Gravity is Magnetism
83Gravity 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 ½ 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].
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful (12)
- Funny (2)
- Awesome (8)
- Beautiful (3)
- Interesting (5)
CommentsLoading...
I’ve also been considering the possibility of gravity being magnetism. I’m also theorizing that the expansion of space is due to the repelling force of this same magnetism.
PS: Greg you’re a douchebag. Better hurry back to your herd of sheeple so you can suck the life out of another trend.
I am a physicist and you sir, are an imbecile. I've never heard such nonsense in my life. I wouldn't dignity this with a response except that others may read this and believe it.
I will say that I have myself, checked and re-checked the facts here. I find your theory to be puzzling. You're right this is not what we we've always been taught. Your theory goes against the fact that we have always looked at gravity and magnetism as two separate forces. However, I have searched for and studied the Unified Theory of Everything almost my whole life, and seriously do wonder after my fact checking if your right. I heard about your concept on Youtube and entered Gravity is Magnetism into my yahoo search engine and was quite surprised to see that your theory holds second rank. Now I begin to search for math of this theory and it brings me to having to sit down with my colleagues and spinning the numbers. This may take a long time to prove or disprove. If you're right Keeker, the world will change dramatically. If magnetism really is at the heart of all creation, a lot of science books will need to be re-written. I for one want to be a part of that, so I have every intention of doing this math and doing my best to get to the bottom of your theory. If your not familiar with who I am , I am a professor at City University Of New York, and have done many spots on Sci Channel. If you look me up you will see me on Wiki-Pedia and this will prove my dedication on this subject.
Dear Reality,Ryan, Greg, and Dr. Kaku, I wrote this theory ten years ago as I was only 22 yrs old at the time and really didn't know a lot about typing and was new to computers,I simply did the copy and paste to my email thing. All I can say is, it was easier to type in all one setting with cap locks. I did not realize at the time that it was considered SHOUTING. Reality to you, I suggest you take your million dollar physicist degree and get a refund from whatever college it was that taught you the wrong information. I got my Physicist education for about a hundred bucks in late fees from a public library over the course of 5 yrs and I am a Ma'am, not a Sir . It is you who is an imbecile for assuming I am a man. All the theory of everything took was a little common sense mixed with textbook facts. Apparently it is the common sense part you are lacking. If you choose to take this conversation up you can email me directly at keywuzhere@yahoo.com. Finally, Ryan I appreciate your support and have to say that I do agree that the expansion of space is due to the repelling force of the same magnetism . Bravo for speaking up and not letting the scientific community break you down for using your common sense. And oh yeah Reality, I find it funny that you have the nerve to discredit my theory aka as The Keeker Theory using the fact that you are a "physicist" , However, you can not point out or argue one single fact in it. Why is that? Because it's all textbook provable facts. I call you out , I call out all Physicists around the world to prove me wrong. I welcome the proof to discredit it! But make sure you have the proof before running your mouth. Can you show me a graviton? Hmmmm. No! you can't , no one has EVER seen a graviton have they? Nope. You know why? Because they don't exist.... Now I also want you to know that I could have very easily erased your nasty comments and went about my business, but that's not what I chose to do. I want people to see what you have to say and to wonder and research if your comments hold merit. I want the world to see just how science really works. Just what an intelligent person has to deal with in order to get their point across and what it's like to face debate and heat over every new theory and concept. Even if it is right. Just what it's like when jack-asses like you step onto the scene!. Dr. Kaku, I am honored by your presence and appreciate the fact that you at least have taken the time to not only read my theory but to do do some fact checking on the subject. I am in fact familiar with whom you are and have come across your name a few times during my scientific endeavors. Especially where string theory is concerned. Please feel free to do as you please, and thank you!
Add entropy into the mix, and you're on you're way to prove Newton and Einstien wrong about gravity. So far, this postulation carries a potentially vast signifigance.
Hmmmmmmmmm. Interesting. You do realize that if you're right, that many physicists will object to you and this wonderful work. They should jump on board and explore the realm of what your saying, but many will be mad for their inability to see something so obvious sitting right in their faces. I commend you for the guts you have.
Trying to see if I can say something as a guest first. If it works, I'll start my plea
OK, it seems it works. I am a passionate explorer of the Universe, the laws of Physics, the existence of Alien Life, black holes, etc and I am working on a few articles to post on my website about various theories and belifs. I however am not there yet, I am still reading, listening, watching on courageous people like you to say what they think.
The weird thing comes now: Just a few days ago I had exactly the same thought in my head that came out of nowhere, or maybe it came from the Higher Intelligence who some are calling God, others are calling the Universal Super-Power, and finally as James Garner puts it in his book the 'Intelligent Universe'. So my thought came like an enlightenment and I was saying to myself: Why are we trying to look for other particles with so much iron in this Universe ? All around us, volcanoes on Earth, Supernovae Explosions, the thermonuclear reactions in our Sun and all the stars of the Universe, are all generators of metals, all the planets have melting lava in their core, so, I conclude too that it must be the metallic magnetic field that keeps the Universe in Equilibrium. Don't want to get too much into details, but I totally agree with this new way of looking at gravity. However, I recommend to the author to hone a little her English go back to the drawing board and get serious about presenting her point of view. It may revolutionize the way we perceive our world, our cosmos.
Dear Alice,
I have to say that the original revelation of this information was also given to me or shall I say blessed upon me. I remember in Kindergarten class so many many years ago, when we we're first learning about planets and our sun, one kid in my class asked the teacher , well... how do the planets rotate around the sun? And her response was, well... no scientist has figured that out yet. And I raised me hand as if God made my little light bulb go off and I replied... Magnetism. A response that has always stuck to me. Years later at the age of 22, I was just fondling through a giant Webster dictionary consisting of 3 books to a complete single dictionary, and so many weird things started to happen. Over the course of 8 full weeks in these dictionaries, one physics definition led me to another, each corresponding to the last. In the very end I ended up with this theory. All of what I had read and researched and came to understand ended with our universe all being completely composed of magnetism. This is why a lot of the easy definitions are included in my theory, so I can best explain it to those without scientific knowledge.
Now... Moving along..
I am not quite sure what you mean byI should hone a little of my English, or go back to the drawing board and get serious about my point of view. I am extremely serious about my poit of view, and as for my English, this is who I am and how I present myself, it makes me informed none the less. However I am always open to constructive criticism , and if you shall be so kind as to be a little more specific in your statement , maybe that would be helpful. Thank you for your comment. Hopefully I will hear from you again soon.
Okay you have made an acceptable theory, now prove it.
Becuase what you have to "say" is meaningless, it is like water it goes through the fingers in the hands; you need solid proof. Something tangible would help you.
That is my advice to you, if you take offence, well then i am not sorry. This is my only reply and the likely chance i will find this site ever again is slim to nothing. Have a nice life and goodluck with trying to prove this in your life time, heh.
So when I was in high school, I went to the library, and thought a similar theory! I think that these physics students are just being taught the wrong thing! Besides, it isn't like people who major in physics do anything after college anyway. I am majoring in English and Philosophy, and I have a MUCH greater grasp at all of this than any of these bozos do!
Have fun spending all your money on school for nothing! I learned all my physics from TV and reading books at the library, and so did this woman. She was able to theorize all of this at 22! 22! She must be WAY smarter than all of you guys.
You might interested in looking up Edward Leedskalnin.
I'm grateful to see Dr. Michio Kaku looking into this. It's refreshing to see open minded scientists these days. Just as in Copernicus's times the current "science/thought police" seemed to discourage such theories. The theory "Gravity is Magnetism" came to my mind and I immediately found your site and was enthralled with the additional insights you have to offer. With this theory in mind I wonder if we can't overcome "gravity/magnetism" easier then with the current assumptions. Flight and space travel would be much easier to conquer. Just flip the north side of the magnet over and watch it fly;)
"Anonymous 2 months ago
You might interested in looking up Edward Leedskalnin."
I'm not sure I understand your point... Edward Leedskalnin was someone else who came from obscurity, educated himself. Then proceded to do 2 very amazing things 1. cure himself of Tuburculosis (I think that's what he had) and 2. Construct the Coral Castle in Florida. I think that you may have reignforced her Theory... which may have been your intent.... I said I did not understand your point.
I however whole heartedly agree with this theory of Gravity/Magnatism. I think it has been so blantenly obvious since Newton. That everyone couldent/wouldn't see it and point a finger at it saying Hey! how the heck did we miss this!!! It has been a case of not being able to see the forest through the trees.
My congradulations to Ms. Newton's Rival
Iv believed this to be true for along time and
I dont even have a education it's just plain comon
Sence!!!!
You go girl!!!
thanks for your post it all makes sense now , i have always been intrigued about the meaning of everything , possibly buy watching to much sagan , i came to your conclusion today after years of listening to all the theorys out there and getting even more confused , basically they have no idea what gravity is . it did go off like a flashbulb in my mind and i instantly googled gravity is magnetism . thanks .
Thank you all for the support. I'm glad there are less narrow minded people out there than I originally thought. I'm glad to see that other's can see common sense as well. I appreciate everyone that comes here and takes the time to appreciate my life's work.
It has been proven through an easy at home experiment. This experiment was accomplished by Donald Polmateer on behalf of this theory. This is what the experiment shows: using some rare earth magnets setting one in the middle, then one on top and bottom, making sure that each magnet shows the same charge to each other instead of attracting it.(you will have to so to speak restrain your magnets if you do not have a small container to keep them from flying everywhere) . The resulting effect is that you will see the bottom and top magents will keep themselves away from each other.(which is opposite of the pull in space), so after that its a little re-verse engineering using the reactions we know. Also if you use a container put a big and stronger magnet on the top and bottom of the container with the repelling sides facing another like the others you will see the three magnets in the container held in mid-air(form of zero-g) the top magnet repelling from the top stronger magnet while repelling against the middle while it repel's against the bottom repelling against the bottom stronger one.
For the fun part now. If you take a container and put a alloy in there such as a small metal ball bearing then sealing the container, and cover the entire outside of the container with magnets, you will then see the bearing slowly rotate in mid air keeping its rotation perpendicular to the magnetic field you just generated. Zero-grav.(and since all organic matter has some type of magetic field, I've proven all types of gravity depend on the strength of the magnetic fields. If you take the container with magnets on the outside, making sure that they are not the same strength then alternate the placement in alternating order(attractive, repelling) then put a few more bearings inside of different size, and take the biggest bearing induce heat to it(ionization) you will then see them to fall in ration with one another. The experiment proves that the gravitational orbit is due to magnetism. Then I started thinking what about helium-4=2protons, 2neutrons. helium= 2 2 2electrons. so essentially it is helium with its electrons stripped which explains why helium-4 has a small weakening electron shell. And since helium expands and moves faster when heated it makes the area less dense increasing its overall mass. (So essentially helium-4 couldnt move fast enough to actually fuse cuz it keeps expanding. So actualy it is the ionization state of helium. We cant ionize helium cause of the heat needed. zero-grav is actually the result of cold fusion of helium-4.
Now:.... You can can actually use the same basis with a ten gallon fish tank and quite literally re-create the solar system all of which completely functions on it's own. I have done this. Now tell me... Who else can do this ??? No one! Don't believe me??? Try it. When your done. Give credit where credit is due!
One thing is that essentialy the heat emitted by the suns core would be enough to create the rapid expansion of the elements and the reduce the distance of coulomb's force fast enough(nearly instantaniously) to allow the protons to absorb partial pieces of the electron charge before they are removed during the creation of he-4, allowing the electron charge to orbit the atomic neucleus, thus creating a type of oscilating electron cloud/shell that appears to be weakining. When its realy the peak and low point of the oscilation process that we are seeing. Thus also creating the slight g-force presence in space when the cloud/shell is at it's peak, then dropping the force when at its low point.(micro-gravity) At the electron cloud/shell's peak all matter trapped inside of the field would be subject to the effects of the excited helium 4 and coulomb's law, expanding all matter within the cloud/shield out, uniformaly dispersing all force of the object inside the area of the cloud/shell, thus creating a form of weightlesness.(If this effect was present in enough abundencies this would therefore creat zero-gravity) If you look at the cloud/shell as oscilating and not weakining. You will discover the cause of zero-gravity and micro-gravity,(he-4) especialy when he-4 is all throughout space.
Dear Brian, I can see your post's for some reason no one else can. It is an error on hubpages. This is not the only area that proves to be a problem, the sun being a monopole is also appearing to be a problem. I am currently working on both issues with research. I was not ignoring you , I am working it out.
Thanks for responding . . .
Ok. Since this link has been posted to GC I have been getting nothing but harassing comments. I will delete everyone of them .... Make no mistake about it, if you are here to say negative things your comment will not stay! I realize there are some problems with the theory and know it has some working out to do. The point is Magnetism = gravity. Bottom line. The rest needs to be modified. I'm getting to it. Do not leave nasty comments, cause no one else will see them I promise you that!
I like it, I also question a lot of modern physicists who come up with the answer first, then try and do the maths second. But my question is: When gavity is considered such a weak force, then why can't powerful electromagnets levitate on their own using just the earth's magnetism for repulsion.
to simple answer. All I can say is this. The earth is a giant magnet. It has a magnetic N and a magnetic South. Because it has these two poles there is no doubt that the earth is a magnet. As for why the electromagnets don't levitate on their own, is still a mystery. But understand there are many types of magnetism,(dipole, diamagnetic, monopole, electromagnetic, etc...) perhaps we are not using the right kind of magnetic force to cause such a levitation. Testing in this area should be done.
This is just constructive criticism, i liked your article;
Your theory fails for this reason. Its fine to talk about magnetic materials and what might be happening in our Sun. But to prove your theory, you need to discuss non-magnetic materials. For instance, if there were only magnetism and no gravity, a glass ball should be attracted to a small permanent magnet. But its not attracted to a magnet, it just falls to the ground.
