It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Time to Ask WHAT TEMPERATURE IS PERFECT for the average on Earth?

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Is the frog a gas?


Not yet.

I still think it's significant. For my own Socratic questions I choose:

1. What is the ratio of the frog's mass to the strength of it's levitating field?

2. What is the ratio of the mass of a water molecule to the strength of the Earth's magnetic field?

3. What is the local daily variance, in terms of percentage, of the Earth's magnetic field during a CME, when its magnetic field lines become compressed sunside as a result of increased solar wind?




posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

1) Cookie, if your computer accepts them
2) ditto
3) false


Frog, incorrect. The water within the frog is diamagnetic. And it takes one hell of a field to move it.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Would you like some blueberry syrup with your waffles?

Do you have strawberry?


The temperature you accept as a global average is based on surface observations.

Is that not what we are discussing?

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


1) Cookie, if your computer accepts them

I prefer chocolate chip.


2) ditto

Limbaugh fan, Phage?


3) false

Really? Show me where nitrogen has a relative permeability of less than unity.

Whoops, missed one!

Frog, incorrect. The water within the frog is diamagnetic. And it takes one hell of a field to move it.

The frog is made up of water. Water is inherent to the frog's existence as a frog. Ergo, since water is diamagnetic, and the frog inherently contains water, it can be said the frog itself is diamagnetic.

And yes, it does indeed take "one hell of a field" to counteract gravitational forces.

TheRedneck

edit on 5/10/2019 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

1) Depends upon the local gravity field.

2) Too hard. But I'm pretty sure gravity wins.

3) If the CME is not Earth effective, zero. If it is, you can determine that from various magnetometer readings.
supermag.jhuapl.edu...

edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

3) Nitrogen is diamagnetic.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:45 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


Do you have strawberry?
No. How about lilikoi?



Is that not what we are discussing?
It was. And I noted that you accept the GISS global temperature model, if not others.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck


Do you have strawberry?
No. How about lilikoi?



Is that not what we are discussing?
It was. And I noted that you accept the GISS global temperature model, if not others.


What is a foreign temperature model? Is a tempt a temp, or a temp, different frome locale because of temp, or has al gore # in your garden...



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:48 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




The frog is made up of water. Water is inherent to the frog's existence as a frog. Ergo, since water is diamagnetic, and the frog inherently contains water, it can be said the frog itself is diamagnetic.

It can be said that a majority of the frog's mass is composed of diamagnetic material.


edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Zelun

1. Try again.
2. Water is slightly diamagnetic. Slightly, which is why #1 is important.
3. So, it would run away from Earth's magnetic field if it weren't for gravity?



1. Oh excuse me. About a quarter to a half a Gauss. I mean, I appreciate accuracy as much as the next guy, but you don't have to be a dick about it. Here's what I'd say: "Close, but you got your terms mixed up." Here's what you said: "Try again."

2. Your assertion was that water is unaffected by an external magnetic field, unless it's ionized. False.

3. No. Earth's magnetic field WILL effect the attitude of individual water molecules, and as the intensity of that B field varies that effect will vary in kind. I'm sure you're familiar with what happens when you line a bunch of iron molecules up in a crystalline lattice.
edit on 10-5-2019 by Zelun because: unless it's ionized



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Zelun

1)

about a quarter to a half a Tesla
is far, far stronger than the Earth's magnetic field.

2)

Your assertion was that water is unaffected by an external magnetic field, unless it's ionized.
Please show where I said that.

3) The question was about nitrogen.

edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

OK, Phage, just to be sure, I did a little research... seems I am correct about nitrogen, although I do see many links stating it is diamagnetic. The relative permeability is greater than 1, however, so it is by definition paramagnetic. Water is diamagnetic with a relative permeability of around 0.9999-something.

There are three basic classifications of magnetic interaction of materials:
  • Diamagnetic substances have a relative permeability of less than unity (1).
  • Paramagnetic substances have a relative permeability of greater than unity.
  • Ferromagnetic substances have a relative permeability much greater than unity.
This is why it is good to actually have a background in a subject prior to trying to Google it.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yeah.

Simple can be good.
1) Diamagnetic substances are repelled by magnetic fields
2) Paramagnetic substances are attracted by magnetic fields
3) Ferromagnetic substances can be magnetized.

Note that #1, and #2 have no association with magnetic polarity.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


1) Diamagnetic substances are repelled by magnetic fields
2) Paramagnetic substances are attracted by magnetic fields
3) Ferromagnetic substances can be magnetized.

Er, close... all materials magnetize; the question is the extent to which they magnetize and whether they magnetize to attract or oppose the magnetizing field. That's what relative permeability measures: the susceptibility of a material to magnetize in polarity with an applied magnetic field. Paramagnetic and diamagnetic equation use magnetic susceptibility in the calculations, which is simply relative permeability minus one.

That's why non-magnetized materials repel or attract regardless of polarity. They tend to self-magnetize either in or opposite to the polarity of the external field, based on the observed relative permeability. Even ferromagnetic materials tend to do this, although some also tend to retain their magnetization after the external field is removed (certain ceramics, samurian cobalt, and neodymium-iron-boron alloys, for instance). This is based on the remanence of the material.

High remanence is not typically observed in diamagnetic materials, and rarely in paramagnetic materials (neodymium-iron-boron being an exception; the alloy itself is paramagnetic). In ferromagnetic materials, it is common and leads to hysterisis effects.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Er, close... all materials magnetize;

Broad statement but with certain qualifications it may be true. Even for gasses.
www.popsci.com...

edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Broad statement but with certain qualifications it may be true. Even gasses.

Rarely is a broad statement not subject to certain qualifications.

What I gave you is a first-semester boil-down of the basics of magnetic materials. The interactions become much more complex.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:37 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

What I provided was a translation of what magnetic permeability represents.

edit on 5/10/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Er, no.

Your position was that a magnetic permeability greater than 1 could still indicate diamagnetism. That is simply not true, by definition.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

1) yes, by 4 orders of magnitude. But the numbers were right. 1 Tesla = 10000 Gauss. I merely used the wrong term. The earth's magnetic field is from .25-.65 Gauss. So, about a quarter to a half.

2) You said that unless a gas is ionized it is unaffected by a magnetic field. Please refer to my original reply. This is incorrect. Diamagnetism and paramagnetism ensure that all gases are affected by an external magnetic field. Of any field strength. Further, if it's a fight between the gravity of Earth vs/ the geomagnetic field of earth, I suspect that in the life of a molecule the earth's magnetic field wins, as gravity is a piss poor force. If we're talking about whether the oxygen atom in a water molecule in a gas cloud tends to point nadir because gravity says so, I say bullsnip. It's going to point whatever direction the local magnetic field says to because it's a dipole.

3) Now, you may have been originally referring to nitrogen, a diamagnet, but you brought up the topic of water, and there is a snipton of water in the atmosphere; water vapor is a non-insignificant component of our atmosphere. I'll read back and see why you were worried about nitrogen. I'm not. It's mostly harmless.



posted on May, 10 2019 @ 02:42 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




Your position was that a magnetic permeability greater than 1 could still indicate diamagnetism.

What I said is this:

Diamagnetic substances are repelled by magnetic fields




top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join