CharlesChandler wrote: Magnetic fields can only be generated by moving electric charges. The strength of the field varies with the amount of charge, and with the velocity of the charge.
Permanent magnets are made by taking a substance that can retain a magnetic field like an iron-nickel-cobalt alloy or a neodymium alloy and pushing large amounts of charge through it. They remain as magnets for a long time, even after the moving charge (external magnetic field) is completely gone.
Now, if we are to charge up a solid block of iron-nickel alloy the diameter of Alaska during intermediate stages of evolution via star plasma, we can expect to have this solid block of iron-nickel act as a giant permanent magnet for incredibly long periods of time. Thus we don't need anything to explain why the Earth has a magnetic field, except for its core just being a natural giant permanent magnet still magnetized from formation earlier in the star's evolution.
I bet if we could strip away the outer core and just leave the iron-nickel center and were to stand on this center as if it was the ground, a wrench or piece of metal would probably get pulled very hard to the ground, as the magnetism force is an inverse cube. The closer you get to the magnet, the field multiplies by a factor of 3.
The core could be a giant permanent magnet.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The core could be a giant permanent magnet.
But then the polarity of the field wouldn't flip. It might be able to migrate around, or perhaps precess. But then the magnetic field density would be constant, while the orientation would vary. What we actually see in the magnetic striping at the mid-ocean ridges is that the field drops down to nothing, and then builds back up again in the opposite polarity (i.e., the same way it does in the Sun at the peak of the sunspot cycle). The poles do not tumble — the field shuts off and then starts back up again in the opposite direction. Permanent magnets can't shut off.
Besides, iron is no longer ferromagnetic above 1043 K (i.e., the Curie temperature), and even near-surface magma is hotter than that. So the only permanent magnetism would have to be in the crust. And yet the crust is rigid, so there's no way to flip the poles.
So moving electric charges appear to be the only possibility.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The core could be a giant permanent magnet.
But then the polarity of the field wouldn't flip. It might be able to migrate around, or perhaps precess. But then the magnetic field density would be constant, while the orientation would vary. What we actually see in the magnetic striping at the mid-ocean ridges is that the field drops down to nothing, and then builds back up again in the opposite polarity (i.e., the same way it does in the Sun at the peak of the sunspot cycle).The poles do not tumble — the field shuts off and then starts back up again in the opposite direction. Permanent magnets can't shut off.
Besides, iron is no longer ferromagnetic above 1043 K (i.e., the Curie temperature), and even near-surface magma is hotter than that. So the only permanent magnetism would have to be in the crust. And yet the crust is rigid, so there's no way to flip the poles.
So moving electric charges appear to be the only possibility.
Wow that is brilliant Powerful points, Charles.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote:
Besides, iron is no longer ferromagnetic above 1043 K (i.e., the Curie temperature), and even near-surface magma is hotter than that. So the only permanent magnetism would have to be in the crust. And yet the crust is rigid, so there's no way to flip the poles.
That is under 1 atmosphere of pressure. The pressure in the core is wildly higher.
The boiling point of water at 1 atmosphere is 373 K. But if the pressure is increased significantly the boiling point rises. This means the properties of material can change according to how much pressure is involved.
Would the "Curie" temperature change if the iron alloy was under higher pressures? The Curie temperature is measured under 1 atmosphere.
The boundary between the core of the Earth and the lower mantle is estimated to be 3,300,000 - 3,600,000 atmospheres.
I guess this would boil down to a few simple questions:
1. Does the Curie temperature remain the same for iron at 1 atmosphere versus 3,300,000 atmospheres?
2. Is the iron core of the Earth a lot colder than assumed? It is measured to be solid after all.
A. Iron liquid under those pressures would be solid. B. A solid under those pressures would still be solid.
I mean, in stellar metamorphosis, the solid iron core did have a few billion years to cool down after initial formation. The establishment wants people to believe that the iron core is still molten even after 3.5+ billion years.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
CharlesChandler wrote: What we actually see in the magnetic striping at the mid-ocean ridges is that the field drops down to nothing, and then builds back up again in the opposite polarity (i.e., the same way it does in the Sun at the peak of the sunspot cycle). The poles do not tumble — the field shuts off and then starts back up again in the opposite direction. Permanent magnets can't shut off.