You need to discuss non-magnetic materials, materials that are not metallic, not affected by magnetic fields and are electrical insulators. Otherwise your theory will fail.
Good article,
John.
Just explain briefly why a glass ball is NOT attracted to a permanent magnet? (The glass ball just being made of any typical window glass). Why is the glass ball attracted to the ground rather than the permanent magnet?
John.
Glass like many objects do not have a magnetic field. This is why these objects do not stick to a magnet, which does have a magnetic field. Magnetic field is attracted to opposite magnetic field. However the glass is only slightly magnetic due to magnetic induction. ( the ability to become magnetized when inside of a magnetic field). ( in this instance the earths magnetic core) The magnetic moment that these objects are subjected to or become are not strong enough to cause an actual magnetic field. They are only subject to extremely large scale magnetic fields. Not a puny strong earth magnet. Compared to the strength of the earths magnetic field they are only minute particles incapable of picking up the minute "field" if any, that a light bulb may have produced.
Your missing the point. Many thousands of scientists have investigated the force we call gravitation. Thousands of very clever people. Still today, in particle physics, gravity and electromagnetism are treated as separate forces, and there is a very good reason for that, its NOT as simple as you think. At the cutting edge of physics, its not about understanding magnetic materials, its about understanding non-magnetic materials and why they have mass at an atomic level.
If your theory were correct as you explained it, then you should be able to levitate any average stone you pick up from the ground. A permanent neodymium magnet has a magnetic field many times stronger than the earths magnetic field. What you have failed to explain is why a powerful neodymium magnet cannot attract non-magnetic objects like glass.
With a powerful electromagnet, a scrap yard crane can easily pick up a 5 tonne car. But the same crane cannot use its magnet to pick up a 5 tonne rock.
I understand your point now. Hmmmm. Interesting but I suppose if I can just break through this barrier , we would have a direct and unmistakable answer.
Newton's Rival wrote:
"Let it be known that a proton and electron are really Dirac monopoles."
Here's a quandary.
A capacitor is essentially two copper plates separated by a dielectric (like a thin sheet of glass). You can charge it with an ordinary flashlight battery. Then one plate has an excess of electrons, which by hypothesis, are magnetic monopoles. The other plate has a deficit of the proposed electron monopoles, and a relative surplus of the proposed proton monopoles within the copper nuclei.
If I'm understanding that part of your hypothesis correctly, a partial separation of monopoles of opposite MAGNETIC charge in a charged capacitor should result in a magnetic field that's analogous to the electric field engendered by the ELECTRICAL charge separation in that same charged capacitor. Then shouldn't one be able to measure the magnetic field of the charged capacitor?
The fly in the ointment: All capacitors are leaky to some degree, and there will be a small magnetic field associated with that leaked current. Somehow the experiment must be able to compensate for that pesky little problem.
By the way, I do appreciate nonstandard thinking. Please don't be put off by my nit-picking. It's just one of my annoying personality quirks.
Side note.
Jay O'Rear makes the case that magnetism is a pseudo-force that's entirely explicable by the properties of electric current, and by Special Relativity, of all things. I saw that in an old Physics textbook of his.
Dear Larry,
Can you please contact me via email. Keywuzhere@yahoo.com , I am very interested in understanding in a better way what you are trying to explain to me up there. I appreciate the nit-picking. This is what I am looking for. However, I have had a bunch of just nasty comments since my link was posted on an Antigravity forum. If ppl aren't going to explain their statements and just attack the theory, it is not helpful to me, other people or science. My interest is purely in weaving in and out of the theory so that I may get rid of the pieces of the puzzle that don't fit or belong to another puzzle, then taking my left over pieces and placing them in the correct orders so that a complete picture comes about!
@ John: please refer to this video and the information under it, (it is not my video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEC9G8JUKW8&NR=1
You should all read "Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System" and "The Magnetic Blueprint of Life", written by Albert Roy Davis and Walter C. Rawls, Jr.
@ Ray, Thanks, I will def take a look into it.
You guys with more time than me may find some of your answers in the field of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance and its associated uses in Imaging and Tomograpghy. Keep up the good work.
If gravity and magnetism were the same force, then every magnetic experiment could be repeated theoretically and practically as a gravitational experiment and yield identical results and vice versa. Practice does not show this to be true.
Additionally, magnetic force is unified with electric force and is beautifully described my Maxwell's equations. Maxwell's equations do not describe gravity.
Gravity is a universal property of mass and is a long-range attraction-only force. Electricity and magnetism are dipole according to every practical experiment. I am fully aware that Maxwell's equations may be hypothetically extended to include the concept of a magnetic charge and this results in a lovely symmetry, but the magnetic analog of an electric charge has never been seen.
Probably hundreds of thousands of experiments have looked for an anti-gravity system and failed. The mathematical link between inertia, acceleration and gravitation is well understood, and the existence of an anti-gravity device implies also an anti-inertial device. The existence of that would totally shatter all of physics.
This simplest experiment which destroys your theory is to measure and plot the strength of gravitational pull between two objects with respect to distance, and do the same for magnetic force. Gravitational force weakens by a factor of four when you double the distance. For magnetic force, it weakens by a factor of 8 when you double the distance. Therefore, they are different forces. Q.E.D.
This hub should be taken down regardless of its ridiculous content. The reason its so out of format is because it was copy pasted from else where. One could suggest it was first written in word or something for convenience but I have done this and there is no reason for a change of font and text.
In the dictionary there are two definitions of theory.
A) An idea used to account for a situation or justify a course of action
- my theory would be that the place has been seriously mismanagedThis hub, the imaginations of either an idiot or a dreamer
B) A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained
- Darwin's theory of evolution. Proven scientific theory which has no connection to the definition of the first theory .
Newton's theory is a (B) theory. It can be disputed, but not with an (A) theory. Get a (B) theory or stop wasting space.
Manna in the wild wrote:
"This simplest experiment which destroys your theory is to measure and plot the strength of gravitational pull between two objects with respect to distance, and do the same for magnetic force. Gravitational force weakens by a factor of four when you double the distance. For magnetic force, it weakens by a factor of 8 when you double the distance. Therefore, they are different forces. Q.E.D.?"
QED, eh? I'm only a chemist, and not a physicist. That said, the inverse-cube law that you're referring to probably does not apply here? Why?
My understanding is that the inverse-square law should apply to magnetic monopoles. If we could only catch and study one of those elusive beasties.
An inverse-square law does apply to electrical charges, and there's a fair amount of symmetry between electricity and magnetism. I was reasoning by analogy.
Anyway, if I'm correct about that, then your putative conversation-stopper falls short of the mark.
"Only a chemist?" Shame on you Larry. I have great respect for chemists. :-)
"My understanding is that the inverse-square law should apply to magnetic monopoles. If we could only catch and study one of those elusive beasties."
Can you see a problem here?
Suggested Perspective - please comment.
The frequencies traditionally understood when talking about gravitational force are at the farthest end of the spectrum compared to the frequencies embraced by electric force.
If we can see that it is a continuum of frequencies; each having a distinct magnetic field and hence corresponding magnetic force operating in a feedback loop, thereby creating what appear to be two distinct and separate forces; gravity and magnetic whereas in reality, they are just labels to define different ends of the spectrum of the exact same force which is created by the resonance between north and south or positive and negative or light and dark or good and evil or hot and cold or dry and wet or happy and sad!
WoW Guide Master wrote:
"Darwin's theory of evolution. Proven scientific theory which has no connection to the definition of the first theory."
Here's a heads-up, WoW Guide Master: There's no such thing as a "proven scientific theory." Here's how the game is played most of the time.
1. First you articulate an educated guess--or even a wild guess--about a phenomenon that interests you.
2. Next, cast the proposition into a testable hypothesis.
3. Next, get your hands dirty, and do an experiment that has the potential to falsify your precious little hypothesis.
4. Publish your result.
5. Take a stiff drink, and then read the criticisms of your methodology, measurement uncertainties, and logic. Respond politely to the above criticisms.
6. Wait for others to replicate your work, and to do similar experiments.
7. If your hypothesis runs the gauntlet successfully, then it gradually evolves into a respected scientific theory.
Again, this does NOT mean that the scientific theory is "proven."
Chemist Larry's observation: Scientific Fundamentalists usually don't know very much about science.
Hubpages.com is not a bastion of Political Correctness. Although there are a few reasonable rules, this is a place where we should feel free to float trial balloons that reflect our nonstandard thinking. And yes, it's OK to disagree with a hub author, provided that that is done in a respectful way. This is not the Spanish Inquisition. :-)
Effilnuc:
Huh ???
Larry Fields.
Real Scientists like Richard Dawkins would spit on you. Once declared proven, a scientific theory stays that way until proven otherwise. Just because it is open to debate when NEW INFORMATION is gained which is TESTABLE and PROVEN does not mean it isn't considered proven.
Evolution is a fact. Newtons law is a fact. The three laws of thermodynamics are a fact. All are open to debate unlike say: religion, but all are proven. If you want to debate them, do it with testable evidence. Not a crack pot theory.
Definition of Scientific Fundamentalism:
1. the application of, or belief in, the scientific method
2. the uncritical application of scientific or quasi-scientific methods to inappropriate fields of study or investigation
This is hardly inappropriate. also, anyone who DOESN'T follow the scientific method is not a scientist.
The writer of this hub hasn't reached step 2 yet and they never will.
Be careful not to confuse fact and theory. It's a common misconception that evolution is a fact. This is not true, evolution is a theory. Facts are kind of boring and often obvious observations which are used to formulate the more interesting 'theory". Laws are facts that are really well backed up by observation, but only with a realm of applicability. (Outside a given realm a law may not apply). Theory's make predictions, and are testable.
With respect to monopoles, Manna in the wild wrote:
"Can you see a problem here?"
To me, monopoles do not pass the Occam's Razor test. In a logical sense. they're excess baggage. Do they really exist? I don't know, and neither do you. But monopoles are a central concept in Newton's Rival's conjecture. And in this context, it's reasonable for me to bring them up. My point was that you were over-reaching in the following two sentences of your penultimate post.
"Gravitational force weakens by a factor of four when you double the distance. For magnetic force, it weakens by a factor of 8 when you double the distance."
I haven't bothered to look up your little factoid. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's valid for Case 1--ordinary bar magnets. But it's not true for Case 2--magnetic monopoles--assuming that they even exist. It would have been more intellectually honest if you'd prefaced these two sentences with:
God told me that monopoles do not exist. Therefore...
Then it would have been obvious to everyone that you were playing the cheap-shot, aha-gotcha, faith-based-physics game, rather than the critical thinking, let's-ferret-out-the-truth game.
BTW, until I see more evidence, I'm not buying the claim that gravity is magnetism either. But unlike some people in this thread, I don't feel that my fragile little universe is threatened by nonstandard thinking.
I see some ppl have nothing better to do than start shit. If it pleases the court, I motion that all negative thinkers can willingly go elsewhere! No point of stopping by! toodles!
Larry:
I'll back off with the Q.E.D. for the reasons you state because this is an idea based on a hypothetical concept (magnetic monopoles).
Inverse cube law is easily measured - and yes, this is for magnetic dipoles (because that's the only kind of magnetic behaviour we have ever observed).
Personally, I love it when established theory is blown away, and when a counter example is found against a strong fact. So it would be fantastic to actually observe magnetic monopoles. But that has not happened. The improvement in symmetry of Maxwell's equations when considering the existence of a magnetic monopole is at best curious, but not compelling. Magnetic monopoles are central to grand unified and superstring theories and string theory seems to be our best bet to unify gravity and the other forces. But string theory is very messy and feels bad. Considerable and repeated efforts have been made to observe magnetic monopoles without anything conclusive. So it does not look good at *this* stage, for magnetic monopoles, and by extension, theories that rely on them.
In the practical *observed* world that we live in, at this time, within that constraint, comparing the field strengths of gravity and magnetism is compelling reason to conclude that these are different forces, and it's not only that experiment that supports this conclusion.
Allow me to elaborate for Manna in the Wild
Musical Frequencies (in equal tempered tuning) increase by 4 then 8 in the 3rd and fourth octaves (dimensions??)
Perhaps gravity and magnetism are expressions of the same force in different octaves or dimensions.
This is why they seem to be the same thing but do not behave the same way when tested.
I don't appreciate the "this was copied and pasted from somewhere else" statement. NO IT WASN'T! This is my theory. However I do know for a fact that it is incorrect. I am still working on it. The FACT that Gravity is Magnetism I still stand by, but the functions of my theory above are not accurate. Secondly the spit comment, not necessary either. Thirdly , the problem here is people can't use their common sense. We have a huge iron ball, this iron ball is known factually to have a magnetic north and magnetic south, this ball is covered by liquid oxygen, which is highly magnetic. Maybe it should be broken down in better terms for you, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... see where I'm going with this?
BTW, the reason it is in many different font's and text is because I have been writing it and working on it for over 10 yrs. The original is actually on my Yuwie page. It is much different , but with the same basics as this one. I am putting puzzle pieces together here. I can't tell you how many times, I have opened my notepad on my computer and just typed facts and speculations down. Some of which ended up here eventually.
@ Effilnuc, love it.. your last comment. It also tends to make me think about B flat, which in case ppl don't know, as I'm sure most don't.... when played through amplification, naturally separates hydrogen from oxygen (irrelevant here but a thought none the less) . Harmonics I believe do and will fit in here somewhere.
To elaborate further for those interested
Gravity and magnetism are just labels to define a particular affect observed when two separate things interplay and effect one another, we are really arguing about the affects of one single force/energy being observed in Billions of different role plays throughout the universe - from stars dancing with planets to people dancing together. The most obvious affects of this force/energy that we notice have been grouped under the labels of gravity, magnetism, electricity, wind, solar, photosynthesis, eating food...etc...based on frequency.
So, you will never be able to compare Gravity and Magnetism and say they are the same thing when they are purely labels of the differing types of affects caused by ENERGY/FORCE.
