Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

  • Imagine you are sipping tea or coffee while discussing various issues with a broad and diverse network of students, colleagues, and friends brought together by the common bond of physics, graduate school, and the physics GRE.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Are the planet's movement powering the Sun?

Postby nuimshaan » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:05 am

If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system started speeding up......would the intensity of the sun increase?

If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system slowed down......would the sun shrink and burn slower?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Fri Jun 04, 2010 12:23 am

I owned the 1976 edition of the "Illustrated Home Referrence with Biographical Suppliment" Published by the Southwestern Group. It had a Library of Congress number.

It said the center of the Earth was a solid steel ball that was 800 miles across and highly magnetic....consisting of Iron and Nickel.

Definate north and south poles like any other smaller magnet.

This book also said that silver was more precious than gold in all of the electric devices made by man.....because it was a better conductor of electricity than gold.

I saw a picture of the moon with a giant Christian fish symbol on it. The size of a football field or larger, and several stories in heighth....and it is perfect. Not formed by wind, and I saw no trails leading to it by man's footprint.

This picture was taken in 1976 or 1978.

If you find this book.....you will find exactly what I have said. It is a dark green hardbound book with a gold stamp on the front cover.

The gold stamp is made of 3 symbols....Alpha, Omega, and Jinni lamp. The same seal is imprinted on the binding in red.

ashowmega
Posts: 30
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 9:41 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby ashowmega » Tue Jun 08, 2010 5:06 pm

You call that pseudoscience. There are things that sound interesting, but are not true to have time spent on them. I think you should move on.

Bean
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:35 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby Bean » Fri Jul 30, 2010 11:39 pm

This sounds like a children's "we're going to try to explain everything about the solar system in an amusing and cartoony manner" book. Presumably (I don't have any absolute conclusive evidence for the sun, just a list of situations) the mass of the sun, once formed, is independent of the distance from any planet, once formed, to the said sun. This means that should the planets speed up or slow down in their orbits the sun's mass would not be effected. The plasma might be somewhat effected, but any such effects would be relatively small considering the range over which the corresponding EM field exists. While one might argue that Newtonian theory (and GR and blah blah ...) is inaccurate, one must concede that any "correct" model need reduce to Newt (and GR) under the applicable considerations meaning that even "theories" of pseudo-science would have to indicate that the answer to your question, if you're speaking of "our" solar system, is almost certainly NO.
The sun is powered by fusion (if memory serves).

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:47 am

Are you saying that man's knowledge is insufficient to answer whether the sun is powered by the movement of all bodies revolving around It? What is fusion? I thought it was the result of excited particles (bodies revolving around a core). Can you answer this: If all planets and all moons in this solar system cease to move...will the sun dissipate?

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:19 pm

nuimshaan wrote:Are you saying that man's knowledge is insufficient to answer whether the sun is powered by the movement of all bodies revolving around It? What is fusion? I thought it was the result of excited particles (bodies revolving around a core). Can you answer this: If all planets and all moons in this solar system cease to move...will the sun dissipate?


No. I won't even bother explaining anything because, well, you sound like a quack. Go study physics for a few years, like everyone else here, and then come back. Everybody here spent numerous man hours learning what they know, pain and frustration with our nose in a book. And, none of those books were scratch-n-sniff, or pop-up. I hate when someone says things like "Are you saying that man's knowledge is insufficient to answer whether the sun is powered by the movement of all bodies revolving around It?" as if they just proved that science is blind. No, man's knowledge isn't insufficient, yours is, correct it by taking classes and reading real books.

bfollinprm
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: Are the planet's movement powering the Sun?

Postby bfollinprm » Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:33 pm

nuimshaan wrote:If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system started speeding up......would the intensity of the sun increase?

If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system slowed down......would the sun shrink and burn slower?



Absolutely. This is the well-known Kepler-Dikshit result for rotating bodies, experimentally verified by Walter Bishop at Harvard University.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:24 pm

bfollinprm's right in that when the conditions change the characteristics will too, but to the OP's second question, it's still a no. The sun will not dissipate. It's a fusion/gravity equilibrium that keeps the sun ticking, which the bodies around it do affect. However, if you take away the planets and moons only the parameters of that equilibrium will change, and the sun will adjust accordingly.

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:22 pm

midwestphysics wrote:....No. I won't even bother explaining anything because, well, you sound like a quack. Go study physics for a few years, like everyone else here, and then come back....


And that's the great enthusiasm of the scientists that I'm talking about, to make the science public..Come on people, what is really wrong with you? Would such questions were asked by your pupil or your child, would you still discourage thusly?

nuimshaan, not being a physics major is not an obstacle. Surely, you could wonder and learn about physical phenomena. Well, for the one thing, what midwestphysics had said is true. Sun is a massive body which is under something called a hydrostatic equilibrium. Just like a pool of water, if you observe, does really stands still, although there are forces constantly acting on it. Gravity of the earth pulls all the water down, whereas the bottom of the pool exerts a resistive force which equals the weight. Therefore, maintained an equilibrium between the gravitational force, and the reaction force of the pool bottom, which is nothing but a repulsive electromagnetic force in origin, between the outer water molecules and the atoms of the ceramic, or rock whatever..

In the case of the sun, there is again a constant force of gravity, which pulls all the plasma (presumably a fluid) layers that the sun is made of into the core. Since there are no solid "bottoms" on the sun, we cannot imagine a case like the water pool. So, there must be a force which opposes this gravitational force (otherwise the sun would collapse). Not long ago, many people argued what this could be, how could the sun stands still and shine. Now, we know that, at the very core of the sun, where the density and the temperature is high enough, simple atoms are colliding and binding together to create slightly more complex atoms. In short, this complicated process is called the "fusion". Important stuff about it is that, it unleashes an incredible amount of energy, thus the repulsive force which balances the immense weight of the sun. Plus, it also makes you sweat from 150 million kilometers away..also, makes life to flourish on our good old planet.

Other bodies in the solar system were exactly created in the same manner as the sun did, only they could not gather enough mass to shine like the sun. Sun was the big boy in the system, which pulled more and more floating matter as it grew, eventually accelerated its growth. Now, of course after billions of years, there are not much of these floating matter in the solar system. But there are traces of it, like the debris after Neptune (called the Kuiper belt), and the countless craters of the moon..Very unlikely that the solar systems without the planets are born, on the contrary there are usually more than one big boy who gather enough matter from the debris to shine, thus the system consist of two or more stars are born..

I hope this was helpful for you to have some insight on the solar system dynamics. There may be many body, which are bound together by the gravity, all are orbiting and jiggling around a common center of mass. Including the sun, of course, due to other planets it jiggles around the center of mass like a teetotum, but this point is literally inside the sun, so its move is slightly little. If all the planets and the moons cease to exist, the sun would still be there and continue to shine, as long as it has the fuel. It "dissipates" when the fuel runs out, which means that there is no repulsive force which balances its weight, so its layers begin to collapse onto one another within seconds and they bounce away, resulting in an explosion called nova, or supernova if it's big enough...

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:37 pm

Well, about the question about the Earth's center; what creates the magnetic field is not actually the 'magnetized' solid core, but the outer core (or mantle), which consists of molten fluid metals mostly. As this molten mantle rotates inside the Earth, due to convection movements, it creates electric field loops (like a current), which in turn creates the magnetic field of the Earth. We really need this molten mantle for the magnetic field, Mars for example (if I recall right) has its inner structure completely solid since it has lesser weight than the Earth (thus it cooled away easily and molten magma became solid), as a result it lost its protective magnetic field long ago. Before it happened, it may even had primitive life on it..

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Jan 17, 2012 9:58 am

Someone had mentioned that the sun would not dissipate unless it lost it's fuel....could it be that the fuel is the combined kinetic, electrical, and heat energy from the movement of the planetary bodies in this system? What if the movement of the solid bodies in this system were traveling through a resistive fluid called space, and this movement through the resistive fluid caused heat, and electrical discharges...thus fuel.

As for the center of the Earth...could it be that the magna flow near the surface only acted to fluctuate the power of the core ball magnet inside the Earth...since heat effects the strength of a magnet? And there are "hot spots" around the core where the magnetic field of the ball magnet inside is somewhat less, and "cold spots", where the ball magnet core is not effected in less strength, and those cool spots are where the magnetic field of the core magnet are experienced very strongly?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Jan 17, 2012 10:04 am

And I do appreciate some of you conversing with me...I am a laymen with terminology and books specs. It does offend me when I pose a very good physics question, and just get "this is spam", or "you are a quack" responses...