I don't think the magnetic field of the Earth produces the "striping" of the Mid-Atlantic Ridges. I think its the magma itself, because the magma IS the charged material.
In other words the Earth's magnetic field is unrelated to producing magnetic patterns on the Earth. Sure there are magnetic patterns in the crust, yes, sure the Earth has a magnetic field... but putting the two together and then drawing conclusions from that alone is very questionable. Check out this picture. Something else is going on here, it is the magnetic anomalies of the Earth's crust.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
Since the angular momentum required for the release of the accreted body inside of the star is too great for ejection, we can rule out the fissioning hypothesis of planet formation.
Need to explain what you mean by accreted body. Plasma or other?
Need to document angular momentum and it's affect on ejection from a star or planet.
Are you suggesting that a large portion of the planet Mars was not ejected into space by electrical discharge?
These were not addressed to my satisfaction. Of course it is difficult to keep up with all of your posts, so you may have.
The point I was getting at is how angular momentum is influenced by electrical interactions?
You make statements that may not be correct and then build a conclusion on them! Example:; ""The establishment wants people to believe that the iron core is still molten even after 3.5+ billion years.""" Which is probably not true.
The scientific approach would be to collect all data, compare it, view all possible conclusions and then pick the one that most closely satisfies all observations. And I don't mean, lookie, lookie, stars! They must dissolve into planets!!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment wants people to believe that the iron core is still molten even after 3.5+ billion years.
They need that molten condition to create the so-called "dynamo"--to create the magnetic field--ironic in that they are perpetuating a lie of omission here. They are admitting yet not stating outright that a molten plasma "dynamo" creates magnetism (and thus electricity). Even the mainstream needs electricity when it is convenient for them but they deny it verbally and semantically. The closest the establishment comes to electricity in space is "magnetism." Yet they never discuss in detail the origin of this magnetism. And yes, the extreme pressures within the Earth near its core would seem to halt any pipe dream of things ever being liquid. A 3 million+ atmospheric pressure would make liquid impossible. I would challenge anything to even have the ability to move at that pressure. There would be an intense stasis condition, akin to a so-called "singularity" where no movement or dimension is possible (which is one reason why the big bang is a fallacy).
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment wants people to believe that the iron core is still molten even after 3.5+ billion years.
They need that molten condition to create the so-called "dynamo"--to create the magnetic field--ironic in that they are perpetuating a lie of omission here. They are admitting yet not stating outright that a molten plasma "dynamo" creates magnetism (and thus electricity). Even the mainstream needs electricity when it is convenient for them but they deny it verbally and semantically. The closest the establishment comes to electricity in space is "magnetism." Yet they never discuss in detail the origin of this magnetism. And yes, the extreme pressures within the Earth near its core would seem to halt any pipe dream of things ever being liquid. A 3 million+ atmospheric pressure would make liquid impossible. I would challenge anything to even have the ability to move at that pressure. There would be an intense stasis condition, akin to a so-called "singularity" where no movement or dimension is possible (which is one reason why the big bang is a fallacy).
I'm on you guys side with that. I've read numerous articles in which they flatly deny electricity. I'm like, wow. Just wow. I work with electrical equipment. Magnetic fields are a direct result of current travelling through a conductor. Any electrician on the Earth knows this. I learned this when I was laying cable in Okinawa about 10 years ago on one of the back yard field ops. The generator cables had to be separated from the telephone wires by at least a few inches or else the induced magnetism from the current would ruin the signal. Electrical currents can ruin everything because of the induced magnetic field around the wires depending on the strength of the current.
I'm not with electric universe when they refer to liquids as "plasma". Plasma is not a liquid. Blood plasma is, not plasma.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment wants people to believe that the iron core is still molten even after 3.5+ billion years.
