro-magnet functions.
    What electromagnetic radiation is flowing inwards? I am not aware of any. Are you not confusing electromagnetic radiation, better known as light and its various cousins, with a magnetic field, which is what we have in and around the Earth. While my dim understanding of the physics admits to magnetic fields being mediated by photons, it is not quite the same thing as what you seem to be proposing.
    Perhaps you will clarify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    After all, we know it has an magnetic field, and it is continually spinning - with a vast amount of electro-magnetic radiation flowing (or) being constantly attracted inwards - towards it's centre, which to a Reject, all sounds a little like the way an electro-magnet functions.
    What electromagnetic radiation is flowing inwards? I am not aware of any. Are you not confusing electromagnetic radiation, better known as light and its various cousins, with a magnetic field, which is what we have in and around the Earth. While my dim understanding of the physics admits to magnetic fields being mediated by photons, it is not quite the same thing as what you seem to be proposing.
    Perhaps you will clarify.
    Indeed my understanding is that electro-magnetic radiation is also known as the broad spectrum light, although I am a little lost when it comes to 'it's various cousins'. Even so, I would have expected there to surely be an abiding linkage between it and any magnetic field, including that in and around the earth. And we well understand that 'light' is constantly radiating (or flowing) inwards - to our planetary envelope.

    So to respond to your question; could it possibly be that the earth's magnetic attraction, actively draws in the passing electro-magnetic light, somewhat akin to minute charged particles being 'picked up' by (perhaps) the respective (opposing) end of a magnet, in this case; the one that is our planetary home, rather than some benign hit-n-miss type of effect?

    Unfortunately, as this theory/query is but a few hours into it's (perhaps short-lived) lifespan, I am unable to add a great deal by way of further clarification right now.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I hope this doesn't read like a silly question, but I've been wondering if our planet EARTH, would be more correctly viewed as an enormous electro-magnet?

    After all, we know it has an magnetic field, and it is continually spinning - with a vast amount of electro-magnetic radiation flowing (or) being constantly attracted inwards - towards it's centre, which to a Reject, all sounds a little like the way an electro-magnet functions.
    then if the earth is traveling thru an enormous magnetic field of the sun, crossing all them flux lines of a magnetosphere bigger than the whole solar system;

    sounds like a 'could be'
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject

    So to respond to your question; could it possibly be that the earth's magnetic attraction, actively draws in the passing electro-magnetic light, somewhat akin to minute charged particles being 'picked up' by (perhaps) the respective (opposing) end of a magnet, in this case; the one that is our planetary home, rather than some benign hit-n-miss type of effect?

    Unfortunately, as this theory/query is but a few hours into it's (perhaps short-lived) lifespan, I am unable to add a great deal by way of further clarification right now.
    No. light does not carry an electrical charge, nor is it attracted by a magnetic field.

    There are charged particles from the sun hitting the earth. They are called ions. They are not attracted by the earth's magnetic field but are deflected by a force at right angles to their path through the field and become trapped and reflected from pole to pole. This forms the Van Allen belt.
    Suggested reading.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_mirror
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Indeed my understanding is that electro-magnetic radiation is also known as the broad spectrum light, although I am a little lost when it comes to 'it's various cousins'.
    Light is commonly used to refer to visible electromagnetic radiation. It's cousins would be suh things as X-rays, infra-red, gamma rays, etc.

    Separately, as Harold has pointed out. Light is not attracted, repulsed, or in any other way pertinent to this disussion, influenced by a magnetic field. Abandon the idea now as a whimisical 'might have been'.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Indeed my understanding is that electro-magnetic radiation is also known as the broad spectrum light, although I am a little lost when it comes to 'it's various cousins'.
    Light is commonly used to refer to visible electromagnetic radiation.
    I would have thought that it was axiomatic that 'light' is technically invisible - on (at least) two counts; being way too small (particles), and moving way to fast - to so much as catch a glimpse thereof.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    It's cousins would be suh things as X-rays, infra-red, gamma rays, etc.
    These 'cousins' you refer to, by my understanding; are fully integrated into the broad spectrum that is light. They are part of the same, are they not?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Separately, as Harold has pointed out. Light is not attracted, repulsed, or in any other way pertinent to this disussion, influenced by a magnetic field.
    Unless of course, the deflection in the travel of light as it passes close to a planet, as proved by Einstein, is actually caused by the magnetic attraction of that planet. Can this be ruled out do you expect?

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    Abandon the idea now as a whimisical 'might have been'.
    Perhaps I will have to - eventually. For now, sorry but not convinced.

    On the other hand, although I am not really a big fan of Wiki, I will add Harold's suggested reading to my growing list of to-dos over the coming few days.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    I would have thought that it was axiomatic that 'light' is effectively invisible - on (at least) two counts; being way too small (particles), and moving way to fast - to so much as catch a glimpse of..
    On that basis everything is invisible, nothing can be seen. It sure as hell is photons that mediate the transfer of information to our eyes. I'm not going to indulge a playing with words.

    The commonly accepted definition is that visible light is light that our eyes are sensitive to. That is the sense (OK there can be some playing with words) in which I mean it. That is the sense in which it is typically used.

    Now some people, some of the time, use the word light to refer not only to visible light. These subdivisions are reflections (another play) of humanity's tendency to classify. I have referred to gamma rays and the like as cousins in case you were someone who uses light only to refer to visible light. You aren't, so we can drop the cousins reference. All light is the same, except for its energy and frequency.
    Unless of course, the deflection in the travel of light as it passes close to a planet, as proved by Einstein, is actually caused by the magnetic attraction. Can this be ruled out do you think?
    I don't think it can be ruled out. I know it can be ruled out. There is no evidence whatsoever of deflection by a magnetic field, there is evidence of deflection by gravity.

    Perhaps I will have to - eventually. For now, sorry but not convinced.
    You are quite free to base your incredulity on a poor understanding of the basics and an automatic rejection of the results of extensive experimentation and theorising, reapeated, duplicated and validated to the nth degree. If it's OK with you I will focus my questioning on those areas that merit questioning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    There is no evidence whatsoever of deflection by a magnetic field, there is evidence of deflection by gravity.
    Unless 'gravity' and 'magnetic attraction' are in fact the same thing - just a minor rumination of a Reject, is all.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    If it's OK with you I will focus my questioning on those areas that merit questioning.
    For now my friend, you may consider yourself free to leave at any time.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    There is no evidence whatsoever of deflection by a magnetic field, there is evidence of deflection by gravity.
    Unless 'gravity' and 'magnetic attraction' are in fact the same thing - just a minor rumination of a Reject, is all.
    All four fundamental forces are believed to have been unified when the universe was 'born'. In that sense you may be correct that both are expressions of what was once unified. However, there is zero evidence that there is any correlation between the two in the context we are discussing. If you think there is please provide it, otherwise you will find it productive to accept that all you have is an unsubstantiated speculation that is countered by many observations and experiments stretching over centuries.

    May I ask why you would choose to indulge in speculation that is so wholly unsubstantiated and utterly discredited by actual observation? You are a cogent individual and I have long been fascinated by the pathology that leads people to make that sort of leap. If you don't wish to respond, or think this is the wrong place for such a discussion I shall quite understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Earth - as an electro-magnet? 
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt
    May I ask why you would choose to indulge in speculation that is so wholly unsubstantiated and utterly discredited by actual observation?
    What I am writing about may indeed be 'unsubstantiated and utterly discredited' as per your 'actual observation', however by my unscientific (in the general understanding) observations, all are (if not fully substantiated) a long way from being 'discredited', yet I will undoubtedly remain at a consummate loss when it comes to such as see me as wholly 'stupid', right?

    You and others may well continue to deride my alternative questions, views, and myself, and that will be something I may have to bear for a time; until either I arrive at a fuller understanding, or am validated.

    Clearly you see only one of these outcomes as being possible, and you may well be right on target with that, therefore I will not argue the point with you. Nonetheless, I will have to for the time being; remain true to what I presently know and understand of the circumstances of our existence.