ENERGY is the label we have given to the source of power or the power itself that makes things change.
So, we see changes, and based on the effects of those changes we call the energy that caused the change "gravity" or "magnetism" or electricity and the list goes on.
So in my humble opinion, The source of the force called gravity and the source of the force called magnetism are one and the same thing which is the point Newtons Rival is trying to make???
The different labels - Magnetic and Gravity are just labels to categorize the different frequencies on which the affects of this one ENERGY are observed.
Just like Sound Waves and Radio Waves are both Waves but are observed at differing frequencies - so to are Magnetic and Gravity the same energy force whose effects are most EASILY OBSERVED at different frequencies.
Effiluc wrote:
"Perhaps gravity and magnetism are expressions of the same force in different octaves or dimensions."
Well, yes, sort of. This is the basis of the various string theories.
@ Effiluc, precisely. @ Manna, First off let me explain why I don't believe the above theory is accurate. It was at first my understanding that the Earth kept a constant axis of the North being pushed outward from the Sun at all times during rotation around the Sun. However, I am finding difficulty establishing this as accurate. It has been suggested that the Earth actually shifts the north part of itself towards the sun when half way through rotation around the sun. I cannot seem to find any real research on this. Not even from Nasa. If It does in fact stay the way I claim it does, then ok, I can move forward in working out the bugs of the above theory. However if it doesn't The theory (in theory) is wrong. ( keeping in mind , that I believe irregardless they are still one in the same force irregardless), as for the "various" string theories, I could give a shit less. There is only ONE real answer, and that is why I am here. I want to put this puzzle together, nail that fu**er to a wall, and be done with it! I want to PROVE it. So it is no longer a theory but Fact that is undisputed to everyone else.
Newton's Rival wrote:
"It has been suggested that the Earth actually shifts the north part of itself towards the sun when half way through rotation around the sun."
Yes, this is why we have Summers in the Northern Hemisphere, and not just in the Southern Hemisphere.
Larry can u please show me this data or where to find it on the web? And this is exactly why I said I knew the above theory was not completely accurate. Thank you .
Newton's Rival,
Your wish is my command. Here's a link. The article has a nice diagram too.
@ Newtons Rival
Have you read the material from Edward Leedskalnin? I know it was mentioned a while back, it may help you work through the monopole/north pole tilt issues?
@ Newtons Rival & @ Larry Fields
Some of Leedskalnin's writings have nothing at all to do with magnetism however the article below seems VERY relevant.
I am unsure as to why someone disregarded Edward so quickly in an earlier post!?
Just a snippet to get you started...
Astronomers do not know what causes seasons. All planets and the sun have magnet poles. The magnet poles are pulling and pushing the Earth in axis way. The Earth’s summer end is always a stronger magnet pole than the winter end, and that causes the Earth to slide axis way and make the seasons.
EDWARD LEEDSKALNIN
There are two theories more likely than magnetism to explain the Earth's tilt. One long standing one is that collision with other objects threw it off. The more modern and to me most plausible is simply because the earth is not a perfect sphere, and glacial changes over time has also had an effect. The Earth also has a slow wobble. If you spin a top that is not perfectly symmetrical, it will wobble. If you spin a sphere that is slightly heavy on one side, then it will tilt (and wobble). This simple explanation is far more plausible than magnetic attraction and fits perfectly with Newton's laws. Nothing is perfect in this world/universe. This imperfection is why we have (at least in the observable universe) more matter than antimatter, and why matter clumped to form celestial objects. Even the electron has been both measured and calculated to be slightly imperfect. It's surprisingly symmetrical though: to the width of a hair compared to a scale where we imagine the diameter is that of the solar system.
I noticed the irony in my last post. :-)
Leedskalin demonstrates the essence of what he concluded is a magnetic universe with a simple unified field theory based on the existence of a magnetic unipole--the individual North and Sole pole magnet. MATT EMERY
"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" fits perfectly with Leedskalins theory of a north and south magnet moving in opposite directions (except when the effects we label "gravity" are observed) in a right hand spinning spiral.
A few words from Leedskalnin about education that I feel Newtons Rival will love!:
You know we receive an education in the schools from books. All those books that people became educated from twenty-five years ago, are wrong now, and those that are good now, will be wrong again twenty-five years from now. So if they are wrong then, they are also wrong now, and the one who is educated from the wrong books is not educated, he is misled. All books that are written are wrong, the one who is not educated cannot write a book and the one who is educated, is really not educated but he is misled and the one who is misled cannot write a book which is correct.
The misleading began when our distant ancestors began to teach their descendants. You know they knew nothing but they passed their knowledge of nothing to the coming generations and it went so innocently that nobody noticed it. That is why we are not educated.
Now I will tell you what education is according to my reasoning. An educated person is one whose senses are refined. We are born as brutes, we remain and die as the same if we do not become polished. But all senses do not take polish. Some are to coarse to take it. The main base of education is one's "self-respect". Any one lacking self-respect cannot be educated. The main bases of self-respect is the willingness to learn, to do only the things that are good and right, to believe only in the things that can be proved, to possess appreciation and self control.
Now, if you lack willingness to learn, you will remain as a brute and if you do things that are not good and right, you will be a low person, and if you believe in things that cannot be proved, any feeble minded person can lead you, and if you lack appreciation, it takes away the incentive for good doing and if you lack self control you will never know the limit.
So all those lacking these characteristics in their makeup are not educated.
Ed Leedskalnin, 1936.
Effilnuc wrote:
"All planets and the sun have magnet poles."
Mars does have small, LOCALIZED magnetic fields. However Mars does NOT have MEASURABLE magnetic poles, although it's possible that they were present earlier in that planet's history. Your claim is false.
@ Larry - YOUR REJECTION IS INVALID
To clarify; every grouping of mass has magnetic poles, just because a magnetic field is not measurable is not a reason to assume the object has no pole(s)!
This explains the problems of gravity v magnetism mentioned earlier re a Glass Ball. I feel that a magnetic field has has to do with whether the object is able to focus other streams of magnetic flux as in metal or not as in silicon.
Effilnuc wrote:
"To clarify; every grouping of mass has magnetic poles, just because a magnetic field is not measurable is not a reason to assume the object has no pole(s)!"
Ah yes, faith-based science. There's no arguing with that!
@ Larry Fields - I sense some smugness in your response. It is not faith based science
!
I quote from the article in Science Daily referred to above
"..and to observe how they (monopoles) move using a microscope at the Swiss Light Source (SLS) to make the magnetic structures visible."
I think this article says that scientists have successfully measured something that previously could not be measured???? Just like Mars magnetic poles perhaps!
@ Newtons Rival
Going back to Harmonics and separating water into Hydrogen and Oxygen...is it possible that the pyramid structure at GIZA was actually a hydraulic ram pump that created compression waves that resonated and amplified within the pyramid so as to split the water into Oxygen and Hydrogen for use as energy sources?
This would produce fuel sources with energy output far greater than the input required for the separation.
Effilnuc,
I read the Spin Ice article some time ago. And I'm encouraged that Manna in the wild does not share your 'living proof' approach to science.
The scientists did NOT observe or measure magnetic monopoles. Instead, they found a monopole MODEL. And that is significant.
However a monopole model is NOT the same thing as a monopole itself. Similarly, an animal model of a humans-only disease is not the same thing as the humans-only disease itself. By the way, a hiking buddy of mine does animal modeling research for a living.
In other words, a map is not the same thing as the territory. Most of the science 'journalists' out there cannot wrap their brains around that simple concept.
And most of their readers fail to understand that real science is not the same thing as the 'scientific' fairy tales presented in the infotainment media, and uncritically used as social currency in desultory cocktail party chit-chat. Instead, science is a process, a way of exploring the natural world.
Science is an activity for people who have outgrown, or are at least trying to outgrow, the Dada-knows-best mentality. And transferring one's blind faith from an old Dada to a new Dada does NOT cut the mustard in that respect.
I'm reminded of an old New England proverb:
Blessed is he who has nothing to say, and who refrains from making that fact painfully obvious to everyone around him.
I guess another point to make is that mathematical models and attempts to observe magnetic monopoles is focused on the very hot and/or the very tiny. These 'Dirac monopoles' are constrained to be semi-infinite which is an odd term meaning that it has one local end and the other is "at" infinity. These kind of constructs are mathematical stepping-stones in a broader theory, like for example Feynman's virtual particles. MMs sought in the LHC are different beasts to Dirac's model.
On the scale of planets and stars and the distances between them, gravity and inertia dominate. Because of that inverse cubed law, magnetic dipole effects fall away very rapidly with distance compared to gravitational effects. I can't think of any scenario where magnetic monopoles could possibly explain any planet tilting etc.
@ Larry & Manna - I would really appreciate it if you took the time (probably 20 mins) to read Leedskalnin's works.
To my mind, his unified theory about magnetism and gravity makes more sense than what I was taught.
As I have only a High School physics education, I would appreciate it if you could point out to me the flaws in his theory being that a 'magnet' as we know it, is actually many north and south pole magnets in motion through matter/space/time. It seems to allow for the problem of super magnets not being able to pick up a glass ball and may explain the tilting of the planet constantly in one direction.
I know I am not explaining it too well...sorry for causing any obvious pain Larry.
I do not consider myself
I don't know about this Leeskalnin, Take this quote posted earlier:
"Astronomers do not know what causes seasons."
Everyone knows, should know or will learn what causes seasons. Earth's tilt -> angle of incidence of sun's rays -> varying thermal transfer over a full orbit.
"All planets and the sun have magnet poles."
Apparently Venus has no magnetic poles. Mars has only some localised magnetic spots - need to verify.
"The magnet poles are pulling and pushing the Earth in axis way."
Not to any significant effect. Other forces massively dominate. (Pun intended)
"The Earth’s summer end is always a stronger magnet pole than the winter end, and that causes the Earth to slide axis way and make the seasons."
Nonsense.
... so I am not sure if reading it is worth the time. I might have a go, but it looks a bit silly based on that short snip.
Consider that the earths core may be iron with liquid oxygen surrounding it or, a metal oxygen core (magnetic/paramagnetic) under extreme pressure with liquid oxygen (paramagnetic) surrounding it. Due to the diametric properties of both it may help explain a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxygen
Is there any reason why we know that this is not true/possible? Larry? Manna in the wild?
Just looked at Leeskalin. Don't waste your time if you truly want to learn proper science. Anyone peddling perpetual motion (often with magnets by the way) has no appreciation of the most fundamental and rock solid physical laws.. those of thermodynamics.
Try reading stuff written by John Baez to get a proper introduction to physics.
Manna in the wild wrote:
"Just looked at Leeskalin. Don't waste your time if you truly want to learn proper science. Anyone peddling perpetual motion (often with magnets by the way) has no appreciation of the most fundamental and rock solid physical laws.. those of thermodynamics."
I'm reminded of a terrible joke. Have you heard about the new high-tech embalming fluid? It's called Perpetual Lotion. :-)
Effilnuc
I am not sure quite what you are asking.
But:
A metal oxygen core is explained in that link to become superconducting at low temperatures (made possible because oxygen is special - since it has a magnetic moment)
A general comment about the familiar magnetism that we all know and love. Basically, magnetic fields and magnetic susceptibility have two possible origins.
1. electric currents, which can generate magnetic fields directly;
2. unpaired electrons, as in ferrous metals and some of their chemical compounds, which increase magnetic susceptibility.
By a quirk of quantum chemistry, ordinary diatomic oxygen (O2) has magnetic properties, because it's supposed to behave like a di-radical (2 unpaired electrons per molecule).
It'd be fun to study the magnetic properties of some simple moderately stable free radicals.
Many other compounds are diamagnetic; i.e. they oppose an externally applied magnetic field. This is true for most of the classical organic (carbon-containing) compounds.
One could probably engineer an organic compound to be strongly diamagnetic, and to have some other physical properties (like melting points) within specified useful ranges.
Ha Ha Ha, you guys are killing me. I woke up to all these comments and information. I need to go through it all and read from all the supplied links. It'll be a little time before I can respond. @ Effilnuc, in response to GIZA, I really couldn't tell you , I do know for a fact that it works. I've experimented with it. I also know that it is extremely cost efficient and effective on large scales as well. Why Countries are not using the method to produce energy to me is ridiculous. I have offered this info to the White House personally. Several times. I think they like the way it is. Why not charge 5 bucks for a gallon of oil? Ppl get rich that way : )
Ok, starting to go through this info, but I wanted to post this real quick, I just read this.... "Mars and Venus, are the oddballs: space probes have found no evidence of structured magnetic field lines on either planet, only traces. Since magnets lose their magnetism when heated a lot, it makes sense that Venus, where it is hot enough to melt lead, does not have a magnetosphere. Therefore, it is Mars that is the real mystery: it is pretty cold and is quite like Earth in many ways . . . so why no magnetosphere?" ok, now...This is what I wonder, there are a couple ways 2 separate oxygen from hydrogen in water molecules, 1 is with harmonics/vibration, and 2 is with heat. Now understand this.... The problem with separating the molecule with heat is your actually de-polarizing the oxygen atom when heating it up. The oxygen atom once de-polarized will actually separate itself from the hydrogen atoms, go back up to the ozone layer, (composed of liquid oxygen)(hydrogen actually follows the oxygen up awaiting re-bonding)re-polarizes itself, then re-bonds to the waiting hydrogen atoms (thus causing a spark upon completion) ( keep in mind billions and billions of them doing this at once is what we call lightning) then comes back to earth as rain. Now... Mars is covered by ice, not close enough to the Sun to be melted by the above process. And Venus has no visible water, so hot from being to close to the sun. The planet's in question must be capable of releasing oxygen in order for it to bond with the abundances of hydrogen in space to form regular liquid water. Then.... the pressure from the Sun's pull in combination with the heating of this water being placed on the questioned planets is what in fact causes the magnetosphere to form. So what I'm thinking is, their magnetized core's may be strong enough to sustain the Suns pull in themselves, as to Earth's which was not, or just happened to ... under the right conditions , form that way, because of the abundance of water that was already on the planet prior to coming into contact with the Sun. Yes, No...maybe?
