Gravity is still electromagnetism

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!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

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

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Interesting like an oddly shaped dog turd, maybe.

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

 

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.

 

True Sapience

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

Thank you.