I'm not an expert in physics or anything but an interesting thought occurred to me today. I don't know if someone else has already thought of this. Could it be that what we perceive as gravity is just a heavily neutralized magnetic/electrostatic force? In other words our universe has struck a fine state of balance between the positive and negative electromagnetic forces leaving only a weak potential difference which we have labeled as "gravity."

Thanks for reading and I'm eager to hear the responses!!

Really? Do you know nothing about gravity or electromagnetism?

Gravity (so every experiment tells us to high precision) couples to inertial mass.
Electromagnetism (so every experiment tells us to high precision) couples to electric charge.

Electric charge comes in two forms which differ qualitatively in that like-repels-like while gravity only (so experiment tells us) varies quantitatively and like-attracts-like.

Most macroscopic objects have no net electric charge and no imbalance in the microscopic motions of their component particles between those with positive and those with negative charge. Yet, these objects with no discernible net electromagnetic effect have gravity.

"Permanent" magnets have gravity and if you demagnetize them so that they are in the first class of object, their gravity changes by a vanishingly small amount. I don't believe any experiment has measured it.

Tiny objects (like pieces of tissue paper the size of fish food flakes or ground pepper) can be given sufficient electric charge to overcome the pull of the entire Earth's gravity.

So how can gravity (if just electromagnetism) explain how the Sun attracts both the Earth and the Moon, yet the Earth and Moon attract each other?

You have 40 seconds.

You bring up some awesome points!!! After reading your post a couple of times I'm left wondering, because again I'm no expert, how neutrons behave with both atoms and ions? Do they react the same to both? Are they attracted to either? What keeps them in the atom if there is no left over charge?

I actually couldn't find what I was looking for with these questions on a quick google search although I'm sure this information must be out there somewhere.

I bring up these questions because if the universe is simply in a state of more or less balanced electromagnetic forces, then wouldn't we be behaving more or less like big neutrons?


Permanent" magnets have gravity and if you demagnetize them so that they are in the first class of object, their gravity changes by a vanishingly small amount. I don't believe any experiment has measured it.

Are you saying here that a permanent magnet his a different gravity than if the same object was demagnetized? Or am I reading this wrong? If I'm interpreting you correctly then I find this very interesting!!!

Neutrons have a small magnetic dipole moment because their positively- and negatively-electrically charged components (the experimentally observed partons which correspond to the quark model) don't have exactly the same state of motion.

With spins pointed in the same direction, a neutron has an experimentally measured magnetic dipole moment of −1.91304273 ± 0.00000045 while a proton has a magnetic dipole moment of +2.792847356 ± 0.000000023 in units of nuclear magnetons. These are quite small compared to electron-generated magnetic moments or electrically charged particles.

This is approximately well-explained by a simple model where the valence quarks have fixed effective masses. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-baryon-magnetic-moment.pdf

Neutrons have a much more interesting effect on nuclei, but that effect is neither electromagnetic nor gravitational. Nuclear effects are largely identical for atoms and ions. These nuclear effects tend to prefer nearly equal numbers of protons and neutrons in nuclei, but because protons repel each other electromagnetically, for large nuclei, an excess of neutrons is more stable than equal neutrons and protons.

Just because electrical charges are largely balanced in most macroscopic objects does not mean that the microscopic details don't matter. The computer you are using in an application of microscopic patterns of electrical imbalances making a differences to you. A computer would not work if atoms were like big neutrons.

I'm saying no experiment has measured any change in gravity of a demagnetized magnet. Theory predicts a extremely tiny change (like nanograms in a 1-ton magnet) but that shows you how unimportant the relationship is.

I'd like to ignore neutrons for a moment as the more I'm thinking about it the more it seems that it's not necessary to know their nature in order to humor this theory.

Now I don't know if anyone has measured or even knows how to measure the electrical charge of the earth. From what I understand about it's construction though is that it's made up 3 distinct layers, becoming more dense towards the core. Now what if in one of the layers predominately there is some kind of mass (which I think most scientists agree with this theory and that it is comprised mostly of nickel) with a sizable positive or negative charge? A huge mass of anything, with even a slight charge (compared to its size) would undoubtedly attract us as if we were just small bits of paper or tiny metal shavings.

Consider a vacuum and on one end there is a mass with one extra electron and on the other end a billion miles from it there is an electrically neutral mass. Let's say that there is no separate force of gravity in this universe. I think these two masses would collide over time. What do you think would happen?

Could it be that what we perceive as gravity is just a heavily neutralized magnetic/electrostatic force? In other words our universe has struck a fine state of balance between the positive and negative electromagnetic forces leaving only a weak potential difference which we have labeled as "gravity."

No. Thread moved to alt theories.


I'm not an expert in physics or anything...

ah ha!

Welcome to the discussion prometheus!!! I hope you'll share your opinions with us about this!!!



ah ha!

I'm not sure what you're laughing at. What I said was sincere. Please share with me the joke as I like a laugh as good as anyone!!

Thanks for taking the time to read and post! :thumbsup:

I'm not sure what you're laughing at. What I said was sincere. Please share with me the joke as I like a laugh as good as anyone!!

Laughing is: Ha Ha

Realization is: Ah Ha

Laughing is: Ha Ha

Realization is: Ah Ha

Thanks for your input!

***********

Now I was thinking more about this and how astrophysicist's observations of celestial bodies confirms the currently accepted theory of gravity. And understandably this adds "weight" (lol) to that theory. Well... of course their observations accord with the theory of gravity!! Think about how an astrophysicist deduces the mass of a celestial body...

It is deduced by observing the relationship of the body's movement with other bodies. Well think about it... just as easily one could argue that the celestial body with the most "pull" is not the one with the most mass, but the one with the greatest deficiency of electrons - which would say nothing of mass at all and still be just as plausible!

Thank you for reading!

I'd like to ignore neutrons for a moment as the more I'm thinking about it the more it seems that it's not necessary to know their nature in order to humor this theory.

Now I don't know if anyone has measured or even knows how to measure the electrical charge of the earth. From what I understand about it's construction though is that it's made up 3 distinct layers, becoming more dense towards the core. Now what if in one of the layers predominately there is some kind of mass (which I think most scientists agree with this theory and that it is comprised mostly of nickel) with a sizable positive or negative charge? A huge mass of anything, with even a slight charge (compared to its size) would undoubtedly attract us as if we were just small bits of paper or tiny metal shavings.

There are a number of problems with this idea.

