0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship.

It will do for a first approximation, though the vertices should be at the poles, not the centre

From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINQuote from: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 13:12:15ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship. From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGIN

It took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this? [ Invalid Attachment ]

Inverse square law : f(x)=c/x²if the distance is doubled, the field strength is 1/4 previous value.Inverse cubic law : f(x)=c/x³if the distance is doubled, the field strength is only 1/8 previous value.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/04/2016 21:06:17From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINQuote from: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 13:12:15ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship. From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINIt took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this? [ Invalid Attachment ]

Well now I'm really going to confuse the hell out of you. In order to find the rate at which the function f(x) = c/x^3 is changing we need the derivative. So we start with d/dx [c/x^3]. Using the power rule for c*x^-3 we get c*d/dx[1/x^3]. This gives (-3)*x^-4*c. Then finally we obtain f'(x) =-3c/x^4. Now go and produce a diagram of that one.

Quote from: Thebox on 07/04/2016 11:54:25Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/04/2016 21:06:17From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINQuote from: alancalverd on 06/04/2016 13:12:15ISL is only appropriate to point sources. Since the earth has the properties of a bar magnet with the north and south poles widely separated, close to the surface of the planet the field strength varies with latitude as well as altitude, but at high altitudes above the poles it is, to a first approximation, an inverse square relationship. From a distance (i.e. more than roughly twice the size of the earth) the magnetic field looks like an inverse cube law....sorry, you cannot view external links. To see them, please REGISTER or LOGINIt took me a while to work out what you meant, you mean this? [ Invalid Attachment ] What I mean is that, if you go ten times further away, the magnetic field is 1000 times weaker.i have no idea what your diagram means.

As title.

Your cube has 2 corners not marked i . Why is that?

Quote from: acsinuk on 10/04/2016 18:25:21Your cube has 2 corners not marked i . Why is that?Well spotted, no reason other than I missed them, they should also be an i.

Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/04/2016 21:41:34Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.Well the conversation as changed from the question I originally asked to answer questions I was asked, I do not understand what is hard to understand , the Universe and how it works is not that complex, it is not hard to understand my theory in theories. It is simple, forget that space is expanding and simply consider that bodies are just moving away from us into more space that is i in length. Also before the big bang there was not nothing, there was space. For any event to happen the event needs space to happen in.

Quote from: Thebox on 11/04/2016 07:18:45Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/04/2016 21:41:34Essentially none of what you have posted so far makes any sense.Well the conversation as changed from the question I originally asked to answer questions I was asked, I do not understand what is hard to understand , the Universe and how it works is not that complex, it is not hard to understand my theory in theories. It is simple, forget that space is expanding and simply consider that bodies are just moving away from us into more space that is i in length. Also before the big bang there was not nothing, there was space. For any event to happen the event needs space to happen in. You stopped making sense at this point" space that is i in length"