Newton's Rival wrote:
"This is what I wonder, there are a couple ways 2 separate oxygen from hydrogen in water molecules, 1 is with harmonics/vibration, and 2 is with heat."
Harmonics/vibration? Theoretically this could be done with the right mix of EMFs at sufficient intensity. However I don't know of anyone who has actually done it. And yes, I'm aware of snake oil salesmen, who hallucinate experiments, rather than performing them and publishing the detailed procedures and results for others to replicate.
Yes, but only with extreme heat.
The third and most practical way to separate the hydrogen and oxygen in water is to add a bit of electrolyte, and then pass DC through the solution. H2 gas will bubble up at one electrode (cathode), and O2 gas will bubble up at the other one (anode). It's called electrolysis. I had fun, experimenting with this when I was a kid.
A fourth approach was anticipated and verified in the context of solar energy research. If I remember correctly, it involved a ruthenium catalyst. Or was it rhodium?
About the mythology of 'depolarized' oxygen atoms. O2 has magnetic susceptibility; monatomic oxygen does not. However monatomic oxygen is extremely reactive. For example, if 2 O atoms come together under ordinary terrestrial conditions, they will quickly combine to form O2. Forget the fairy tale about individual O atoms traveling all the way to the upper atmosphere, before they glom onto H atoms.
That said, the O-H bond is polar, in the sense that the pair of electrons involved is not shared equally. In this example, it's said that the O atom has a partial negative (electrical) charge, and that the H atom has a partial positive charge. And the molecule itself is polar, because of this, and because of the H-O-H bond angle.
@ Larry - Newton's rival said she has tested the harmonics theory of separating hydrogen and oxygen...lets ask how it was done?
@ Newtons rival - if the ball of compressed oxygen (metal) came close enough to the burning ball of hydrogen - attracted by magnetic forces, then at some point, the force of the exploding sun would counter balance the pull of the mangnetic forces and equilibrium through orbit would be found but would create a spin and a tilt.
Furthermore, the hydrogen blasting the oxygen metal would melt some of the melt into liquid oxygen then into gas then combine with the hydrogen to form an H20 layer around the earth. And on it went...
your comments and reflections on the above theory would be appreciated.
i have posted this without too much editing, i hope you can make sense of it as it is hard to communicate the pictures in my head into words.
The beginning of the known universe begins with a division of something into two things, the law of entropy or love causes these two things to then try to return together to reform the first thing. A thing is defined or created by the resonance it maintains at a particular point in space time. A thing is labeled by a resonance created by humans (word) using a particular sound resonance. Sometimes we think that by creating a new sound resonance or word, we have created a new thing!
By grouping in a pattern a series of defined things in space/time, one creates a new thing. By grouping a series of labels (sounds/words) in a pattern one creates a new thing in space/time such as a book or song.
So, before time, there was only 1 thing. Then at some point in this no-time, something split the thing into two things...the big bang.
Moving forward very, very slowly, remembering that time has only just been created now that there are two things.
If you think of these two things as having two different resonances (thats why we can call them two different things), and that there is an entropic law trying to force the two things back together, until they find balance again or become one, but due to original force of division, the big bang, there is a point of balance or orbit at which the two things come to rest before returning to a singularity. these two things or spheres will spin around one another causing flux of their field resonance creating third resonance or new thing!
So now we have the first three things which between them create space/time and by entropy, they are pressured together but come into balance or orbit and a flux event occurs releasing further 'energy' that is the opposing force to entropy or singularity, which acts on the two things and divides them into three things, increasing flux which releases energy to the opposite vector of entropy or centre of universe. Now with more flux capacity due to the increase in things or new resonances, created by the pressure of other resonances trying to return to a single resonance, there is more flux occurring and therefore more available energy released to split the three into 7 things and then 22 things following the lotus flower pattern.
After theses few short moments in time, we can see the forces at work, but only from the beginning of space/time which we part of. i cannot see what it was that created the split of the first thing as this was before space/time and outside of me. it was obviously an "energy".
the forces are
entropic towards the single source vs division - the original force behind the big bang.
New resonances/ patterns are created through the flux of existing patterns through space/time caused by the energy released through division. this is a feedback loop growing in energy drawn in from the other side of the source before space/time when there was no potential energy as no two "points or things" yet (division required) between which potential energy V could exist.
through the forces of division and collusion, of the original thing, there has continually been created patterns within patterns outside of patterns (chaos theory) that are reflections or copies of other patterns not by chance but through the basic building blocks of a single geometric structure. As a collective pattern their desire to return together concentrates them to form new resonances, matter or elements as we understand them.
the elements try to come together, now more complex, but the flux of their resonance fields in space/time releases a force which is trying to divide them and a new more complex set of patterns begin to collude or collide through which more flux occurs and more division creating more patterns, the sum of which try to come back together in space/time but can't as the singularity can't exist in space/time - this is the imperfection that keeps the universe in flux and therefore constantly being fed energy increasing space/time.
this flow of energy that is dividing everything apart and pulling everything together is what we are now labeling as electromagnetism and gravity etc depending on the resonances or groups of resonances we see the greatest flux occur.
it is natural that under the force of division, we are constantly striving to separate ourselves from this one source in an effort to see it.
we are taught that the opposite of division is multiplication but this is not true. the opposite of division is singularity which is not multiplication. Multiplication is the reverse of division! this needs to be understood to do the maths to test this equation.
i hope this has been painlessly obvious for you, just trying to apply pressure to thought patterns to induce flux through space/time to release energy that will no doubt end up causing a new division in thought patterns in the near future!
to this end, the pattern of resonance that has come to be known as the sun is trying to come back together with the pattern of resonance known as earth and they have reached a balance of forces such that they are relatively weightless.
the pattern of resonance of earth and all things on it are not in balance or weightlessness as they are just parts of the whole pattern of earth that has come to be in balance with the sun.
the forces attracting the two things are the same but the sun/earth force has found balance and the human/earth force is still out of balance due to the flux of their respective resonances and the energy released due to such flux is stronger on the collusion side than the division side - hence a term such as gravity is used to describe this pattern and is confused as the name for the force.
Now, when looking at the balance of these forces between two resonances, one needs to consider the overall pattern or resonance within which they are working, is it in balance or out of balance. this is why gravity and electromagnetism have become two different terms. one describes the effects of force in balance and the other describes force in flux, the effects of this and our need to divide and label things has made us believe that there are different forces at work...for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction, the imbalance that drives flux and releases energy, occurs due to the separation then interaction of patterns or resonances into sub patterns and so on, which can then interact due to a theoretical imbalance only existing by the perceived division.
For all of this to occur, it required a single moment of conscious awareness which was created by a single moment of separation or a magnetic moment!
From wikipedia
More precisely, the term magnetic moment normally refers to a system's magnetic dipole moment, which produces the first term in the multipole expansion of a general magnetic field. The dipole component of an object's magnetic field is symmetric about the direction of its magnetic dipole moment, and decreases as the inverse cube of the distance from the object.
My summary!
Create separation = create dipole = create magnetic moment and you create new universe from which expansion begins! Separate a whole into parts and you have created a new universe. he term universe is actually a term for a stable pattern of resonances in space/time relative to other patterns and is why many universes exist but our consciousness can only be part of one universe at any point in space/time!
Effilnuc,
Even your 'summary' is codswallop. If you trim away the New Age flummery, what is it that you're trying to say? And aside from your token dropping of the term 'dipole', how does it relate to the thread topic?
And one last rant to really open myself up for ridicule!
This theory on the beginning of time/universe cannot be proven as such by mathematical formulas so i will try and explain using a shape
this shape is a point that is expanded in two opposing directions within space - creating the first dimension!
Now from either end of this new dimension, continue in a perpendicular direction to your source until you return to where you currently are. VOILA - you have created 2 dimensions which, in combination with the first, creates a third dimension of space; a function of the first two dimensions.
Now continuing again from this same point you have returned to, move along a line that is continually equidistant from the source and traveling perpendicular to your first circumference, crossing the first line perpendicularly at the far side and returning to the same point. you have now created the fourth dimension in space which is also known as time.
this pattern can be continued to infinitude and incorporates every shape or pattern in the universe. in other words, if it cannot be constructed by this method, it cannot physically exist.
this simple pattern helps understand the perpendicular relationship of forces that create flux or pressure releasing energy by division or harmony and why it is therefore one single magnetic force acting on an opposing vector to entropy and why in relevance to this thread, magnetism is gravity!
@ Larry,
i would appreciate it if you could attempt to positively contribute or at the least, understand the truth of what is being discussed and stop writing in a manner which resonates with a patronising tone.
you have actually attempted to insult me simply because you do not understand what i have written. you have made no attempt to understand it, you have not asked one relevant question in an effort to understand, and furthermore in your fear based reality, you have felt a need to protect yourself by attacking me personally rather than attacking my argument - using words like New age, codswallop and dropping!
i started by saying i hope you can make sense of it! obviously you cannot make sense of it, or do not wish to. i am sorry for that, i really hoped it made sense!
DOES EVERYONE ELSE READ THIS AS GOBBLIGUKE OR CAN SOMEONE HELP ME EXPRESS THIS BETTER PLEASE SO THAT THE THEORY CAN BE DEBATED RATIONALLY RATHER THAN EMOTIONALLY.
thank you for taking the time to read
@ LARRY and Newtons rival - there is still the issue of newtons rival having proven the harmonics theory splitting hydrogen and oxygen.
Can you elaborate on this please Newtons rival? it may help larry to understand what is being proposed as the relationship between harmonics/resonance/frequency/compression and vectors are crucial to understanding your theory.
I think a better explanation (that i have just read and it was published in 1998) that has a bit of mathematics to help explain my understanding of the universe being built out of a shape that was created through the division of the source into two separate points being drawn together (excuse the pun) by a line, then from that shape one creates the circle, sphere etc up to a dodecahedron etc are explained on this page http://www.gootar.com/gravityboy/docs/gravity.html
Let me know your thoughts.
to me, the web page explains why energy is released by flux through space/time as space has an energy value measurable in newtons (ha ha) and time is the frequency that is effected by flux, resonance, compression, etc. Also, the four paths of the electron are the helix spiral which was observed by Leedskalnin.
Newton's Rival and Manna in the wild,
I've enjoyed talking with you. But the brain-stem idiots are getting on my nerves. It's not fun anymore.
NR, if you want to talk, you can contact me. And if you're really serious about this stuff, I encourage you to learn more about real science. Chem 101 at your local JC would be a good place to begin. Calculus is not a prerequisite. And I'm considering writing a hub about how to study chemistry one of these days.
Cheers, Larry
@ Larry - sorry to be resonating in such a way as to cause your nervous system discomfort, it was not my intention and i am not sure what a brain stem idiot is? Chemical flummery perhaps? or was it simply a token excretion! either way, how does it relate to the thread?
@ Newtons rival - as this is your hub, i will respect your wishes if you do not want any further comment from me.
Bye for now!
@ effilnuc I can't understand almost any of what you posted. There is probably a reason for that.
@ larry Nice talking with you. You are very patient!
@ Newton's Rival I tried, but can't find any substance to your hypothesis - probably because magnetic monopoles are likely to be either un-observed mathematical tools, or only nano-scale and extremely hot. The scales that you are applying don't fit. The Earth's tilt could be explained in an otherwise empty universe from two facts 1) It's spinning 2) The polar ice caps are unevenly distributed. Newton's Laws explain it nicely. The inverse-cube law for magnetic dipoles is really important and you should consider this more - especially that macro-sized magnetic monopoles don't seem to exist, and that gravity follows the inverse square law. It's really unlikely that magnetism is the same thing as gravity. Try finding theories to explain what you see without invoking those magnetic monopoles.
BTW it's not likely that the real Prof Kaku posted on hubpages... is it?
I mean really... doesn't seem even remotely odd to all of u that Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) works on us? (because Bohr proved that all atoms have a magnetic moment to them) That all living matter on this earth must have magnetic properties like iron , copper, etc...to survive? How can ppl know these things and still go on pretending that there is not a real "bigger picture" here, all of which is based on magnetism. Now I don't know if it's all one kind of magnetism seen on different scales or what the overall answer is. That is why I am here. But first and foremost, Either I alone struggle to get to the bottom of it for 30 more years, or a combined effort of others get us there sooner. I'm really not the kind of person to take other's due credit. If your intelligence plays a key role in this research , then you deserve to be known as well. I could give a shit less if 50 people get credit! I just want the truth. By whatever means. I'm sure as intelligent scientists you can all understand that. I'm not asking ppl to just come here and agree with me, I know the whole concept seems far fetched for ppl that have been educated to believe otherwise. All I ask is for you to spend some time on your own contemplating the possibility of what I'm saying. Look at it from a whole different perspective. I can guarantee if you do, you will start to ask yourself very simple unanswered questions and then add magnetism into the equation, all on your own, things will start to make sense. Then you will enter into what I'm dealing with here.
@Newtons rival - thanks for the definitions - it will hopefully help me communicate less clumsily.
Could it be possible that it was an oxygen ball of great mass under great pressure, not an iron ball. Due to their ion charges, the hydrogen and oxygen balls are attracted as per your theory but..
when the metal ball of oxygen comes into close enough proximity with the excess hydrogen coming off the sun, it THEN begins to spin, the metal oxygen melts to liquid then ozone but some of the hydrogen particles get through the ozone and form water which covers the whole ball. this spin and the various layers of paramagnetic materials generate a new magnetic field attracting other elements and mineral meteors.