When you see small bits sticking to an object it is because some of the electrons of the surface atoms of the object have been removed, and thus the electrons which surround the nuclei of the outer atoms of the pieces of paper are attracted to them. The object and pieces of paper have to be very close for this to work. This is because the nuclei of the paper's atoms are repelled by the positively charged outer atoms of the object, so it is only when the electrons are much closer to the object than the nuclei that their attraction is enough to overcome the repulsion. What this means is that the net attraction falls off very very quickly as the distance between paper and object increases; much faster than the inverse square that we see with gravity. It also means that it only works if the outer part of the object is positively charged. If they where negatively charged (excess of electrons) they would repel the pieces of paper.

Secondly, It can't explain the mutual attraction between three or more objects.

For example, we have landed men and objects on the Moon where they "stuck" to the surface just like they do on Earth. This means that for your idea to be correct, the Moon would have to have a net positive charge like the Earth. But like charges repel so the Moon and Earth would repel each other and the Earth would not hold the Moon in orbit.

Another example is the famous Cavendish experiment where the attraction between brass spheres was measured. In your model either both spheres would have been attracted to the Earth and repelled by each other or the spheres would have been attracted to each other and one of them repelled by the Earth. Instead both spheres were attracted to each other and the Earth.



Third, it cannot account for the equivalence between gravitational mass and inertial mass. An object could be made heavier or lighter by just adding or removing some electrons. Since electrons constitute only a very small fraction of the mass of an object, there would be no connection between mass and weight. But every experiment done shows that weight and mass are linked.

Consider a vacuum and on one end there is a mass with one extra electron and on the other end a billion miles from it there is an electrically neutral mass. Let's say that there is no separate force of gravity in this universe. I think these two masses would collide over time. What do you think would happen?

If the electrically neutral object were truly neutral (not made up of a equal amount of positively and negatively charged parts) then there would be no attraction at all. If it was made up of such parts, then it would depend on how they where arranged. If it was made of atoms with outer electrons, then it would actually be slightly repelled. If it was made of a central negative mass surrounded by positive masses, then their would be a slight net attraction. However, this attraction would not follow the square of the distance law or be tied to the mass of the object like we see with gravity. There is just no way to make attraction by electrical charge act in an equivalent way to gravity.

Thanks for your input!

***********

Now I was thinking more about this and how astrophysicist's observations of celestial bodies confirms the currently accepted theory of gravity. And understandably this adds "weight" (lol) to that theory. Well... of course their observations accord with the theory of gravity!! Think about how an astrophysicist deduces the mass of a celestial body...

It is deduced by observing the relationship of the body's movement with other bodies. Well think about it... just as easily one could argue that the celestial body with the most "pull" is not the one with the most mass, but the one with the greatest deficiency of electrons - which would say nothing of mass at all and still be just as plausible!



This falls afoul of what I already mentioned in the last post: the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass and the mutual attraction of more than two objects. If gravity and mass had no connection then the rules of orbiting bodies would not be what they are. Objects at the same distance from a celestial body could orbit at different rates due to their different mass/charge ratios. You just would not see the nice neat relationship between orbital distance and orbital speed that we see.

Also, objects in orbit around a body are effected by their attraction to other objects in orbit. These "perturbations" are well observed and have even been used to find planets in our own solar system. The observed perturbations are just not consistent with an attraction scheme which relies of electrostatic attraction/repulsion. Planets orbiting the Sun would be repelled by each other and not attracted as observed.

I repeat what I said in the last post; you simply cannot make an electrostatic attraction model that will mimic what we see happening around us.

Thank you for posting Janus58! I skimmed over what you wrote because I just got off work and my mind not the sharpest at the moment. I fully intend to read it more carefully tomorrow!!


I repeat what I said in the last post; you simply cannot make an electrostatic attraction model that will mimic what we see happening around us.

I'm just curious but has anyone ever tried to actually create some sort of model based on this theory to mimic the effects of gravity? All you would need are a couple of almost completely neutral but slightly charged spheres set inside a vacuum. I wonder if orbit could be achieved this way? Hmm.

I made a mistake. Although I think it's possible for the illusion of gravity to be created through voltage, I believe it is much more common within the observable universe that magnetism is what causes this illusion of gravity.

All we would need to prove this is to put 1 sphere in a vacuum with a given magnetic dipole of a certain strength and then put spheres of various masses (some ferromagnetic, some not, some mixed) without any magnetic field in along with it. Then change the strength of the dipole in the same sphere (higher or lower) and observe if any changes in attraction between the spheres occur.

I made a mistake. Although I think it's possible for the illusion of gravity to be created through voltage, I believe it is much more common within the observable universe that magnetism is what causes this illusion of gravity.

All we would need to prove this is to put 1 sphere in a vacuum with a given magnetic dipole of a certain strength and then put spheres of various masses (some ferromagnetic, some not, some mixed) without any magnetic field in along with it. Then change the strength of the dipole in the same sphere (higher or lower) and observe if any changes in attraction between the spheres occur.

If gravity was and illusion and the force was actually a result of electromagnatisim it would be easy to measure this. There is no significant measured electormagnetic interaction between the planets, moons and stars. You are completely off track and heading for a cliff.

I made a mistake. Although I think it's possible for the illusion of gravity to be created through voltage, I believe it is much more common within the observable universe that magnetism is what causes this illusion of gravity.

All we would need to prove this is to put 1 sphere in a vacuum with a given magnetic dipole of a certain strength and then put spheres of various masses (some ferromagnetic, some not, some mixed) without any magnetic field in along with it. Then change the strength of the dipole in the same sphere (higher or lower) and observe if any changes in attraction between the spheres occur.

There is no need to do such an experiment as nature does it for us already. There are a number of substances that are diamagnetic. They are the complete opposite of ferromagnetic materials in that they are repelled by magnetic fields. Examples of such materials are Bismuth, Mercury, Silver, Gold, Lead, and water. Any magnetic field strong enough to mimic say, the gravity of the Earth would repel these substances.

In addition, magnetism falls victim to many of the same flaws as electrostatic charge would; No equivalence between attraction and inertial mass and it would not adhere to to the inverse square law for examples.


Honestly, think about it. One of the "Holy Grails" of physics is, and has been for a long time, the unification of the forces; finding a single explanation for them all. Do you really think that in all that time, the countless scientists who have tackled this problem would have missed such a simple answer if it was viable in the least bit?

There is no significant measured electormagnetic interaction between the planets, moons and stars.

Well by virtue of all of the bodies in the solar system having a magnetic field... and since flux waves theoretically go on forever at progressively weaker strengths... there must be interaction between the fields. It's actually quite funny and fitting that you say there is "no significant measured electromagnetic interaction" - meaning the net force is weak - because gravity is known as the big weak force!!


There is no need to do such an experiment as nature does it for us already. There are a number of substances that are diamagnetic. They are the complete opposite of ferromagnetic materials in that they are repelled by magnetic fields. Examples of such materials are Bismuth, Mercury, Silver, Gold, Lead, and water. Any magnetic field strong enough to mimic say, the gravity of the Earth would repel these substances.

I don't see how the existence of diamagnetic substances makes this experiment unnecessary? Maybe I didn't describe the experiment clear enough, but in it I want to see if magnetic fields can simulate what we observe as gravity in a vacuum using spheres with varying masses and magnetic field strengths.


In addition, magnetism falls victim to many of the same flaws as electrostatic charge would; No equivalence between attraction and inertial mass and it would not adhere to to the inverse square law for examples.

A low magnetic field strength attracting a more or less neutral body might not react the same way we would expect two bar magnets to attract for instance. From what I can tell from searching, there doesn't seem to be much research into weak magnetic fields in a vacuum.


Honestly, think about it. One of the "Holy Grails" of physics is, and has been for a long time, the unification of the forces; finding a single explanation for them all. Do you really think that in all that time, the countless scientists who have tackled this problem would have missed such a simple answer if it was viable in the least bit?

You would think but then again stranger things have happened. Sometimes the most difficult things to see are the things right in front of our nose.

This idea keeps coming up again and again.

We have a very good understanding of electromagnetism, and the laws which govern it's behavior. Our technological civilization is based upon it. It is nothing like gravity. There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism.

This idea keeps coming up again and again.

We have a very good understanding of electromagnetism, and the laws which govern it's behavior. Our technological civilization is based upon it. It is nothing like gravity. There is no relationship between gravity and electromagnetism.

The OP stated an opposite relationship....


In other words our universe has struck a fine state of balance between the positive and negative electromagnetic forces leaving only a weak potential difference which we have labeled as "gravity."

That's not exactly a relationship.

Originally Posted by origin
There is no significant measured electormagnetic interaction between the planets, moons and stars.

Well by virtue of all of the bodies in the solar system having a magnetic field... and since flux waves theoretically go on forever at progressively weaker strengths... there must be interaction between the fields. It's actually quite funny and fitting that you say there is "no significant measured electromagnetic interaction" - meaning the net force is weak - because gravity is known as the big weak force!!

Really? Then lets see you jump 10 ft straight up in the air.

Really? Then lets see you jump 10 ft straight up in the air.

Hehe... it is strong compared to me but weak compared to what we know electromagnetism is capable of (hence the designation of the "big weak force" in comparison to the "small strong force")... you know this.. :rolleyes:

I just want to make clear to everybody that the OP may be misleading because the terminology seems to allude more to voltage than to magnetism as the source of what we call "gravity."

I now believe it is a very weak and balanced magnetism in almost, if not every case, that creates what we know of as gravity.

Lol Wake Up People!! Look into the sky and This is what a giant, naturally occurring circuit board looks like! Ha Ha!!!! :D :worship: :roflmao:

Like all good ideas, it seems it's been thought of before, and with even greater thoroughness.

(I had a link here but just search "gravity is magnetism" in google and go to the second link that comes up)

I wonder how long it will take the scientific community to realize it's blunder of gravity? Certainly not before the hadron collider reeks some havoc...

I just want to make clear to everybody that the OP may be misleading because the terminology seems to allude more to voltage than to magnetism as the source of what we call "gravity."

I now believe it is a very weak and balanced magnetism in almost, if not every case, that creates what we know of as gravity.

Belief is not relevant to science, evidence is; and this is where your belief falls on it's face.

Lol Wake Up People!! Look into the sky and This is what a giant, naturally occurring circuit board looks like! Ha Ha!!!! :D :worship: :roflmao:

No, I'm afraid that is not correct.

Like all good ideas, it seems it's been thought of before, and with even greater thoroughness.

Yes, the electric universe has been around for quite a while. It has been shown over and over to be just so much pseudo-science.


(I had a link here but just search "gravity is magnetism" in google and go to the second link that comes up)

We've seen the links and seen the woo-woo hand waving explanations.


I wonder how long it will take the scientific community to realize it's blunder of gravity? Certainly not before the hadron collider reeks some havoc...

It is so difficult to convey the amount of knowledge and expertise that the scientific community has to someone who is completely ignorant about science.

You have the same probability of coming up with a new concept in physics as you have of completing a successful brain surgery.

Amazing that you cite what origin knows and then still haven't explained how gravitation and electromagnetism could be related, let alone the same.

For gross electrostatics, magnetostatics and Newtonian Universal gravitation (not our best summaries of these phenomena) we have:
\begin{eqnarray} \vec{F}_{\tiny \textrm{electrostatics}} & = & +k_{\tiny \textrm{electric}} \frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2} \hat{r} \\ \vec{F}_{\tiny \textrm{magnetostatics}} & = & +k_{\tiny \textrm{magnetic}} \frac{\tilde{q}_1 \tilde{q}_2}{r^2} \hat{r} \\ \vec{F}_{\tiny \textrm{gravity}} & = & -k_{\tiny \textrm{Newton}} \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \hat{r} \end{eqnarray}
So your problems at this level are (1) the minus sign, (2) the fact that the respective charges q, \; \tilde{q} \; \textrm{and} \; m are not simply related for any macroscopic object or their constituent elementary particles, and (3) the various versions of k don't have the same units and can't be simply written in terms of one another.

Just for the sake of discussion, in SI units we have:
\begin{eqnarray} k_{\tiny \textrm{electric}} & = & \frac{1}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0} & = & c^2 \; \times \; 10^{\tiny -7} \; \textrm{m} \; \textrm{kg} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -2} \; \textrm{A}^{\tiny -2} & = & 8987551787.3681764 \; \textrm{m}^{\tiny 3} \; \textrm{kg} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -4} \; \textrm{A}^{\tiny -2} \\ k_{\tiny \textrm{magnetic}} & = & \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} & & & = & 10^{\tiny -7} \; \textrm{m} \; \textrm{kg} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -2} \; \textrm{A}^{\tiny -2} \\ k_{\tiny \textrm{Newton}} & = & G & & & \approx & 6.67384 \; \times \; 10^{\tiny -11} \; \textrm{m}^{\tiny 3} \; \textrm{kg}^{\tiny -1} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -2} \end{eqnarray}
with charges measured in Ampere-seconds, Ampere-meters and kilograms, respectively.

Things get harder when you look at magnetic effects because no known object has a magnetic monopole moment, if they exist they are exceedingly rare, and the magnetism that exists today is only seen from dipoles. Magnetic dipoles do not obey a force law that can be written similar to the above forms.

The best you can say is that they look somewhat alike when you cast them in this form if you ignore the physics. That's promoting form over substance and ignoring data that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

I don't see how the existence of diamagnetic substances makes this experiment unnecessary? Maybe I didn't describe the experiment clear enough, but in it I want to see if magnetic fields can simulate what we observe as gravity in a vacuum using spheres with varying masses and magnetic field strengths.
It's pretty damn obvious. Diamagnetic materials Are materials that react differently to magnetic fields. Where as Iron would be attracted to a magnet, Gold or Silver would be repelled by the same magnet. Thus if the gravity of the Earth were actually due to magnetism, then some common substances (water for example) would not be attracted to the Earth but repelled. Water would fall up not down. In fact there should be no open water sitting on the surface of the Earth at all. The fact that this doesn't happen is a fatal blow to the whole magnetism as gravity hypothesis.




A low magnetic field strength attracting a more or less neutral body might not react the same way we would expect two bar magnets to attract for instance. From what I can tell from searching, there doesn't seem to be much research into weak magnetic fields in a vacuum.

Pure straw grasping and nonsense to boot.




You would think but then again stranger things have happened.
No, they haven't.

Sometimes the most difficult things to see are the things right in front of our nose.

Provide one equivalent example, keeping in mind that it would be on the same order of taking your car to every mechanic in the country, offering each a sizable reward to repair it, and not have a single one of them figure out that the problem was simply a loose spark plug.

Belief is not relevant to science, evidence is; and this is where your belief falls on it's face.

It is no more a belief than the belief that mass is what creates the force we know as gravity. You will say that there is evidence to support this... but every example you can show me could just as easily be explained in terms of magnetic fields, saying nothing of a body's mass.

It is no more a belief than the belief that mass is what creates the force we know as gravity. You will say that there is evidence to support this... but every example you can show me could just as easily be explained in terms of magnetic fields, saying nothing of a body's mass.

You are arguing from ignorance. Why are nonmagnetic object affected by gravity - like you.

It would really be swell if you would actually consider this point, and not add more pseudo-science to explain it.

It is no more a belief than the belief that mass is what creates the force we know as gravity. You will say that there is evidence to support this... but every example you can show me could just as easily be explained in terms of magnetic fields, saying nothing of a body's mass.

Will you make your mind up. You talk about magnetic fields, but here...


In other words our universe has struck a fine state of balance between the positive and negative electromagnetic forces leaving only a weak potential difference which we have labeled as "gravity."

... you talk about a weak potential difference between positive, and negative. The weak difference is a 3rd state which you can call Gravity, not magnetism. I am concerned that this will come back on me. You will cloud over the difference, and just use the word magnetism. Use the word Gravity as the difference.

Things get harder when you look at magnetic effects because no known object has a magnetic monopole moment, if they exist they are exceedingly rare, and the magnetism that exists today is only seen from dipoles. Magnetic dipoles do not obey a force law that can be written similar to the above forms.

I don't understand why a monopole is necessary in order to validate this theory? I really should start a new thread because I think the misleading part is that I've changed my position from that of the original OP and I clarified in the post at the top of page 2.

Thank you very much rpenner for your thoughtful replies. You bring up legitimate criticisms of this theory and there's no condescension or name calling... I appreciate it!!

I admit it, rpenner, I am stumped! I do not know what k is and so I do not know why it is (+) in the electro/magnetostatic equations and (-) in the gravitational ones. Perhaps when I find out I will ponder it and either modify the theory accordingly or drop it altogether. For now I remain in a kind of limbo - though gravity being magnetism still feels right to me...

Will you make your mind up.

Already did Pincho, check out post #21. Thanks.

Already did Pincho, check out post #21. Thanks.

Ok well by changing it I disagree with you.

Well I disagree.

I don't think gravity is electromagnetism at all. I think Gravity is a Psuedoforce, certainly not the electromagnetic interactions. One main reason is because we can see a great difference between both their magnitudes of strength. You hold a magnet to the very pinacle of the north pole to lift a small magnetite from the force of the earths gravitational field and then it gives you a good approximation of the difference of strengths. That magnet will lift that object from the earth's surface against the entire mass of the earth. That is how much stronger the EM force is in compared to the Gravitational force, which has a lot of suggestions that it might actually be a psuedoforce much like the Coriolis force.

Just to add, the strength of gravity (which is an interaction term) in your equation yields the strength of gravity between two particles. It is given by

g = \frac{\hbar c}{GM^2}

Where g is a coupling constant.

Amazing that you cite what origin knows and then still haven't explained how gravitation and electromagnetism could be related, let alone the same.

For gross electrostatics, magnetostatics and Newtonian Universal gravitation (not our best summaries of these phenomena) we have:
\begin{eqnarray} \vec{F}_{\tiny \textrm{electrostatics}} & = & +k_{\tiny \textrm{electric}} \frac{q_1 q_2}{r^2} \hat{r} \\ \vec{F}_{\tiny \textrm{magnetostatics}} & = & +k_{\tiny \textrm{magnetic}} \frac{\tilde{q}_1 \tilde{q}_2}{r^2} \hat{r} \\ \vec{F}_{\tiny \textrm{gravity}} & = & -k_{\tiny \textrm{Newton}} \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} \hat{r} \end{eqnarray}
So your problems at this level are (1) the minus sign, (2) the fact that the respective charges q, \; \tilde{q} \; \textrm{and} \; m are not simply related for any macroscopic object or their constituent elementary particles, and (3) the various versions of k don't have the same units and can't be simply written in terms of one another.

Just for the sake of discussion, in SI units we have:
\begin{eqnarray} k_{\tiny \textrm{electric}} & = & \frac{1}{4 \pi \varepsilon_0} & = & c^2 \; \times \; 10^{\tiny -7} \; \textrm{m} \; \textrm{kg} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -2} \; \textrm{A}^{\tiny -2} & = & 8987551787.3681764 \; \textrm{m}^{\tiny 3} \; \textrm{kg} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -4} \; \textrm{A}^{\tiny -2} \\ k_{\tiny \textrm{magnetic}} & = & \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} & & & = & 10^{\tiny -7} \; \textrm{m} \; \textrm{kg} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -2} \; \textrm{A}^{\tiny -2} \\ k_{\tiny \textrm{Newton}} & = & G & & & \approx & 6.67384 \; \times \; 10^{\tiny -11} \; \textrm{m}^{\tiny 3} \; \textrm{kg}^{\tiny -1} \; \textrm{s}^{\tiny -2} \end{eqnarray}
with charges measured in Ampere-seconds, Ampere-meters and kilograms, respectively.

Things get harder when you look at magnetic effects because no known object has a magnetic monopole moment, if they exist they are exceedingly rare, and the magnetism that exists today is only seen from dipoles. Magnetic dipoles do not obey a force law that can be written similar to the above forms.

The best you can say is that they look somewhat alike when you cast them in this form if you ignore the physics. That's promoting form over substance and ignoring data that doesn't fit your preconceptions.

I'm not saying anything against you, but essentially there are some attributions which are the same.

Such as the r^2 Distance Law, it seems to apply to the gravitational and the electromagnetic. If it applies to the remaining nuclear forces, I am unaware of it.

There is also the abstraction of ''positive attraction'' between two charged objects, one being of inertial mass attracting other mass which are both positive (+M) and those being of electrical charges, by definition, a negative charge attracts a positive charge and vice versa. This maybe the origin of confusion.

Similar ''attributes'' which correspond numerically but certainly not physically.

In my item 1, the think you should take away is that gravity of like things brings them closer together while for electric and magnetic forces like things repel. This type of thing is called the charge of the thing. We have evidence of only 2 types of things that respond to electric forces. Those things that respond to the electric force either have net positive charge, or net negative charge. Those with exactly zero charge do not respond at all. Millikan measured the charge on the electron by subdividing matter and finding that charge came in pieces the size of the electron charge. Electrons repel electrons. Electrons attract protons. Protons repel protons. X electrons + X protons have no net electric charge and so Millikan was able to see cases with X electrons + X±1 protons and measure this net charge. If the Earth, Moon and Sun all attract each other with an 1/r^2 force, that force cannot be electric or magnetic in nature, because with only two types that respond, you can't arrange them so the bodies of the solar system all attract each other, as their motions show that they do.

The thing you should take away from problem 2 is electricity, magnetism and gravity don't pick and choose which things they respond to/act on. Every phenomena is associated with a particular type of charge and those charges add up. A double-ionized ion responds twice as much as a single-ionized ion, equal plus and minus charges cancel, the weight of two boxes of tomatos is the sum of the weights of the boxes. Every fundamental particle carries a number for each of these charges (the number may be zero) which adds up. So all of these charges have a microscopic picture.

The third point is if one could explain gravity as residual interactions of electromagnetism, there should be someway to get to G from the constants of electromagnetism.

An example is the magnetic dipole moment of the electron, which is approximately:
-\left( 2 + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} + \dots \right) \frac{e \hbar}{4 m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}}} \approx -1.00116 \mu_{\tiny \textrm{Bohr}} \approx -9.285 \; \times \; 10^{\tiny-24} \; \textrm{m}^{\tiny 2} \; \textrm{A}
Theory and experiment agree here to 12 decimal places, which is just one of the many ways that electricity and magnetism are unified in present-day theory. The 2 comes from Dirac's inclusion of relativity in the quantum mechanics of electrons and the next term comes from the earliest approximation to quantum electrodynamics -- the theory of electromagnetism that successfully replaced Maxwell's equations as our best summary of electromagnetic phenomena.

In my item 1, the think you should take away is that gravity of like things brings them closer together while for electric and magnetic forces like things repel. This type of thing is called the charge of the thing. We have evidence of only 2 types of things that respond to electric forces. Those things that respond to the electric force either have net positive charge, or net negative charge. Those with exactly zero charge do not respond at all. Milikin measured the charge on the electron by subdividing matter and finding that charge came in pieces the size of the electron charge. Electrons repel electrons. Electrons attract protons. Protons repel protons. X electrons + X protons have no net electric charge and so Milikin was able to see cases with X electrons + X±1 protons and measure this net charge. If the Earth, Moon and Sun all attract each other with an 1/r^2 force, that force cannot be electric or magnetic in nature, because with only two types that respond, you can't arrange them so the bodies of the solar system all attract each other, as their motions show that they do.

The thing you should take away from problem 2 is electricity, magnetism and gravity don't pick and choose which things they respond to/act on. Every phenomena is associated with a particular type of charge and those charges add up. A double-ionized ion responds twice as much as a single-ionized ion, equal plus and minus charges cancel, the weight of two boxes of tomatos is the sum of the weights of the boxes. Every fundamental particle carries a number for each of these charges (the number may be zero) which adds up. So all of these charges have a microscopic picture.

The third point is if one could explain gravity as residual interactions of electromagnetism, there should be someway to get to G from the constants of electromagnetism.

An example is the magnetic dipole moment of the electron, which is approximately:
-\left( 2 + \frac{\alpha}{\pi} + \dots \right) \frac{e \hbar}{4 m_{\tiny \textrm{electron}}} \approx -1.00116 \mu_{\tiny \textrm{Bohr}}
Theory and experiment agree here to 12 decimal places, which is just one of the many ways that electricity and magnetism are unified in present-day theory. The 2 comes from Dirac's inclusion of relativity in the quantum mechanics of electrons and the next term comes from quantum electrodynamics -- the theory of electromagnetism that successfully replaced Maxwell's equations as our best summary of electromagnetic phenomena.

I completely agree.

I only said what I said to clear up confusion where simularities exist.

Ok well by changing it I disagree with you.

The main reason I can't see it as being voltage is because the universe is in movement... which would create a magnetic field. But then again since it is in space it technically might not be moving in the same sense as we see here on earth...

I don't know, I'd have to think more about it.

At the same time voltage would better explain why we are attracted to the earth and not a very powerful magnet... I'd theorize that an object that has been neutralized by another object (human beings within the earth's atmosphere for instance) tends to stay with that object unless there is an overwhelming force from outside acting on it to overcome this tendency.

It could be that it is both magnetic and electrostatic forces that create the illusion of gravity... that actually makes more sense and holds up better to reality!!

Make your idea concrete.
Put your idea to the test.
Discard your idea if the test disfavors it.

The main reason I can't see it as being voltage is because the universe is in movement... which would create a magnetic field. But then again since it is in space it technically might not be moving in the same sense as we see here on earth...

I don't know, I'd have to think more about it.

Well invisible physics can create all sorts of illusions. I'm sure, if you think long enough you will solve your problem with voltage.


At the same time voltage would better explain why we are attracted to the earth and not a very powerful magnet... I'd theorize that an object that has been neutralized by another object (human beings within the earth's atmosphere for instance) tends to stay with that object unless there is an overwhelming force from outside acting on it to overcome this tendency.

It could be that it is both magnetic and electrostatic forces that create the illusion of gravity... that actually makes more sense and holds up better to reality!!

Something like that. If you want to use attraction that's up to you. I don't use it. It is an old word now, and we are used to it, but it is possible to just use push forces.

Something like that. If you want to use attraction that's up to you. I don't use it. It is an old word now, and we are used to it, but it is possible to just use push forces.

Interesting that you think it all comes down to "push forces"... I always thought of electromagnetic attraction as a suction or pull.

Make your idea concrete.
Put your idea to the test.
Discard your idea if the test disfavors it.

You're absolutely right rpenner. One day, if someone doesn't do it beforehand, I will have enough knowledge to be able to devise an elegant test that will prove, disprove or change the direction of this theory.

Thinking about it, to be honest I can't think of any legitimate reason anyone would have to post an untested theory for others to see unless they ask for it. Other than to invite others to check the logic of it, there is really no time spent on such a thread that wouldn't be better spent doing more research and devising that test.

This is all just a distraction from work. At best I could hope for a sound, logical refutation - you, rpenner, coming the closest, although not refuting, by pointing out more or less what would need to be reconciled. At worst, and more commonly, it will degenerate into name calling and appeals to authority.

So yes, I understand my hypocrisy in being here. Sometimes it's fun just to chat and wonder about stuff.

Interesting that you think it all comes down to "push forces"... I always thought of electromagnetic attraction as a suction or pull.

Yes, since Newton it has been thought of as an attraction. It definitely looks like attraction. If you see iron heading towards a magnet you think attraction. I just imagine what is behind the iron filings, and what is in front of the iron filings? Not the magnet, but the surrounding material.

At the same time voltage would better explain why we are attracted to the earth and not a very powerful magnet... I'd theorize that an object that has been neutralized by another object (human beings within the earth's atmosphere for instance) tends to stay with that object unless there is an overwhelming force from outside acting on it to overcome this tendency.

So your idea is that people have been neutralized by the atmosphere (whatever that means?), but since we are moving with the earth we just stay with the earth. OK, if that were true then it would not take an overwhelming force to move us away from the earth - all we would have to do is jump and we would leave the earth and travel through space. This is based on your idea that objects are not held by gravity but held by an electric field so therefore a neutral object would not feel a force holding you to the earth.

Since high jumpers do not have to have ropes tied to them to keep them from flying off of the earth, that theory must be wrong. Care to try another? Just as an aside gravity is a pretty good theory that has allowed us to land rovers on the Mars - that is evidence in favor of gravity by the way.

Here's a theory by someone more advanced than myself considering gravity to be magnetism:


Gravity is Magnetism Newton was Wrong
First realized and stated in October 1983

BIG BANG THEORY

SCIENTIST BELIEVE THAT THE UNIVERSE BEGAN ABOUT 15 BILLION YEARS AGO. A HUGE EXPLOSION CALLED THE BIG

BANG SENT MATTER OUT INTO SPACE IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

ATOM

THE SMALLEST PARTICLE OF AN ELEMENT THAT CAN EXIST EITHER ALONE OR IN COMBINATION WITH SIMILAR PARTICLES

OF THE SAME OR OF A DIFFERENT ELEMENT.

ATOMIC THEORY

A THEORY OF THE NATURE OF MATTER [ALL MATTER ARE COMPOSED OF MINUTE PARTICLES OR ATOMS OF A

COMPARATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF KINDS, ALL THE ATOMS OF THE SAME KIND BEING UNIFORMED IN SIZE, WEIGHT AND

OTHER PROPERTIES. BASED ON THE EXPERIMENTAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS, HOLDING THAT EVERY ATOM IS

COMPOSED ESSENTIALLY OF A SMALL POSITIVELY CHARGED COMPARATIVELY HEAVY NUCLEUS SURROUNDED BY A

COMPARATIVELY LARGE ARRANGEMENTS OF ELECTRONS.

Schrodinger atom, Thomas hypothesis, Rutherford atom, Bohr atom, Lewis-Langmuir theory.

ION

AN ATOM OR GROUP OF ATOMS WHEN COMBINED IN A RADICAL OR MOLECULE THAT CARRIES A POSITIVE CHARGE AS A

RESULT OF HAVING LOST OR GAINED ONE OR MORE ELECTRONS AND THAT MAY EXIST IN SOLUTION THAT MAY BE FORMED

DURING ELECTROLYSIS AND MIGRATE TO THE ELECTRODE OF OPPOSITE CHARGE, OR THAT MAY BE FORMED IN A GAS AND

BE CAPABLE OF CARRYING AN ELECTRIC CURRENT THROUGH GAS.

FUSION

A UNION OF ATOMIC NUCLEI TO FORM HEAVIER NUCLEI RESULTING IN THE RELEASE OF ENORMOUS QUANTITIES OF

ENERGY WHEN CERTAIN ELEMENT UNITE.

SPIN

THE RAPID ROTATION OF A ELEMENTARY PARTICLE[AS AN ELECTRON] ON IT'S OWN AXIS OR OF A SYSTEM OF SUCH

PARTICLES IN ORBITAL MOTION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MEASURABLE ANGULAR MOMENTUM AND MAGNETIC MOMENT. [AS

IN MOLECULAR SPIN]

MAGNETIC MOMENT

THE VECTOR WHOSE VECTOR PRODUCED BY THE INTENSITY OF THE AMBIENT MAGNETIC FIELD GIVES THE RESULTING

TORQUE.

VECTOR: A QUANTITY HAVING BOTH MAGNETIC MAGNITUDE AND DIRECTION.

AMBIENT: ENCOMPASSING SPHERE

TORQUE: TO PRODUCE ROTATION

ROTATIONAL SPECIFIC HEAT

THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE SPECIFIC HEAT OF A SUBSTANCE BY ENERGY OF MOLECULAR ROTATION WITH

TEMPERATURE CHANGE

MAGNETIC CURRENT

A CURRENT THAT MAGNETIZES A CORE

MAGNETIC INDUCTION

THE PRODUCTION OF MAGNETISM IN A BODY WHEN IT IS IN A MAGNETIC FIELD

EXCITING CURRENT

A CURRENT THAT EXCITES OR ENERGIZES AN ELECTRICAL APPARATUS [AS THE FIELD OF MAGNETS OF A DYNAMO]

DYNAMO

RELATING TO THE CONVERSION BY INDUCTION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY INTO MECHANICAL ENERGY

ELECTRON

HAS A MAGNETIC MOMENT OF ABOUT 1 BOHR MAGNETON ASSOCIATED WITH IT'S 1 ˝ QUANTUM UNIT OF SPIN.

BOHR MAGNETON

A MAGNETON BASED ON QUANTUM THEORY EQUAL TO 9.273x10'21cm DYNE PER GAWS

MAGNETON

A UNIT OF THE QUANTIZED MAGNETIC MOMENT OF A PARTICLE. [ATOM]

LODESTONE

A BODY HAVING THE PROPERTY OF ATTRACTING IRON

ROCKS

THERE ARE THREE KINDS OF ROCKS. ALL OF WHICH ARE COMPOSED OF NATURAL MINERALS AND OXYGEN.

1.IGNEUS: MELTED MINERALS COOLED AND HARDENED

2.SEDEMENTARY: MINERALS AND SMALLER ROCKS THAT BECAME CEMENTED TOGETHER

3.METAMORPHIC: ROCKS THAT HAVE CHANGED DUE TO HEAT AND PRESSURE

HYDROGEN

A NONMETALLIC UNIVALENT ELEMENT THAT IS THE SIMPILIST AND LIGHTEST OF THE ELEMENTS, THAT IS NORMALLY A

COLORLESS ODORLESS HIGHLY FLAMMABLE DIATOMIC GAS THAT IS QUITE ABOUNDANT IN SPACE FROM THE SUN, MANY

STARS AND NEBULAE. IT CAN BE READILY PREPARED BY ELECTROLYSIS INTO WATER.

OXYGEN

A NONMETALLIC CHIEFLY BEVALANT ELEMENT THAT IS THE MOST ABOUNDANT OF ELEMENTS ON EARTH OCCURING

UNCOMBINED IN AIR TO THE EXTENT OF ABOUT 21%

BY VOLUME AND COMBINED IN WATER, MOST ROCKS, AND MINERALS.

ELECTROLYSIS

THE PROCESS OF PRODUCING CHEMICAL CHANGES BY PASSAGE OF AN ELECTRIC CURRENT THROUGH AN ELECTROLYTE [AS

IN A CELL] . THE IONS PRESENT CARRYING THE CURRENT BY MIGRATING TO THE ELECTRODES WHERE THEY MAY FORM

NEW SUBSTANCES.

ELECTRIC CURRENT

MOVEMENT OF POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ELECTRIC PARTICLES [ELECTRONS] ACCOMPANIED BY SUCH OBSERVABLE EFFECTS

AS THE PRODUCTION OF HEAT, OF A MAGNETIC FIELD, OR OF CHEMICAL TRANSFORMATION.

LIQUID OXYGEN

A PALE BLUE TRANSPARENT MOBILE MAGNETIC LIQUID OBTAINED BY THE COMPRESSION OF GASEOUS OXYGEN.

COMPRESS

TO REDUCE THE VOLUME, SIZE, DURATION, DENSITY, OR DEGREE OF CONCENTRATION OF BY OR AS IF BY PRESSURE; TO

PRESS TOGETHER CAUSING PRESSURE.

MAGNETIC FIELD

A REGION SUBJECT TO THE INFLUENCE OF MAGNETISM THAT IS MANIFESTED BY THE MECHANICAL FORCES THAT EXERTS

UPON ELECTRICITY MOVING UPON IT AND UPON THE POLES OF MAGNETS PLACED IN IT.

MAGNETIC MERIDIAN

A LINE IN THE EARTHS SURFACE APPROXIMATING A GREAT CIRCLE PASSING THROUGH THE NORTH AND SOUTH POLE.

[MAGNETIC POLES]

MAGNETIC RESONANCE

THE OPERATING PRINCIPLE OF THE CYCLOTRON AND SIMILAR ACCELERATIONS AT EVERY HALF REVOLUTION BY AN

ELECTRIC FIELD IN RESONANCE WITH THE REVOLVING FREQUENCIES WITH IONS OR PARTICLES.

CYCLOTRON

CIRCULAR MOVEMENTS OF PARTICLES AS PROPELLED BY MEANS OF AN ALTERNATING ELECTRIC FIELD BETWEEN

ELECTRODES AND A CONSTANT MAGNETIC FIELD.

MAGNETOSPHERE

A REGION OF UPPER ATMOSPHERE THAT EXPANDS FOR THOUSANDS OF MILES AND IS DOMINATED BY THE EARTHS MAGNETIC

FIELD SO THAT CHARGED PARTICLES [ IONS] ARE CAUGHT IN IT.
ION SPHERE

UPPERMOST PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE KNOWN TO HAVE CHARGED PARTICLES.

OZONE

UPPER PART OF STRATOSPHERE MADE MOSTLY OF OXYGEN AND THIS PART OF THE ATMOSPHERE PROTECTS EARTH FROM

HARMFUL UV RAYS

THEORETICAL COMBINATION CONCLUSION

THE BIG BANG OCCURS , MATTERS OF DIFFERENT SUBSTANCES ARE EJECTED THROUGHOUT SPACE. AN IRON BALL OF

GREAT MASS THAT IS EXTREMELY HOT, BEGINS TO CAUSE ATOMIC FUSION. TREMENDOUS QUANTITIES OF ENERGY BEGIN

TO RELEASE. WITH ENERGY COMES ROTATIONAL SPECIFIC HEAT. THIS IS ALSO ACCOMPANIED BY MOLECULAR SPIN. THE

ATOMS NOW BECOME IONS CAUSED BY ELECTRICAL CURRENT FROM THE PRODUCTION OF HEAT CAUSED BY THE MOLECULAR

SPIN AND CONTRIBUTED BY ROTATIONAL SPECIFIC HEAT. EVERY ION CONTAINS ELECTRONS AND ALL ELECTRONS CONTAIN

NATURAL MAGNETIC MOVEMENT[BOHR].

NOW BECAUSE OF THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF IONS PRESENT IN THIS IRON BALL A MAGNETIC CURRENT IS CREATED.A

MAGNETIC CURRENT OF GREAT PROPORTIONS. THE MAGNETIC CURRENT NOW MAGNETIZES THE VERY CORE OF THE IRON

BALL, THE IRON BALL CONTINUES TO DISPLAY MAGNETIC MOVEMENT [ROTATION] FREELY THROUGH SPACE IN DARKNESS

EACH LAYER COOLING FROM THE FREEZING TEMPERATURES IN SPACE CAUSING THROUGH ELECTROLYSIS WHAT IS NOW

KNOWN AS ROCK TO FORM ALL OVER THIS IRON BALL. MOLECULAR SPIN AND MAGNETIC MOMENT CONTINUE THROUGH

CONSTANT CYCLOTRON. THIS ALSO CAUSES MAGNETIC RESONANCE. ROCKS CONTAIN OXYGEN NATURALLY AS WELL AS

MINERALS . THE OXYGEN IS FREELY RELEASED INTO SPACES ATMOSPHERE. AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE IS NO

“GRAVITATIONAL PULL” . AS THE ELEMENT HYDROGEN COMES INTO CONTACT WITH THE OXYGEN BEING RELEASED FROM

OUR IRON BALL THEY BEGIN TO BOND CAUSING WATER TO FILL IN THESE ROCKS.

SUDDENLY THE IRON BALL COMES INTO CONTACT WITH THE SUNS MAGNETIC FIELD. BECAUSE THE IRON BALLS CORE IS

IRON IT IS RAPIDLY PULLED BY MAGNETIC FORCE TOWARDS THE SUN. THE CLOSER THE IRON BALL GETS TO THE SUN

THE HOTTER THE BALL BECOMES, CAUSING WATER TO EVAPORATE IN LARGE QUANTITIES AS WELL AS AT A RAPID RATE.

EVAPORATION CAUSES THE OXYGEN TO RE-RELEASED. AS THE IRON BALL GETS CLOSER TO THE SUN THE PRESSURE THAT

BUILDS BETWEEN THE TWO ITEMS BECOMES ENORMOUS.

THE OXYGEN THAT IS RAPIDLY BEING RELEASED IS NOW UNDER EXTREME COMPRESSION, THE COMPRESSION IS CAUSING

OXYGEN TO CHANGE INTO LIQUID OXYGEN , LIQUID OXYGEN IS HIGHLY MAGNETIC. A MAGNETIC FIELD NOW FORMS

COMPLETELY AROUND THE BALL. THIS MAGNETIC FIELD NOW HAS IT'S OWN MAGNETIC PUSH INSIDE OF THE

MAGNETOSPHERE PUSHING TOWARDS THE MAGNETIZED CORE. ALSO PRODUCING MAGNETIC PUSH ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE

MAGNETOSPHERE. IT IS NOW ABLE TO REFLECT THE SUNS MAGNETIC PULL. THE EARTH DID NOT HAVE A MAGNETIC FORCE

THAT WAS NECESSARY FOR CATASTROPHIC COLLISION SO IT CREATED ONE UNDER”PRESSURE” SO TO SAY. SURVIVAL OF

THE FITTEST. IT ROTATES DUE TO MAGNETIC MOVEMENT. THUS CAUSING ORBITS AROUND THE SUN.

MEANWHILE INSIDE OF THE EARTHS NEW MAGNETIC FIELD MAGNETIC INDUCTION IS CREATED.

ALL LIVING MATTER IS COMPOSED OF MAGNETIC ELEMENTS[i.e. IRON].

http://newtonsrival.hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism

Here's a theory by someone more advanced than myself considering gravity to be magnetism:



http://newtonsrival.hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism

So you consider this crank to be a more advanced crank?

A bit over my head, but kinda interesting.

"This magnetic force of the nucleus forms the basic principle for the explanation of gravity."

http://www.gravityismagnetism.com/part2.php

Here's a theory by someone more advanced than myself considering gravity to be magnetism:

Really, that guy is more advanced. Well that is a rather embrassing admission.:eek:

A bit over my head, but kinda interesting.

Interesting like an oddly shaped dog turd, maybe.


"This magnetic force of the nucleus forms the basic principle for the explanation of gravity."


The guy that came up with this stupid idea doesn't have sense enough to pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. He is a lost ball in high weed. Ah say, he's about a sharp as a bowling ball.:rolleyes:

I'm not an expert in physics or anything but an interesting thought occurred to me today. I don't know if someone else has already thought of this. Could it be that what we perceive as gravity is just a heavily neutralized magnetic/electrostatic force? In other words our universe has struck a fine state of balance between the positive and negative electromagnetic forces leaving only a weak potential difference which we have labeled as "gravity."

Thanks for reading and I'm eager to hear the responses!!

I have wondered if space-time has dielectric and fluid-like properties and if what we call gravity, is analogous to the surface tension for a surface trapped between two media, where massive objects cause indentations in the surface of space-time.

Gravity would not be caused by electromagnetism per se but it would be an effect of the indentations made by mass and energy on the surface :shrug:

The cheerios effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerio_effect

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9425907/#.T1cBuPWDmSo




...

I have wondered if space-time has dielectric and fluid-like properties and if what we call gravity, is analogous to the surface tension for a surface trapped between two media, where massive objects cause indentations in the surface of space-time.

Gravity would not be caused by electromagnetism per se but it would be an effect of the indentations made by mass and energy on the surface :shrug:

The cheerios effect:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerio_effect

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9425907/#.T1cBuPWDmSo




...

That's Einstein's theory isn't it? Anyway, the indentations might not be explained the way they are supposed to be explained. You might say that mass is creating the indentations, but I would say that negative mass is creating the indentations. So instead of thinking about the cheerios as mass, you think of the Cheerios as sponges. You then have to get your head around the paper clips as sponges too. You have to give electrons negative mass to do that. Then the paper clips become sponges for a smaller particle than water.

Really, that guy is more advanced. Well that is a rather embrassing admission.:eek:

It's a girl actually, and feel free, along with AlexG, to sling insults instead of addressing the theory that was presented. This way people will be much more aware after reading this the value of the contributions you make to intellectual discussion (zero) and will know better for the future to ignore you. Thanks in advance!

Now... moving on to more important things...

A thought experiment:

Consider two magnetic monopoles with adjustable intensities and a mass that stays constant. Now put these two monopoles in a vacuum to observe them. At high intensities they will move toward and collide into one another very quickly. As the intensity is decreased incrementally the speed toward their center decreases proportionally to the increments.

Now where I think the disagreements start is when we approach a non-existent magnetic field. But remember! Such a thing does not exist! Even a spec of dust possesses a minuscule magnetic field because the movement of it's atoms electrons do not completely cancel each other out - it would be a 1 in a zillion to the zillionth power that any spec of dust would be ordered in such a way as to have no magnetic field (which probably has happened at some point in the course of the universe's life - but then who would have noticed it??)

Now why is it unreasonable to speculate that these tiny magnetic fields we and every object in nature possess to some degree are what's keeping us more attracted to earth than to space?

To believe in the current theory of gravity you actually have to invent a particle that hasn't been discovered yet... the jury's still out. How is it more plausible to rely on an imaginary particle (so far) when this is just as reasonable?

This crackpot theory has been around a long time in many incarnations. It has been debunked innumerable times and there's really no reason to have to do it again.

This crackpot theory has been around a long time in many incarnations. It has been debunked innumerable times and there's really no reason to have to do it again.

Then whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy are you hereeeeeeeeeeee??

You're all bluster and no substance. What have you added by this statement? What have you proved by this statement? Debunk it or leave. :soapbox:

Now why is it unreasonable to speculate that these tiny magnetic fields we and every object in nature possess to some degree are what's keeping us more attracted to earth than to space?

If magnetism is keeping a wooden table on the earth then why can I take a huge electromagnet, that can life a truck, and place it above the table with out it having any affect on the table? If the magnet has no affect on the table then the table should be weightless.

If gravity were electromagnetic, it would follow the laws of electromagnetism, which are quite well developed and understood.

It doesn't.

Please refer to my post, "True Sapience", for my input on this subject to your some of your behavior on this forum...

Thank you.

Please refer to my post, "True Sapience", for my input on this subject to your some of your behavior on this forum...

Thank you.

This is your post 'True Sapience". So now what do you want?