Gravity is still electromagnetism

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Howdy.....Hello.....'gravity' certainly is a bond with the magnetic and electric fields. They formed at the same time with the development of/from geometrical symmetrical evolution. The same force that maintains that as a mechanical duration is limited and as it varies everything along it's linearity also varies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

More nonsense.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Howdy.....Hello.....Mr.AlexG.....first order form geometrically occur as transfers and st-abilities occur as momentum transfers' and is rebounded within collision, friction, and motion. So the force pressure density becomes a geometry as any of the actions occur. i.e. collision, friction, motion. all produce a structure by their states. These shapes are exactitude i.e. given the same proprieties producing a, will duplicate the geometries else where.....Within the scope of infinity +-1^N (all number),All sizes that can exist will exist with it's corresponding physics. Larger size pervades the smaller. i.e. the Milky Way galaxy could not have existed unless the larger sizes'/physics' mechanical duration and style allowed it to be.....mechanical duration of physics stability is the geometrical strength of the transfer of fpp'. (force pressure density) as a 'time-line-entropy' @ decreasing energy of the fpp' which reduces to zero.... In fact everything is fpp'. ,so The reality is that the mechanical duration is a strength of something and that thing is compressed compression pressure density, which is fpp'^2.....Largeness is flowing all around you and it is fpp', with all it's styles and shapes/ and sizes^N/densities/geometries. All states are an allowability from and of and by space[(fpp') to N] all qualities and quantities.....All this gibberish is malarkey. I am tired of teaching people of collision, friction, motion, kinetic energy geometries and their universality.

 

The only thing you've said which is correct.

I'm wondering which banned troll are you a sock puppet of?

 

There is no theory here. Electromagnetism and gravity do not behave in the same way; they are governed by different laws, and yield completely different field configurations. Electromagnetism is described by Maxwell's equations ( there's a Hodge star between the d and F in the second equation, but it doesn't render properly on this forum ) :

\(\displaystyle{dF=0}\)

\(\displaystyle{d\star F=\mu _{0}J}\)

whereas gravity is described by General Relativity :

\(\displaystyle{R_{\mu \nu }-\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=\kappa T_{\mu \nu }}\)

Obviously, these are completely different kettle of fish.

 

Markus Hanke,
Thanks for mentioning the Latex problem, It's been noted and hopefully will be resolved.

 

To the best of our current knowledge magnetic monopoles do not exist.

This would be true only if they have opposite magnetic charge. If their magnetic charges are the same, then they would repel. Quite unlike gravitational masses, which always attract; this is one of the major differences between EM and gravity.

1. Because the numbers don't check out. Magnetic fields don't behave the same way gravitational fields do. See my previous post.
2. Magnetic fields can be measured directly, and we don't in general measure any magnetic fields where gravitational interactions are present. For example, you would need a massive magnetic field to hold the moon in its orbit around earth ( given its mass ), or the other planets in their orbits around the sun, or even just yourself on the surface of the earth. These fields you propose just aren't there. Plain and simple. And even if they were, they would not produce the gravitational interactions which we observe.

 

let me count the ways:

1. There is no reason for a object's tiny magnetic fields to generate an attraction that is always proportional to the object's inertial mass. Not every object would fall at the same speed as we observe them doing. Magnets of different strengths but different masses would weigh differently, they do not.

2. It is possible to shield against magnetic fields. A sheet of Permalloy between an object and the Earth would reduce its measured weight. No such reduction in weight has ever been noticed.

3. Some substances are diamagnetic, They are actually repulsed by any magnetic field. Water itself is slightly diamagnetic. If magnetic fields were the only thing holding objects to the Earth, we'd have no oceans as they would have been flung into space.

4. With magnetism, it is opposites that attract. Thus for Earth to be attracted to the Sun it must be opposite of the Sun. So must the Moon be opposite of the Earth. But this means that the Moon and Sun must be like each other and therefore repel each other. But all our observations of the Moon's motion shows that it is attracted to the Sun. Similarly, a person who is attracted to the Earth should be repelled by the Moon, but men have walked on the Moon. There are multiple examples of this, such as the trajectories of space probes to the effect the Moon has on Earth's tides.

5. The resultant force due to the summation of a lot of tiny magnetic field in an object would not fall off by the square of the distance, but at a much faster rate. Every observation we have made shows that gravity falls off by the square of the distance.

 

Guys , you might want to investigate the work done by Thomas Townsend Brown on Electrogravitics and a book by Thomas Valone called Electrogravitics and a book by Paul A. LaViolette called Secrets of Antigravity Propulsion

Basicly gravity is electromagnatism based on a asymmetric capacitor with high voltage , it was purely by accident the T.T. Brown discovered this behavior , in the 1920's

Start with this site

http://etheric.com/electrogravitics/ and

http://www.antigravitytechnology.net/thomas_townsend_brown.html

 

There is also the website by his family

http://www.thomastownsendbrown.com/index.htm

 

Gravity is absolutely magnetism! And anyone that says anything different was either taught wrong, or has not taken the real time involved in researching this. This is my Theory actually, published over 6 years ago on hubpages and has over a thousand comments, and 22 thousand readers. Physicist's included. http://newtonsrival.hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism . Join the conversation. And for those of you with rude comments to this person for proposing his thoughts , you should all be ashamed of yourselves!

 

Yes I do! And that is exactly what they did. http://newtonsrival.hubpages.com/hub/Gravity-is-Magnetism

 

Simple question:
If gravity is magnetism why does gravity affect nonmagnetic materials?

 

Publishing a unevidenced conjecture (pretending to be a theory) and having a website means nothing.

 

If that were true, satellites could not orbit the Earth. So it's trivial to prove false.

 

Great! Then compasses absolutely point down! That's why Santa will be bringing you a lump of coal!
He's in his coal mine getting it ready for you right now! Just look for North on your Cracker Jack compass!

Anyone who says anything different passed the 2nd grade science unit "How does a compass work?"

By playing with the little compass in the box of Cracker Jacks, or the one in the Happy Meal? Maybe you should try the Cub Scout brand. One you can find your way out of the woods with. When your life depends on it, you will complete the research yourself.

Which one? The theory of narcissistic ignorance? I didn't think they covered that in the 2nd grade since normal brains are naturally curious at that age. Oh, I get it. This is a theory of brain damage.

Before you were born, or right after the car accident?

Sorry, all lines to that site are down due to Earth's gravity.

You created a few sock puppets a week for 6 years? Let me refer you to a site that discusses other syndromes of head injury, drainbamage.com.

You can't count the 10 garbage collection web crawlers a day as "readers". Besides, due to gravitational interference whatever you posted has been scrambled. They are seeing an ad for a device that tests compasses. It's a little magnet encased in acrylic, from the souvenir shop at NIST.

A physicist's what is included? Chortle? Expletive? Data transaction blocking the site? All of the above?

OK, that's the site to block? Done.

Talking to yourself, about yourself, isn't a conversation. By all means proceed. But when you get to the part "where did I go wrong" feel free to open a thread here by that title.

We are ashamed as he is for relying on the Cracker Jack compass, esp. after it ran him off the road into that tree. That being said, we'll continue to advocate for seat belts, brain trauma centers and TomToms that can find Magnetic North.

 

I happen to agree with Impajah's general conjecture which opened this Thread, but merely saying gravity is a "neutralized" form of electromagnetism won't cut it with mainstream quantum-mechanics theorists. -You would have to describe a detailed alternative model to stimulate any debate of this Issue. -One possible alternative model would be that of a certain kind of ether. (Mine is that of a universal ether acting via simple vibrational resonance, mediated by contiguous elemental ether units. This would be a non-mechanical model.) (Quantum mechanics is based on mechanical effects ascribed to quantum-scale units, like photons, atoms, and so on, which interact via spin, various space vectors, and the like.) An elemental-ether model, on the other hand, would have it that the larger-scale units, producing these complex quantal forces, are built up from vanishingly-smaller ether units, whose energics are basically different in action - simple vibration, producing resonances that are more uniform, and more cosmically-ordering, in their energic behavior.

One could cite a non-cosmic system like an electrical current passing through a wire, to show how the difference in energic patterns, between this ether-model and the standard E-M model, which can serve as an example of how such an etheric energy system offers an alternative explanation for "field" effects that are observed.

In such a setup, a conductive wire is placed between two poles of opposite electrical charge. -Quantum mechanics explains the resulting electric current as being due to a flow of electrons through the wire, but QM cannot explain the magnetic field around the wire with this electron-flow model.

If instead, we use an "elemental contiguous ether" model, the production of a field becomes extremely simple. -The wire's ultimate structure comprises elemental ether units, and the ultimate composition of the space around the wire consists of identical elemental ether units, and all these ether units are in constant resonance, both within and without the wire. When the electric current passes through the wire, it "incidentally" induces a resonational buildup in the amount of electrons along the wire, but it also creates a disturbance in the balance of the elemental forces in the neighborhood of the wire. -The magnetic field around the wire is simply "rebalancing" the elemental forces in the vicinity of the wire that were "unbalanced" by passing the current through the wire.

One could use this as a prototype for cosmic magnetic fields, but for gravity, the issue would be more difficult. -With this ether model, gravity would be very difficult to pin down, because of the vast distances involved, and a resultant "underfiring" of its electro- component, compared to electromagnetism. Gravity fields would be highly etheric and diffuse, and in addition, we are not able to detect the ether. Nonetheless, gravity also becomes a simpler theoretic model if we apply the elemental ether theory. Gravity becomes a simple contiguity-mechanism between solid bodies whose ultimate structure consists of elemental ether units, and the identical ether units in the space between the bodies. -Stated briefly, this model is describable as "ether gravity's simple contiguity-mechanism."

 

Explained quite thoroughly in the Theory!

 

Actually in the second part of the theory there is quite a significant amount of actual evidence. The website is a verification of first publication. So therefore it does mean "something"! Perhaps you should read it before writing such silliness.