Leaderboard

For that, you might as well start a public solar power utility. We could produce the electricity that's too cheap to attract private investors, use it for the roads to start, and expand it as the cheapest electricity solution for home and business as well. Maybe reward those who switch from costly private energy providers with Medicare enrollment at any age....

As Studiot correctly pointed out asteroids would be a poor starting point. However that being said, asteroids are made of minerals and ice commonly found on Earth. So studying the different properties of those minerals here on Earth is sufficient. We would be happy to help guide you in learning how electromagnetism and gravity differ from one another but also as pointed out we need an understanding of what level of teaching to start at. Lets start with Studiots questions then work from there... By the way it is a great act of character to admit when one is wrong or doesn't fully understand something. I wish far more posters did the same so +1 for that. I have far greater respect for posters who honestly wish to learn than those making grandiose assertions. When thinking over the comments made by both Studiot and Swansont I would recommend you start thinking of iron in particular. Iron does not normally exhibit a magnetic field but if you apply a current can be made into a magnet. The questions Studiot asked relate to this phenomenon. (it also relates to why certain astronomical bodies has a magnetic field while others do not)

I was focusing on your claim of an "inherent property". Current flow is an induced phenomenon, not an inherent property. Which is due to uncanceled spins of electrons (charge and angular momentum, as I had alluded to before) and if you raise the material to a temperature above its Curie point, it will lose the magnetism. It's not an inherent property. The best you can do is say that it's an inherent property of the electron, though it's due to its other inherent properties. But not of any bulk matter, because it tends to cancel out. The earth's core is more than electrons.

I wouldn't recommend starting the study of properties of materials with asteroids. It may be current and sexy and even offer some novel insights, but is of limited use in the overall scheme of things. To discuss gravitational, magnetic and electric properties of matter, you need to know some details about them, so tell us what your level of knowledge is? Electric and magnetic fields can be readily shaped, this is much more difficult with gravitational fields. The early pioneers studied electric and magnetic fields confined to a particular region of space. The electric fields were confined by placing a slab of material between two confining plates making a condenser or capacitor. Confining magenetic fields made use of the fact that the field of an electic coil of is wholy contained within a toriodal winding. This is called a Rowland Ring after the discoverer J H Rowland. Rowland was able to distinguish three types of magnetic activity. Paramagnetism Diamagnetism Ferromagnetism The first two only appear in the presence of an existing magnetic field. The simple planetery model of the atom with electrons orbiting a nucleus is sufficient to explain this magnetic activity. Have you heard of the planetary model, due to Neils Bohr?

okay. I don't account for them, I'm asking to learn. I wonder what the average composition of such an asteroid is?

Yes.

An HGV is a different classification and need not be articulated. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211948/simplified-guide-to-lorry-types-and-weights.pdf Of course the term is made more difficult by the american pronunciation of the part word 'semi'.

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/westerhout-43-star-formation-05962.html New Study Casts Doubt on Currently Accepted Theories of Star Formation: An international team of astronomers has found that long-held assumptions about the relationship between the mass of star-forming clouds of dust and gas and the eventual mass of the star itself may not be as straightforward as scientists think. Their work is published in the journal Nature Astronomy. The underlying reasons as to why a star eventually grows to a specific mass has puzzled astronomers for years. It has been assumed that a star’s mass mostly depends on the original structure — known as a star-forming core — from which stars are born. more at.....http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/westerhout-43-star-formation-05962.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-018-0452-x The unexpectedly large proportion of high-mass star-forming cores in a Galactic mini-starburst: Abstract: Understanding the processes that determine the stellar initial mass function (IMF) is a critical unsolved problem, with profound implications for many areas of astrophysics1. In molecular clouds, stars are formed in cores—gas condensations sufficiently dense that gravitational collapse converts a large fraction of their mass into a star or small clutch of stars. In nearby star-formation regions, the core mass function (CMF) is strikingly similar to the IMF, suggesting that the shape of the IMF may simply be inherited from the CMF2,3,4,5. Here, we present 1.3 mm observations, obtained with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array telescope, of the active star-formation region W43-MM1, which may be more representative of the Galactic-arm regions where most stars form6,7. The unprecedented resolution of these observations reveals a statistically robust CMF at high masses, with a slope that is markedly shallower than the IMF. This seriously challenges our understanding of the origin of the IMF.

I'm aware of the Thales->Pythagoras secret. These mathematicians had more than you'd imagine to do science (back then it was called metaphysics) with; multi-generational armies of apprentices and calligraphers. These mathematicians were of the seven wise men, they were rich and had means. Magnets, compasses (as advanced as the one found in a sunken ancient Athenian Navy vessel) star maps, and light focusing crystals. Newton and Einstein might have rediscovered 75% of the secret, QM and the LCDM model might add another 10% to that rediscovery. What Tesla saw in some of his experiments, which - unlike with Einstein, was never fully mathematically defined - might be the product of the model they built. The mathematicians were one part of the Khazite regime, the political part engineering Roman law, which was a fluke. But they also engineered Cathalocism and it's forebares using the desperation of it's practioners, through the Vatican, Cathalocism and capitalism are where they now reign. How did you know about what Pythagoras really knew? Even before Aristotle, the Egyptians mathematically defined pi in their own way. I know that's there's more than one way to arrive at a mathematical understanding, and that it was once greater than what is publically practiced now stemming Giorgi and Newton. Sidis learned something all those generations of ancient and nearly modern mathematicians and physicists missed, and that was on accident, he wasn't even into physics. He was the real deal. Perhaps Sidis and I have a little Demi-God in us, intellectually speaking. Maybe it's because we both come from a family of psychologists.