@MikeB

The structure and substructure of an atom is not controlled by the same forces that control the positions and movement of galaxies. If you want to read up on the subject from somebody with academic credentials may I suggest Steven Hawkings book, "A brief history of time". I realise that it is a little bit out of date now, but it does cover the difference between big and small, and the evolution of quantum mechanics quite well, and as an added bonus for you ,it contains no maths.
The fact that scientists all over the world, working together haven't yet discovered "the grand unifying theory of life, the universe, and everything", it doesn't mean Navichandra K. Shah has any credibility.

@Kronos
It looks like somebody is taking your signature to heart, and I don't mean the bit about Canada.

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: IMO it's clear both attractive and repulsive forces exist everywhere, keeping things together as well as seperate.

But thats NOT magnetism !

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@MikeB

Quote:

It may be difficult to understand, but to perform such math you need to perform exact measures (or at least know in some way, outer space experiments can help).

I was going to write a long post explaining why the hypothesis you throw out is wrong. I didn't. Why? It's been explained to you and you fail to be open and make an honest attempt to understand this. Keeping yourself ignorant of a lie doesn't mean you aren't lying. All of this is available. If you did the MATH you'd see that your claims are not correct and could not honestly hold this position.

@Kronos

It is repulsion. We know magnets can also give attraction/repulsion.

@MikeB

Quote:

Can you point towards some independent studies on this matter?

Mike there are about 350 years of independent studies on this matter. Each spaceship and satellite launched is another indepent study on that matter.

I'd recommend one better for you. Go to your local Junior High find a 7th or 8th grade Science and Math teacher. They should be able to help you understand on how to build your own indpendent experiments to confirm or deny this. The 300+ years of independent verification indeed provides a large confirmation. Nothing is as good or valued as doing the work yourself to verify the conclusions.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Kronos It is repulsion. We know magnets can ! ALSO !give attraction/repulsion.

Just because something has a somewhat similar effect does not mean it's the same.

Whatever is binding atoms and keeping electrons in "orbit" (which they really aren't) is a different force than magnetism.

_________________
- We don't need good ideas, we haven't run out on bad ones yet
- blame Canada

@BrianK

Quote:

They should be able to help you understand on how to build your own indpendent experiments to confirm or deny this

I can't do it here on earth's surface (due to gravity) and I wouldn't need guidance though, as you know I followed a top level laboratory education. As far away as possible from any interfering stars would be best, but we haven't gone this far with a spaceship yet.

I still think you tend to opt towards ridiculement instead of consideration. IMO not good conduct.

@Kronos

I don't say it's the same force. But you have attraction, repulsion and neutrality/balance. This falls under the category repulsion.

Last edited by MikeB on 25-Apr-2011 at 04:38 PM.

The heliosphere current sheet demonstrate well it has the same counter-clockwise rotation as the planet and the sun rotate:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Wikipedia:File:Heliospheric-current-sheet_edit.jpg

The solar wind which contains mostly protons, ions, magnetic clouds and gradually slows to about ~550 km/s at earth distance from sun to ~265 km/s at 94 AU. Or in another measure from ~618 km/s to 400 km/s at 1AU. It regards many millions of tonnes per year, that's quite a bit of energy.

Last edited by MikeB on 25-Apr-2011 at 05:23 PM.

@Kronos

Quote:

Kronos wrote: @Lou That one will only work if you position the object stable above one pole of the magnet. But as allready pointed out, the sun rotates faster than any of it's orbiting planets so that doesn't work. This also destroys the theory that magnetic fields of some planets are just induced by the sun's, cos they would need to change with every sun-rotation. There is also the issue that we have 4 types objects (artificial an natural): - object with a "dynamo" like earth creating their own magnetic field changing alignment with every sun-rotation - objects with magnetized iron also changinging aligment - objects with conducting material and a therefore an induced magnetfield which according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz's_law]Lenz's law[/url] is opposed to the sun (or whichever object they orbit) - objects made of non-conducting material, no magnetic effects here But yet all these kinds of object can retain a stable orbit (the last one should just escape the solar-system in a straight line, while others would wobble horribly). And furthermore all these orbits can be calculated according to the laws of gravitation. So even if there is some unknown force, and even if it's having a major impact over interstellear distances, there is one thing we can say for sure, it's NOT magnetism.

My 'theory' is that the tilt difference between bodies make is possible to exert both attraction and repulsion at the same time. The spinning/rotational motion is what stabalizes the orbits. To me gravity is a net difference of electo-magnetical forces and typicallly the larger the body the larger the force so again it would be related to mass. Perhaps that explains why we are lighter in the morning than at night... I wonder if we are lighter during full moons just as the tide is higher.

@MikeB

Quote:

I still think you tend to opt towards ridiculement instead of consideration. IMO not good conduct.

You have asked for people to have an open mind, and consider your theories.
Your theories have been tested mathematically, and have failed. Your response has been to deny the validity of mathematics.
You have been quoted examples of successful use of Newtonian gravity and motion, and have totally ignored any evidence that is not desperately touted to by a lone bookseller.
When the ancient Greeks calculated the diameter of the Earth they did not stretch a long tape around the globe, they used something called mathematics.
The first surveyor to measure the height of Everest did not have to climb the mountain, he used something called mathematics.
NASA used mathematics to calculate the journey of the Voyager probe to slingshot around two planets, taking measurements as they went, before heading out of the solar system.
You accuse others of ridicule instead of consideration while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge the existence of huge gaps in the logic of your own statements. This displays an incredible level of bad faith
Up until now I have enjoyed this debate, however you have trawled the depths of ignorance to drag up ever more ridiculous statements from the lunatic fringe, each one of which exists only to sell books. My patience with this thread is almost totally exhausted, and I will not post here again until January 2013, when your original assertion will have been demonstrated to be false, and I can post "I told you so."

_________________
When in trouble, fear or doubt, run in circles, scream and shout.

@Nimrod

Quote:

Your theories have been tested mathematically, and have failed.

Where?

@Nimrod

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @Nimrod Quote: Your theories have been tested mathematically, and have failed. Where?

I gotta agree with MikeB here. Clearly this hasn't been tested and certainly MikeB has provided us with no proof. Labeling this a 'theory' is more then overreaching. It appears to be an untestable hypothesis.



@MikeB
Quote:

I still think you tend to opt towards ridiculement instead of consideration. IMO not good conduct.

I assumed you were serious on the question of if any independent study was done on these sorts of things. If you seriously missed 300+ years of scientific history then I'm serious that a 7th grade science teacher can help catch you up to speed and even better help you to test this for yourself.


@THREAD
Let's put an arrow in the heart of the it's all magnets pseudoscience! F=charge of first object * charge of 2nd object divided by distance squared.
* The sun, on average, has a magnetic field of 1 Gauss.
* The earth, on average, on the surface has a magnetic field strength of .5 Gauss.

Sunspots can be as high as 4000 Gauss. (And in 2009 we just went through a year of nearly 0 sunsports). No planetary alignment changes? We've been here when Sunspots impacted the earth and yet no planetary alignment changes? If it's magnetic field we'd get batted around by Sunspots.

* Galactic magnetic field has been measured at .00001 Gauss
* Solar winds measure .00005 Gauss
* Jupiter's magnetic field 1000 Gauss
* Refridgerator magnet as low as 5 and as high as 100 Gauss

Within our Solar System there is no feasible way the Sun's Magnetic Field is the force at work and it's not Gravity.

And this is crap that we have to worry about magnetic fields from other Solar Systems. We do, to a point. The nearest solar system is 4.2 Light years. A Light year is 63,241 AU. (Astronomical Unit aka distance between earth and sun.) Which means (distance squared) the magnetic field is (4.2*63241)*(4.2*63241) or 70 Billion times less when it reaches our solar system.

White Dwarf's magnetic fields are estimated to be 1 Billion and there ain't one in the nearest solar system. So what is impacting our Solar System from outside? It's roughly .00001 Gauss.

The Elenin Guards seem to be open to these new ideas. Yet sufficently closed minded enough that they refuse to test it. Critical Thinking is all you'll need, cry the Elenin Doomsayers. Though apparently they don't....Stick a fork in it's ass it's done.


"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan
Magnetics holds up the planets is at best woo-woo

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Apr-2011 at 07:52 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

Within our Solar System there is no feasible way the Sun's Magnetic Field is the force at work and it's not Gravity.

Of course there is. I showed several forces at play. Within one example I showed the force of how the earth is kept in place/orbit (of course the jupiter moon example is simpler than how the earth is aligned). Within another example I showed the heliosphere current, it's easy to imagine a floating body in space (very low densitym thus low resistance) in a steady alignment developing a certain speed over the many millions of years.

Last edited by MikeB on 25-Apr-2011 at 08:59 PM.
Last edited by MikeB on 25-Apr-2011 at 08:58 PM.

@MikeB

Quote:

MikeB wrote: @BrianK Quote: Within our Solar System there is no feasible way the Sun's Magnetic Field is the force at work and it's not Gravity. Of course there is. I showed several forces at play. Within one example I showed the force of how the earth is kept in place/orbit (of course the jupiter moon example is simpler than how the earth is aligned). Within another example I showed the heliosphere current, it's easy to imagine a floating body in space (very low densitym thus low resistance) in a steady alignment developing a certain speed over the many millions of years.

The existence of a field is not a measure of strength of force. So your evidence that a field exists is a good baby step to understanding but lacks so much data any conclusion from it would be pseudoscientific at best.

Imagined ideas aren't qualifed for existence until you have some observational evidence. Jupiter and it's moon are semi-compelling to look into more. The problem is the 'more' (the sun and all planets,) clearly do not have the strength magentism that would overtake the much larger strength of gravitational forces.

How about this one - in the last 22 years the magnetic strength of the sun has been halfed. Scientists have some guesses. When it comes to planets they are, unsuprisingly, in the same position. Clearly it's not magents at play.

We've seen in this thread far, far more evidence against your SWAG that it's all magnets. And it's not that we in the thread are closed minded we're open. The problem here is you've yet to bring anything more than a guess and a couple of pretty pictures. Gravity -- it's science my man, science!

Last edited by BrianK on 25-Apr-2011 at 10:40 PM.
Last edited by BrianK on 25-Apr-2011 at 10:39 PM.

@BrianK

Quote:

How about this one - in the last 22 years the magnetic strength of the sun has been halfed.

And why would the orbit suddenly change? The magnetic field lines have becomes less dense, but the sun is still the same size and is still by far the strongest magnet in our solar system, so why would the orbit change just based on this. Please explain and what do you think would have happened if the magnetic field lines would have become twice as dense? (Based on what *I* have claimed so far!)

Quote:

Scientists have some guesses.

"Pseudo-scientists" too!

Quote:

Gravity

Gravity is very weak in outer space (like at 1 AU distance)

Last edited by MikeB on 26-Apr-2011 at 12:04 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 26-Apr-2011 at 12:03 AM.
Last edited by MikeB on 26-Apr-2011 at 12:01 AM.

@MikeB

Quote:

Quote: How about this one - in the last 22 years the magnetic strength of the sun has been halfed. And why would the orbit suddenly change?

This is true by definition. If A is causing B when A is changed then B will be effected.

This is exactly what has happened here. You told us the sun and earth's magnetic fields are keeping things in place. Now that the sun has less than half of it's magentic field compared to 22 years ago we'd expect some sort of change in the orbit of the planet. Likewise when the sun spews out a magnetic field at 4000 times the strength and the earth's orbit is unimpacted your magnetic SWAG is seen as highly unlikely because the observed evidence contradicts your supposition. There's so much observational evidence against your SWAG that I'm comfortable saying it simply doesn't exist in the manner you stated.

Quote:

Gravity is very weak in outer space (like at 1 AU distance)

Gravity and magnestims weaken in the same manner - the Inverse Square Law . If we go to 2AU BOTH are weakened to 1/4th. If we go to 3AU both are weakened to 1/9th.

This has been explained to you and still you have not bothered to do your math! Distance is unimportant in the comparision because distance is the same between the earth and the Sun. You can simply compare the charge of the earth * charge of the Sun VS Big-G*mass of earth * mass of sun. If you did your math you'd see that Gravity, while very weak by your account, is still significantly stronger than magnetism.

How many times has this been explained to you and how many times have you simply refused to sitdown and do a bit of calculation? Are you afraid you'll prove yourself wrong and see your lie for what it is, a lie.

Last edited by BrianK on 26-Apr-2011 at 01:41 AM.
Last edited by BrianK on 26-Apr-2011 at 01:03 AM.

@BrianK

Quote:

BrianK wrote: @MikeB [quote] - the Inverse Square Law . If we go to 2AU BOTH are weakened to 1/4th. If we go to 3AU both are weakened to 1/9th.

True but the mass of the outer planets with the exception of Pluto is much larger hence larger magnetosphere as well. It's also been shown that Neptune's orbit is affected by Pluto and vice versa.

@BrianK

Quote:

This is exactly what has happened here. You told us the sun and earth's magnetic fields are keeping things in place.

A very simple way to understand. You have a compass, the needle points north. Now the magnetic field becomes twice as dense. Will your needle then suddenly point south? Of course not.

The direction of the force remains the same. Or for example you hold a globe in front of you while spinning. Then you you squeeze the globe twice as hard while spinning, will this change the position of the ball? Of course not.

@BrianK

Again I point you to this:
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/videogallery/index.html?collection_id=14658&media_id=82280481

The magnetism force here is strong enough to even exchange particles between Saturn and this moon beyond its rings.

Is it really something so hard to consider?

If you exchange gravity for magnetism as the dominant force which keeps in place a lot more questions can be answered than science can today. Like the planetary tilts in our solar system and why the planets orbit the sun around its equator instead of anywhere else (the sun is a globe, based on the universal gravity theory the planets could be all around the sun with the same gravitational pull).