One would think my choice of questions is enough to decide whether I'm a quack or not.

In the situation of an atom, doesn't it have a hot core, and solid bodies revolving around it's core? Is this a micro version of our macro atomic system?

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Jan 17, 2012 11:28 am

I guess what I'm saying is that around the north and south pole there is most likely very little magna flow...very few volcanoes, if any, therefore the ball magnet's strength is stronger in those areas.

Perhaps the magna flow around the Earth moves around the equator mostly, and this is where the strength of the ball manget core is reduced due to heat applied to the magnet around the equator.

So if the Earth's core is an approximate 800 mile across solid iron and nickel ball magnet, but has some hot fluid moving around it, those locations where the magna flow are more prevalent would be the locations where the magnets strength is lessened because of heat.

Those locations would the equator, and not around the north and south poles.

The north and south poles would be where the ball magnet is the strongest. Solely because there is less magna flow around the the ball magnet in those locations, the cooler you keep a magnet the stronger and longer it's force will be.

I think this is what I'm trying to say...if it has been proven there is in fact an 800 mile across super NIB at the center of the Earth...

bfollinprm
Posts: 1197
Joined: Sat Nov 07, 2009 11:44 am

Re: Are the planet's movement powering the Sun?

Postby bfollinprm » Sun Jan 22, 2012 12:17 am

bfollinprm wrote:
nuimshaan wrote:If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system started speeding up......would the intensity of the sun increase?

If the spin and travel speed of all planets in this solar system slowed down......would the sun shrink and burn slower?



Absolutely. This is the well-known Kepler-Dikshit result for rotating bodies, experimentally verified by Walter Bishop at Harvard University.



I'm disappointed no one got my Fringe joke.*

For clarity, if the Vogons were to remove all planets in the solar system, the sun wouldn't give an at's rass. If they instead decided to use them in a version of cosmic bowling and therefore increase their velocity, they'd (a) find new orbits some distance further from the sun, or (b) leave the solar system after escaping the sun's gravitational well. The sun would again find little to comment on, since it's powered by fusion. See "Why Does the Sun Shine" and its follow-up "Why Does the Sun Really Shine?" By There Might Be Giants for further treatment of the subject.

*Also, Kepler never would have worked with some Dikshit. He's way too cool for that.

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:33 pm

nuimshaan, we also appreciate your courage, and motivation to brainstorm on celestial dynamics. Please, at this point recall the famous quote from Einstein: "Imagination is more important than the knowledge". All of us use our imagination to speculate notions to (at least try to) describe various kinds of physical phenomena. However, the strength of the scientific methodology lies in its observational profounds, i.e. one must test his/her speculations whether it describes correctly any observed process. If the predictions of your speculation (let's call it hypothesis from now on) matches the observed behavior, then you begin to trust your hypothesis and move on to build more predictions based on your hypothesis. This is a very complicated process (not much actually) which lies in the heart of scientific methods. If your hypothesis fails, or gives wrong predictions for some observed phenomena, you must fix it (or change it dramatically, with respect to the order of fail).

Now, I will try to test (correct if necessary according to the modern theories) your hypothesis in sequence.

nuimshaan wrote:Someone had mentioned that the sun would not dissipate unless it lost it's fuel....could it be that the fuel is the combined kinetic, electrical, and heat energy from the movement of the planetary bodies in this system? What if the movement of the solid bodies in this system were traveling through a resistive fluid called space, and this movement through the resistive fluid caused heat, and electrical discharges...thus fuel.

As for the center of the Earth...could it be that the magna flow near the surface only acted to fluctuate the power of the core ball magnet inside the Earth...since heat effects the strength of a magnet? And there are "hot spots" around the core where the magnetic field of the ball magnet inside is somewhat less, and "cold spots", where the ball magnet core is not effected in less strength, and those cool spots are where the magnetic field of the core magnet are experienced very strongly?


Well, as you imagined, planets possess various kinds of energies due to their various kinds of movements. First of all, they change their position in space, so they have "Translational Kinetic Energy". Second, they rotate around a star, as a result of this 'rotation movement', they have a "Rotational Kinetic Energy". Finally, they rotate around their own axis, resulting a 'spin', again a kind of rotational kinetic energy. (Actually you may consider the spin as imagining every bit of particles (say rocks) orbiting around some axis as a solid structure, analogous to planets orbiting sun)

All those energies add up to "Total Kinetic Energy" of the planet, say Earth. However, Earth has a so-called inner heat. It is basically some sort of description of the mean kinetic energies of the atoms, molecules etc. that builds the Earth. They also translate, rotate, vibrate etc, which results in high temperatures as we call it. Earth also has many radioactive metals buried deep inside, which decays constantly and heat up inside. As a result of this "inner heat", Earth radiates just like the sun, us living organisms, and any body which possess inner heat. Of course its radiation is way less energetic than the sun, actually mostly in infrared region (like we do).

But what we observe is the Sun-Planets system. We should also consider the energy of the sun. Likewise it rotates etc, but most importantly it radiates in massive amounts (that's why it's a star). Well how do these individual energies of bodies affect each other? Certainly you have seen colliding billiard balls, one giving some of its kinetic energy to another. But, we could not talk about colliding planets at this time. So there's one choice left, which is the electromagnetic radiation, which could travel through space. Since the planets have negligible amounts of radiation comparing to the sun, we can say that sun's radiation is the approximately only source which increase the energies of other planets. Since they also radiate away some of their inner energy, they are in "Thermal Equilibrium", i.e. their mean temperatures are more or less constant.

I had to explain all of this, because I have to convince you that the individual energies of planets can not be "fuels" for the sun's inner energy. As bfollinprm explained beautifully, if any of the planets had more kinetic energy, as Gravitational Laws suggests, they would simply find another orbit (probably further), in which they would be stable and continue orbiting the sun, or if they have sufficiently high kinetic energies, they could escape from the sun, never to return..Only "fuel" of the sun's inner energy is the simplest atom Hydrogen, millions of tons of them violently colliding and building Helium atoms as we speak, resulting in massive amounts of energy to be released as radiation from sun's surface.

Now, assume that, as you've suggested, all the planets orbits the sun within a medium called space, which is 'resistive'...We have to define resistance to describe such a system. When you hang your hand from a window of a car, while it is moving with some considerable velocity, you would observe that your hand is pushed back, at a rate proportional to the speed of the car. Well, this is a simple example of the so-called resistance. As your hand moves with car, within a medium called "air", your hand collides with many air molecules, or many air molecules collide with your hand (recall Newton's 3rd law, action - reaction stuff). Thus, air molecules apply a net force on your hand, causing it to slip backwards..Just like this example, all the planets would constantly collide with the substance that the "space" consists of, say 'space molecules'..This would mean a constant net force, which would oppose the movement of the planets. Recall, your hand still goes forward although there is a resistive force backwards. But if you stop the car's engine and wait for what would happen, you would observe that the car (and your hand) would gradually lose their speed (or kinetic energy) and eventually stop at some time. This happens because, as the car and your hand collides with the air molecules, they constantly give away some of their kinetic energies to the air molecules. So we would speculate that, planets would lose their kinetic energy as they orbit within a resistive medium, resulting them to get closer and closer to the sun as time passes. Maybe at some point they would be devoured by the sun. Well, see this is a reasonable speculation, bu maybe wrong who knows.

nuimshaan wrote:..In the situation of an atom, doesn't it have a hot core, and solid bodies revolving around it's core? Is this a micro version of our macro atomic system?


When the physicists have come to an understanding which suggested the atom consisted of a nucleus at the center and an electron orbiting around it, they have put forth the same speculation. In this case the electron would lose its kinetic energy (not because it is resisted by some kind of medium, but according to the electromagnetic theory which suggested such charged particles that accelerate would radiate constantly, eventually lose all of their energy) and simply fall onto the nucleus. This means the atom would instantaneously collapse and we would not be here!!! Well certainly this was a crisis at that time, but a lucky one which gave rise to the notions that have created the celebrated "Quantum Physics", which deals with the sub-atomic particles and their behaviors.

