To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Electro-magnetic Fields Around Planets
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics and New Theories > Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, New Theories

momentito
Previous explanation of the Earths Compass-Active electro-magnetic field appearing in texts books were that the core of the planet is molten Iron that behave like a large Copper coil.

Seriously? magnetizing molten iron would be very difficult because the atoms move around. Regular Iron only becomes a magnet when a magnetic field is being applied. Solid steal can become permanently magnetized because the Iron atoms don't bounce around and are aligned muscularly plus to minus.

In previous posts I discussed Time-Dilation on various sized planets and concluded that the formulae available wouldn't even apply to gas giants like Uranus because it's so massive that the core is neutronic and the planet is heavier than what you would expect from it's radius with the scwartzchild radius being bigger.

The intensity of such planets electro-magnetic fields would likewise be greater than expected.

The causes of intense electro-magnetic fields in planets that are reputed to consist mostly of CH4 NH3 CO2 H20 would make conventional explanations contradictory to their chemical composition.

Who's to say that even with planets like the Earth that there isn't a core within a molten core that is neutronic nuclear thermopile with intense gravitational fields producing an simmering thermopile activity whilst at the same time containing the chain-reacting neutrons to within a precise radius. There would be an imbalance of protons in the core surrounds that would produce the complimentary compass-active electromagnetic field and Earthing effects of Thunder bolts.

This My theory could predict that large-enough distant planets are on the surface warmer than absolute zero in-spite of being to distant to obtain enough sunlight to explain the effect.
momentito
Princess Bluebell, I havent read any of your material yet. What I typed in the other thread was to do with something else other than you.
Darren
QUOTE (momentito+Dec 30 2007, 02:02 AM)
Princess Bluebell, I havent read any of your material yet. What I typed in the other thread was to do with something else other than you.

Hey, $*** head,

I'm tryin'ta negotiate my love life here, ya know it's like a dating forum also, so how about ya show some respect here,okay? Yeh?, it's like Fu_ck off right?


Cheers
Darren
momentito
QUOTE (momentito+Dec 30 2007, 01:43 AM)
Seriously? magnetizing molten iron would be very difficult because the atoms move around. Regular Iron only becomes a magnet when a magnetic field is being applied. Solid steal can become permanently magnetized because the Iron atoms don't bounce around and are aligned muscularly plus to minus.


I meant the atoms are aligned molcularly plus to minus but the computer isn't allowing me to edit the typo in my text that resulted from a spell-check miss-click.
Darren
QUOTE (momentito+Dec 30 2007, 03:01 AM)
I meant the atoms are aligned molcularly plus to minus but the computer isn't allowing me to edit the typo in my text that resulted from a spell-check miss-click.

Lokk *** head, go *** youself it might be new experirence.

okay????, stakes are high here.


Darren
momentito
QUOTE (momentito+Dec 30 2007, 01:43 AM)
Who's to say that even with planets like the Earth that there isn't a core within a molten core that is neutronic nuclear thermopile with intense gravitational fields producing an simmering thermopile activity whilst at the same time containing the chain-reacting neutrons to within a precise radius. There would be an imbalance of protons in the core surrounds that would produce the complimentary compass-active electromagnetic field and Earthing effects of Thunder bolts.

At what volume of mass is the transition point from largest possible gas giant to the smallest star. There could be very large gas giants in the Universe that could have smoldering molten cores that radiate enough heat to the surface to make them visible with telescopes as warm radiating heat as infra-rared radiation. They would be the smallest pink stars that wouldn't shine light but could radiate enough infrared heat to melt the ice on it's nearest moons.
Darren
QUOTE (momentito+Dec 30 2007, 04:26 AM)
At what volume of mass is the transition point from largest possible gas giant to the smallest star. There could be very large gas giants in the Universe that could have smoldering molten cores that radiate enough heat to the surface to make them visible with telescopes as warm radiating heat as infra-rared radiation. They would be the smallest pink stars that wouldn't shine light but could radiate enough infrared heat to melt the ice on it's nearest moons.

Look, I now it's a turn for you, right?


Go bury your head in infinity, okay? hey don't expect too soon, but there's rituals going on here, maybe in 60000 years you might understand, okay?

Now Fu_ck off get the messege, eH?

cheers for yopur kindness, but I'm mighty pissed tonight, I was expecting some cool negotiating with AN, this morning?

What the Fu_ck
Darren
momentito
QUOTE (Darren+Dec 30 2007, 04:38 AM)
Look, I now it's a turn for you, right?


Go bury your head in infinity, okay? hey don't expect too soon, but there's rituals going on here, maybe in 60000 years you might understand, okay?

Now Fu_ck off get the messege, eH?

cheers for yopur kindness, but I'm mighty pissed tonight, I was expecting some cool negotiating with AN, this morning?

What the Fu_ck
Darren

Darren it's obvious you've got way too much delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol in your system so at such times you should post in your own thread.
ihatec4
i am pretty sure there is a solid iron core at the center of the earth.
momentito
The gravitational pull ratio's of Earth and it's moon is 6:1 however the Volume ratios are 49:1 respectively.

From cube radius ratios (6378:1738)^3 = 49:1

Particles have mass, how? indeed
Perhaps the SUN/EARTH could mutually possibly? be shinning gravitational mass (with their gravitational fields) to the moon making it heavier the way a black hole would increase the mass of a small spacecraft passing by.

The moon has 1/6 of the gravity of the Earth but appears to have the gravity that would be expected from a planet with an 3,510Km radius

(6378/1738)^3 = 49

When: (6378/x)^3 = 6
then: (6^1/3)/6378 = 1/x
then: x = 6378/(6^1/3) = 6378/1.81712 = 3510Km radius

momentito
The gravitational pull ratio's of Planets Earth and Mars are `3:1' however the Volume ratios are '6.62 : 1' respectively.

From cube radius ratios (6378:3397)^3 = 6.62 : 1

Like to estimate the gravity of it's two moons based on the gravitational field strength of mars and the radii of the two moons in it's gravitational field of influence?


What I'm suggesting here is an effect very much like an effect of two magnetic iron plates in liquid nitrogen mutually proportionately/complimentarily affecting each-other electro-magnetic properties.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youíll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.