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.
originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: ImaFungi
Well, both would automatically feel the gravitational force. It's infinite in range. Whereas magnetic fields have a finite range.
Yes, I think this is more or less the answer, though the magnetic field also has infinite range in theory, for all practical purposes, at large distances you end up with each pole attracting one pole of the other magnet and repelling one pole of the other magnet, so those attractions and repulsions sort of cancel each other out to a large extent. The exact distance where forces resulting from the magnetic field becomes stronger than forces resulting from gravity (if they ever do) can't be calculated without knowing the magnetic field strength which wasn't specified.
originally posted by: pfishy
Well, both would automatically feel the gravitational force. It's infinite in range. Whereas magnetic fields have a finite range.
You sure about the 1/r^3? This guy says the force falls off as 1/r^4 at large distances:
originally posted by: moebius
Magnetic fields as such don't have a finite range, are dipole fields, fall off with 1/r^3 compared to gravitational, electric fields with their 1/r^2. Theoretically one would feel both the gravitational and the magnetic field at any time.
As his qualifier "at large distances" implies, I think the relationship varies by distance, and we can infer that at distances which are "not large" that is not the relationship.
at large distances, the force between these two magnets should fall off proportional to the inverse fourth power of distance. (Where large distance here means a distance large compared to the largest dimension of the magnet.)
I stand corrected. Though, I would imagine that the gravitational attraction would be the initial 'contact' that was substantial enough to begin moving the magnets toward each other. Seeing as how an iron meteorite may pass through our planetary magnetic field, and it is not even a discernable factor in any course alterations. Whereas gravity always is.
originally posted by: moebius
originally posted by: pfishy
a reply to: ImaFungi
Well, both would automatically feel the gravitational force. It's infinite in range. Whereas magnetic fields have a finite range.
Magnetic fields as such don't have a finite range, are dipole fields, fall off with 1/r^3 compared to gravitational, electric fields with their 1/r^2. Theoretically one would feel both the gravitational and the magnetic field at any time.
I said it was unspecified because saying it's a bar magnet the mass of Earth with a magnetic field strength similar to earth seem to be contradictory claims.
originally posted by: pfishy
Of course, as Arbitrageur pointed out, magnetic field strength was never specified. I was assuming a strength comparable to our planet's natural one. Given that the magnets in question are the.'size' of Earth, I think it is a reasonable conclusion. (Assuming here that a 'perfect bar magnet the size of Earth' implies an object with comparable mass.)
What are you basing that statement on? Is that true and if so, how do you know it?
originally posted by: pfishy
Seeing as how an iron meteorite may pass through our planetary magnetic field, and it is not even a discernable factor in any course alterations.
"The Yarkovsky force on 1999 RQ36 at its peak, when the asteroid is nearest the sun, is only about a half ounce – about the weight of three grapes on Earth. Meanwhile, the mass of the asteroid is estimated to be about 68 million tons. You need extremely precise measurements over a fairly long time span to see something so slight acting on something so huge."
This roughly correlates with the theory of relativity by Einstein, that both distance and time are not absolutes, but vary depending on your movement relative to something else. However, to see significant variations in time or distance, one needs to be traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light.
originally posted by: fabledgoddess
Time in my personal opinion is like distance , a matter of perspective.
Like if I were an alien, and I was looking twards earth from the Vulcan planet, the hypothetical distance would by my start point of observable distance be equal to sues' perspective who was looking from Earth twards vulcan. NOT SO in my humble opinion. Because it's all moving distance changes as well as time.
If by uniform you mean linear, correct, the relationship of time and distance compression to velocity is the non-linear function described in this website:
But not uniformally.
At .9 times the speed of light, the factor becomes 2.294157338705618. Finally, the effects of relativity become significant. What does this factor mean though? If you were in a spaceship traveling at .9 times the speed of light:
1) the ship's mass (and you) would increase by a factor of 2.294
2) the ship (and you) would contract in the direction of travel by 2.294, meaning a 300 foot ship would shrink to 130.77 feet.
3) Perhaps the most interesting change is that 1 year to you would seem to be 2.294 years for someone back on Earth.
According to relativity, length contraction occurs relative to your direction of travel, so in that direction lengths would be compressed by the same factor that time is compressed. In the other two dimensions, you don't see length contraction so I guess you could say time compression is independent from length contraction in the y and z axes if you're traveling along the x-axis of a coordinate system.
One question I would have is it possible the two can operate indepently of each other.
NASA Ames Research Director’s Colloquium, August 12, 2014. Human space exploration is currently still in Low Earth Orbit. But what would it eventually take for humans to explore the outer solar system? If the ultimate objective is the stars, then what might that look like? How hard is interstellar flight?
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Could my modem sitting abut to my bass speaker cabinet reduce my WiFi?
I've noticed that since I moved my WiFi router next to my speakers I get half the range for the signal than before the move.
Not even sure radio waves would be effected by speaker magnets but anybody wanna take vs stab at the physics behind my reduced range on my wifi? Would a microwave oven also serve to interfere with wifi?
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Could my modem sitting abut to my bass speaker cabinet reduce my WiFi?
I've noticed that since I moved my WiFi router next to my speakers I get half the range for the signal than before the move.
Not even sure radio waves would be effected by speaker magnets but anybody wanna take vs stab at the physics behind my reduced range on my wifi? Would a microwave oven also serve to interfere with wifi?
Yes you get what's called radio interference.
Ever taken a call in your car and hear a weird buzzing over yoir speakers?
These waves are all happening in one room radio frequencies cell phones speakers wifi, microwaves even other electronics like tvs will put off em radiation.