So, returning to your question, it was thought to be a micro version of a solar system, but it turned out that it was far from that. Nucleus of an atom is not hot, in our sense. I mean sometimes it radiates, but not like the sun. Nor the electrons are actually "orbiting" the nucleus. Rather, they are some sort of blurry cloud-like creatures, so that we would not know where they are at a given time, but only could say they are around this region with such and such probability, so on and so forth...Quantum Theory is an odd world in short (=


nuimshaan wrote:I guess what I'm saying is that around the north and south pole there is most likely very little magna flow...very few volcanoes, if any, therefore the ball magnet's strength is stronger in those areas.

Perhaps the magna flow around the Earth moves around the equator mostly, and this is where the strength of the ball manget core is reduced due to heat applied to the magnet around the equator.

So if the Earth's core is an approximate 800 mile across solid iron and nickel ball magnet, but has some hot fluid moving around it, those locations where the magna flow are more prevalent would be the locations where the magnets strength is lessened because of heat.

Those locations would the equator, and not around the north and south poles.

The north and south poles would be where the ball magnet is the strongest. Solely because there is less magna flow around the the ball magnet in those locations, the cooler you keep a magnet the stronger and longer it's force will be.

I think this is what I'm trying to say...if it has been proven there is in fact an 800 mile across super NIB at the center of the Earth...


Well, as I have said, one should test the hypothesis and see it whether succeeds to explain the phenomenon. What you are saying is that, magma flow does sort of weaken the strength of the magnetic field due to the Earth's core. Well first of all, little in volcano number does not mean there is little magma flow. We have to understand the structure of the Earth first.

There is a solid core OK, but recall that it wasn't really the source of the Earth's magnetic field, rather the field was due to the molten crust, from the solid core up until to the solid rocky surface of the earth, which is constantly in the move due to convective movements. The molten inner structure (say the magma) consists of ions (charged particles, or atoms), thus we are talking about huge amounts of charge which could be thought as rotating. This rotation fashion of charges (which could be again thought as electricity flow in a circular loop) in turn creates the magnetic field..

Well, we know that solid rocky structure (we may call it upper crust, or continents I presume {including the oceans of course}) is in sense floating on this molten inner crust, or magma. They change their positions in a constant fashion, causing the Earth to have a very dynamic upper structure. Thus, sometimes, this upper crust weakens (or have little thickness) which enables the molten magma to reach the surface of the Earth. Those areas, where the upper crust becomes thin are called volcano in short. I could say that, most of the volcanic areas are actually beneath the surface of the oceans (correct me if I am wrong), lying on the oceanic floor. And I have seen many sub-oceanic volcanic activity in the Arctic seas and around Antarctica (well I have seen some around the poles, but not certain which one). So, I could say that your hypothesis fails to explain this observation, because there are many volcanic activity around the poles.

The other hypothesis of yours is cold magnet-higher force relation..Well, this concerns a bit of solid state physics, e.g. the magnetic property of the matter. It is true that, conductors reach a so-called "superconducting state" at very low temperatures, which is actually a zero-resistance state. Therefore super-magnets are built and used in many research areas in Physics. But, your assumption is based on a core which is magnetized and creates the magnetic field of the Earth. I'm not sure about the amount of the magnetization of the Earth's core, but I would certainly say that it is NOT cold. Nor, the amount of the magma above the core would change its magnetization.

As I have said, rotating magma creates the magnetic field, actually very similar to the picture in this link: http://lempel.pagesperso-orange.fr/geomag/Boucle.gif.


To sum up, you have marvelous notions about how a physical systems work, but please do not lose your courage if they are not right everytime. The inconsistency of your hypothesis is mostly due to your lack of background in fundamental physics. I encourage you to study Physics, not from heavy course books if you do not like, but from beautiful popular books like "Character of Physical Laws" of R.Feynman, and many more..If you study them with some motivation, you will see that you make progress at huge amounts.

Please feel free to share your ideas with us. Best wishes.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:31 pm

mrrsnhtl, thank you for replying with an intellectual and respectful manner....I have some respect for you as well. I'm grateful you took the time to explain to me the currently held theories about the sun. None have yet to be proven, but several of them show some potential. We know a "fusion process" is occurring in the situation of our sun..we can see the fire burning. We can feel the heat from the fire.

A similar situation can be done here on Earth wheras we take some nuclear fuel and place it in a location where it reacts in such a manner as to produce a third thing: Energy.

If we take this sun of ours...remove it from this solar system...and place it alone in deep space...would it decrease in size and power to the point where it went away fairly fast? A lot of people are telling me no, it wouldn't really damage the sun that much...and I hear why they say it would make it...i just don't think they know for sure what's going on, and it may be a totally different fuel source or maybe a different kind of fuel than we think.

Perhaps the properties of space act on a magnetic body differently than one that is just ice or rock.

Let's say for instance that space is just like copper...and when you move a magnet around in a copper field...watch out...move several magnets around in one copper field...watch out...might see some "lightning bolts"...or places where arcs of light are seen because electrical energy is transferring after a big build up...moving from path of least resistance to the next path of least resistance.

Then this system of ours could be a 9 phase electric generator powering the lightbulb we call the sun.

When oscillation speeds are increased in this "lightbulb" chamber...we should see an increase in orbital velocities of the planets.

Or, visa versa...if the magnets spin up faster and move faster through the copper field...the lightbulb gets brighter...

That's all I'm saying...no one has yet to prove what is actually happening...but we have interesting theories.

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Mon Jan 30, 2012 9:56 pm

I also enjoyed your explanation of how the Earth gets it's magnetic field. You were true to form. However; it is has been shown experimentally that when heat is applied to a magnet...it loses it's magnetism. So it is quite true to assume the magma flowing around the Earth has very little magnetic properties at all...because the sheer intense lava like liquid just burns all that magnetism up...and the real reason the Earth has a definite location for North and South poles, is because the Earth has an 800 mile sized ball magnet inside of it. Who knows...but we do know that lava will destroy every magnet in it's path...you can just watch them fridge magnets slide right off and melt away.

The number one way to make your household magnet weaker is just apply heat...experimentally true. Since heat is the sole source for reducing magnetic power...these hot spots are not magnetic or so very little magnetic it does not provide the north and south magnetic poles, and the magnet which is still a magnet with magnetic properties...is radiating it's field through the dirt and heat around it to produce the north and south poles our compass works on.

Perhaps my theory is more conceivable now that we understand the effect magma has on magnets.

If the layer of magma flow around the Earth is fairly far away in terms of layers...from the core ball magnet...to whereas the magnet is still powerful, even though it's field is reduced in the magma flow layer where heat decreases magnetics...but it's powerful field is still able to be felt in areas where the magma flow did not go...then those would be strong magnetic areas, because the lack of heat or very little in those did not weaken the field as much as the magma flow areas did.

I thought you had said that magma flow caused magnetism. It is obvious you had forgotten how heat removes magnetism.

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Mon Jan 30, 2012 10:06 pm

Heat destroys magnetic currents and magnetic fields. This has already been proven. Not a theory.

Therefore; magma flow is NOT a significant source of magnetic power...in fact is a significant source of destroying the power of a magnet due to the immense heat.

Nuimshaan.

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Tue Jan 31, 2012 9:42 am

nuimshaan wrote:A similar situation can be done here on Earth wheras we take some nuclear fuel and place it in a location where it reacts in such a manner as to produce a third thing: Energy.

If we take this sun of ours...remove it from this solar system...and place it alone in deep space...would it decrease in size and power to the point where it went away fairly fast? A lot of people are telling me no, it wouldn't really damage the sun that much...and I hear why they say it would make it...i just don't think they know for sure what's going on, and it may be a totally different fuel source or maybe a different kind of fuel than we think.

Perhaps the properties of space act on a magnetic body differently than one that is just ice or rock.

Let's say for instance that space is just like copper...and when you move a magnet around in a copper field...watch out...move several magnets around in one copper field...watch out...might see some "lightning bolts"...or places where arcs of light are seen because electrical energy is transferring after a big build up...moving from path of least resistance to the next path of least resistance.

Then this system of ours could be a 9 phase electric generator powering the lightbulb we call the sun.

When oscillation speeds are increased in this "lightbulb" chamber...we should see an increase in orbital velocities of the planets.

Or, visa versa...if the magnets spin up faster and move faster through the copper field...the lightbulb gets brighter...

That's all I'm saying...no one has yet to prove what is actually happening...but we have interesting theories.

