Gravity and Magnetism

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

undidly

Guest
origin":13itbsts said:
""The graph you refer to shows that the strength of the magnetic field goes with the strength of the electric field. the fields do NOT propagate like that through space.""

You are right.
You are wrong. Look at Maxwells equations, the electric field and the magnetic field are in phase. You asked where does the energy go, it doesn't go anywhere, the enegy is the wave and the is made up of the oscillating fields. Since the AC voltage varies in the form of a sine wave, when passes through zero, is there no current in the line? If you do a straight addition of the voltage over 1 cycle the voltage is zero. Do you think that means there is no current?

The graphic is wrong.
The graphic is correct. Find a graphic on the web that shows the magnetic field and the electric field out of phase for electromagnetic radiation. Do you really think that everyone copied the wrong graphic? :lol: Go to the library and look in any physics book (holy crap all the books got it wrong too!!)

The difference in phase of the electric and magnetic parts determines the direction of the photon.
No difference ,no propagation.
Wong, wrong, wrong. The direction of travel is perpendicular to the field directions. Again this is shown in the Maxwell equations.

This graphic is one amongst many that are wrong.
Oh no, ALL of the graphics are wrong - according to you. Like I said find one that is 'right'.

Do the illustrators misunderstand the instructions of the scientist who says to draw something?.
No you do not understand. There is nothing bad about being wrong - but it is a problem when you can't admitt you are wrong. Are you really so arrogant to think that all the physics books and the entire web has it wrong and they need you to point it out to them. :roll:

edited to make my responses sound more like the english language.
Too many questions for one post.

Propagation is at right angles to the electric and magnetic fields.
Did you think I meant some other direction?.
In the graphic the wave is moving toward us.
How would the graphic be different for a photon moving away?.

This is important.How does the photon "know" which direction to travel.Toward or away.

MY REPLIES ABOUT PHOTONS ARE CONTINUED IN THE TOPIC , Photon details.
 
S

SpideroftheAbyss

Guest
MeteorWayne":1gdu11nu said:
SpideroftheAbyss":1gdu11nu said:
Like, its pretty evident that people seem to think that it is impossible to make anything with regular magnets that energy can be produced from them, and yet a magnet over a compass causes movement that does not stop until the field is removed or eventually dies. .

Simply not true. If a compass is in the earth's magnetic field, it aligns and stops. If you place a magnet with a stronger fied near it it aligns, then stops moving. It does not continue moving unless you provide energy to move the magnet.

Unless you have some other kind of compass than mine.
Just like a compass at the north or south pole, if you point the pole of a magnet under a compass, it will spin as it is unable to align.
 
S

SpideroftheAbyss

Guest
origin":pbeqpipw said:
SpideroftheAbyss":pbeqpipw said:
I'm pretty familiar with light and all the different things it is called, like radiation, and electro-magnetic radiation. I separate the two terms, light and magnetism, because they are not necessarily the same thing. I've certainly never seen where the magnetism of Fe can be placed on a frequency chart, and to my knowledge, the magnetism of Fe does not produce any photon producing vibrations like radiation does. I say we lack a good grasp on magnetism because we don't seem to be able to do most of the things we can with radiation with it, like focus its waves into a type of laser, despite that they both seem to operate in similar fashions.
You are really mixing up ideas here. Yes light is not magnetism. Light is also not electricity. Light is however a wave of elctromagnetism. We can not make a laser out of and electric field or a magnetic field because they are not waves, light is a wave. Becasue you can't make a field into a laser does not mean it is not understood. Look at Maxwells equations we have a very good grasp on electricity and magnetism.
If you've ever looked at iron fillings on a piece of paper above a magnet, the concept of a ripple of waves certainly comes to mind. If magnetism does not work in waves, as every simulation I've ever seen of it includes, I'd be a bit surprised.

The affects of gravity are explained, but its pretty obvious from concepts like "Dark Matter" that we're far from getting it. We can barely measure it, and can not modify its behavior in the least.
Dark matter is an unseen mass that is detected because of gravity. This doesn't really have any bearing on how much we understand gravity. Is there more to learn about gravity - certainly a quantum explanation of gravity would be nice. But even a fairly complete understanding of gravity isn't going to result in gravity magnifying equipment. It is easy to affect gravity - move a rock from point A to point B and you have changed the gravity in those areas - just not much
Dark matter is a theory to explain why gravity doesn't seem to be working the way we think it should, and according to said theorist, it doesn't act like normal matter -- bypassing accretion disks to the center of black holes. We also can not seem to artificially create gravity like we can with electro magnets and LEDs.

It really doesn't take a lot of money to hunt ghosts. But anyone with the patience to do it will very quickly lose all creditability if they choose to do so professionally.
It is very hard to take such reasearch seriously.
No more so than Dark Matter research.

Much like researching aliens or cold fusion. Even calling it cold fusion will cause people to immediately ignore everything you do. And yet, science is starting to come back around to the idea that it can be done because some bacteria seem to be able to do it.
You do realize you made a statement and then shot it down yourself.

And no bacteria are capable of cold fusion - you could supply a link to prove me wrong.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/107biology.html There ya go. Also: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cold_Fusion_Moves_Closer_To_Mainstream_Acceptance_999.html based on same report.

Like, its pretty evident that people seem to think that it is impossible to make anything with regular magnets that energy can be produced from them
What do you mean by this? Electical power is generated from permanent magnets all the time.
I have never seen generator, AC or DC, powered solely by permanent magnets. Most of what I've seen use either electric magnets (powered by fossil fuels) or a combination of electric and permanent magnets.

Experiments today generally don't use exploration. Instead they use proofs of concept before trying anything. In this fashion, very few things ever truly get discovered, merely observed. The last person I know of that could conceive and idea and perform an experiment based on that idea was Einstein. Since him, it seems no one has really been brave enough to think very far from their box. No guts. No glory.
Wow, that is going to be some surprising news to the LHC which is the largest most expensive (probably by orders of magnitude) physics experiment ever devised.
I also said "generally". The LHC isn't your typical experimentation. I think there are lots of little things that aren't understood very well, like the Mpemba effect (which I just googled and found someone actually has been working on it) http://www.physorg.com/news188801988.html ("during their spare time"). Its not something especially complicated, except that it doesn't seem to always happen. It seems when there is any kind of unknown variable, people ignore it as if it isn't real or didn't happen. RNA based life forms is another one of those "crackpot" sciences that doesn't really exist.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
SpideroftheAbyss":zkig4q8h said:
MeteorWayne":zkig4q8h said:
SpideroftheAbyss":zkig4q8h said:
Like, its pretty evident that people seem to think that it is impossible to make anything with regular magnets that energy can be produced from them, and yet a magnet over a compass causes movement that does not stop until the field is removed or eventually dies. .

Simply not true. If a compass is in the earth's magnetic field, it aligns and stops. If you place a magnet with a stronger fied near it it aligns, then stops moving. It does not continue moving unless you provide energy to move the magnet.

Unless you have some other kind of compass than mine.
Just like a compass at the north or south pole, if you point the pole of a magnet under a compass, it will spin as it is unable to align.
Again, not true. If you held the pole of a magnet perfectly still beneath a compass, one it aligned with the firld lines it would remain stationary.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
SpideroftheAbyss":110esffg said:
Much like researching aliens or cold fusion. Even calling it cold fusion will cause people to immediately ignore everything you do. And yet, science is starting to come back around to the idea that it can be done because some bacteria seem to be able to do it.
You do realize you made a statement and then shot it down yourself.

And no bacteria are capable of cold fusion - you could supply a link to prove me wrong.
http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/107biology.html There ya go. Also: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Cold_Fusion_Moves_Closer_To_Mainstream_Acceptance_999.html based on same report.
OK, a 7 year old book "from Happiness Press in Magalia, California"
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
OK

Gravity is a side effect of mass. The more mass = the more gravity.

Magnetism is a side effect of electricity.(or I guess you could say the opposite.) As a matter of fact, they are capable of modifying each other. I cite the Electric Transformer as my basis for this fact. Depending upon how you connect it, you can increase or decrease the voltage through induction using nothing but two electromagnets.

Please note however, I am modifying the VOLTAGE (POTENTIAL) and not the AMPERAGE (CURRENT or INTENSITY)

(I have done the following in school. Do NOT attempt this without supervision.)

Hook a doorbell transformer up backwards to a low voltage/low amperage power source. (say 50volts at .1 AMP) You can shoot the voltage into the THOUSANDS and it will still not kill you if you touch it. No burns, just a really really strong tingle.....Why? Because its not the volts that kill you. Its the Amps. (or watts I guess using Volts*Current=watts)

I say supervision because if you plug this into the wall backwards, IT WILL KILL YOU!

Bottom line, in order for a magnetic field to effect gravity, it would need to have mass.
If you give a magnetic field mass, now you violate a law of physics that says electrons have no mass.
And without mass, you cannot modify gravity as its understood.

However, light and magnetism ARE related through the Electromagnetic force. I would love to see a telescope that uses nothing but magnetic fields for a lens. That would make for some very interesting reading indeed. However, magnetic fields provide a path for electrons and not photons, so no, I guess not, unless you can convert one to the other.

(Cue early 80s Saturday morning cartoon superfriends music. Family Guy style)

"Gathered together from across the room, are the greatest set of forces, ever assembled......."
"Gravity" (show Adam West falling into a vat of radioactive waste)
"The Strong Nuclear Force" (show Fusion in action,)
"The Weak Nuclear Force" (show Adam West attempting to gain superpowers through radiation of said waste)
"The Electromagnetic Force" (show Adam West "checking" for superpowers by sticking a fork in an electrical outlet)

Together they form, the Super-Force. Fighting against the forces of Dark Energy and Dark Matter........The Super-Force regulates the Universe, making sense where none was had before.

So go to your nearest Particle Accelerator and support your local chapter of the Superforce.

(End music, showing an empty jail cell containing Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Did they escape? O well, better luck next time Superforce)

And now, a word from our sponsor

Star
 
T

theridane

Guest
Fallingstar1971":bobo046e said:
(...) now you violate a law of physics that says electrons have no mass.
Oh yeah, which law was that again?

A real law of physics says that if something has no mass, then it's going c. Electrons are not going c, ergo they ought to weigh something.

Ridiculously little (and since they're sluggish relativistic mass ain't helping them too much), so their effect on gravity is laughable, immeasurable and completely useless by any measure of practicality, but they still have some rest mass.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
Fallingstar1971":1725hx5v said:
OK

Gravity is a side effect of mass. The more mass = the more gravity.

Magnetism is a side effect of electricity.(or I guess you could say the opposite.) As a matter of fact, they are capable of modifying each other. I cite the Electric Transformer as my basis for this fact. Depending upon how you connect it, you can increase or decrease the voltage through induction using nothing but two electromagnets.

Please note however, I am modifying the VOLTAGE (POTENTIAL) and not the AMPERAGE (CURRENT or INTENSITY)
Not correct actually; you are modifying both. If you increase the voltage, you decrease the current, and vice versa. The wattage stays the same (minus the losses in the transformation of course).
 
O

origin

Guest
me: It is very hard to take such reasearch [ghosts]seriously.
SpideroftheAbyss: No more so than Dark Matter research.
Uh, OK :roll:

I have never seen generator, AC or DC, powered solely by permanent magnets. Most of what I've seen use either electric magnets (powered by fossil fuels) or a combination of electric and permanent magnets.
Well expand your mind - google permanent magnets and motor, generator or altenator. Most if not all wind generators use permanent magents.

I also said "generally". The LHC isn't your typical experimentation. I think there are lots of little things that aren't understood very well, like the Mpemba effect (which I just googled and found someone actually has been working on it) http://www.physorg.com/news188801988.html ("during their spare time"). Its not something especially complicated, except that it doesn't seem to always happen. It seems when there is any kind of unknown variable, people ignore it as if it isn't real or didn't happen. RNA based life forms is another one of those "crackpot" sciences that doesn't really exist.
Just because you are not aware of the experimentation that is going on does not mean it is not happening.
 
K

KickLaBuka

Guest
origin":2xt7n9kc said:
You are wrong. Look at Maxwells equations, the electric field and the magnetic field are in phase. You asked where does the energy go, it doesn't go anywhere, the enegy is the wave and the is made up of the oscillating fields.
The graphic is pictorializing a property (that the magnetic field is proportional to a moving electric field, even when both are zero). People must have taken that as assuming :? the picture is the reality, when it only describes the one property. Further, these axes are strength and time, completely ignoring a spatial representation.
In a flow of current, the magnetic field is vectored by the cross product to the non-static electric field. The graphic is misleading because the fields do NOT propagate like that through space. The point of this particular quote was really the legitimacy of the graphic itself, and applying that to power generation in the actual electromagnetic field of space and time. Origin, you are right that the energy wave is a combination of the fields, but my point remains valid; and the graphic is a fallacy if considered as an actual disturbance (energy wave) in The Spectrum.

origin":2xt7n9kc said:
Since the AC voltage varies in the form of a sine wave, when passes through zero, is there no current in the line? If you do a straight addition of the voltage over 1 cycle the voltage is zero. Do you think that means there is no current?
In AC, both voltage and current vary as a sine wave. When one is negative, the other is negative, and you are left with a positive power distribution. When both are zero, there is no power distribution. This is why you can escape electrocution 50-60 times per second if you somehow get attached to a line. The power stopping is what makes that possible. In direct current, once you get attached, you are screwed. :twisted:
 
T

theridane

Guest
KickLaBuka":284flamc said:
In AC, both voltage and current vary as a sine wave. When one is negative, the other is negative, and you are left with a positive power distribution. When both are zero, there is no power distribution. This is why you can escape electrocution 50-60 times per second if you somehow get attached to a line. The power stopping is what makes that possible. In direct current, once you get attached, you are screwed. :twisted:
That is a misleading analogy. AC perceived as a wave is merely a product of the system generating that current. The frequency is given by the RPMs of the generator. An EM wave's frequency is its intrinsic property, there is no generator that you can rev up to increase it.

More technically, the cloud of electrons in the wire oscillates back and forth only because the generator creates effort to do so. If the genny stops, so does this movement. In an EM wave this reciprocal action of both fields is, again, intrinsic. You can't stop it. So while electrical current does indeed have measurable "zeros" (or inflection points of its derivative) in its flow, a true EM wave doesn't. Because even at this "zero" point the change vector is non-zero. Compare with kinetic energy of a pendulum.
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
theridane":22fp6p14 said:
Fallingstar1971":22fp6p14 said:
(...) now you violate a law of physics that says electrons have no mass.
Oh yeah, which law was that again?

A real law of physics says that if something has no mass, then it's going c. Electrons are not going c, ergo they ought to weigh something.

Ridiculously little (and since they're sluggish relativistic mass ain't helping them too much), so their effect on gravity is laughable, immeasurable and completely useless by any measure of practicality, but they still have some rest mass.
Ok then explain why a charged copper wire has the same mass as a dead one?

Star
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
MeteorWayne":2kyftgcn said:
Fallingstar1971":2kyftgcn said:
OK

Gravity is a side effect of mass. The more mass = the more gravity.

Magnetism is a side effect of electricity.(or I guess you could say the opposite.) As a matter of fact, they are capable of modifying each other. I cite the Electric Transformer as my basis for this fact. Depending upon how you connect it, you can increase or decrease the voltage through induction using nothing but two electromagnets.

Please note however, I am modifying the VOLTAGE (POTENTIAL) and not the AMPERAGE (CURRENT or INTENSITY)
Not correct actually; you are modifying both. If you increase the voltage, you decrease the current, and vice versa. The wattage stays the same (minus the losses in the transformation of course).
You are absolutely correct, and I stand corrected. :D

Star
 
T

theridane

Guest
Fallingstar1971":h0fh236z said:
Ok then explain why a charged copper wire has the same mass as a dead one?
Well, it doesn't, that's kinda the point. Can you provide a link to an experimental report that says otherwise?

An electrically charged object will have a different mass than a neutral one. Each coulomb of negative charge weighs roughly 5.68e-12 kg, or about 5 nanograms (amount of electrons in one coulomb * rest mass of an electron). That makes experimental measurement of a charge's mass a little problematic, but still possible. One just needs enough of it to make a difference - at a charge level of around 200 kC the mass difference will be over 1 mg, which is definitely measurable.
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
No, my point was that over time the charged wire should loose mass. But it doesnt. And once you remove the charge? Does this "missing" mass magically return? How can the wire possibly have the same mass if its loosing mass through electron flow? Shouldnt the wires eventually revert all to protons once the electrons and there mystery mass are used up?

No of course not......and why?

Energy can be converted to mass and vice versa, but energy does not "have" mass. E=MC2
An electron MAY have mass, but you cannot directly measure it, you can infer it, but If you could directly measure the mass of an electron, then you would know where that electron is. THATs a violation of the laws of physics.

All this means is that its not loosing anything. Electricity flows in a circuit. Unless you can demonstrate how mass fluctuates all throughout the circuit as the electrons flow.......(mass flowing through the circuit as well), then Im afraid that I just dont understand where this mass is. Its not in the power source, the battery should be LOOSING mass by using its electrons.

But thats not whats happening now is it.

The battery, through a chemical reaction, causes an electron to go from, say from one lead plate to another.
This electron travels out of the + terminal, and out through the circuit and re-enters the - terminal. This is called an electrical circuit. Without the return path, electrons DO NOT FLOW!

So, does the lead plate "loose" electrons?

No, it does not. What happens is that the chemical ELECTROLITE gets used up and converted to a gas. A highly EXPLOSIVE gas IIRC. If you remember the old car batteries, this fluid could be refilled. You would use a hydrometer (I think) to measure the fluid levels in each cell. Now what would the point be in refilling the liquid if the lead plate was spent and no longer had any electrons to pass to the next one? The circuit would be broken. For every electron that leaves the + side, an equal number of electrons enter the - side. No electrons lost, none gained. In the end, its all the same. The "loss" is the electrolite being converted from a liquid to a gas. As this happens it becomes harder and harder for electrons to pass between the plates. Once the liquid is gone, the battery is dead. Cells dry out and they begin to corrode, ruining the cells. Not even refilling at that point can save the battery.

The speed of electricity is limited to the conductor. A copper wire can get to about 96% the speed of light, with the remainder being due to the limitations of the conductor. A "perfect" conductor would propagate electricity at C. CO-ax cable goes even slower.

In a vacuum, like any other electromagnetic wave, its going at 186000 mps

You can slow light itself down with exotic materials, but does this now mean that light no longer travels at the speed of light?

Bottom line.....Electrons are NOT lost, the energy they carry IS. But the number of electrons stays the same. Copper doesn't mutate to a lower element due to the presence of an electric field, and then turn back into copper when the power is cut. If electrons were ripped off the molecules and "lost mass" then this would happen. At the least, every single atom should be ionized, and stay that way. But they are not. Not to mention you would only be able to use each wire once, as to exposure to the electric field would change its atomic structure, hence ruining the conductive qualities of said wire.

But again, nothing is lost. The electrons are "bumped" from one atom to the next through the "pressure" of voltage. Like the expansion of the Universe, taken all together from beginning to end its moving at about c. When you cut the power, all of the copper atoms have all of the electrons they are supposed to have. No mass is lost. And the wire is not Ionized copper, but plain old copper.

From atom to atom however, (or galaxy to galaxy) it appears to be moving much slower. Only when you look to the farthest point and measure its velocity does light speed, or near light speeds, become apparent.

Now dont get me wrong, enough voltage will melt any wire, but this is an entirely different phenomena then ionization. Enough heat will vaporize anything. This is not an "electric" reaction per say, they same effect can be had if I toss it in a fire.

So, atom to atom, sure. It goes slower, at least, theoretically.

But taken as a whole, its going close enough to light speed as to not matter. When you add an electron to one end of a conductor, and give it a little voltage, at the same time an electron pops out the other end of the conductor. This is why it is said electricity travels at the speed of light. Yes it is a cumulative effect I know, but the results are still the same. I connect a light bulb and apply some current and instantly the light bulb becomes illuminated.

And if you were taking a test in an electrical class and you were asked "How fast does electricity travel" and you answered something OTHER than 186000 mps you would get the question wrong.

As taught by the William J Dean Technical Vocational High School in Holyoke MA. Electrical Class 1986-1988

As taught by the Comprehensive High School in Chicopee Ma. Electrical Class 1989



(O and MW, I was looking over my old final exam, and guess what, I got the transformer question wrong there as well. :lol: )
(Still, out of 100 questions, 2 wrong. Ill take a 98 on a final any day of the week!!! The other one I got wrong was a circuit layout for a 3 wire return call system. The diagram was perfect except for one minor detail. I forgot to connect the circuit to the power source. So all my equipment connections were correct to each other.......but no power. oooooops :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, with all that said, I graduated in 1989. Many things have changed since then, and I will research this because there is a reasonably good chance that my information is dated. New things are discovered every day, and I haven't been keeping up with my studies as well as I should, this I will admit.

So, all in all, I thank you for calling my attention to this possible oversight. I will read more into it, and hopefully come out of it a bit smarter than when I started. I'll look into it, and get back to you. Those equations you posted and the reference material should keep me busy for a bit. But I will concede that my information is old, and perhaps its time for a refresher.

TTFN

Star


Star
 
T

theridane

Guest
This sounds like a misunderstanding on a couple pages of A4. I thought we were discussing a charged wire and now all of a sudden you bring up a live wire in a circuit. So, to clarify, my statements were about an electrical charge in an object (also known as static electricity), not an object in an electrical circuit. In an electrical circuit, naturally, the mass remains for all intents and purposes constant, because the amount of electrons entering and leaving any part of the circuit is more or less equal.

By the way, electricity in a conductor doesn't flow at the speed of light. Somewhat surprisingly, direct current flows at speeds in the vicinity of several milimeters per second ([1], [2]). It's the change in voltage that propagates fast, analogically to a wave on a pond. The wave moves, water stays still. If you'd like a better analogy, just ask.

I don't understand your points about copper mutating info other elements or being ionized. The former would involve alterations of its nucleus, requiring well beyond the energy an electron in a wire posseses, the latter would involve damaging the crystal lattice. Electric current in a metallic conductor is facilitated by a "gas" of free valence electrons, as described by the well-tested free electron model, which has exactly diddly squat in common with nuclear transmutations or ionization.

As for the battery, yes, one electrode loses electrons while the other accepts them. This excess of electrons is what generates what we perceive as voltage, an electric potential. How is this excess generated is irrelevant - it could be a chemical battery, a moving magnet pushing electrons to one side in a length of wire (in a generator), a solar cell, what have you. The simplest and most intuitive example is a plain old capacitor. You have two conductors separated by a dielectric, and charge it with an external voltage source. In this charged state, one of the conductors (plates) has en excess of electrons, the other has a defficiency. The one with the electrons forms a - terminal, the other is +. When you close the circuit (e.g. hook up an LED to the capacitor), electrons from the [-] plate start flowing in the direction of lower electron density (the [+] plate; just like a gas from a cylinder, in fact the behavior of free electrons is modelled with the ideal gas model). This flow is the electric current and its rate of speed (how many electrons, elementary charges, per second) is directly proportional to voltage (Ohm's law). It continues as long as there is a potential. At one point in time the electron density (or amount) on both plates becomes equal - there is no more potential, no voltage, and the current stops flowing. It needs to be recharged again.
 
O

origin

Guest
I'm a ChemE guy so this electron and hole stuff is a bit confusing to me. But current flow has been described to me as more like a pipe full of golf balls and you shove a ball in one end of the pipe and one falls out of the other end, it is not like the ball travels through the pipe. Bottom line there is no real net gain or loss in electrons for a current carring conductor.

Now a material like a balloon can have a charge build up on it, and I would assume that it really does weigh more when it has a charge built up. There is a fun experiment, have a helium balloon that is near neutral buoyancy and rub it on a cloth and see if it sinks.

Hopefully I am not out to lunch on this. :?

edited to add - well I guess what I said was more or less correct but not needed based on the above reply - so never mind...
 
T

theridane

Guest
You're spot on, origin. The golf ball analogy is pretty good :)

But the weight gain with a balloon would be immeasurable. A microscopic dust particle or a skin flake that you'd introduce onto the ballon would reliably invalidate the whole experiment :mrgreen:
 
O

origin

Guest
theridane":1u8hro27 said:
You're spot on, origin. The golf ball analogy is pretty good :)

But the weight gain with a balloon would be immeasurable. A microscopic dust particle or a skin flake that you'd introduce onto the ballon would reliably invalidate the whole experiment :mrgreen:
I guess you'd need a REALLY big balloon :lol:
 
S

SpideroftheAbyss

Guest
Simply not true. If a compass is in the earth's magnetic field, it aligns and stops. If you place a magnet with a stronger fied near it it aligns, then stops moving. It does not continue moving unless you provide energy to move the magnet.

Unless you have some other kind of compass than mine.
Just like a compass at the north or south pole, if you point the pole of a magnet under a compass, it will spin as it is unable to align.
Again, not true. If you held the pole of a magnet perfectly still beneath a compass, one it aligned with the firld lines it would remain stationary.
Hmm... if that's the case it really blows a big hole in my concepts about magnetism. AND helps me to learn about it. Happen to have any kind of proof I can see, or do I need to go out and buy the stuff to do it myself? Should be a simple experiment. If a wobble is required to maintain spin, I'll have to figure out a different way to use the forces they generate.
 
S

SpideroftheAbyss

Guest
Fallingstar1971":41bnatxg said:
OK Gravity is a side effect of mass. The more mass = the more gravity.
I realize this. I can even picture it as a well in the fabric of space time, like a depression on a piece of paper as simple example. I am not in anyway confusing it with magnetism or radiation, nor am I aware of anyway in which those two forces can act upon it, rather it seems to act upon at least radiation if not magnetism also. If gravity can affect magnetism it might explain somethings about the planetary and solar magnetic fields.

Magnetism is a side effect of electricity.(or I guess you could say the opposite.) As a matter of fact, they are capable of modifying each other.
I am under the impression they are far more related than we realize. A good question to ask is "exactly how static is the field of a permanent magnet?" An electromagnet uses moving electrons to generate a field, which makes me think that the field itself is not completely static, which stands to reason when observing phenomena on the solar surface. I just don't know.

I cite the Electric Transformer as my basis for this fact. Depending upon how you connect it, you can increase or decrease the voltage through induction using nothing but two electromagnets.

Please note however, I am modifying the VOLTAGE (POTENTIAL) and not the AMPERAGE (CURRENT or INTENSITY)

(I have done the following in school. Do NOT attempt this without supervision.)

Hook a doorbell transformer up backwards to a low voltage/low amperage power source. (say 50volts at .1 AMP) You can shoot the voltage into the THOUSANDS and it will still not kill you if you touch it. No burns, just a really really strong tingle.....Why? Because its not the volts that kill you. Its the Amps. (or watts I guess using Volts*Current=watts)

I say supervision because if you plug this into the wall backwards, IT WILL KILL YOU!
I'm aware of the affect, and the deadliness of amperage. Not an experiment I would have thought to try.

Bottom line, in order for a magnetic field to effect gravity, it would need to have mass.
If you give a magnetic field mass, now you violate a law of physics that says electrons have no mass.
And without mass, you cannot modify gravity as its understood.
As seen below, the weight of an electron is hotly debated. I honestly had no inclination to imagine a way to do so. However, I'm not entirely convinced there is no way to modify gravity beyond moving mass around. If it IS impossible, then perhaps there is a way to compress matter to generate new custom fields. But that is well beyond my understanding of gravity.

However, light and magnetism ARE related through the Electromagnetic force. I would love to see a telescope that uses nothing but magnetic fields for a lens. That would make for some very interesting reading indeed. However, magnetic fields provide a path for electrons and not photons, so no, I guess not, unless you can convert one to the other.
That's a really cool idea. Gravity can do similar things to create a gravitational lensing effect. I'm going to have to play with that idea and see if I can come up with anything reasonable. What the google dollar question really is, is the gravity bending space/time what we are seeing or is gravity actually acting on "massless" photons.

I understand that radiation is often shown on a scale of its wavelength of electromagnetism; ie. x-rays, visible light, radio, etc. There is obviously a relation between electrons and photons as is seen in an arc. I'm not certain, but I think photons may be what happens when electrons collide and annihilate into massless photons in empty space between atoms, which would mean that electrons would have to have some tiny amount of mass. Which would mean radiation = energy in E=MC squared. The wavelengths generated would be based on just how many electrons were annihilating, up to high energy gamma radiation in some terrestrial lightning. And if electrons can be converted into photons, then they should be able to be converted back somehow, like everything else. Simply a phase of matter. Anyone happen to have a clearer idea of this?

"The Electromagnetic Force" (show Adam West "checking" for superpowers by sticking a fork in an electrical outlet)
I couldn't help but laugh at that one. Great example of the arc.
 
S

SpideroftheAbyss

Guest
origin":d64u297m said:
me: It is very hard to take such reasearch [ghosts]seriously.
SpideroftheAbyss: No more so than Dark Matter research.
Uh, OK :roll:
Its a theory that hasn't been proven to exist. "The largest part of dark matter, which does not interact with electromagnetic radiation, is not only "dark" but also, by definition, utterly transparent." Its existence is postulated because current theories of gravity do not work out with visible masses (although they recently discovered that they have been missing approx. 90% of galaxies out there by looking in the wrong spectrums). Occam's razor.

I have never seen generator, AC or DC, powered solely by permanent magnets. Most of what I've seen use either electric magnets (powered by fossil fuels) or a combination of electric and permanent magnets.
Well expand your mind - google permanent magnets and motor, generator or altenator. Most if not all wind generators use permanent magents.
They use wind to move the magnets. I am speaking of using magnets by themselves. Expanding my comprehension of the cosmos is a daily activity for me, usually without a guide, just stumbling along learning what I can from the experiments of others. However, I do not assume that their conclusions are necessarily the correct ones. I am always open to different venues of reasoning.

I also said "generally". The LHC isn't your typical experimentation. I think there are lots of little things that aren't understood very well, like the Mpemba effect (which I just googled and found someone actually has been working on it) http://www.physorg.com/news188801988.html ("during their spare time"). Its not something especially complicated, except that it doesn't seem to always happen. It seems when there is any kind of unknown variable, people ignore it as if it isn't real or didn't happen. RNA based life forms is another one of those "crackpot" sciences that doesn't really exist.
Just because you are not aware of the experimentation that is going on does not mean it is not happening.
Yup. Like this guy, who's been doing this in his spare time, not everything gets reported. In fact, the less popular the experiment, the less likely anyone will know about it. I was lying awake thinking about it last night, and I think I might have a better answer to the Mpemba affect. I think it might be that salt is providing better saturation at higher temperatures, which might cause it to cool faster than a cold mixture with only mixed salt, per the icecream experiment. It would make for a simple answer to a seemingly complex problem, and well, occam's razor and all that.
 
T

theridane

Guest
SpideroftheAbyss":2vjv2835 said:
I'm not certain, but I think photons may be what happens when electrons collide and annihilate into massless photons in empty space between atoms (...)
The light that comes from an electrical arc (besides blackbody radiation of the superheated plasma) is created when high-voltage (and therefore high-speed, high-energy) electrons collide with atoms (of a gas) on their way. During this collision a bunch of atom's electrons get boosted to a higher energy level ("excited"), in which they stay for a while. Once they revert back to their original, lower energy state, they radiate this excess energy in the form of a photon. The frequency of this photon is specific for each atom, and we can take advantage of that and determine, remotely, the chemical composition of the gas. Or, knowing which gas emits which color, we can fill tubes with specific gases and make colored neons. Gas lasers operate on the exact same principle.

To annihilate an electron you'd need an anti-electron, a positron. When they come into contact, they annihilate into two gamma photons.

And of course electrons have mass. The entire structure of physics and the very fabric of the whole universe would be torn to shreds if they were massless :mrgreen: I mean, if you can have an electron stored in a freaking capacitor, then it's demonstratively not travelling at the speed of light, and thus it has positive, nonzero mass. There's no way around that fact. Plus it's been experimentally measured. A whole heap of physical phenomena depend on it. Theories are stacked on it.
 
E

EarthlingX

Guest
This seams to be a bit related :

Magnetic Fields in Spiral Galaxies – Explained at Last?
April 3rd, 2010

Written by Jean Tate

That spiral galaxies have magnetic fields has been known for well over half a century (and predictions that they should exist preceded discovery by several years), and some galaxies' magnetic fields have been mapped in great detail.

But how did these magnetic fields come to have the characteristics we observe them to have? And how do they persist?

A recent paper by UK astronomers Stas Shabala, James Mead, and Paul Alexander may contain answers to these questions, with four physical processes playing a key role: infall of cool gas onto the disk, supernova feedback (these two increase the magnetohydrodynamical turbulence), star formation (this removes gas and hence turbulent energy from the cold gas), and differential galactic rotation (this continuously transfers field energy from the incoherent random field into an ordered field). However, at least one other key process is needed, because the astronomers' models are inconsistent with the observed fields of massive spiral galaxies.

M51 (Hubble) overlaid by 6cm radio intensity contours and polarization vectors (Effelsberg and VLA) Credit: MPIfR Bonn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts