Gravity is still electromagnetism

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:worship: :roflmao:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

No, I'm afraid that is not correct.

 

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.

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

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.

 

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.

Pure straw grasping and nonsense to boot.

No, they haven't.

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.

 

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.

 

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

... 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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

I completely agree.

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

 

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.