Nuimshaan


Well, nowadays nuclear plant technology is based on fission, rather than fusion. Basic fusion is the process of Hydrogen atoms forming Helium, whereas fission is the decay of unstable heavy elements like Uranium into smaller ones.

About the "Copper field" you've told, I think you've a bit affected by alternating current produced by magnetic fields, or vice versa. It is a prediction of the Electromagnetic Theory, which suggests that changing magnetic field would cause an electric field which in turn would create an electric current. You see, it is a beautiful mathematical structure, which is countlessly proved, and still called the EM "theory".

I've read a few times in your threads that things that are not yet proven are called theory. Well, If a model, explanation, or a structure is called a theory, then its predictions are already "observed" and verified many many and many times. I would honestly say that, being called a theory is the highest state in scientific methodology, if you need some hierarchy. I think what you mean by "It is a theory, not a science" is that they are not good, accurate or precise enough. But, unlike beautifully built mathematical structures, physical world does not offer any certainty. You could not say this stick o' meter is exactly this much meters, you could not say it because: 1) There is no such exactness , 2) You are narrowed by the precision of your measuring device.

All we do in nature is to observe. Thus, we naturally compare things (which we call measuring), and in order to do so we have invented a set of units by convention. Rather than comparing a stick with your foot, we now compare it by the distance light travels in 1 / 299792458 seconds (1 meter). Regular meter sticks naturally carry a 0.05 cm uncertainty. Because, you are not able to differentiate if less then half a milimeter (you cannot say it is 1.78 cm, rather it is 1.75 +- 0.05 cm). It is a restriction due to your measuring device. Now you may think that, I can build more and more accurate devices, I can build up more and more precision..Well, yes you can, but strange world of quantum mechanics welcomes you when you narrow your precision down to sub-atomic levels. People realized that, there is a solid uncertainty which was there, even if you do not measure. So on and so forth, all you need is the best description, not the exact one. If a length measuring model gives you 5 digits precision and you're fine with it measuring your height 1.82561 meters, then what the heck it is a good model..

Sorry about spreading out, returning your model, EM theory predicts a current would be set up if you change the magnetic field within a loop of wire. Say, you have a bulb, which has a tungsten coil in it, and if you move it such that the magnetic field within the coil changes, then you have a current as long as the magnetic field keeps changing. And, it is actually proportional to the rate of change of the magnetic field, so if you move faster, you have more current, thus a brighter bulb..

Now you claim that, the space and magnetized bodies (planets and sun) interact in a similar manner such that as planets move around the sun, they light up the sun. Well, even if there were such huge amounts of changing magnetic fields present within the solar system, this would not produce such immense power. Actually, I was tackled this time understanding your model. Maybe gravitation and electromagnetism forces switched places, then your model would be more reasonable, but in our case we do not have electromagnetic interactions in celestial ranges, just because its strength decreases very rapidly with increasing distances.

nuimshaan wrote:I also enjoyed your explanation of how the Earth gets it's magnetic field. You were true to form. However; it is has been shown experimentally that when heat is applied to a magnet...it loses it's magnetism. So it is quite true to assume the magma flowing around the Earth has very little magnetic properties at all...because the sheer intense lava like liquid just burns all that magnetism up...and the real reason the Earth has a definite location for North and South poles, is because the Earth has an 800 mile sized ball magnet inside of it. Who knows...but we do know that lava will destroy every magnet in it's path...you can just watch them fridge magnets slide right off and melt away.

The number one way to make your household magnet weaker is just apply heat...experimentally true. Since heat is the sole source for reducing magnetic power...these hot spots are not magnetic or so very little magnetic it does not provide the north and south magnetic poles, and the magnet which is still a magnet with magnetic properties...is radiating it's field through the dirt and heat around it to produce the north and south poles our compass works on.

Perhaps my theory is more conceivable now that we understand the effect magma has on magnets.

If the layer of magma flow around the Earth is fairly far away in terms of layers...from the core ball magnet...to whereas the magnet is still powerful, even though it's field is reduced in the magma flow layer where heat decreases magnetics...but it's powerful field is still able to be felt in areas where the magma flow did not go...then those would be strong magnetic areas, because the lack of heat or very little in those did not weaken the field as much as the magma flow areas did.

I thought you had said that magma flow caused magnetism. It is obvious you had forgotten how heat removes magnetism.

Nuimshaan


Well, I think what you must consider is that Earth has a fluid outer core. So, you should be careful about applying your ideas that are for solid magnetized bodies. For magnetized solid bodies, we have something called a net magnetic moment. You can think, each atom in the body contributes to the magnetic field in various directions, and if most of them are directed along the same direction, then you say the body is magnetized. If they are randomly distributed, their contribution mostly cancel in pairs and you have nearly zero magnetization. Temperature of this body (recall that, it was nothing but the vibration-like movements of the atoms in that body) has a manipulative effect for the magnetic moments, such that high temperature causes randomness in magnetic moment distributions. Thus, you can claim that as the temperature rises, the magnetic property breaks down. There is some fine information about magnetism in this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferromagnetism

Now, you must recall that the magnetic field of celestial bodies like the Earth is created by the convection movements of the conducting fluid magma matter. This means that we have large amounts of charged matter, which are also "physically" carried along the inner body. So, obviously we have a more complex situation than a simple fringe magnet. In one case you have an intrinsic magnetic property caused by quantum mechanical properties which results in a net magnetic moment (thus a field), in the other you have a large amount of moving charged particles which creates electrical currents, which in turn set up a magnetic field. So, whatever the temperature may be, we would still have the convection movements of the conducting matter in the upper crust. Ironically, if you lose that temperature, then fluid magma just becomes solid, and the whole planet loses its magnetic field! As in the case of Mars, there is little or no magnetic field just because it is pretty lighter than the Earth, thus lost its inner heat long long ago. Irregularities in Earth's magnetic field already shows that we have a very complex mechanism going on. Please, believe me that, there is no "exact" explanations which precisely returns a solution for the Earth's magnetic field. Rather, we can write complex codes and run computer simulations to "model" the behavior of the field.

nuimshaan wrote:Heat destroys magnetic currents and magnetic fields. This has already been proven. Not a theory.

Therefore; magma flow is NOT a significant source of magnetic power...in fact is a significant source of destroying the power of a magnet due to the immense heat.


Well, as I have slightly explained, how heat destroys the intrinsic magnetic property of the matter was not understood until quantum mechanics came into the picture. You also cannot explain other types of magnetic behaviors without quantum mechanics, and believe me it is a "theory", and it is hell of a "science" (ironically, it is a statistical theory, i.e. it is not deterministic, but probabilistic!). Only because, we have observed and verified its predictions many times!

Best regards.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:24 am

I think you may have tackled yourself on this one. I admit the magma will "scatter" those magnetic alignments...I guess that would be the quantum reality...just like seeing a magnet get weaker when we heat it up in the oven.

Also you admit there must be a change in the magnetic field to make an electric field....but you also admit the magnetic field is destroyed by the immense heat of the magma...so in the magma flow there are magnetic fields to change. They are all scattered and never allowed to join in such a fashion to produce an electric field...no matter how much you shake them up or slosh them around...because they are so hot they cannot form magnetic fields in order to form electric fields...therefore;

The magma flow is NOT a significant source of our Earth's magnetic field. The immense heat of the magma acts to destroy magnetic fields, which then in turn destroy electric fields...because the electric fields are powered by the magnetic fields.

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:38 am

You said this river of charged particles moving around the Earth's crust would create electricity which would then create a magnetic field...yet you know this is in violation of the EM theory...that is why I said you may have tackled yourself on this one...

Simply put...the heat of the magma destroys any chances of electricity being produced solely because the heat destroys the magnetic fields. Em theory states you must first have a change in the magnetic field in order to see an electric current. It does not state that the act of destroying a magnetic field causes electric current.

Yet you admit the magma destroys the magnetic field of all solid body magnets, and randomly scatters all magnetic particles. Therefore; you admit there are no magnetic fields in the magma because a magnetic field is when those particles are NOT scattered, and are in fact MAGNETIC. The heat makes them no longer be magnetic, therefore you will never have an electric current to create it's own "magnetic field".

Just because those randomly charged particles scattered from immense heat of the magma moved in waves or currents...these waves and currents do not produce electricity because the Em theory states you must move magnetic fields around like waves and currents to produce electric currents....and because the heat removed the magnetic field...it doesn't matter how the magma moves...there will never be electric current...because there's no magnetic fields. They were destroyed by the heat remember.

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Jan 31, 2012 12:55 pm

The Em theory also supports my theory of our nine phase electric generator system powering the lightbulb we call the sun..

There are large ball magnets moving around a large magnetic field. They are creating an electric current, because an electric current is produced when there is a change in the magnetic field..and these planets are doing just that..moving around quite fast, and they are quite large...I can't even imagine the total power Jupiter creates by it moving around in a magnetic field. My gosh that would make one hell of a lightbulb in and of itself.

Because these planets have nice orbital paths...or oscillating frequencies...we have some nice electrical currents being produced...however many cycles per second their combined oscillations are.

Em theory states that the movement of these magnetic bodies cause a consistant change in the overall magnetic field of our solar system, and thusly produces a consistant electric current whilst it happens. This electric current will move in the path of least resistance, which is the center most pivot point of all planets in this system...the center of our system...where the sun is located...this is where those currents will tend to build up charge and then discharge in the form of heat waves and ultra violet cosmic rays.

The faster these magnetic bodies cause changes in the magnetic field of our system...(the faster they orbit around and spin around)...will increase the electric current in our system, and make the lightbulb burn bigger and brighter... The sun is the location where the electric currents interact with each other, letting off waves of heat, light, and ultra violet cosmic rays.

The sun is not burning up a big pile of nuclear material some cosmic force dumped there millions of years ago...perhaps the sun was formed by the movement of large magnetic bodies moving around rapidly in a magnetic field, causing millions of changes in the magnetic field every year, and causing millions of units of electric current as a result.

Perhaps this is a nine phase electric generator...whereas the nine planets are the nine large magnets moving around in oscillating patterns producing electric currents in the copper like environment in which they move, like the space they occupy is one big magnetic field. And they are producing the phenomena the famous EM theory is describing.

Nuimshaan

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Wed Feb 01, 2012 12:34 pm

nuimshaan wrote:I think you may have tackled yourself on this one. I admit the magma will "scatter" those magnetic alignments...I guess that would be the quantum reality...just like seeing a magnet get weaker when we heat it up in the oven.

Also you admit there must be a change in the magnetic field to make an electric field....but you also admit the magnetic field is destroyed by the immense heat of the magma...so in the magma flow there are magnetic fields to change. They are all scattered and never allowed to join in such a fashion to produce an electric field...no matter how much you shake them up or slosh them around...because they are so hot they cannot form magnetic fields in order to form electric fields...therefore;

The magma flow is NOT a significant source of our Earth's magnetic field. The immense heat of the magma acts to destroy magnetic fields, which then in turn destroy electric fields...because the electric fields are powered by the magnetic fields.

Nuimshaan.



Well, magnetic alignments of individual atoms in the same direction makes the matter "magnetized intrinsically". Like a fridge magnet (it is called ferromagnetism). Those magnetized objects create a magnetic field around them. But the magnetic field of Earth is NOT due to ferromagnetism. It is NOT due to the magnetic alignments of individual atoms. In such hot places like the outer crust, it is impossible to have such ordered systems, as you have said..

Believe me, most of the inner planets in our solar system have solid iron cores. I gave the Mars example, it has too, except for the molten fluid outer crust. Mars had lost its inner heat long ago and its outer crust is also solid now. Before this happened, it had its magnetic field as well. Astrobiologists think that, Mars may have harbored primitive life forms when a magnetic field was present to protect them from cosmic charged particles. But as it had disappeared, so did life as well.

If the magnetic field of Earth is formed by magnetized solid core, then it would be very stable, say the position of the magnetic poles would not change in time. But it does indeed: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/GeomagneticPoles.shtml

And with some frequency, north and south geomagnetic poles actually flip! All these complicated behavior is explained by the convection movements of conducting matter within the fluid outer crust. It is like the Faraday's experiment really. If you have a loop of wire and make a current pass, you could think the electrons move in circles. This movement of charged particles in turn create a magnetic field, whose direction is shown by the right hand rule (i.e. if moving counter clockwise, then the field is directed upward). In the case of the upper crust of the Earth, the convection movements are way more complex then a simple circular motion. But, the net effect is like there were a clockwise magma movement within the crust, which creates a field with a north pole around the geographic south pole and vice versa..

nuimshaan wrote:You said this river of charged particles moving around the Earth's crust would create electricity which would then create a magnetic field...yet you know this is in violation of the EM theory...that is why I said you may have tackled yourself on this one...

Simply put...the heat of the magma destroys any chances of electricity being produced solely because the heat destroys the magnetic fields. Em theory states you must first have a change in the magnetic field in order to see an electric current. It does not state that the act of destroying a magnetic field causes electric current.

Yet you admit the magma destroys the magnetic field of all solid body magnets, and randomly scatters all magnetic particles. Therefore; you admit there are no magnetic fields in the magma because a magnetic field is when those particles are NOT scattered, and are in fact MAGNETIC. The heat makes them no longer be magnetic, therefore you will never have an electric current to create it's own "magnetic field".

Just because those randomly charged particles scattered from immense heat of the magma moved in waves or currents...these waves and currents do not produce electricity because the Em theory states you must move magnetic fields around like waves and currents to produce electric currents....and because the heat removed the magnetic field...it doesn't matter how the magma moves...there will never be electric current...because there's no magnetic fields. They were destroyed by the heat remember.

Nuimshaan


Well, as I have said, temperature increase would put the system in a less ordered fashion, so the magnetic alignments tend to cancel each other. However, I do not admit that the magnetic field within the magma is destroyed, and there is no violation of EM theory, I do not know why you have said that..

Remember, magma is moving via "convection movements". When the planet was born, not just the outer crust, but the whole body was molten and very hot. Because the planet was built by the collisions of the smaller bodies, which end up being stuck to one another. This smaller bodies had kinetic energy, thus a momentum before. After the collision they had given their energy and momentum to the planet, thus heating it and make it spin faster. Therefore, the Earth has an angular momentum and inner heat from the very beginning of its formation. So, the still fluid parts of the Earth, the upper crust, is always moving due to this initial energy. As some part of this fluid changes its position, its temperature and density may change, which alters its position because it would float above denser parts..This process goes on and it is called "convection". This is a "physical" displacement of the bulks of magma, and this means charge is displaced, and as EM theory predicts this creates a magnetic field. This page is a good summary for the process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth's_magnetic_field

In short, magnetic fields are never destroyed by heat. It is rather a false statement. Neutron stars are pretty hot, yet they produce magnetic fields which are 100000000000000 (hundred million million) times stronger than our Sun's..Intrinsic magnetic property is a different process, which does not depend on the displacement of charges. Please, be cautious about it.

nuimshaan wrote:The Em theory also supports my theory of our nine phase electric generator system powering the lightbulb we call the sun..

There are large ball magnets moving around a large magnetic field. They are creating an electric current, because an electric current is produced when there is a change in the magnetic field..and these planets are doing just that..moving around quite fast, and they are quite large...I can't even imagine the total power Jupiter creates by it moving around in a magnetic field. My gosh that would make one hell of a lightbulb in and of itself.

Because these planets have nice orbital paths...or oscillating frequencies...we have some nice electrical currents being produced...however many cycles per second their combined oscillations are.

Em theory states that the movement of these magnetic bodies cause a consistant change in the overall magnetic field of our solar system, and thusly produces a consistant electric current whilst it happens. This electric current will move in the path of least resistance, which is the center most pivot point of all planets in this system...the center of our system...where the sun is located...this is where those currents will tend to build up charge and then discharge in the form of heat waves and ultra violet cosmic rays.

The faster these magnetic bodies cause changes in the magnetic field of our system...(the faster they orbit around and spin around)...will increase the electric current in our system, and make the lightbulb burn bigger and brighter... The sun is the location where the electric currents interact with each other, letting off waves of heat, light, and ultra violet cosmic rays.

The sun is not burning up a big pile of nuclear material some cosmic force dumped there millions of years ago...perhaps the sun was formed by the movement of large magnetic bodies moving around rapidly in a magnetic field, causing millions of changes in the magnetic field every year, and causing millions of units of electric current as a result.

Perhaps this is a nine phase electric generator...whereas the nine planets are the nine large magnets moving around in oscillating patterns producing electric currents in the copper like environment in which they move, like the space they occupy is one big magnetic field. And they are producing the phenomena the famous EM theory is describing.

Nuimshaan


Well Nuimshaan, this is the last thread I want to post in this topic, because it seems we are going in circles.

First of all, nine phase generator of yours is not a "theory". It has no proper structure, no observational evidence to support, or no prediction to be verified. It has to pass those barriers before called a theory. Rather, it is an hypothesis, or a speculation. Now, I will talk on this hypothesis.

Planets are electrically "neutral"..Within their bodies, total amount of negative charges and positive charges are approximately equal, that's why they are neutral in celestial scales. Sun produces the strongest magnetic field around it, even this field becomes very very, and very weak before reaching the Mercury. Even, there were such a "divine" magnetic field present in the solar system, as I have said the planets are electrically neutral and they would cause no net disturbance in the field..At this point, you HAVE TO understand that only effective force at celestial scales is the "Gravitational Force". There is no counter observation, estimation, hypothesis, theory whatever you call, to disprove this statement.

I understand your anxiety. I really do. You have a beautifully constructed model in your mind, and you want it to be the description of such a great system like our Solar System. But, science work this way nuimshaan, it needs to be highly skeptical and show no mercy, it has to work this way, in order for us to at least make a progress for understanding the environment that we live in. A scientist must show resilience and perseverance in the situations where he/she had to abandon his/her hypothesis. History of science is full of such stories, scientists fight for their notions even though they see they are wrong.

It should not discourage you nuimshaan. I have no idea about your education, your background. But I see that you are very enthusiastic, courageous and have a colorful mind. Please, do not underestimate the fundamental concepts of physics. I recommend you to educate yourself and develop your background in physics.

Best regards.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:00 pm

You still don't get me. I'm not talking about the charge a planet has....what does that have to do with the fact they are very magnetic....

If the Earth had a "net charge of negative"...it is still very positively magnetic. I mean as compared to it being anti-magnetic.

That's why we have north and south poles...they are the "ends" of the Earth magnet if you will.

And the magnet we speaking of is not the size of ones found in hydroelectric generator stations producing thousands of watts of power...the magnet we are speaking of dwarfs all of the magnets combined, in every generator on earth. Because all of those magnets come from here..Earth....and there IS a giant one in the center of the Earth...and the Earth IS causing a change in the magnetic field of our solar system because it is MOVING FAST WITH OSCILLATION. Therefore it is TRUE the Earth is creating electrical current within THIS solar system because it is observed to fit every single law of EM theory.....because it is changing the magnetic field of our solar system, and it is doing so in a regular pattern, and this is how electric currents are created.

You have already stated the magnetic field of our solar system extends all the way to Mercury.

You have failed to realize that the Earth is causing a change in this magnetic field because it is moving fast through it. It is only because the Earth and other bodies are causing changes in the magnetic field of this solar system that electric currents are produced...do you understand that?

Since the EM theory states only when a body causes a change in the magnetic field, will an electric current be produced.....

I said the the Earth is causing a change in the magnetic field and therefore IS causing an electric current....do you get me on that?

I said the combined bodies in our solar system, which are moving through it's magnetic field, causing changes in that magnetic field, are creating a combined electric current which is keeping the sun bright.

From a distance you can hear the humming of our solar system generator...because you can hear the movement of the generator parts inside our solar system...those moving parts are the planets and moons in our solar system...because they make changes to the magnetic field as they cut through it...and that's what makes electric current in our generator...capeesh?

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Wed Feb 01, 2012 11:39 pm

I'm not trying to state anything we can't observe..it's because I observe what's happening...I know the planets create electricity while they move.

Because of the physical nature of planets...they are in fact able to cause a change in magnetic fields, and in so doing, create electricity.

This is how electricity is created...according to EM theory...and that theory still is true to this day.

If you don't move something through a magnetic field...you don't get no electricity.

It's also true that if you move a magnetic field in close proximity of a conductor...an electric current will move through the conductor...

So there are two ways this solar system can produce electricity...one: The sun's core is a superconducting, superconductor...and as the magnetic bodies around it move....it builds up electricity and discharges it....

Two: The sun is a giant magnet, and spherical shaped conductors of various sizes are moving around in it's magnetic field, causing electricity.

Personally, I opt for number one...I see all planetary bodies moving around a very good conductor...and those planetary bodies happen to be quite magnetic..and the sun is such a good conductor, that all of the movement of all magnetic bodies in our solar system creates a huge amount of energy in that huge conductor. That's why it gets hot...and that's where it's "fuel" comes from. Induction.

I believe the sun to be a very good, very large conductor for electrical currents. Like if the sun were made of pure silver.

I believe the planets and moons to be very good magnets. Like if they were giant NIB magnets.

I believe they move very fast around the "pure silver ball"...and so I believe the sun is powered by induction.

I believe the planets induce a current in the sun, it gets hot and bright as a result...does anyone have any questions about what I'm stating, or if my theory violates EM theory?

Nuimshaan

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Sat Feb 04, 2012 9:20 am

nuimshaan wrote:I'm not trying to state anything we can't observe..it's because I observe what's happening...I know the planets create electricity while they move.


How do you observe?

nuimshaan wrote:I believe the sun to be a very good, very large conductor for electrical currents. Like if the sun were made of pure silver.

I believe the planets and moons to be very good magnets. Like if they were giant NIB magnets.

I believe they move very fast around the "pure silver ball"...and so I believe the sun is powered by induction.

I believe the planets induce a current in the sun, it gets hot and bright as a result...does anyone have any questions about what I'm stating, or if my theory violates EM theory?

Nuimshaan


Unfortunate for your hypothesis, sun does not have superconducting property until it actually dies.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:45 pm

Then you are not in fact knowledgeable in elementary physics..because the sun is the best nuclear reactor we can think of, and the largest one in this sector.

Ever heard of a superconducting supercollider? I toured one as a child in Texas...its' the South Texas Project...STP. A superconducting supercollilder. 32 mile radius on the rings...liquid nitrogen cooling chambers...atom smasher...

"unfortunately for you, the sun is not a superconductor until it dies"...

These statements show me you are not knowledgeable in elementary particle physics when it comes to atom smashing.

Without the propulsion power of the rings...there is no smashing...

The immense amount of power to produce such a "sun like" situation is incredible...but the output power is incredible too, and that's why we proceed with research in how to make a larger but safer atom smasher on the Earth...to simulate or harness the power the sun creates with it's atom smashing.

The theory I have stated is where the sun gets it's immense power of propulsion to cause those smashes to produce the incredible amount of power it creates.

Until you study the elementary physics of nuclear plants you will not understand how good of a conductor the sun is.

Nuimshaan

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:08 pm

I'm beginning to believe our universities have lost their elementary physics knowledge in the dark sentenced world of dark matter, forgetting all forces are coming from optimal control of space time...and it's the physical world we live in...not the world unseen...

We are impinged upon this physical world...you cannot negate your elementary physics models.

The situation of our sun is quite simple. It is the best location for the superconducting supercollision of particles. It is powered by a process known as fission. It is because fission occurs....we know that fusion occurs FIRST.

Small packets of energy "fuse together" in the core of the sun....which causes a previously vacant area of space have a tightly packed amount of those packets of energy propagated from the Magnetic planetary body movement in direct space around that core interaction location.

Because planets are magnetic and move..they create small packets of energy. This fuel is thusly inducted into the sun's core.....They fuse together there in the core of the sun......until they can no longer fit, and become SMASHED IN ON THEMSELVES...That is when FISSION happens. Before that happens....THERE IS A FUSING OF ENERGY PACKETS SUCKED IN ALL DIRECTIONS TOWARD THE CENTER OF THE SUN...This is when FUSION happens.

You must understand elementary physics before you understand their cause.

I can see the cause because I understand the elementary physics of magnetic bodies transitioning through space (medium with said density)...I know space offers a resistance to movement, therefore; both movement is power induced, and produces power.

It takes power to move the planets...but their movement causes another type of power: Electricity...the sun is the light bulb.,...the planets moving around are the batteries for it. Because whatever power used in the beginning is conserved....the planets are now creating a new power...because power converts into other forms of power...and nothing is lost.

Say for example the universe is expanding....this in turn is causing the seperation of heat bodies...which is in turn cooling the universe off....

The more spread out these hot fires get from each other....the colder the universe becomes...

So if all of the energy used to propulse these solar systems away from each other...(like the effects of the BIG BANG)...all of these pieces scattered around and away from each other....all of that energy....will convert into the power used to keep itself.

Conservation of mass and energy one O one.

The elementary law of conservation states this universe may be cooling down...but that means it is becoming more magnetic also. As all of the balls of mass cool off and their particles assume patterns under the force of gravity.

This will then become a source of a different type of energy called electricity....conserving the energy in big bang.

This in turn will create heat and light, because those solid magnetic bodies will travel toward each other under gravity and magnetism, and cause "quantum entanglement patterns"...rotating magnetic bodies.



Nuimshaan.

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:41 am

nuimshaan wrote:Then you are not in fact knowledgeable in elementary physics..because the sun is the best nuclear reactor we can think of, and the largest one in this sector.

Ever heard of a superconducting supercollider? I toured one as a child in Texas...its' the South Texas Project...STP. A superconducting supercollilder. 32 mile radius on the rings...liquid nitrogen cooling chambers...atom smasher...

"unfortunately for you, the sun is not a superconductor until it dies"...

These statements show me you are not knowledgeable in elementary particle physics when it comes to atom smashing.

Without the propulsion power of the rings...there is no smashing...

The immense amount of power to produce such a "sun like" situation is incredible...but the output power is incredible too, and that's why we proceed with research in how to make a larger but safer atom smasher on the Earth...to simulate or harness the power the sun creates with it's atom smashing.

The theory I have stated is where the sun gets it's immense power of propulsion to cause those smashes to produce the incredible amount of power it creates.

Until you study the elementary physics of nuclear plants you will not understand how good of a conductor the sun is.

Nuimshaan


Nuimshaan,

Up to date, the hottest superconductor achieved its superconducting state at approximately 135 K (apprx. -140 celcius) degrees (if it is not updated). Sun's coldest regions have the average temperature 5000 K...

Sun's body is made of ionized "interacting" matter. That's why a photon produced in the core reaches the surface in hundred thousand years. Because, they simply "interact" violently through the way, which indicates that sun is NOT superconductor. (It was just an example, do not say "but photons have no charge", protons and electrons interacts likewise)

If protons were not quantum mechanical particles (I mean if they were exactly like a point-like particle), sun's core temperature would not be enough to fuse protons (which are ionized Hydrogen) together and create Helium. But they do, because even though they repel each other due to EM interaction, they have a very little chance to penetrate this potential barrier. This chance is extremely small, but there are indeed extremely large number of protons in the core, so fusion occurs. Fusion is BASED on interaction, so how dare you say there is no interaction, for that superconductivity is exactly zero resistance (no interaction) state?

Well, that was enough for me. You talk nonsense and put yourself in a stupid situation. That's why nobody reads your posts but me. Well, I'm about to give up too. Believe me, this is not our problem. You cannot defend your ideas if you ignore your opponent's. I'm sorry that you are simply ruining your potential. Please, ask yourself why people in this forum (yes, physicists) ignore you.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby negru » Mon Feb 06, 2012 5:42 pm

Nuimshaan,

We are not ignoring you. We just don't have much to add to your great posts, as we're still absorbing many of the new ideas you're putting forth. I guess many of us also feel ashamed that we've been calling ourselves physicists for so long, and here you come with these really simple yet correct notions and explanations which contradict many of the things we have been taking for granted, often without question.

So Please, continue to post here, we are trying.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:31 pm

I have never felt ignored here. And I believe some of you have given some thought effort in your explanations.

On the sun topic...I am simply saying I think the hydrogen fuel supply is coming at it from the movement of the planets, and the planets themselves.

If we agree it is burning hydrogen and letting off helium...we are still left with the question: Where is it getting all that hydrogen to burn? Collecting it from it's surroundings? If it has as much hydrogen as the thirst of the fire can handle...then wouldn't it just get bigger and bigger?

But don't we also agree that if the sun started out with a set amount of hydrogen to burn up through time...it would have already burned it up as the fire got bigger and bigger...because when you take the whole can of gas and put it on fire...it burns out quite fast. If the sun were doing the same...you would either see the temperature of it increase exponentially, or decrease exponentially as it ran out of fuel.

Instead, we see a regulated temperature zone. And we are viewing the fire several thousand years after it started.

This suggests a regulated fuel source. Which suggests it is powered from outside itself.

Because the nature of fire is to consume everything, it would have already consumed it's supply of onboard fuel.

Because it has a regulated temperature zone, we know it is getting a regulated amount of fuel everyday.

Because the sun burns with a regulated intensity, we know the temperature zone in which the Earth orbits it.

Because it does not get exponentially hotter or colder, we know the fuel must be coming toward the fire, not from within.

Meaning, if we take and add one cup of oil to a small camp fire every so often...we can make the fire last a long time. And the fire will stay pretty much the same because we are only adding one cup at regulated intervals. If we stop adding the oil..the fire burns up everything else and goes out.

So it looks like oil is poured in every once and a while to keep the fire burning at about the same temperature all the time.

It does not look like the sun is creating it's own fuel to burn...that is not how fire works. Fire only burns fuel...it does not create fuel. It burns it.

Perhaps the fuel source is a regulated oscillation of magnetic bodies in a "copper like medium"...or perhaps it's fuel source is a regulated oscillation of "interacting bodies" around it...the planets and moons.

Again...my theory does provide an example of how basic heat is created....you move things around real fast in one area...they then create heat from the friction of their movement...The planets and moons in our system are moving around real fast, they are creating heat from the friction of their movement. They may also be creating electricity at the same time because some of them are highly magnetic. And their high speed movement through the magnetic field of this system could be producing enormous currents of electricity.

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Fri Feb 10, 2012 11:48 pm

Is there a huge ball of fire making all of the planets spin around? Or, are all of the planets spinning around making a huge hot spot between them?

All you know for sure is that the planets spin around at a constant rate...and the sun burns at a constant rate, because you can observe it first hand. Day after day.

But is the sun making the planets spin around, or are the planets spinning around making a sun?

Nuimshaan

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby grae313 » Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:28 pm

Image

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:50 am

If roosters don't lay eggs...but only fertilized eggs hatch into roosters...then the chicken with self fertilizing eggs came first, and that's it! I've answered it once and for all for all.

Nuimshaan!

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:03 am

nuimshaan wrote:If roosters don't lay eggs...but only fertilized eggs hatch into roosters...then the chicken with self fertilizing eggs came first, and that's it! I've answered it once and for all for all.

Nuimshaan!


Ah, very clever, but riddle me this... And if you can quantify it for me, I'll give you a cookie.

Precisely....How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

blighter
Posts: 256
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 6:30 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby blighter » Tue Feb 14, 2012 8:37 am

midwestphysics wrote:
nuimshaan wrote:If roosters don't lay eggs...but only fertilized eggs hatch into roosters...then the chicken with self fertilizing eggs came first, and that's it! I've answered it once and for all for all.

Nuimshaan!


Ah, very clever, but riddle me this... And if you can quantify it for me, I'll give you a cookie.

Precisely....How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?


Yep. Keep him busy.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby grae313 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:18 pm

Wow guys. All these deep thoughts in this thread have really got me thinking now...

Image

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:36 pm

grae313 wrote:Wow guys. All these deep thoughts in this thread have really got me thinking now...

Image


Ah, yes, but further so....

Beyond just hypothetical questions, what if hypothetically there were no normal questions?

I think I've done it, I've reached Nuimshaan's level of thought. My question is insanely stupid, breakthrough, oh happy day.

User avatar
grae313
Posts: 2297
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 8:46 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby grae313 » Tue Feb 14, 2012 1:59 pm

midwestphysics wrote:Beyond just hypothetical questions, what if hypothetically there were no normal questions?


Image

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:45 am

Actually, I think you don't know how to argue your point very well. The point was simple: You have to explain to the audience how the sun makes it's own fuel at a constant rate by reprocessing only what it started with...so it could keep on burning in the absence of the planets and moons. So far the audience has not heard you explain this.....and here we are many replies after the initial question: Are the planets and moons powering the sun?

Not....let's see how childish we can make fun of the guy who posed the question.

Show some dignity and stand your ground. If you are right, it will come out. If I am right, it will come out.

If you are able to provide the explanation for the sun, then please do...you have heard my point.

I have stated that the combined movement of all solid objects in our solar system has created both heat and electricity which I believe to be what powers the sun. I believe the sun is where the energy is continuously collected and discharged. I believe there is a fission process that occurs in the core of the sun where energy produced from the movement of solid bodies interacts and is powering the sun. I believe heat and electricity are elementary particles of friction. I believe that the fission process in the core of the sun is simply where friction occurs. And the friction is caused by the movement of the planets and moons through space.

Your turn...you explain to the audience what you think is happening...don't just say it's burning hydrogen...tell us where it gets the hydrogen from, or don't even bother trying to give us your explanation.

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:49 am

Image

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 16, 2012 1:54 am

nuimshaan wrote:Your turn...you explain to the audience what you think is happening...don't just say it's burning hydrogen...tell us where it gets the hydrogen from, or don't even bother trying to give us your explanation.


I yield good sir. I must admit, when I am asked to answer a question correctly and then told not to give the correct answer it is beyond my capabilities.

negru
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby negru » Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:04 am

nuimshaan, you've proven them wrong. Some of the best minds of Physics are on this forum, and no one has been able find a flaw in your arguments. They're just trolling now with funny pictures because they're not able to answer you with actual PHYSICS answers. Did you start thinking of going public with some of your ideas? Maybe you can start writing a book? You are clearly on to something, if i had some of your ideas i'd be dedicating the rest of my life to promoting them. Good luck!

theObeast
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:49 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby theObeast » Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:01 am

The hydrogen comes from planetary atmospheres. Because hydrogen is a light element, it needs to be at a less extreme point on the Boltzmann distribution in order to escape a (gravitational) potential well. Once the hydrogen has escaped into the interplanetary medium, its orbit decays due primarily to interactions with dust particles, and eventually crashes into the sun. This creates a positive feedback mechanism, since when the sun gets brighter, planets warm, and the hydrogen escapes more rapidly. This is why the sun has slowly been getting brighter over its lifetime, and why it is predicted to get much larger and possibly engulf us in it's red giant phase in another several billion years.

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:53 am

nuimshaan wrote:....Your turn...you explain to the audience what you think is happening...don't just say it's burning hydrogen...tell us where it gets the hydrogen from, or don't even bother trying to give us your explanation.


You have no idea how big is the Sun, don't you?

User avatar
midwestphysics
Posts: 444
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:37 am

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby midwestphysics » Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:57 pm

negru wrote:nuimshaan, you've proven them wrong. Some of the best minds of Physics are on this forum, and no one has been able find a flaw in your arguments. They're just trolling now with funny pictures because they're not able to answer you with actual PHYSICS answers. Did you start thinking of going public with some of your ideas? Maybe you can start writing a book? You are clearly on to something, if i had some of your ideas i'd be dedicating the rest of my life to promoting them. Good luck!


Obviously you don't know he already does, well it's really a monthly magazine. You can borrow last months issue from me if you want.

Image

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Fri Feb 17, 2012 11:52 pm

The size of the sun is one of the reasons I think this way.

It is so large and burns so much fuel everyday...it would have already burned itself up.

Any fire that consumes fuel behaves exponentially. Take for example the world's largest bonfire, it will burn out of control real quick if it has as much dry wood as it could ever want.

The situation of the sun is the same...when all of the fuel is poured in at once, it grows exponentially in size and intensity.

Literally, if the sun were a huge ball of gas on fire, it would get so big so fast...and then quickly burn out.

When you consider the combustion rate of the fuel which the sun burns...you know that igniting some hydrogen will explode on you if under pressure, it is extremely flammable.

The sun would literally grow in size and intensity before your eyes right now, like it was blowing up in slow-motion. Because it will grow exponentially until it burns all of the gas up. If you light a can of gas on fire, the fire will grow exponentially very fast because gas has a highly combustable.

Hydrogen is highly flammable. So..if the sun were burning a huge ball of hydrogen up...the fire would grow exponentially...bigger...faster...then bigger and faster even more bigger and faster. We would not see what we see in the situation of the sun.

Our sun does NOT grow exponentially in size and heat. As any fire would if you poured a lot of gas in all at once and lit it on fire.

Our sun has a regulated burn rate. It does not get bigger and bigger, faster and faster...

This suggests that NOT all of the fuel was poured in at once then lit on fire. Rather, the fuel is being added to the fire at a regulated rate. Keeping it's size and intensity relatively the same.

You forget that in a fission reaction...you have an exponential growth rate. The Sun does not have an exponential growth rate.

This suggests the Sun is supplied with it's fuel from an outside source. And not all at once!

Remember, if you put all of the fuel in a fission reactor...close the door...the fuel will burn up exponentially fast, bigger, faster and faster until there is no more fuel.

So...the only way to regulate the fission process is to regulate how much fuel you put in and how long you continue putting it in..because it burns the fuel up at an exponential rate. You have to have a fuel regulator to keep the fission fire burning at a relative size and intensity.

This is where the role of the Planets and Moons come into play.

Say you have a huge room full of hydrogen gas...but nothing is moving around. You get nothing.

Say you have a huge room full of hydrogen gas with two sphere shaped Nib magnets flying around in it...if they generate enough heat from their movement, they will ignite the hydrogen gas.

If they create electric current from their movement...they will ignite the hydrogen gas.

Once the gas is ignited it will exponentially try and burn all of the hydrogen up in the room, and very quickly.

So where will it get some more hydrogen from? Because it sure would burn up all of the hydrogen gas in the room real quick.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:36 am

Let me guess...you guys thought Big Bang meant there never existed a Big Grenade first.

You forgot about what "sparked" the sun on fire.

You are not paying attention to what is keeping it on fire.

You don't know what you're talking about.

If there was never any fuel for the sun to burn first...it would never have caught on fire.

If there was never a Big Grenade first...there would never have been a Big Bang!

I'm trying to tell you the sun is powered by the movement of SOLID bodies.

You are forgetting things concerning fuel, ignition, and fire!

I'm going to tackle you guys on this one too.

Ironically...the Bible states the creation process as solids forming first...then there was fuel to burn. And we find this to be true. Everyone knows without gunpowder you ain't got no firecracker. And a firecracker doesn't create gunpowder.

You have to create something to blow up before you can actually blow it up...duh!

So how did you guys get so confused about that?

Why would you say a big bang first? The bang did not happen first....why are you guys not considering what happened first in a creation theory? If you are not considering what happened first....you do NOT have a CREATION theory....duh.

So for a respectful and intelligent man to say creation started with a bang, and not a bomb...you are ignoring the beginning, and that's what a creation theory is all about...how it started.

Take the small scale world of a solar system. Without the moving parts...you have no heat or interaction in the center.

If you say the sun used to be a big grenade that blew up...your forgetting the exponential rate of combustion at the core of the explosion. In our solar system we do not see this.

If all of the planets were chunks of a big grenade that blew up millions of years ago...we would not have a sun at the center of our solar system.

The center of our solar system instead would be a vacant area of space where an explosion occurred millions of years ago...and chunks of the bomb scattered around near by.

Instead we see a regulated fireball at the center of our solar system...one who's combustion rate is enormous, yet it does NOT grow exponentially in size and intensity.

Therefore; the fireball has been given new fuel to burn for millions of years. The most likely source of the fuel is the movement of solid bodies.

These solid bodies must have coallessed into a cyclic motion whereas their movement is creating a large fireball, or constantly igniting an abundant fuel source in the proximity of the fireball.

Nuimshaan.

nuimshaan
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 11:23 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby nuimshaan » Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:59 am

Have you ever imagined the world began as a motionless body of ether? Whereas certain vibrations occurred in the ether causing mass to manifest? Whereas certain vibration frequencies gravitate discrete quanta together into molecular bonds, chemical bonds, energy bonds, solid bonds?

If you can imagine this....then you would understand how the world was spoken into existence with power...outside power...the very thing that made things move to begin with. The movement of them formed other things, that formed into solid things, which caused heat and light to occur.

Nuimshaan.

User avatar
mrrsnhtl
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: Is the center of the Earth really a solid ball magnet?

Postby mrrsnhtl » Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:38 am

nuimshaan wrote:Ironically...the Bible states the creation process as solids forming first...then there was fuel to burn. And we find this to be true.


Ah, now we see where you get your motivation from.




Return to “Physics Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest