Geo-dynamics core of planet(s) (and presumably stars as well)

[tylers100]

The thinking occurs to me as this:

The more shared mass objects (e.g. iron etc inside core) happen due to electromagnetism, would if high amount of that temperature melt iron etc in core resulting in core gravity?

[studiot]

Just now, tylers100 said:

The thinking occurs to me as this:

The more shared mass objects (e.g. iron etc inside core) happen due to electromagnetism, would if high amount of that temperature melt iron etc in core resulting in core gravity?

Can you rephrase this in English please ?

Edited January 2 by studiot

[tylers100]

23 minutes ago, studiot said:

Can you rephrase this in English please ?

I realize I was overreaching a bit, I will rephrase (for this planet Earth only for now):

Would a high amount of electromagnetism connectivity between object(s) such as iron and other makeup of innermost core, cause these to melt then in turn cause Earth gravity as we know it now?

[studiot]

Just now, tylers100 said:

The thinking occurs to me as this:

The more shared mass objects (e.g. iron etc inside core) happen due to electromagnetism, would if high amount of that temperature melt iron etc in core resulting in core gravity?

The short answer is No.

Perhaps you would like to consider how your proposal could be compatible with the following comparative data for various bodies in the solar system.

 

[exchemist]

23 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

I realize I was overreaching a bit, I will rephrase (for this planet Earth only for now):

Would a high amount of electromagnetism connectivity between object(s) such as iron and other makeup of innermost core, cause these to melt then in turn cause Earth gravity as we know it now?

No. Gravitation is proportional to the mass of an object, and does not depend on the object’s composition. The molten Fe/Ni core of the Earth is responsible for its magnetic field, but not gravity.

[Ammaniya]

No, it wouldn’t melt. Electromagnetism does not melt objects. Even if there is a lot of it, the Earth's gravity remains the same. So, iron and other materials, no matter their connection, won’t melt from electromagnetism.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, Ammaniya said:

No, it wouldn’t melt. Electromagnetism does not melt objects. Even if there is a lot of it, the Earth's gravity remains the same. So, iron and other materials, no matter their connection, won’t melt from electromagnetism.

It seems you are unaware of the principle of induction furnaces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_furnace

 

[studiot]

Just now, Ammaniya said:

No, it wouldn’t melt. Electromagnetism does not melt objects. Even if there is a lot of it, the Earth's gravity remains the same. So, iron and other materials, no matter their connection, won’t melt from electromagnetism.

This contains a fundamnetal inaccuracy mixed up with correct statements.

exchemist is correct about the principle of induction heating conductive material.

You are correct that this is not the cause of melting deep within a planet.

Solid materials from ice to carbon dioxide to methane to iron can melt if the pressure is high enough.

The pressure can be high enough due to gravity.

If, only only if the resulting liquid is electrically conductive, convective currents within the liquid will generate electric curents according to Faraday's Laws.
These curents will in turn generate magnetic fields.

Even within the Earth the exact circulatory pattern has yet to be resolved.

 

 

Edited January 16 by studiot

[tylers100]

On 1/2/2025 at 7:14 AM, exchemist said:

No. Gravitation is proportional to the mass of an object, and does not depend on the object’s composition. The molten Fe/Ni core of the Earth is responsible for its magnetic field, but not gravity.

and

On 1/16/2025 at 6:08 AM, studiot said:

This contains a fundamnetal inaccuracy mixed up with correct statements.

exchemist is correct about the principle of induction heating conductive material.

You are correct that this is not the cause of melting deep within a planet.

Solid materials from ice to carbon dioxide to methane to iron can melt if the pressure is high enough.

The pressure can be high enough due to gravity.

If, only only if the resulting liquid is electrically conductive, convective currents within the liquid will generate electric curents according to Faraday's Laws.
These curents will in turn generate magnetic fields.

Even within the Earth the exact circulatory pattern has yet to be resolved.

 

 

So, gravity doesn't cause magnetism field but does cause a type of prior (e.g. see 2nd quote by @studiot ) to the magnetism field?

[exchemist]

12 minutes ago, tylers100 said:

and

So, gravity doesn't cause magnetism field but does cause a type of prior (e.g. see 2nd quote by @studiot ) to the magnetism field?

What? You asked whether magnetism caused gravity, not whether gravity causes magnetism.
 

The answer to the first is no.

The answer to the second is a qualified no, in that  gravity and magnetism are quite separate things. However it is true that the convective circulation in the Earth’s core is believed to be responsible for the magnetic field of the Earth. Convection is driven by density differences, that lead to differences in buoyancy under the influence of gravity. So without gravity there would be no convection and no magnetic field.

Edited Thursday at 02:40 PM by exchemist

[tylers100]

17 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What? You asked whether magnetism caused gravity, not whether gravity causes magnetism.
 

The answer to the first is no.

The answer to second is a qualified no, in that, while gravity and magnetism are quite separate things, the convective circulation in the Earth’s core is believed to be responsible for the magnetic field of the Earth. Convection is driven by density differences, that lead to differences in buoyancy under the influence of gravity.

Thanks for answering.

What we would do with a possibility of terraforming ... say, the Moon or Mars... if either of those own magnetism field is practically nearly dead? E.g. how would we amplify the density differences in those moon or planet in order to enable or increase magnetism field in those for a possible terraformation that is if it is feasible?

For some reason on my mind, maybe trigger an earthquake might could do that to potentially increase a chance of magnetism field formulation or maybe not - on Moon or Mars, that is.

Edited Thursday at 02:55 PM by tylers100
Clarification.

[studiot]

Just now, tylers100 said:

and

So, gravity doesn't cause magnetism field but does cause a type of prior (e.g. see 2nd quote by @studiot ) to the magnetism field?

OK let's exapnd on this and think about it.

Magnetic fields generated externally to a solid lump of ferrous metal can cause it to heat up and even (perhaps partially) melt.

But these fields have to be there independently of the lump of metal.

That is why we have to power induction heating devices from cookers to furnaces to welders.

 

The case of the Earth is different.

As the material of the planet was collecting together,the gravitity of the aggregate increased as the aggregate size increased.

It may be that this aggregate was molten or semi molten from the heat generated from the kinetic energy of the impacting material.

Either way the self generated gravity had a greater pull on the more massive elements such as Iron, Nickel etc than the lighter ones such as lithium , Oxygen etc.

Because this greater pull inward was maintained for a long period of time the heavy elements tended to collect together in the middle.

At this time there was no magnetic field.

As previously noted gravity develops the greatest pressure on in the middle of a body.

For the Earth this pressure was enough to melt the core iron, if it was not already melted.

Once the core was molten. and indeed ionised (the surface of the liquid core is hotter than the surface of the Sun which is ionised plasma) the motion of the ions in the liquid constituted electric currents for thermal reasons.

In turn these currents generated magnetic fields.

This situation continues today, although part of the core has now solidified.

 

So there were no 'eddy currents' as we find in a transformer because there was neither a source of external electric current or magnetic field.

 

doe sthis help ?

[tylers100]

18 hours ago, studiot said:

OK let's exapnd on this and think about it.

Magnetic fields generated externally to a solid lump of ferrous metal can cause it to heat up and even (perhaps partially) melt.

But these fields have to be there independently of the lump of metal.

That is why we have to power induction heating devices from cookers to furnaces to welders.

 

The case of the Earth is different.

As the material of the planet was collecting together,the gravitity of the aggregate increased as the aggregate size increased.

It may be that this aggregate was molten or semi molten from the heat generated from the kinetic energy of the impacting material.

Either way the self generated gravity had a greater pull on the more massive elements such as Iron, Nickel etc than the lighter ones such as lithium , Oxygen etc.

Because this greater pull inward was maintained for a long period of time the heavy elements tended to collect together in the middle.

At this time there was no magnetic field.

As previously noted gravity develops the greatest pressure on in the middle of a body.

For the Earth this pressure was enough to melt the core iron, if it was not already melted.

Once the core was molten. and indeed ionised (the surface of the liquid core is hotter than the surface of the Sun which is ionised plasma) the motion of the ions in the liquid constituted electric currents for thermal reasons.

In turn these currents generated magnetic fields.

This situation continues today, although part of the core has now solidified.

 

So there were no 'eddy currents' as we find in a transformer because there was neither a source of external electric current or magnetic field.

 

doe sthis help ?

Helpful

A bit, I think. Although slightly very descriptive and lists quite a bit of many things to consider. I'll give this some time to absorb and think about in order to learn a bit more.

Gravity Interaction and Analogy Scenario

In meanwhile, see the bold sentences in above quote by you - caught my attention. That sounds like the 'median' gravity (a specific word I came up with for specific averaged out centre in gravity interaction) I was talking a bit about in an other thread of mine. It fascinates me.

At this moment, I'm thinking about an objective-oriented scenario where or when a bowl is filled with some randomized food ingredients then we shake it up and observe which ingredients would tend toward bottom and others upwardly AND maybe also able to observe which these very aggregated ingredients byproduct form circulation pattern(s). I wonder if this scenario is similar or does match with the quoted and bold sentences by you? Maybe I'm thinking a bit aloud or something like that, but kinda cool thing to think about.