It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The field is similar to that of a bar magnet, but this similarity is superficial. The magnetic field of a bar magnet, or any other type of permanent magnet, is created by the coordinated spins of electrons and nuclei within the atoms. The Earth's core, however, is hotter than 1043 K, the Curie point temperature at which the orientations of spins within iron become randomized. Such randomization causes the substance to lose its magnetic field. Therefore the Earth's magnetic field is caused not by magnetized iron deposits, but mostly by electric currents in the liquid outer core.
Convection of molten iron within the outer liquid core, along with a Coriolis effect caused by the overall planetary rotation, tends to organize these "electric currents" in rolls aligned along the north-south polar axis. When conducting fluid flows across an existing magnetic field, electric currents are induced, which in turn creates another magnetic field. When this magnetic field reinforces the original magnetic field, a dynamo is created which sustains itself. This is called the Dynamo Theory and it explains how the Earth's magnetic field is sustained.
Another feature that distinguishes the Earth magnetically from a bar magnet is its magnetosphere. At large distances from the planet, this dominates the surface magnetic field. Electric currents induced in the ionosphere also generate magnetic fields. Such a field is always generated near where the atmosphere is closest to the Sun, causing daily alterations which can deflect surface magnetic fields by as much as one degree.
I was wondering if there has ever been any serious investigation into
the possibility that gravity might be a byproduct of the electrostatic
and electromagnetic forces.
I think I would be safe in saying that the current general
understanding in the physics community is that gravity is not a
byproduct of electromagnetic force but they are considered to be two
of the fundamental forces. The other two are known as the “strong” and
“weak” forces (physicists show such imagination with names!)
These four forces are considered fundamental because they are
considered to explain all observed physical processes. ie Any force
between two objects is due to one or another of these interactions.
The relativistic quantum field theory also describes four carrier
particles for each of these forces. Photons (electromagnetic), bosons
(weak), gluons (strong) and gravitons (gravitational). However ,
according to the SLAC article this theory is acknowledged as
incomplete. So the lack of experimental evidence for gravitons and the
fact that the theory does not explain how the fundamental particle
masses are generated, provides considerable opportunities for
physicists to complete the theory. Other forces and carrier particles
have been proposed and as has previously been the case, proof of such
fundamental particles or forces would definitely be considered a Nobel
prize level achievement.
However, there has been continuous serious investigation into the
possibility that gravity and electromagnetic forces are linked.
Unified theories of forces have been of continuous interest to
physicists. Some of the more famous examples include Maxwell in 1855
who showed electric and magnetic lines of force could be described by
a single set of equations; Einstein died working on a unified field
theory to explain the relationship between gravitation and
electromagnetism and more recently, the 1999 Nobel Prize was awarded
for work toward deriving a unified framework for all the theoretical
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by zorgon
As I read the article....one thing jumped out at me....
The phrase "any sort of 'negative' gravity would be miniscule"
Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by spy66
spy...really?? Please study some more, because as many have already answered your questions. Furry Texan, and BlasteR, especially.
You have many, many in correct 'assumptions' about gravity, and mass. And atmosphere. But, that's why ATS is great, because it is a place to learn, as long as you listen.
Originally posted by Bob Down Under
I wonder if the past Apollo missions picked up on that when orbiting the Moon?
Originally posted by zorgon
Recent conversation overheard outside Mike Griffin's office...
"Hey Mikey, what are we going to do tomorrow?"
"Tomorrow? Why tomorrow we are going to take over the world's space programs, that's what!"
NASA And India Sign Agreement For Future Cooperation
NASA To Work With India on Moon Mission
U.S.- India Space Cooperation
NASA Administrator Visits China
ESA and NASA extend ties with major new cross-support agreement
Hmmm No wonder we need to wait years to get those images
Originally posted by ArMaP
Do the the other countries really need the technology from the US?
Originally posted by Esoterica
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
Did you miss where it was explained in this thread how "negative gravity" is simply a lower gravity than predicted from a model?