    I hope I have satisfactorily answered your question, and thank you. Now I had better be on my way home for the day - only 12 hours late.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Get a powerful, rare-earth magnet. You can order them online. Get a flashlight and a paperclip. The magnet easily picks up the paperclip, showing that it is much stronger than the gravity for the entire planet as well as its magnetic field. Shine the light across the magnet. It will show no deflection. Thus, light is not affected by magnets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Dishmaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Heidelberg, Germany
    Posts
    1,624
    Except for those effects that affect the polarisation of light, however not its path:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeeman_effect
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optic_Kerr_effect
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    It’s nice to see a serving platter supporting a little more meaty offering being brought to the table than the general and disappointing ‘not interested because it all looks a little too alternative’.

    It seems too often the gloomy wailing of starchy pulpit huggers, all fervently longing to deride anything emanating from outside the regular dogma and hymn book; appears to drown out temperate composed interest. I guess it has always been so, yet it is nevertheless sad still to witness.

    After all, isn’t science purportedly all about asking questions and pushing the known boundaries in order to arrive at a fuller appreciation? Obviously not – for some.

    In any case, A.R. thanks MagiMaster’ for the following;

    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    Get a powerful, rare-earth magnet. You can order them online. Get a flashlight and a paperclip. The magnet easily picks up the paperclip, showing that it is much stronger than the gravity for the entire planet as well as its magnetic field. Shine the light across the magnet. It will show no deflection. Thus, light is not affected by magnets.
    The rare-earth magnet (REM) observation certainly presents as an impressive demonstration, however I am unsure of it’s implications on (at least) the following counts;

    1. The REM, no matter where we might carry out the above experiment, will yet be entirely within the earth’s magnetic influence, indeed it is as basically attached to the magnet (earth}, therefore I might expect the influence of the planetary magnet, as being (almost) fundamentally cancelled out. Please permit me to further explore with you;

    If we were to take an ordinary magnet and a paper clip, and hold them near to each other, the attraction would perhaps snatch the clip from our grasp, and it would soon appear as glued to the face of the magnet, now being ‘at rest’. Whilst in this state, I’m wondering if the attraction might have been vastly reduced (almost ‘cancelled out’), as the lines of attraction between the poles have been ‘straightened’.

    Of course if we were to attempt a separation from this point, breaking the above ‘straight line’ effect, the attraction would be immediately increased, again drawing the two back together.

    If the above proves to have validity, I’m expecting it may be an indication that the earth’s magnetic influence to be vastly more powerful than we have previously believed, yet has always been inadequately assessed, as from a position within it’s ‘straight line’ physicality.

    Secondarily to the above, I might question whether the physical magnet on the one hand, and the attractive influence it undoubtedly expresses on the other, may in fact be two separate things (yet as presented in one) – perhaps an observation of the physical and it’s ‘spiritual’ (having zero physicality) - counterpart.

    2. Further to the above, and if my above expectations be founded, any (flash)light being cast across a magnet, would likely be unaffected, due to a few reasons;

    a. The (above) ‘cancelling out’ effect of earth’s magnetic field at ground level.

    b. The compromising (in comparison to space) of the light transmission, due to the atmosphere being negotiated at ground level.

    c. The relatively low power of the magnet.


    3. In regard to;
    It will show no deflection. Thus, light is not affected by magnets.
    Even if the above points are proved invalid, I would expect the observation of the flashlight across (any) magnet, would still be pointless. For light itself is invisible, so in the instance of the light’s passage being changed to any degree at all (or not), it would remain as entirely unrecognisable to the naked human eye.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    For the attraction bit, try using two magnets and see if you can EVER cancel out one of the magnets forces with the other. Magnetism doesn't cancel out like that, in terms of attraction.

    As for the bent light, you most definitely could observe the change, and it would only require that you shine the light on a wall. When you move the magnet close to the light, if the photons were atteracted you could see them stray from the point on the wall they were hitting prior to you introducing a strong magnetic field. Thus, proving your point.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    For the attraction bit, try using two magnets and see if you can EVER cancel out one of the magnets forces with the other. Magnetism doesn't cancel out like that, in terms of attraction.
    I am aware that there is little evidence (if any) of two magnets cancelling each other out, although I guess an argument would exist of there being a hypothetical region between the two opposing (or same) ends of a couple of magnets, where our paper clip would be held in a region of 'cancelled out' attraction - being at the same time attracted towards both directions, yet remaining motionless.

    On the other hand, your suggestion relies upon two separate fields of attraction, which would necessarily incorporate four poles (2 x +ve, 2 x -ve), which is clearly an entirely different proposition to one field - as entirely emanating from within one physicality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    As for the bent light, you most definitely could observe the change, and it would only require that you shine the light on a wall. When you move the magnet close to the light, if the photons were atteracted you could see them stray from the point on the wall they were hitting prior to you introducing a strong magnetic field. Thus, proving your point.
    Your suggestion seems a reasonable one to be sure, and thank you for it. Yet I'm wondering if it may still have it's inbuilt constraints; being at ground level, and therefore fully within the (perhaps) vastly superior magnetic field of the planet.

    Furthermore, if my query of the planet's magnetic field being far more powerful than conventional wisdom would suggest is eventually proved valid, a relatively small magnet, as (again) entirely within it's greater influence, would surely present as less than a minnow compared to the mightiest of whales, thereby likely having the most imperceptible of effects upon the passing light.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is very well established. After all, they've flown large chunks of metal out to the edges of the solar system. If the strength of the Earth's (or any other body's) magnetic field were orders of magnitude above what it is believed to be, these satellites would never have been placed so accurately. (Consider how difficult it is to take a picture of a specific spot on a planet, say the north pole, while flying by it at millions of miles per hour.)

    Now, to further show this, take a strong REM and a weak fridge magnet. Make sure the fridge magnet is still strong enough to lift a small paper clip. Move the REM around it and see if it suddenly stops working. (It won't, but if you move the REM close enough, it'll pull the paperclip to itself.) If you take the REM to be Earth, you can see that it won't cancel out weaker magnets. If you take the fridge magnet to be Earth, you can see that a stronger magnet can pull the object away, assuming no polarity issues. (In fact, this also shows that the Earth's field isn't, normally, even strong enough to cause polarity issues.)

    As for the point between two magnets, yeah it exists, but it's just a point and an unstable one at that. Everywhere around it is pulling away from it, so any small deviation and the balance is lost.

    If you don't like flashlights, use a laser pointer. Mount it in a vice and turn it on. Mark the dot on the wall. Move a strong magnet around the beam and see if the dot moves.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    297
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    It’s nice to see a serving platter supporting a little more meaty offering being brought to the table than the general and disappointing ‘not interested because it all looks a little too alternative’.

    It seems too often the gloomy wailing of starchy pulpit huggers, all fervently longing to deride anything emanating from outside the regular dogma and hymn book; appears to drown out temperate composed interest. I guess it has always been so, yet it is nevertheless sad still to witness.

    After all, isn’t science purportedly all about asking questions and pushing the known boundaries in order to arrive at a fuller appreciation? Obviously not – for some.
    Please, stop pretending to be the better man here. You give the impression to know absolutely nothing about physics, yet you come in and insult people that do.
    Now, it's ok to think about alternative possibilities, but what others have tried to tell you is that your hypothesis makes absolutely no sense when you try to fit them with experimental evidence. It's not because you don't know about it, that it doesn't exist. In this case, it simply means that you haven't looked. At all.

    Before exploring your hypothesis further, I suggest you at least start by reading a bit about Earth's magnetic field. As you can see, we know pretty well how strong the magnetic field of the earth is, how it changes in time and space, etc... (if you don't like wikipedia, there are plenty of links and references for you to explore).
    I've got magnets in my drawer that are times stronger (magnets have potential magnetic induction B of 10000 times higher than earth, and )

    EDIT: before I forget: magnetic fields also don't usually cancel out, as is evidenced by trying to push two magnets with the same poles against each other.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    EDIT: before I forget: magnetic fields also don't usually cancel out, as is evidenced by trying to push two magnets with the same poles against each other.
    It might have been just a little helpful had you actually read what was presented prior to arguing, in order for you to have any idea about that to which you were supposedly replying.

    Firstly, my question was not regarding two magnets, but the force field within one.

    Magnetic fields may not in effect 'cancel out' in the way you propose, however when recently needing to repair the Alaskan oil pipeline, the welders were unable to perform their duties due to a strong magnetic field that was present in the (as yet unattached) steel pipe. They had no idea why it was so, but that didn't really matter, given their time constraints.

    Ultimately, the welding couldn't be performed until the force field was neutralised to some reasonable extent; by them placing an opposing magnetic field around the joint to be welded, which to a degree, balanced out the prevailing force field, sufficient for them to complete their task.

    But this must now all be according some 'new hypothesis' science.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    EDIT: before I forget: magnetic fields also don't usually cancel out, as is evidenced by trying to push two magnets with the same poles against each other.
    It might have been just a little helpful had you actually read what was presented prior to arguing, in order for you to have any idea about that to which you were supposedly replying.

    Firstly, my question was not regarding two magnets, but the force field within one.

    Magnetic fields may not in effect 'cancel out' in the way you propose, however when recently needing to repair the Alaskan oil pipeline, the welders were unable to perform their duties due to a strong magnetic field that was present in the (as yet unattached) steel pipe. They had no idea why it was so, but that didn't really matter, given their time constraints.

    Ultimately, the welding couldn't be performed until the force field was neutralised to some reasonable extent; by them placing an opposing magnetic field around the joint to be welded, which to a degree, balanced out the prevailing force field, sufficient for them to complete their task.

    But this must now all be according some 'new hypothesis' science.
    It would be helpful, when quoting evidence, to provide a source. It would also be helpful if, when people with a better grasp of physics than either your or I suggest that your ideas make little sense, that you consider the possibility that this may be so, rather than crying "dogma!". Refute, or do not. But please don't pull that stunt here. That's a game for pseudo science peddlers, and they live in a different subforum.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Bender
    EDIT: before I forget: magnetic fields also don't usually cancel out, as is evidenced by trying to push two magnets with the same poles against each other.
    It might have been just a little helpful had you actually read what was presented prior to arguing, in order for you to have any idea about that to which you were supposedly replying.

    Firstly, my question was not regarding two magnets, but the force field within one.

    Magnetic fields may not in effect 'cancel out' in the way you propose, however when recently needing to repair the Alaskan oil pipeline, the welders were unable to perform their duties due to a strong magnetic field that was present in the (as yet unattached) steel pipe. They had no idea why it was so, but that didn't really matter, given their time constraints.

    Ultimately, the welding couldn't be performed until the force field was neutralised to some reasonable extent; by them placing an opposing magnetic field around the joint to be welded, which to a degree, balanced out the prevailing force field, sufficient for them to complete their task.

    But this must now all be according some 'new hypothesis' science.
    It would be helpful, when quoting evidence, to provide a source.
    I didn't think I was quoting evidence as such, but rather an instance, of which I have become aware, when magnetism needed to be neutralised prior to welding. Also I didn't think at the time of writing the post that I would be able to source the thing sufficiently, yet with your encouragement I have now done so.

    It was an observation of a very small section on a doco-type program entitled 'World's Toughest Fixes'. Please look; Here. You will find the relevant video segment around half way down the page, with a pic of a man using a welder.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    It would also be helpful if, when people with a better grasp of physics than either your or I suggest that your ideas make little sense, that you consider the possibility that this may be so
    You misunderstand my motives, yet I'm wondering whether it is by accident or design. I KNOW without any doubt that I have a lesser grasp of the general concepts known as 'physics' than some (maybe most) on this forum. That has never been in question as far as I'm concerned, and furthermore; it will obviously surprise you that I have ALREADY considered the possibility that I might be wrong - even prior to posting in the first instance. In any case, perhaps you can explain how someone can be wrong - when asking a question???

    It seems I failed to realise that being (say) less 'educated', necessarily translated to my not being permitted to think for myself - in my own time and at my own expense; and then ask a question or two. A Reject might start a-thinking that asking a question makes him 'wrong'.

    Perhaps someone should post up these guidelines somewhere, so we uneducated plebs have a chance to understand such dogmatic parameters and restrictions?

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    rather than crying "dogma!".
    I feel justified to regard it as a dogmatic approach when I am expected to simply believe what someone tells me - on the basis that he 'knows' and I do not! So there!

    It all smells suspiciously like the Pope serving his underlings what they must eat, and then feed to the rest of us, such as regarding some ethereal locale called 'Purgatory' - on the basis that he 'knows' better. That smells a little like dogma on the boil, doesn't it?

    Wait up - I hear he has now changed his mind on that, right? Hmmmmmm......

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    But please don't pull that stunt here. That's a game for pseudo science peddlers, and they live in a different subforum.
    1. I happen to be posting in this sub-forum, due to this thread being relocated here by someone else. Thus far, my contributions 'here' include this and my previous post.

    2. I do not 'pull stunts'. I ask questions, some of which it seems one or two of the more fancied contributors either cannot answer sufficiently, and/or 'pull' the 'superiority ploy', then get annoyed when I rudely (it seems) ask a further question or two. Yet I'm wondering when to expect even one of such stunts, to receive even the slightest reprimand.

    What a refreshing day that will be, even though I doubt I will live to see it.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    For the attraction bit, try using two magnets and see if you can EVER cancel out one of the magnets forces with the other. Magnetism doesn't cancel out like that, in terms of attraction.
    I am aware that there is little evidence (if any) of two magnets cancelling each other out, although I guess an argument would exist of there being a hypothetical region between the two opposing (or same) ends of a couple of magnets, where our paper clip would be held in a region of 'cancelled out' attraction - being at the same time attracted towards both directions, yet remaining motionless.

    On the other hand, your suggestion relies upon two separate fields of attraction, which would necessarily incorporate four poles (2 x +ve, 2 x -ve), which is clearly an entirely different proposition to one field - as entirely emanating from within one physicality.
    Actually, it's still one field just being affected by 2 separate sources. In all reality, that's how the planet's magnetic field works as well. It operates based on all the bits of magnetic sources inside of it, each affecting it, no matter how small. A fridge magnet alters the field lines and strengths of a NdFeB magnet in just the same manner, get close enough to the fridge magnet and far enough away from the NdFeB and the forces will be equal. There is an equalization, rather than a cancel out effect.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    It would also be helpful if, when people with a better grasp of physics than either your or I suggest that your ideas make little sense, that you consider the possibility that this may be so, rather than crying "dogma!". Refute, or do not. But please don't pull that stunt here. That's a game for pseudo science peddlers, and they live in a different subforum.
    He does accept that we may be right and he may be wrong. The issue is convincing him that we are right and he is wrong, that's what this is all about. He's not just closing his eyes and ears and shouting "this is my way and it's right!!!" He's just being stubborn and believing his idea is equally as likely to be true to the knowledge of physics.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    It would also be helpful if, when people with a better grasp of physics than either your or I suggest that your ideas make little sense, that you consider the possibility that this may be so, rather than crying "dogma!". Refute, or do not. But please don't pull that stunt here. That's a game for pseudo science peddlers, and they live in a different subforum.
    He does accept that we may be right and he may be wrong. The issue is convincing him that we are right and he is wrong, that's what this is all about. He's not just closing his eyes and ears and shouting "this is my way and it's right!!!" He's just being stubborn and believing his idea is equally as likely to be true to the knowledge of physics.
    There's stubborn and there is, for example, having the very basic differences between magnetism and gravity explained in plain English, only to ignore that and continue making the same claims over and over. My understanding of physics is very limited, so perhaps I'm missing a lot. But it looks as if Apopohis is attempting to deny some things that are trivial to verify. Am I far off the mark here?

    I'm not trying to drag us off topic here, I'm trying to assess where this thread ought to live.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    this thread, in all right, BELONGS in Psuedo...
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    For the attraction bit, try using two magnets and see if you can EVER cancel out one of the magnets forces with the other. Magnetism doesn't cancel out like that, in terms of attraction.
    I am aware that there is little evidence (if any) of two magnets cancelling each other out, although I guess an argument would exist of there being a hypothetical region between the two opposing (or same) ends of a couple of magnets, where our paper clip would be held in a region of 'cancelled out' attraction - being at the same time attracted towards both directions, yet remaining motionless.

    On the other hand, your suggestion relies upon two separate fields of attraction, which would necessarily incorporate four poles (2 x +ve, 2 x -ve), which is clearly an entirely different proposition to one field - as entirely emanating from within one physicality.
    Actually, it's still one field just being affected by 2 separate sources. In all reality, that's how the planet's magnetic field works as well. It operates based on all the bits of magnetic sources inside of it, each affecting it, no matter how small. A fridge magnet alters the field lines and strengths of a NdFeB magnet in just the same manner, get close enough to the fridge magnet and far enough away from the NdFeB and the forces will be equal. There is an equalization, rather than a cancel out effect.
    I must say that you (A_M), might appear to a Reject, to be emerging as perhaps the least insecure, inversely proportional to being the most reasonable contributor on this forum. My compliments to you.

    It seems I must have been using the wrong terms with 'cancel out' instead of 'equalisation', yet I must say it as just a little concerning how such a low level (to my reasoning) error could have eternally marked me as 'stupid', 'obtrusive' or 'arrogant' to so many????

    Now if I am reading your words correctly, you seem to be saying that even though we have two separate magnets, there is but one force field of magnetism to be considered. Whilst this might appear to make sense (to my way of thinking), it is actually a new concept for me to be reading about, and therefore I would ask you to explain a little more, if you please.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBiologista
    It would also be helpful if, when people with a better grasp of physics than either your or I suggest that your ideas make little sense, that you consider the possibility that this may be so, rather than crying "dogma!". Refute, or do not. But please don't pull that stunt here. That's a game for pseudo science peddlers, and they live in a different subforum.
    He does accept that we may be right and he may be wrong. The issue is convincing him that we are right and he is wrong, that's what this is all about. He's not just closing his eyes and ears and shouting "this is my way and it's right!!!" He's just being stubborn and believing his idea is equally as likely to be true to the knowledge of physics.
    I must say that the term 'stubborn' seems a little excessive. Would you have regarded me as 'stubborn' for NEVER accepting Purgatory? Am I still today stubborn because I reject the notion that the vast majority of the world embraces - a detached man/god somewhere in the sky? Are you stubborn for regarding the (perhaps) USA as better than (say) Australia? Is a 'Right to Lifer' stubborn because he doesn't like unborn babies being dispatched, sometimes on no more than selfish whim? Is stubborn the correct terminology here?

    There certainly does appear to be just a little "we" vs 'him' going on around here. What you guys seem to be having trouble grasping, is that I have NEVER been in a fight with any one of you on this issue - because I DO NOT KNOW!!!! I am merely asking a question or two, so again;

    A. How on earth does asking make someone wrong?

    B. When did asking questions start to equate with stubbornness?

    C. Is stupidity now defined by a desire to seek and discover?

    D. Has no-one else on this forum ever had the temerity to ask a question, so therefore cannot grasp such an exotic concept??
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I say stubborn because these concepts have been explained to in slight depth, and it hasn't seemed to have sunk in; and when you are corrected, you always add the caveat, "you may be right (and probably are), but I might still have a valid idea" and while I won't dispute that you may, indeed, be right, there is substantial evidence that points to the contrary, namely that the members who have gone through some physics are right instead.

    on the force field thing, all it is is a show of the magnitude of a force, the direction, and plots where those specific values occur. Everything is encompassed in the field, everything affected. if you consider 2 sources, then there is still 1 field, but everything in the field will experience 2 different forces, of different magnitudes. A better way to visualize this is through carbon paper. If you apply 2 electric currents to the paper (2 different batteries and set ups attached to the same paper) you will notice that the voltages will compliment or detract at some points, but there is still just one field upon which the two beasts are acting. I remember doing the experient in an intro-physics course, using just one battery, but it would show the voltage relative to one point of the battery and some point on the paper. Magnetism behaves in a similar way.


    I'm not an expert on this subject, so I may very well be wrong on how I understand the phenomenon.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •