NASA discovers brand new force of nature

page: 5
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
Sounds pretty logical to me. A big magnet has a bigger gravitational pull or push than a small magnet.

"A magnetic field is a field of force produced by a magnetic object or particle, or by a changing electrical field[1] and is detected by the force it exerts on other magnetic materials and moving electric charges. The magnetic field at any given point is specified by both a direction and a magnitude (or strength); as such it is a vector field."
--wiki


Magnetism only works on other magnetic objects. Gravity acts on an object based on mass. (in a general terms, gravity can effect massless objects too)

edit on 20-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by theAymen
 


Isn't polarity an Earth term? Basically, why are you so sure it works like that on Venus? Venus is upside down correct? Yet, how do you know the poles have been reversed? What about planets that don't have magnetic fields at all? Does that mean they have no poles?


No, polarity is universal.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Nasa has no idea !! The craft are from the 70's... And they are in a neighborhood aint nobody has been to... It could be just they are like along way from home and encountering forces we dont know of. Space Time theory...



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:47 AM
link   
Why even call it north and south to begin with. Why not negative and positive poles? Who decided what's north and south anyways?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by Come Clean
reply to post by theAymen
 


Isn't polarity an Earth term? Basically, why are you so sure it works like that on Venus? Venus is upside down correct? Yet, how do you know the poles have been reversed? What about planets that don't have magnetic fields at all? Does that mean they have no poles?


No, polarity is universal.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)



So we know everything there is to know in the Universe now? When did that happen? I'm lead to believe there is no North or South in a black hole. So right there sours the whole notion of a universal theory on North and South.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jerry_Teps

Originally posted by Come Clean
Sounds pretty logical to me. A big magnet has a bigger gravitational pull or push than a small magnet.

"A magnetic field is a field of force produced by a magnetic object or particle, or by a changing electrical field[1] and is detected by the force it exerts on other magnetic materials and moving electric charges. The magnetic field at any given point is specified by both a direction and a magnitude (or strength); as such it is a vector field."
--wiki


Magnetism only works on other magnetic objects. Gravity acts on an object based on mass. (in a general terms, gravity can effect massless objects too)

edit on 20-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)





So you're saying a planet with half the mass of earth but fifty times the magnetic field strength would have less gravity based on mass alone?

Wouldn't the core be bigger in that scenario? So the bigger the magnetic field the bigger the core right? Which would mean more mass right? So the magnetic field has to be related to gravity.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Come Clean because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


yes it does..
but..example

if the earth stops spinning on its poles...do you think the gravitational pull it has on the moon would be affected.

i do...mass is a factor yes but not relative..

all four points, weak force, strong force, electromagnitism and gravity in my eyes are one..all controlled by the sun. Remove the sun...i do not think all the planets will become attracted and revolve around..jupiter.

i agree about your point on gravity and its effects on mass...but i think the suns magnetic field can manipulate our understanding of gravity..



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Semantics.

edit on Mon Sep 20 2010 by Jbird because: Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Come Clean
 


Correlation != causation. Both would increase, due to the increased mass, however, gravity is not responsible for the increased magnetic field, and vise-versa, the increased mass is. Gravity is not contingent on electromagnetism.

edit on Mon Sep 20 2010 by Jbird because: Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 

i learnt that in school yea but, what it doesnt teach is

1) what stops the moon from crashing into us...as this law of gravity states it should have...yrs ago

2) if mass is the definative factor for gravitational pull...then why is our moon stuck here with us and not hurtling toward the sun.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:11 AM
link   
Last question then I might be satisfied.

Take two identical planets in every exact way down to the amount of ant's on the planets. One has a magnetic field and the other does not. Are you saying gravity would be the same on both planets? I would think if you didn't have a magnetic field you wouldn't have an atomosphere either. Under that scenario I would float away wouldn't I?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by theAymen
reply to post by Jerry_Teps
 

i learnt that in school yea but, what it doesnt teach is

1) what stops the moon from crashing into us...as this law of gravity states it should have...yrs ago

2) if mass is the definative factor for gravitational pull...then why is our moon stuck here with us and not hurtling toward the sun.


1) en.wikipedia.org...
2) It is rotating around the sun. However, it feels the influence of earth's gravity greater than the suns.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
Last question then I might be satisfied.

Take two identical planets in every exact way down to the amount of ant's on the planets. One has a magnetic field and the other does not. Are you saying gravity would be the same on both planets? I would think if you didn't have a magnetic field you wouldn't have an atomosphere either. Under that scenario I would float away wouldn't I?


i think they would differ yes....i think the one without a field would be attracted to the one with...not visaversa



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Come Clean
Last question then I might be satisfied.

Take two identical planets in every exact way down to the amount of ant's on the planets. One has a magnetic field and the other does not. Are you saying gravity would be the same on both planets? I would think if you didn't have a magnetic field you wouldn't have an atomosphere either. Under that scenario I would float away wouldn't I?


You would not have an atmosphere, but for a reason difference than you think. Cosmic rays would blast away every gas on the earth's surface. Our magnetic field protects against the magnetically charged cosmic rays. Both planets should have relatively the same gravitational influence (without considering the effects of a ceased dynamo). Why do you think Mars still has a moon despite the absence of a strong magnetic field?

Again, gravity is not contingent on electrodynamics.

No, you would not float away, you would still be influenced by earth's gravitational field.

edit on 20-9-2010 by Jerry_Teps because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I wonder if this has anything to do with the article published over a week ago saying that our laws of physics need to be changed as it appears thanks to the VLT in chile they are not constant in all areas of space. it would make sense yes?



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by franspeakfree
I wonder if this has anything to do with the article published over a week ago saying that our laws of physics need to be changed as it appears thanks to the VLT in chile they are not constant in all areas of space. it would make sense yes?


en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   
The reason the moon doesnt crash into earth is because it is actually slowly moving away from the earth , the earths gravitational field makes it spin around us in eliptical orbit

The reason it doesnt go towards the sun is because its so far away !


Oh and for the sarcasm factor

phage is the reason they are slowing down , he doesnt want them to leave the heliosphere!



edit on 20-9-2010 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   
I dont know if anybody said it yet, but its DARK MATTER! since the craft left the solar system it started to enter the dark matter fields between solar systems, giving it that 10 billion times less stronger than gravity pull. Maybe dark matter has a form of viscosity when you enter it that slows you down, like if you try to drop a ball into a bucket of honey, it drops freely until it enters the honey then it slows down.

What if this force gets stronger the further out the craft goes? Would that make traveling to another star with our current tech not only take an unrealistically long time but impossible?

I base that off of absolutely nothing. Pure assumptions and speculations.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by jazz10
 


I could say it is Planet X and if it has an elliptical orbit and traveling at a fast pace, then it could cause a 'force push' on the satellites. Just remember a couple of times our magnetosphere had a strong 'force push'.





new topics
top topics
 
58
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join