They need that molten condition to create the so-called "dynamo"--to create the magnetic field--ironic in that they are perpetuating a lie of omission here. They are admitting yet not stating outright that a molten plasma "dynamo" creates magnetism (and thus electricity). Even the mainstream needs electricity when it is convenient for them but they deny it verbally and semantically. The closest the establishment comes to electricity in space is "magnetism." Yet they never discuss in detail the origin of this magnetism. And yes, the extreme pressures within the Earth near its core would seem to halt any pipe dream of things ever being liquid. A 3 million+ atmospheric pressure would make liquid impossible. I would challenge anything to even have the ability to move at that pressure. There would be an intense stasis condition, akin to a so-called "singularity" where no movement or dimension is possible (which is one reason why the big bang is a fallacy).
I'm on you guys side with that. I've read numerous articles in which they flatly deny electricity. I'm like, wow. Just wow. I work with electrical equipment. Magnetic fields are a direct result of current travelling through a conductor. Any electrician on the Earth knows this. I learned this when I was laying cable in Okinawa about 10 years ago on one of the back yard field ops. The generator cables had to be separated from the telephone wires by at least a few inches or else the induced magnetism from the current would ruin the signal. Electrical currents can ruin everything because of the induced magnetic field around the wires depending on the strength of the current.
I'm not with electric universe when they refer to liquids as "plasma". Plasma is not a liquid. Blood plasma is, not plasma.
I don't recall anyone referring to plasma as a liquid. It wouldn't be plasma were it liquid. It's not governed by fluid dynamics as in hydraulics. It is an electrified superheated "gas". But it isn't a gas either. It's another state of matter.
What is baffling is that the establishment DOES acknowledge magnetism and "magnetic field lines" yet they ENTIRELY remove and amputate that idea from electricity. It is as if there is no such thing or possible connection to electrical activity when discussing magnetism.
Not only that, the entire field of quantum mechanics and electronics are dependent upon charge separation. So again, they conveniently ignore charge separation (which implies an anode/cathode circuit) when it is too macro-leveled. This way they can keep it compartmentalized in a tiny realm of exotic particles that are "charged" yet ignore the macro-scaled effects of it in the cosmos in general. The "strong force", "protons", "electrons", et al, are all good if they remain tiny, exotic, and vague. Yet there is no "strong force" or electromagnetic super-structure equivalent in the cosmos that is based on charge separation.
Yet they insist there is a molten "dynamo" creating a mag field at the cores of planets! Did I miss something in their reasoning? LOL They never define what the dynamo is!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote:
The point I was getting at is how angular momentum is influenced by electrical interactions?
Okay, then I have some questions.
1. What material are we talking about. Iron, copper, nickel, germanium, etc.
2. What is the temperature of the material.
3. What state thermodynamically is the material in? Plasma, gas, liquid, solid?
4. How much of it is there? If we are talking about electricity then we will have resistance to flow, which in turn will cause heat.
5. How much electricity are we talking about? Amps? Volts?
6. Can there be a picture drawn of the diagram with which we are referring to?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: The establishment wants people to believe that the iron core is still molten even after 3.5+ billion years.
They need that molten condition to create the so-called "dynamo"--to create the magnetic field--ironic in that they are perpetuating a lie of omission here. They are admitting yet not stating outright that a molten plasma "dynamo" creates magnetism (and thus electricity). Even the mainstream needs electricity when it is convenient for them but they deny it verbally and semantically. The closest the establishment comes to electricity in space is "magnetism." Yet they never discuss in detail the origin of this magnetism. And yes, the extreme pressures within the Earth near its core would seem to halt any pipe dream of things ever being liquid. A 3 million+ atmospheric pressure would make liquid impossible. I would challenge anything to even have the ability to move at that pressure. There would be an intense stasis condition, akin to a so-called "singularity" where no movement or dimension is possible (which is one reason why the big bang is a fallacy).
I'm on you guys side with that. I've read numerous articles in which they flatly deny electricity. I'm like, wow. Just wow. I work with electrical equipment. Magnetic fields are a direct result of current travelling through a conductor. Any electrician on the Earth knows this. I learned this when I was laying cable in Okinawa about 10 years ago on one of the back yard field ops. The generator cables had to be separated from the telephone wires by at least a few inches or else the induced magnetism from the current would ruin the signal. Electrical currents can ruin everything because of the induced magnetic field around the wires depending on the strength of the current.
I'm not with electric universe when they refer to liquids as "plasma". Plasma is not a liquid. Blood plasma is, not plasma.
I don't recall anyone referring to plasma as a liquid. It wouldn't be plasma were it liquid. It's not governed by fluid dynamics as in hydraulics. It is an electrified superheated "gas". But it isn't a gas either. It's another state of matter.
What is baffling is that the establishment DOES acknowledge magnetism and "magnetic field lines" yet they ENTIRELY remove and amputate that idea from electricity. It is as if there is no such thing or possible connection to electrical activity when discussing magnetism.
Not only that, the entire field of quantum mechanics and electronics are dependent upon charge separation. So again, they conveniently ignore charge separation (which implies an anode/cathode circuit) when it is too macro-leveled. This way they can keep it compartmentalized in a tiny realm of exotic particles that are "charged" yet ignore the macro-scaled effects of it in the cosmos in general. The "strong force", "protons", "electrons", et al, are all good if they remain tiny, exotic, and vague. Yet there is no "strong force" or electromagnetic super-structure equivalent in the cosmos that is based on charge separation.
Yet they insist there is a molten "dynamo" creating a mag field at the cores of planets! Did I miss something in their reasoning? LOL They never define what the dynamo is!
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
In stellar metamorphosis electricity is important, but we can not be too careful in amputating the concept of electrically neutral matter. If we do that then we deny the very ground we walk on.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: In stellar metamorphosis electricity is important, but we can not be too careful in amputating the concept of electrically neutral matter. If we do that then we deny the very ground we walk on.
Yes I concur that not everything is conductive. They don't make wire out of cement, for example. It is made of copper.
CharlesChandler
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: A 3 million+ atmospheric pressure would make liquid impossible. I would challenge anything to even have the ability to move at that pressure.
I totally agree — you're going to get a "closest packed arrangement" in which the atoms are no longer swimming around with respect to each other. Of course, it's a forced solid — not solid because of an absence of thermal energy, but a solid because of the pressure. There might still be atomic oscillations within the forced lattice — sufficient to break the covalent bonds if that was all that were holding the atoms together — but the "lattice" persists because of the pressure.
The reason why I bring this up is that we have to wonder whether the Curie temperature is significant because of the effect of temperature on the arrangement of the atomic nuclei, or on the electron shells. I think that it's the electrons that are significant, not the nuclei. The Curie temperature for iron is 1043 K, while at that temperature, iron is still solid (since the melting point is 1811 K). So the crystal lattice is still OK, but the ferromagnetism goes away. Here we get into the question of what causes ferromagnetism, but I subscribe to the theory that electron spin creates atomic dipoles, and that certain atoms (such as iron) allow the atomic dipoles of neighboring atoms to all fall into unison, producing a macroscopic magnetic field. Once in this arrangement, they will tend to stay that way, because the combined magnetic field exerts a force that keeps the electron spins in line. But it took an external magnetic field to get them in line in the first place — otherwise, their random alignments never would have amounted to anything. And once the temperature gets too high, the electrons get knocked out of shells by the random atomic oscillations in the solid. Once the spins are randomized, the net magnetic field goes away. If this is correct, pressure does not determine whether or not the iron will be capable of ferromagnetism — it's just the temperature. Anyway, if somebody finds a paper that directly addresses this, please post a link.
But I'll still maintain that the crustal polarization in solidified magma is an indication of the magnetic field at the time, despite the anomalies. There are many things that can cause anomalies in the Earth's magnetic field. For example, a large iron ore deposit will deflect the Earth's magnetic field. But that doesn't change the fact that the Earth has a magnetic field, and that it flips in polarity.
So I think that the Earth's magnetic field is caused by rotating electric charges, not frozen-in magnetism.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Charles, good post, as usual...
Under pressure, a hot solid: would electrons be free as ions? *************** There would be tectonic forces moving the magnetic traces around, producing anomalies.
Powerful points, Charles.