These minerals and meteors melt with the oxygen to form various rocks through combination of the minerals and the oxygen and heat and pressure.
an oxygen ball rather than an iron ball makes more sense to me and fits your theory still, i think. Can you please comment on why you think it is an iron ball, or cannot be an oxygen ball?
And lastly:
All living matter is composed of water (ie oxygen and hydrogen). a lot of matter that contains magnetic elements is not living.
I don't see why Oxygen would't work either. What your suggesting is that the earth in itself is but a giant atom. The core being the nucleus. I suppose both would fit. I was looking at it from the fact that we know Iron was ejected into space from the big bang we hear about it regularly , however how often have we heard, and huge oxygen balls were ejected into space... lol! but, I guess I'd have to do more research to see if it is possible, off the top of my head, I don't see a problem, but as we know from experience, research is key!
everything i am reading makes more sense if earth has an oxygen core. if many hydrogen atoms grouped together to form suns, why wouldn't many oxygen atoms do the same thing?
As the two most abundant elements around us are hydrogen and oxygen, then the two cores that are interacting to support life (water) must be hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen and iron interacting to make water and life...just does not make sense ;-p
Are you able to ask some other people to investigate this further please? someone who knows a lot more of the properties of metal, liquid and gas oxygen states...as the limited info i can find only reinforces the theory.
if it is an oxygen core, that will make it a lot easier to prove your theory as it could not be the masses of the earth and sun that are pulling them together (gravity) as the mass of the earth would be completely different to the mass currently accepted.
Also, the paramagnetic properties of oxygen in its metal and liquid states would help show people that its magnetic forces, as you have theorized, not gravity... NEWTON IS WRONG.
What a croc of shite.
I dont know who Newton above me is, but yeah um ok. Anyway.... Your theory has a difficult feat. How can anyone ever prove ( in our time) that the core is actually oxygen? I realize that the same problem may lie with iron, however iron is already widely believed and will be extremely difficult to debunk. Even if it is accurate. Can I see it making sense? Sure! however I myself am at a loss for researching and proving it. I'll ask around, who know's maybe something can pop up!
The comment above mine with the name Newton, is Manna. Same I.P. address. My home page shows me the I.P addresses of every poster! jus for your information.
the core of mars is iron - that might help!
BY Dr. Ken Rubin, Assistant Professor
Department of Geology and Geophysics
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822
Subject: The Composition of the Earth's Core
How do scientists know what is in the core of the earth?
Well, we have a pretty good idea from a variety of indirect measurements and reasonings:
First, we know the overall density and mass of the Earth based on measurments of how the Earth perturbs the orbits of other planets and the moon.
Second, we know the overall density of the variousd layers of the Earth based upon the way in which seismic pressure waves (compressional waves created by earthquakes) move through the earth to arrive at locations remote from the earthquake source.
Third, by examining a second type of seismic wave (a shear wave, that is equivalnet in motion to a back and forth rubbing of one's hands together) we know that the outer part of the core is liquid, even though it is at immense presure from being underneath so much rock. Shear waves can't travel through liquids.
Forth, we know the overal composition of the Earth by examining the bulk chemical composition of the Sun (by examining its light spectrum) and by analyzing a class of meteorites known as Chondrites (which have similar composition to the Sun and are believed to be similar to the material from which the Earth accreted).
Fifth, we know the composition of the Earth's crust and its mantle, by examining samples of them. For the lower mantle, we use experiments of the effect of pressure on upper (shallow) mantle minerals to predict the mineralogy of the lower reaches of the mantle. We then pass seismic waves through it in the lab to see if our experimental rocks match the observations.
Six, now that we know the size, mass and composition of the whole Earth, its crust, and its mantle, we can contruct a balance sheet of materials and see which chemical elements aren't in the crust (including atmosphere and hydrosphere) or mantle that we know should be on the Earth. These must be in the core.
Seven, to aid us in our assessment, we recall that we need metallic elements in high concentration somewhere in the interior of the Earth to generate our magnetic field. Also, this metal must be able to be in the liquid state even at very high pressures.
Adding all this up, we find the core is predominantly Iron metal (Fe). We find it has a significant amount of the element Nickel (Ni, about 4%) and a light element to make it less dense (about 10% by mass). This light element is either mostly oxygen or sulfur, with the arguments for oxygen (too detailed to go into here) being more believable in general.
We can look at the composition of iron meteorites as well, which are remnants of small planetary bodies from early in our solar-system's history that segregated small cores. The composition of these metal alloys match closely what we predict the composition of our core is using the evidence discussed above.
BY EFFILNUC
ALL OF THE ABOVE CAN BE EXPLAINED BY AN OXYGEN METAL CORE SURROUNDED BY LIQUID OXYGEN.
A metallic phase OF OXYGEN was discovered in 1990 when solid oxygen is subjected to a pressure of above 96 GPa[23] and it was shown in 1998 that at very low temperatures, this phase becomes superconducting.
using these figures, and Newtons Rival's theory, can some equations be done to test this theory?
copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid_oxygen
Oxygen molecules have attracted attention because of the relationship between the molecular magnetization and crystal structures, electronic structures, and superconductivity. Oxygen is the only one of the simple diatomic molecules (and one of the few molecules in general) to carry a magnetic moment. This makes solid oxygen particularly interesting, as it is considered a 'spin-controlled' crystal that displays unusual magnetic order. At very high pressures, solid oxygen changes from an insulating to a metallic state; and at very low temperatures, it even transforms to a superconducting state. Structural investigations of solid oxygen began in the 1920s and, at present, six distinct crystallographic phases are established unambiguously.
I know very well about IP addresses and such. (It's just funnier if "Newton" said something like that)
Even Einsteins GR does not invalidate Newton's theory - it just wraps it within a realm of applicability. You could use GR to calculate the time it takes to roll a ball down an inclined plane using GR but there is no point going to that much trouble because Newton's equations are applicable in that realm. In the same way that all integer arithmetic operations can be performed with complex numbers, the development of complex numbers do not invalidate integers. You claiming that Newton is wrong is like claiming that integer operations are wrong.
Tell me, how is it even remotely plausible that the Earth is a giant atom? Do you know what an atom really looks like?
I THINK THE GIANT ATOM COMMENT WAS JUST AN ANALOGY TO HELP UNDERSTAND A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE...OF COURSE IT IS NOT A GIANT ATOM ;-P
Moving along...
Now if earth's core is a superconductor, it emits a -ve charge in all directions and therefore attracts all nett +ve charged matter towards its centre.
As the moon is also of nett +ve charge, it is attracted to the earth but is also repelled by the +ve charged sun.
it is only if the earth's core is a superconductor such as metal oxygen, that it can produce the required magnetic field to generate the magnetic force we currently understand as gravity. note - iron is a superconductor only when it is an oxypnictide (oxygen containing iron metal discovered in 2006 but it loses its magnetic properties at extreme heat).
Now onto string theory...gravity and magnetism
From wikipedia
String theory mainly posits that the electrons and quarks within an atom are not 0-dimensional objects, but rather 1-dimensional oscillating lines ("strings"). The earliest string model, the bosonic string, incorporated only bosons, although this view developed to the superstring theory, which posits that a connection (a "supersymmetry") exists between bosons and fermions.
Now, if we consider that all matter has a nett +ve charge and all anti-matter has an equal nett +ve charge then the universe is the ever expanding patterns/matrix created and resonating along the string between the two points of matter and anti-matter.
Flowing back and forth along the string, caused by the vibration, are +ve and -ve 'magnets' or energy particles that are flowing in perfect balance between the two points, now separated by a vibrating string.
it is the concentrations, voids and patterns of these +ve and +ve 'magnet energy particles' (MEPs) that are moving in a double helix wave pattern allowed by the tension of the string that is holding matter and anti-matter together, or if you like, the string is what is defining matter and anti-matter by separating the source or unity into two...the big bang!
within this matrial universe, we observe the 'relative' difference in nett +ve charge which is why e=mc^2, which is actually the rate of flow of +ve charge 'magnets' relative to another flow of +ve charged magnets which is considered to be stationery for the purpose of understanding the material universe...the +ve charged materiel universe.
THE WHOLE UNIVERSE - MATERIAL AND ANTI-MATERIAL
Flowing parallel to the flow of +ve charged MEPs, in a double helix manner, is the anti-universe or parallel universe from which the constant flow of +ve charged magnet energy particles are flowing from and to which the -ve charged MEPs are returning to.
By causing flux within this flow, +ve magnetic energy particles (MEPs) are imbalanced creating a matrix that we can observe in patterns as the material universe.
Could it be that metal oxygen in the 7th crystal state is anti-matter? now i would consider that to be a lofty challenge to prove!
Newton wants you to explain the difference between a boson and a fermion. Manna will try to understand the interpretation.
Ok, here's a thought i just had while getting ready to go to sleep. If the Earth was in fact oxygen (the core), then why wouldn't it just bond to the Hydrogen Sun? Hydrogen commonly and frequently bonds to oxygen. Why would the earth just head straight for disaster. Also, you have to understand that all the other 7 planets would have to be composed of Oxygen cores too, otherwise why do they rotate around the Sun just like the earth? I have to say, I believe it has to be iron, unless you can give a reasonable and probable explanation for this.
I also have to express that I think that Newton and Manna both might have quite possibly lost "their" minds! lol! ( now that's funny!!!)
Correction of above: Why WOULDN'T the Earth just head right into disaster?
1 explanation?
the force of the solar winds is pushing the planets away and the force of the magnetic pull is bringing them together.
2nd explanation or evidence
whilst it is very common for hydrogen and oxygen to come together and form water, we also know that in the relevant resonance fields, hydrogen and oxygen separate. we can see evidence of hydrogen and oxygen remaining separated all around us...air!
I can't give you a mathematical forumula to prove why oxygen earth doesn't head right into disaster by colliding with hydrogen sun but the evidence is all over our planet...everywhere that oxygen has bonded with something other than water to create elements like CO.
is this reasonable and probable explanation enough to convince you it still may be oxygen?
TO HELP NEWTON CATCH UP LOL
"The electons belong to the class of elementary particles called leptons. The leptons and quarks together constitute the class called fermions. According to the Standard Model all mass consists of fermions. Whether the fermions combine to form a table, a star, a human body, a flower or do not combine at all depend on the elementary forces - the electromagnetic, the gravitational, the weak and the strong forces. According to the Standard Model all force is mediated by exchange of (gauge) bosons. The electromagnetic force is mediated by exchange of photons, the strong force by exchange of gluons while the weak force is mediated by exchange of W and Z bosons."
- Steen Ingemann
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT BOSONS IS THE NAME FOR THE ONE AND ONLY VECTOR/RESONANCE FORCE WHICH ACTS IN 4 DIFFERING DIMENSIONS ON MATTER/FERMIONS.
I think the problem you guys have (those supporting this hub's idea) is that you are willing to completely abandon important previous accumulated knowledge in favour of your own pet theory. Hence, you throw out Newton, argue with Einstein, make wild assumptions about matter that has long been discussed and proven incorrect, embrace in-the-moment assumptions without a second thought and completely ignore the empirical evidence that you yourself can deduce or obtain all around us with very little effort.
Now, I know that there are instances in scientific history where speculation has been made, pooh-poohed by the scientific community, and sometimes later resurrected and entered mainstream physics. However, this only happens when such speculation avoids breaking known physical laws; when it ultimately stands up to peer review, when it is supported by stronger theory, when it is supported by observation, and importantly, when it makes meaningful predictions. Your theory does non of this.
Forces are certainly theoretical artifacts and physicists seek to explain them away - or at least minimise the number of forces needed by a theory. This has been achieved for electricity and magnetism into electro-magnetism, similarly, the dimensions of space and time into spacetime, and the grand unification theories that tantalizingly combine all but gravity.
However, GUT theories come at a price. Increased need for new fields, and dimensions. They are messy and complex - even more complex than the standard model (An extraordinarily accurate and well tested theory).
If you think that by spewing out crap, some smart theoretical physicist will come along, read it, smack his or herself on the forehead and exclaim "Of course! Why didn't I think of this? - I'd better go and develop a new theory and launch this person into the history books.", then it ain't going to happen ok? It's a delusion.
On another note (pun intended)
It's claimed here :
"B flat acoustic pressure "naturally" separates hydrogen from Oxygen."
You need to heat to more than 800C - even more than 2200C to thermally separate water. Singing to a glass of water won't cut it, even after amplification. Why is B flat important by the way? Where did this idea come from? You think harmonics have something to do with it. Well, what's the wavelength of B flat? You can work it out. Speed = distance over time, so the wavelength is the speed of sound (at some assumed pressure in air at some assumed humidity) divided by the frequency of B flat. Now consider the mass of a water molecule, and what mechanical resonance would excite it. Work out that wavelength and compare the two results. I don't think you will find a reason to think that B flat acoustic waves would transfer much energy by sympathetic harmonic motion.
B - FLAT IS 594HZ WHICH IS 33HZ PULSE REPEATING EVERY 22 SECONDS RESONATING AT FREQUENCIES BUILDING TO 484HZ AND 594HZ AND SO ON IN SCALAR PROPORTIONS TO 594HZ
.
THE RESONANCE BUILD UP IN THE WATER RESULTS FROM A FEEDBACK LOOP, WHICH CAN BE CONCENTRATED BY THE SHAPE OF THE WATER VESSEL, SO EACH PULSE OF 33HZ OVERLAPS AND BUILDS ON THE NEXT ONE CREATING ENOUGH STORED ENERGY IN THE WATER TO EQUAL THE EQUIVALENT THERMODYNAMIC PROPERTIES WE ASSOCIATE WITH SUPERHEATED STEAM OR 2200C!
NEWTON'S RIVAL'S THEORY IS BUILT ON ALL PREVIOUSLY ACCUMULATED KNOWLEDGE, AND HAS BEEN PROVEN BY MANY PEOPLE. I THINK YOU HAVE SOME HOLES IN YOUR KNOWLEDGE BASE MANNA THAT NEED FILLING BEFORE YOU SUGGEST THAT ONE IS DELUSIONAL.
whoops, how silly of me, i accidentally got it back the front... it is 33HZ @ 22 times a second, not once every 22 seconds!
i would say it takes 18 seconds to reach 594 HZ and begin the separation process based on this theory??? just a gut feeling from my understanding of maths.
as we also know, thermodynamics is a very clumsy way of transferring energy, the new magnetic "not hot" plates used in expensive kitchens use magnetic currents to create heat...it is not a very big step to see how resonating harmonics at the correct scalar ratios and frequencies could concentrate sufficient energy to split water into hydrogen and oxygen...another 'set' of resonating harmonics is required to control the separated elements as they bubble to the surface of the water!
Back to the earth's core being oxygen METAL OR MONATOMIC OXYGEN IN ITS 7TH CRYSTAL STATE...
h2o splits into h2 and o2 with the addition of energy - where did the extra oxygen atom come from?
h2 combines with o2 and releases PHOTON ENERGY particles in a helix vector and h2o - it has lost an oxygen atom???
so therefore MONATOMIC OXYGEN is the real source of energy pulling from the centre of the superconducting metal or monatomic oxygen core or oxygen 7ths crystal state core of the earth.
this is simple well know science, nothing new in my opinion and based on accepted facts.
I did not enter this forum with a belief that the earth's core is a giant crystal, that sounds crazy! (i had no idea what oxygen did when compressed for example), But it was only a short extrapolation of Newton's Rival's theory and a few more definitions of oxygen in its 6 crystal states...which must lead us to understand the final 7th state and the obvious truth behind this.
it may take 10 hours or 110 years for this theory to be tested let alone accepted, or it may never be accepted. But for now, it is a more complete understanding of the dynamics of our solar system then the present theory. Lets not be ignorant, the understanding of our solar system has been the most controversial scientific "FACT" in recorded history.
Lets spice things up again!
effilnuc, B flat is 466 Hz therefore the period is .002 seconds. The wavelength is about 0.7 of a meter.
... and 33Hz is 33 times a second you dolt. That's what Hz means... "how many times a second".
Oh - 33 x 22 = 726 (not 549)
In fact 549 has integer factors of 3,9,61,183 so how you relate it to 33, I've no idea.
and B flat (described in that term) is not in general a pulse it's the fundamental frequency of a musical note which is unlikely to be a perfect sin wave, but nonetheless more like a continuous function than a discontinuous pulse for most methods of producing it through mechanical resonance.
... and thermodynamics is a branch of study that describes the way to transfer energy. It deals with the interchangeability between heat and other forms of energy.
What's the 7th crystal state? Probably something from an adventure game.
Helix vector ?
Monotonic oxygen attaches to anything it can so you won't keep a bunch of it in a lump.
If you have H2o and split off H2, then that leaves o. Where did you get the other o molecule?
Do you know what a photon is? How can you make one? Is a photon a boson or a fermion? Can two photons share the same quantum state? Why is it a little daft to say, "photon energy" rather than just photon?
Those not-hot plates in the kitchen do indeed use magnetism. You got that one right. A coil beneath the plate is fed an alternating current which produces an oscillating magnetic field. You MUST use a ferromagnetic metal pot to collect the energy in the magnetic field in order to create heat. It won't work with plastic, or glass etc.
Which brings me to point out that gravity acts on all things with mass, while the effect of magnetism is material-dependent.
Ok - a boson. You say it's the name for some weird sounding term "vector-resonance force" which acts on four differing dimensions on matter/fermions.
This looks like you just strung a few technical-sounding terms together more or less at random.
A boson is a sub-atomic particle that obeys Bose-Einstein statistics. What this implies is that one or more bosons can occupy the same quantum state. This is in contrast to those particles that obey fermi-dirac statistics. The latter cannot occupy the same quantum state. A photon is therefore a boson and is therefore a force-carrier. It has integer spin and is the force-carrier for the electromagnetic force. A graviton would be a boson responsible for carrying the gravitational force,
while a fermion has non-integer spin, obeys the Pauli exclusion principle, cannot coexist in identical quantum states, and therefore stops matter from collapsing to nothing and gives it its "hardness". Star-trek's "hard light hologram" is therefore nonsense in physics since lights is photons, are bosons and is not "hard".
Oddly, weakly interacting fermions can exhibit boson-like behaviour while in the state of superconductivity - a most intriguing state.
And sure - if you follow the string theory idea, all these particles are described by multi-dimensional loops and open strings resonating in various modes.
Of course I have holes in my knowledge. It's not possible to know everything, but >30 years of this stuff allows me to spot most BS.
Sorry, said i had it backwards, a focused 33 hz compression wave with a frequency of 22HZ (or is it the other way around) resonates on a 1.5 ratio and a 1.1 scalar (or is that the other way around too) but the point is that it loops to 594 hz... that should help you to understand the rest of what you wrote...please don't call me an idiot again.
The equivalent coulombs of energy in 2200 degrees celsius used to separate water and oxygen can be generated using this wave resonance and scalar ratios of 1.5 and 1.1 those are the important numbers.
every piece of matter exists in seven different crystal states - fact
helix vector is my attempt to describe the pattern, direction and quantum of energy through the movement of the particle in a helix pattern while it is in its superconducting state of a particle/wave.
monatomic oxygen in its seventh crystal state is pure imbalanced energy and obviously has an intense force to bond with all matter but as it vibrates out of the 7th crystal state and down it enters the material dimension and bonds with other matter!
the effects of magnetism are material dependent because of the scale of frequency on which these effects observed...currently. the effects of gravity are material dependent too, it only effects matter!.
the difference between the subset "magnetic materials' and its whole set of all matter is scalar meaning the subset 'magnetic material' is a scalar subset frequency of all vibrating matter.
the photon being matter is moving in the helix wave pattern (all four directions) which allows it to carry energy as a frequency of light which is either absorbed into the vibrational matrix of a matter or reflected off an existing vibrational matrix of matter to be absorbed by another or as you said
"Oddly, weakly interacting fermions can exhibit boson-like behaviour while in the state of superconductivity - a most intriguing state."
to me, that says that monatomic oxygen in a particular state can be both a boson and a fermion - matter and energy whilst it is in its superconducting state or vibrating at a frequency and moving in a helix vector.
it also says to me that photons are both +ve energy and mass or boson and fermion whilst moving in the helix vector patten...or, that whilst the photon/particle is in flux at a particular frequency and moving in a helix vector pattern (behaving like a wave/particle or superconductor) it is both a boson and fermion
i therefore conclude that the photon and its monatomic oxygen equivalent (which is a particle/wave vibrating at a frequency and a helix vector perpendicular to the +ve charge particle/wave protons...this angle could be 60degrees if a third wave/particle exists that has no nett energy, hence is not relevant to a discussion of forces.
i am not saying i understand it all and do not know everything...but i am able to see past alot of blindly accepted BS that cause legitimate mathematical formulas in one frequency scale to come to dead ends when they are applied to a scalar equivalent.
Hence the relationship between gravity and magnetism is the same scalar relationship that is reflected in the scalar relationship between the resonant vibration of magnetic materials and the resonant vibration of all matter, because the force resonates from the same source - again magnetism is gravity but on a different scalar of resonant frequency.
Those things which are part of a scalar frequency that is ferro magnetic mass are push pulled by the same force on a different scalar frequency as all matter/mass so long as you include the resonating frequency of matter/mass in the formula with the magnetic scalar equivalents...i have no idea how to do this mathematically but i can draw it beginning with two points and a line between them, add a bit of tension and you create arcs...remembering that the scalar dimensions of the two points, the line thickness and the tension causing the arcs are all in a specific ratio which is found inside every piece of matter i can find.
if something does not make sense to you, please give me the chance to explain it before you personally criticize me.
As for the magic oxygen particle
h2 + o2 = h2 + o + energy
remembering that a particular scalar frequency and compression wave are sufficient to bring this wave/particle energy down in resonant vibration so that it changes crystal state to become a mass and as a mass of gas now bind with two hydrogen molecules which never changed state.
monatomic oxygen at a particular frequency and moving in a particular helix vector is a wave/particle with energy similar to our understanding of a photon!
ok explain this...
Using this "gravity is magnetism" theory, explain why the moon can go around the Earth and keep a stable orbit, with one face to the Earth at all times. And use the theory to predict whether a magnet could deflect a laser-pointer beam. And then tell us whether two intersecting laser beams will deflect each other (Based on this theory).
mass = particle/waves - energy
energy = particle/waves + mass
particle/waves = energy - mass
Add a +ve and -ve possibility to energy flow and you can see that
mass = particle/waves + energy
energy = particle/waves - mass
particle/waves = energy + mass
the nett magnetic charge of the moon is opposite to the unidirectional magnetic force of the earths superconducting core so the moon is pulled towards it but as a result of the earths magnetic field which is understandably different to the superconducting field coming from its core (which interacts strongly with other superconducting stellar cores), the moon skips around the outside of the magnetosphere and obviously maintains the same face towards the earth due to having no core of its own to interact as a superconductor like the earth's and sun's superconducting cores.
Deflection of laser-pointer with magnet
it is possible that the magnet could deflect a laser pointer if the magnetic field was of scalar ratio to the frequency of the laser pointer and you achieved the correct angle of interference of the double vector helix, otherwise the energy within the magnetic field would pass through the helix pattern carrying the light energy and there would be no disturbance.
i would not think that the strength of the magnetic field would influence the deflection unless you were using the correct frequency of magnetic field to interact with the light. once you had this frequency correct, the strength of the magnetic field would be directly proportional to the directional change of the laser pointer.
This is what you wrote:
m=p-e (1)
e=p+m (2)
p=e-m (3)
m=p+e (4)
e=p-m (5)
p=e+m (6)
from (1) and (2)
p-e = p+m
Therefore
p-p=m+e
0=m+e
Which says mass + energy = nothing.
from (3): p=e-m
so p-m=e (agrees with (5))
but (2) says e=p+m
Which says p+m=e-m
so m+m=e-p
= 2m = e-p
but (2) says e-p = m
Therefore 2m=m
which says 2 = 1
Well done. I won't call you a dolt.
DEFLECTION OF TWO INTERSECTING LASER BEAMS
using the same principle as above but because light frequencies are so similar it may be difficult to get the helix vector patterns of the light/wave particles to intersect at a suitable vector to cause deflection or it may be very easy with two particular laser frequencies or colors.
has a laser pointer ever deflected another laser pointer and vice versa?
You invoke the magnetosphere to explain the moon orbit and some odd concept of 'unidirectional' magnetic force from the Earth's core. But we already agreed that Mars has no magnetosphere. Then how did the Mars probes orbit? How do natural satellites orbit other planets that have no magnetosphere?
The point about the laser pointer and magnetic deflection was a trap. Even on a cosmic scale, there is no deflection of light from a magnetic field. There is however a thing called gravitational lensing the result of which I've seen personally in 1993 at Mt Stromlo Observatory during their search for dark matter called humorously MACHO (I installed the computer that they used to crunch the numbers). Gravitational lensing proves that light is deflected by a strong gravitational field. Again: gravity is NOT magnetism.
A theory has to be self-consistent. You can't end with 2=1 or two different conflicting explanations for the same phenomena.
"has a laser pointer ever deflected another laser pointer and vice versa?"
No. Photons are Bosons recall? Integer spin - Bose Einstein statistics - can occupy the same quantum state. Hence no interaction.
Having said that, light has relativistic mass (but no rest mass), so i suppose it will have a teeny tiny gravitational field all of its own, so there might be a minor interaction due to gravitational effects - perhaps - not entirely sure about that. Maybe you can dig something up from the net about it.
i know what i wrote, that is why i need quantum mechanics or quantum maths to explain it better!
i know that the nature of the +ve p and -ve p is different than normal negative numbers in maths which is why you get
2m = m
if mass = 0 then the formula is precise isn't it.
2 x 0 = 0
2 x nothing = nothing
or
2/ nothing = ??????
And to finish off...
matter or mass cannot exist and therefore the theory of gravity is just a theory that can be used mathematically if you consider that nothing is something!
when you accept that, you will realise that gravity is magnetism.
so the boson proton/wave particle is merely a label to explain the vector state of energy when it sits at 0 or between matter and anti-matter and is flowing towards matter. the ferion is the same but is flowing towards anti-matter.
So both a boson/proton and a ferion can occupy the same space in time as they are defined by their direction of movement between matter and anti-matter and of course a boson cannot exist in the same space/time as another as it must be in the field of matter to encounter another boson.
AS for Mars, satellites using magnetic flux to increase speed without a magnetosphere is completely plausible if the charge of the satelite is opposite to the earth, same as sun and opposite of mars. the earth's magnetosphere may not cause the moon to skip but it does play a part in its cycles....i need to learn more about the moon.
the magnetosphere and the superconducting core are two distinct things.
one is caused by the superconducting oxygen at the core and the other is caused by the spin of liquid oxygen and other materials about this central core and interacting with the core of the sun.
The core of mars is a superconductor but the planet has lost its ability generate a magnetosphere due to its loss of water and oxygen.
In simple steps:
if 2m=m
divide both sides by m
2m/m = m/m
as soon as you look at the special case m=0, then you grapple with 0/0 which can cause a maths forum to go into overdrive. It's not allowed to divide by zero as a legitimate step in a proof. Every other value for m yields nonsense too. Yes 2/nothing = ???? I am happy that you did not say 'infinity' because 'infinity' is not a number.
Not sure what you are getting at with +ve p and -ve p different than normal negative numbers in maths. But since you mentioned quantum mechanics, you might be alluding to "probability amplitudes". A fermion like an electron for example exists as a cloud not at a defined point. The probability of finding an electron at a given point is (some number), and at another point is (some other number) etc such that all those probabilities add to unity (It HAS to be somewhere to a certainty of 100%, no more, no less). The complex-valued vector has two components (spinor). The mathematical nature of these spinors under coordinate rotations demands a 'rotation' of 720 degrees to return to the original state. It can only be described with the maths as there is no classical analogue. It's the 1/2 integer spin fermions that exhibit this behaviour. One 'rotation' results in a 180 degree phase-shift. You need to do it again to get back to the original phase.
Don't keep bringing anti-matter into this. When matter and antimatter meet, they annihilate and pop off some energy.
Due to the nature of the interplay of the superconducting core of earth, its unique magnetosphere and the core of the sun, we have a very interesting dynamic of the force we call gravity here on earth within this magnetosphere that is different to elsewhere in the solar system.
"And to finish off...
matter or mass cannot exist and therefore the theory of gravity is just a theory that can be used mathematically if you consider that nothing is something!
when you accept that, you will realise that gravity is magnetism."
Why don't YOU read this and question it. It's just silly.
720 degrees is the helix vector i am talking about, imagine rotating about a central point twice whilst moving forward or backwards a distance that is in a ratio with the radius, i am not sure of the exact ratio!
what if m can be +ve or -ve and p can be +ve or -ve
matter and antimatter and direction of energy flow
antimatter = p + energy
energy = antimatter - p
p = energy + antimatter
antimatter = p - energy
energy = p - antimatter
p = energy plus antimatter
that then means anti-matter is nothing and it is the mass of antimatter that causes gravity.
Venus has no moons, it's moon collided with it An indication we were dealing with 2 north or 2 south magnetic fields. Mars has two asteroids that do orbit around it, considered to be "moons" , Mars may already be a sound magnet, even covered with ice, these asteroids may revolve based on their own magnetic charge interacting with mars' sound field. Very possible!
@ Manna, on a personal note, I do have to agree with effilnuc, you are highly intelligent, no question about it, however you are being very condescending. I understand to you this may seem really far fetched, but we do not believe it is. And just because you don't "buy" it really is no reason to talk to people that way. You can explain things in a more professional manner. That's the vibe I get from you, that you are experienced in this field, that you do have this field or have had this field as your profession at some point. Instead of attacking every single part of the theory with a nasty disposition, why not offer help? If you really don't "buy" into any part of this , or really don't believe that there is even the slightest possibility, then why even be here? We could use your objections,they prove helpful, but not your insults. I'm sure you see my point.
Also on the Venus moon thing I wanted to add, as we all know the hotter a magnet gets the more it loses it's magnetism. This is why the moon crashed into the planet, eventually I believe that Venus also will crash into the Sun. It's inevitable!
if m = 0 or infinity,
or if
the relative total energy of the entire universe is understood to be infinite, then
e = mc^2 is
e = infinity x c^2
e = infinity
then
infinity = infinity x c^2
or
infinity/infinity = (infinity x c^2)/infinity
or
1 = (infinity x c^2) / infinity
or
c = 1 as a relative to the energy of the entire universe.
using 1 as the value for energy in the whole universe we see that
m=p-1 (1)
m=p+1 (2)
p=1-m (3)
m=p+1 (4)
1=p-m (5)
p=1+m (6)
from (1) and (2)
p-1 = p+1
Therefore
p=p m=m and e=e = Einstein's theory of relativity as applied to my theory of the whole universe - which is everything relative to nothing...
NR - It's not that I don't 'buy' it. It's that just about nothing makes sense in this theory. It's not coherent and a theory needs to be coherent and consistent. Larry gave up, calling it "not fun" any more. I won't be here for many more posts. It's the feeling of getting absolutely nowhere after a decent explanation or objection that probably comes across as condescending although that's not the intention. It's as if those agreeing with your theory are refusing to think about any of the objections, closed mind, hands over ears saying "la la la la". What is one supposed to do when faced with 1=2 and 33Hz = 22 cycles per second? If you are going to play in a sandpit like this, then that kind of misunderstanding is going to draw some level of ridicule.
Your recent statement, that a moon collides with Venus indicates 2 north or 2 south magnetic poles is baseless and wrong and there is a much simpler explanation: gravity did it. But you throw out gravity and call it magnetism and invoke weird explanations about monopoles and things to try and make the theory fit. To be honest, calling yourself "Newtons Rival" is a red-rag, and stating that Newton is wrong is an extraordinary claim. Extraordinary claims of any kind demand extraordinary evidence, and you have provided none of any substance at all. Just a load of hand-waving arguments. In contrast, I offered two simple observations that negate your theory but no-one is listening. The first that macroscopic dipoles really don't seem to exist, and therefore magnetism at the scales you suggest are dipole. The magnetic field strength of a dipole (whether magnetic or electric) tends to an inverse cube law at distance. This alone destroys your theory because gravity is a universal property of matter (an observational fact) and it follows an inverse square law at distance. They are two different forces - at least on the scale that you are talking about. The other is that magnetism will not deflect light while gravity does - another observational fact. Gravity is not magnetism. Newton is not wrong.
You just posted that a magnet loses magnetism as it gets hot to explain the "Venus moon thing" but also want the core of a planet to be really hot and magnetic to explain other things. Which is it?
Of course we want to unify magnetism and gravity, and a theory that does this will not break any modern and well established laws and observations within their realm of validity, and it will be self consistent. Your theory is not self consistent, and it ignores established facts and observations.
Why am I here? Because I don't believe that you are a what they call a 'troll' - that being someone deliberately trying to provoke. At least I hope not. I hope that you will take another look at Newton's laws and see how elegant and beautifully they explain non-relativistic motion from the orbits of planets, to harmonic motion, and ballistics. There are just three simple laws of motion. You can look them up. I hope that you will come to understand that Einsteins GR contains within it, Newton's laws, and note that GR is possibly the most tested theory of all time. Each time you use a GPS, you are using GR theory because clocks have to be adjusted to compensate for the difference in the speed of clocks in the gravitational field at your car on the Earth's surface, and the rate the clocks run in the weaker gravitational field at the satellites. Without this compensation, your GPS would drift miles off course. It's not explained by magnets. Not even remotely possible.
or
p=0 or infinity
m=infinity or 1 or - infinity
e=infinity or 1 or - infinity
therefore unless a positive or negative vector of p is applied
matter = energy but if an force (p) is applied that is defined somewhere between +infinity and -infinity, but at a point or potential point in space/time (boson or fermion or p in the above equation) an imbalance occurs which creates both energy and matter by separating them as they are no longer equal...or, as a function of their new state which is now out of relative equilibrium.
sorry, p = -infinity or 0 or +infinity but at the state of 0 it is relative to an infinite universe as motion stops as indicated by the 0 value of the photon indicating it is at rest which means it becomes infinite both - and + at the same point in time.
we never said that the earth's core would lose its charge if it was hot, it is monatomic oxygen in its 7th crystal state, which happens to be a rock hard superconducting crystal in the case of oxygen! so there is no reason for heat to be inversely proportional to magnetism in this case as this only applies to ferro-magnetic matter as i understand, which is a different crystal state including oxygen and various minerals on a different resonating scale.
earth is a macroscopic monopole or superconductor that is unique due to its magnetic field created by the giro effect of the liquid oxygen rim (paramagnetic) spinning around the monopole superconducting crystal core.
this is why a theory of macroscopic dipoles is not relevant
a monopole has the properties of an inverse square law at distance and a dipole has the properties of inverse cube law at distance as a result of the number of poles...can you now see the obvious relationship and why gravity is magnetism!
@ manna ..I understand your points. First off You feel like you are trying to talk some sense into us about a theory that you quite frankly find to be ridiculous. Ummm Ok. I can understand that. However 1. The rudeness is still unnecessary. 2. We beg to differ, I believe there really is an physical evidence sound proof for every wall we smack into. It just takes time, research, knowledge, common sense, and the ability to implement the process of elimination. I'm sorry if this seems wild or nutty to you, but This is what I truly in my soul feel. I am willing to dedicate my life if need be to finding the answers. Am I prepared to waist my life on something that your quite possibly right about? YES! That's how dedicated I am. Moving on, As for name NR, your right 100% , When I first got into this I felt like a rival to his laws. I was wrong. His law about gravity, the apple falling from the tree , etc.... WAS ACCURATE! however, calling it gravity and forever more changing the perspective of this force was wrong. After much research into his personal life and professional work caused me to "fall in love" with his work. Then I regretted the name, I wanted to change it to Newton's Accomplice. As for the scientific comments you and effilnuc placed above , I will respond later, as I am off to get some R & R at the beach in this 90 degree weather. Also as for Larry, he offered to have me contact him personally. I have his email address in my email. And to be quite honest , I will.
e=mc^2 where
c = 299,792,458 metres / 1?299,792,458 seconds, so
e = m x 1^2 so
the theory of relativity really means that energy = mass unless a defined vector of change is introduced which happens to be the fastest vibration that can exist.
so unless we introduce c to be a function as a scalar rate of relative frequency being distance/time we cannot continue.
so
e = m x 1.1^2 which means that we can now obtain a relative amount of energy that is released or absorbed due to a scalar crystal state change.
e = m x 11^2 for a single state change
and going on to
e = m x 11^8 for the potential energy available in a mass or matter that goes across all 7 crystal states.
so if we take the current definitions of newtons laws and speed of light and distance we get
e = measured in newtons only in reference to metres and seconds and mass and all as a function as eachother which is why it is so hard to debunk.
e as we propose is a vector that is followed through space and time which is a ratio of 3:1 at a scalar of 1.1 or a relative vector of 60 degrees and seen in the patterns shown by using the 3/2 ratio at 1.1 scalar.
now whatever units you decide to measure mass in, it is always going to be relative to the units used in the definition speed of light and mass. Newton says that the speed of light is defined by the metre which is defined by the distance travelled by a light wave in one second...now look up the definition of second and you will see how it is just a mathematical loop that newtons laws will always work for because of the si units of measurement of force and speed and mass!
hope i got it right and didn't get something backwards again.
this means that e = mc^2 (without using units of measurement and falling into newtons trap) really equals a ratio of relative energy to mass in the whole known universe and why there is so much goddam energy out there. this ratio of energy to mass can be expressed in whatever units you wish...newton came up with a couple of clever formulas for which each definition was based around complex inter-related definitions of the units of measurement.
ratio of energy to mass is 4.594972986x10^16 to 1
So you can imagine that if 1 kg is the total mass in question, the total amount of newtons of energy available if it goes back to anti-matter is going to be some huge amount of kg per metre per second per second as energy must be measured as a vector movement through space and time and so even direction and speed is not enough, there must be a constant change of speed, which in newtons world is speed on top of speed or acceleration! In the case of energy in closed loops, the third vector of speed on speed can be controlled by understanding the directional FLOW of energy as explained by Newton's Rival's theory on gravity is magnetism.
NEWTONS LAWS ARE NOT WRONG, BUT THEY ARE BASED ON CIRCULAR DEFINITIONS OF MEASUREMENTS OF UNITS SO OF COURSE THEY PASS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, BECAUSE YOU ARE USING RELATIVE UNITS OF MEASUREMENT.
BELIEVING THEORIES BASED ON CIRCULAR DEFINITIONS OF UNITS OF MEASUREMENT THAT DON'T HOLD UP WHERE THE DEFINITIONS DO NOT RELATE IS WHAT NEWTON'S RIVAL IS TRYING TO SHOW.
HER THEORY IS BASED ON DEFINITIONS THAT ARE NOT CIRCULAR BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, WHICH CAN ONLY BE A RELATIVE RATIO OF ENERGY TO MATTER BEFORE UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ARE INTRODUCED, AS DONE BY NEWTON! THE MOMENT YOU INTRODUCE A UNIT OF MEASUREMENT YOU ARE COMPARING FREQUENCIES AND DIFFERENCES IN THE SCALAR RATIOS OF THOSE FREQUENCIES USING A RATIO OF 3/2 AND SCALAR OF 1.1.
Newton's Rival,
I've published my own hub on the subject.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Larrys-Take-on-the-Claim-t
Thanks for the 'pillow problem'.
e=Mc^2
energy is, by the definition of speed of light, the potential energy available between two crystal states of matter and is defined by defining the units of measurement of matter and speed of light.
From wikipedia - definition of speed of light
in 1975 the speed of light was known to be 299,792,458 m/s with a relative measurement uncertainty of 4 parts per billion. In 1983, the metre was redefined in the International System of Units (SI) as the distance travelled by light in vacuum in 1?299,792,458 of a second. As a result, the numerical value of c in metres per second is now fixed exactly by the definition of the metre.
this says that
the speed of light is measured as the total distance traveled by a light wave/particle in the time taken for the light/wave particle to travel this total distance
SEE WHAT I MEAN ABOUT CIRCULAR DEFINITIONS TO FIT THE LAW OF RELATIVITY...WHAT A JOKE.
PERHAPS
c must be a unit of frequency or a rate of movement of matter in time.
and e must be a unit of frequency or movement of energy in time...which makes matter measured in what unit???? ...please do not say Newtons or some other si unit that is a circular definition like Newtons or Dynes (which again is circular as itis centimetres per gram per second per second)
the problem in coming up with a definition to measure mass or matter is that it is becoming clearer that it exists only in relativity to the relationship between energy and frequency.
i know it got a little hairy there trying to figure out what the actual value of the c ratio is, i know 11 is possibly not correct...very possibly!
The seven crystal states to which i have referred has something to do with the shapes created using seven strings to create a prism.
use an arc to separate two points, then
draw a string under tension as a straight line between them, then
a second point is drawn at same distance as between the first two points created by the arc and at 60 degrees to their plane, join the points with strings under tension and this creates a triangle, then repeat to make a third 3 dimensional triangle and then a fourth, being an equilateral prism. one can spin this seven sided string shape in many directions and at any speed causing frequencies and ratios to occur at its points of in space/time as it spins.
by altering the directional flux (on one of the many symmetrical axis) by 3/2 and resonating the strings at a scalar factor of 1.1 one inputs energy as one has added a flux in space and frequency (which is what we now understand to be energy) thereby altering the atomic mass and atomic structure and thereby changing it from one element to another...same shape, space etc MAKING UP ALL MATTER... but can only be seen IF time/FREQUENCY OF MOVEMENT stops!
otherwise, at any point in time and at many corresponding frequencies, this single 3d shape can become anything in the 3d material universe.
All matter is created by the tension of the strings (allowing vibration) on the 7 sides of this prism and the energy and density is defined by its frequency and direction of spin.
Sound is energy as it is causes movement in space/time of matter. move matter in space/time and you need energy! change frequencies in space/time of matter and you can create sound...sound is energy...energy is created by flux in space and time. the level of vibration of the matter that is in flux determines the amount of energy being added to the energy flux or drawn from the energy flux as it breathes matter in and out.
As the number of magnetic fields increases due to the total number of dipole magnets within an object, the magnetic force decreases in space and time.
A monopole magnetic flow is the strongest magnetic force in space and time, and a very strong pressure pushing it together,
a magnetic field created by a single dipole magnet caused by spin has the next biggest magnetic force in space and time but the most unstable binding force holding it together, and
a magnetic field created by many dipole magnets, as in glass or wood has the weakest magnetic force field in space and time but a very strong force holding it together - but for 'magnetic materials' in which one is able to line up the many individual dipole magnetic fields so that they line up to mimic one macro dipole magnetic field thereby increasing its force in space and time without compromising the stability of the physical structure.
@NR You can find me via my hub page and send a message and If you want to discuss specific things I'll try. Perhaps reading my hub on light or quantum key exchange will be of interest. You are thinking deeply and I respect that which is why I've put more effort into countering your theory than I really should take the time to do on a personal note. If everyone agrees with your ideas, then your theory will probably not evolve as well. Good luck with it, but try to get mentally prepared to literally throw out assumptions and conclusions once you find (or are given) counter arguments. Your PRIMARY job as a theorist is to try to find holes in it. As for 'rudeness' : not really intended, however in scientific circles, critical arguments even against amazingly nice ideas and theories can rage way out of control and be incredibly insulting- far more than anything I've said which is laced with some twisted humour in many cases.
@effilnuc Sorry - I don't really know what to say to you the volume to respond/rebuff to is overwhelming. I don't think you are helping NR's argument much.
Please move forward to Larry's Hub. It's fantastic. Link is above.
Sorry guys, a lot of thought processes above that lead to this one simple explanation showing that gravity is magnetism and newtons laws apply only because of the way he has related the speed of light to time and space using two different ratios of frequency that cause an inverse cube and inverse square law to work...making us believe that gravity and magnetism are two separate forces.
there is no need to believe that sound makes hydrogen out of water or the core of the earth is crystal oxygen to see that NEWTON'S RIVAL IS RIGHT AND GRAVITY IS MAGNETISM.
so to explain it simply using Einstein's theory of relativity and the definition of the speed of light and distance and time according to Newton
energy = the potential difference of flux between any points on the xyz axis of space and the t axis of time.
the energy of an atom is defined by the potential direction of travel along the xyzt axis based on the geometric structure, points, created by the body of stable protons.
so electrons represent the patterns of potential difference in time and space along the xyzt axis. the ratio of x:y:Z are determined by the number and geometric structure of protons which form the atom and t fits in with this inversely proportionate.
Newton cleverly used units of measurement of each of the elements of the formula such that his law of gravity applies as a relative function of space and time.
By understanding that energy potential is released by the movement of electrons which now have become photons or bosons out of a zero state xyz axis and moving in time along an xyztime axis in a helix spiral, as the flow of energy must be moving in opposite directions along this same helix spiral then by using wave resonance to cause flux on any one of the xyzt axis one can change the direction of the helix spiral along any one of these four axis.
the ratios of points along the xyzt axis determine the relative magnetic force or energy between the points.
as newton kept the ratio of xyz/t a constant, being the constant of the speed of the proton particle moving through space/time or the xyz/time axis in a helix or (wd wave) pattern, we end up with
e = mc^2
i have done the maths workings on paper that show this, and ask that you do too to prove it to yourself.
if e = mc^2 but c is defined by a ratio of xyz/time then you can see how energy is actually a potential between two points in space (xyz axis) and time and that the energy flow is in opposite directions of equal proportion between these two points.
so the concept is fact that frequency - being the ratio of points on the xyz axis over a point along the time axis means that the energy of matter is proportionate to the frequency of its vibrations along any xyzt axis and their proportionate equivalents.
so the force of gravity is actually caused by a potential difference in space and time which creates a potential difference in the potential paths through space and time that protons could take if they were removed from their state of stability being either to expand out along the potential paths represented by the electrons or return to anti-matter (flow of time must stop for matter to return to antimatter!)
electrons are the potential paths of these protons and therefore hold potential energy that we call magnetic energy of a positive charge as its potential is positive along the time continuum.
this means that the force of gravity is actually a pull force in the opposite direction of the +ve push of the magnetic energy of the proton as it takes the charge of the potential electron and moves out of a stable xyz orbital path and into the familiar space/time helix/wave pattern on which magnetic energy flows
PS NEWTONS RIVAL - if you end up reading to this point, feel free to delete any of my other posts (or this one) that may confuse people or make it harder for them to believe your theory, which i believe is now obvious fact!
e =Mc^2 where c^2 is a specific ratio of space dimensions and time(xyzt), and M is the number of protons.
so if this theory is correct
for light
e = 1proton x the ratio of space and time.
this means that the potential force of a proton is
1 x space/time ratio
using newtons units of measurement this is
e of proton = 1 x c2 measured in m/s/s or newtons which is
in the order of 8.987551787x10^16 m/s/s if all the potential energy of the total number of paths in space and time that the proton could potentially take are added together.
we can see that as the number of protons increases and the number of potential paths or electrons increases, the potential energy increases in newtons but due to the increase in number of potential electron paths the space/time ratio is reduced and therefore the ratio of magnetic force/distance reduces according to the inverse laws.
put a whole lot of atoms together and you have a whole series of magnetic centres of potential energy and therefore magnetic fields that all interact and usually cancel out all the magnetic fields of object and it is non-magnetic as in wood. if the geometric structure of the atoms in space is such that the potential direction of flow of the protons (if they were split) creates magnetic fields that are aligned by magnetic induction, then the whole object generates a dipole magnetic field as in magnetic rocks and metals.
All atoms are monatomic magnets that have a potential energy relative to the potential points in space time that the protons could be in if they were not in a stable state.
Matter is built by combining atoms using the push pull of the magnetic energy flow to assemble them in such a way as the become a series of many dipole magnetic fields, the matrix of this pattern of fields is the density of the matter and determines how much interference of force is required to destabilize the matter.
I found this video on youtube today, quite interesting, Have a look...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3DD33ZZ6Co&feature
@Newton's RIVAL - the 10 mathematical laws that prove you correct are at http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/79093
@ newtons rival - could you please send the link to Dr Kaku - he should be able to verify/nullify its relevance in about 10 minutes! ...its worth the ridicule from my perspective!
in response to the last message above mine, send Dr. Kaku the link to what? You didn't state what link. Also if you want to contact him all you have to do is click on his name above in the comments section. It will bring you to his page and contact info right away!
Hi Newton's Rival!
For what this may or may not be worth, all throughout today I've been thinking that gravity is magnetism. I am not a scientist at all. No knowledge; just a great inner desire to understand the universe, so I look at pictures of the sky and also go outside at night.
Anyway, I did a quick google on gravity and magnetics and found your site. Haven't read all the comments yet. Got to the one where you said harmonics plays a part. My gut reaction, too.
The only thing I can say personally to you is that I understand that truths do pop in your head. I've been calling the SuperBowl games and playoffs off correctly and in advance for years, and don't even like or watch football.
Keep the faith, girl!
@ Gallileogalaxy, thanks for the support. I greatly appreciate it.
Check out the Fourier transform
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourier_transform
it is the beginning of quantum mechanics and the best attempt to reconcile all force (inc gravity and magnetism).
As it is based on the PI ratio, it still has some restrictions to its application.
effilnuc. The Fourier transform is used to break a complex periodic waveform into individual sinusoidal components, that's its complete and total application so what are you harking on about with the quip about "still has some restrictions to its application"? Yes it's useful in QM, and also in many other fields including electronic filter design, signal processing and image manipulation like in photoshop. In no way on the face of this Earth (or anywhere) could you describe it as an attempt to reconcile all force as its not a THEORY, it's a mathematical fact, and used as a tool.
Lot's of thing involve pi (I don't know why you insist in saying "pi-ratio") so what? Pi inevitably pops up when things go round in circles or involve true random numbers and lots of other things.
You effectively said:
The Fourier transform is based on Pi. ----(A)
Anything based on Pi has some restrictions to its application -----(B).
(A) is true. Obviously! Sinusoids are circular functions.
(B) is probably true too because everything has restrictions. (Except Theology, almost by definition)
But (A) and (B) are NOT causal.
@manna - pi is a ratio that creates a constant in order for certain maths to work...that is why i keep harping on it - have a read as to what PI RATIO actually means and who and how it was first established!
From wikipedia
? (sometimes written pi) is a mathematical constant whose value is the ratio of any circle's circumference to its diameter; this is the same value as the ratio of a circle's area to the square of its radius.
How can a ratio based on a flat plane have anything to do with spheres and sinusoidal waves moving in three directions at once?
Back to discussing monopole magnets - would you consider the following article relevant? Gives even more 'weight' to gravity is magnetism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/09090
In this work the researchers, for the first time, attest that monopoles exist as emergent states of matter, i.e. they emerge from special arrangements of dipoles and are completely different from the constituents of the material. However, alongside this fundamental knowledge, Jonathan Morris explains the further meaning of the results: "We are writing about new, fundamental properties of matter. These properties are generally valid for materials with the same topology, that is for magnetic moments on the pyrochlore lattice. For the development of new technologies this can have big implications. Above all it signifies the first time fractionalisation in three dimensions is observed."
"How can a ratio based on a flat plane have anything to do with spheres and sinusoidal waves moving in three directions at once?"
Like this:
Take a right angle triangle. pin one non right-angle corner to the table. Impose a constraint that the hypotenuse is a fixed number H but allow the other two sides to vary. The height of the triangle will be H.sin(a) and the width will be H.cos(a). Both those functions are sinusoidal, periodic, real and continuous.
If you plot all possible configurations on a flat plane, you will get a circle. When you get a circle, Pi is involved.
Take that circle and think of it as a disk. Pin the center of the disk and permit all possible rotations. Now you have a sphere. Pi is also involved, and so are sinusoidal functions, and this is based on a flat plane, and it is in three directions at once.
That monopole experiment that you point out has to be done at 0.6 to 2 Kelvin which almost absolute zero. And if you read it properly, you will see that it is using dipoles in a special configuration to emulate monopoles. This is a physical model which is an APPROXIMATION to a magnetic monopole. Surely you are not trying to tell me that this particular model with all its constraints proves that magnetism = gravity? That's absurd.
But the experiment is pure research and may give us new technology so don't think I am dismissing it. It's just not supporting your ideas.
thank you for your help manna.
You're welcome, Newton's Rival. (And there sure are a lot of smart people here.) Can't wait to see how The Golden Ratio fits into all this!
Take care!
effilnuc: you are welcome.
@ gallileogalaxy, toooooo smart. I've been spending the past 3 days just researching all this info, and I'm still not done. I guess you'll have that though! lol!
Jus' a little tip for your research NR. There is a lot of mis-information on the internet. You can't take anything at face value, particularly in forums because there is no restriction on who or what can be posted. So you are right to be suspicious about what I say here, and also of what else you read on static web sites. When researching using the internet, try to find credible resources. Generally those that come from known academics or from university sites are going to be more reliable. Don't rely on a single source, try to find independent prose that says the same but using different words. If you see the same words repeated exactly in two different sites, the chance is that one was copied from another. It is for this reason that the scientific community use peer-reviewed journals. They need to know that what they read is reliable.
@ NEWTON'S RIVAL - MANNA is right, research pythagoreanism in its true form without all the hype - the relationship between gravity and magnetism and atomic energy is there and has been all along!
energy cannot be created or destroyed, only move from one state to another.
the basis of pythagoreanism is the monad. start with that and understand the true nature of maths/music for yourself!
the reason that the forces of magnetism and gravity seem different is because some of the force that is expressed as linear acceleration in gravity, is turned into torgue (pun intended) when transformed into magnetic force...the momentum is the same but the field distance is different as some of the force/momentum becomes torque.
gravity and magnetism are the same force or momentum
gravity is linear momentum only,
magnetism is a function of this same linear force plus torque force... this explains the inverse square and inverse cube relationship.
effilnuc said: "energy cannot be created or destroyed"
Take a bow. That is one of the axioms of all of physics. You are correct to all theoretical and practical experiment ever performed.
"the reason that the forces of magnetism and gravity seem different is because some of the force that is expressed as linear acceleration in gravity, is turned into torgue (pun intended) when transformed into magnetic force...the momentum is the same but the field distance is different as some of the force/momentum becomes torque."
Is wrong followed by wrong and wrong, then some more wrong.
"Gravity and magnetism are the same force or momentum"
...no no no. Not only are gravity and magnetism different, force and momentum are different.
Monad??? Are you talking biology, chemistry, functional programming or philosophy?
As I said before effilnuc, if you are going to play in this sandpit, and make statements like that, it is going to attract ridicule.
Tell me one thing honestly, are you serious about learning or just trying to inflame? Because if it the former I am happy to discuss, if it is the latter, then I will simply ridicule your stupid statements and then ignore you.
@ Manna FORCE = MOMENTUM - i dunno what sandpit are you in?
Monad - it is the same no matter how it is applied - you are only supporting the theory.
By the way, i am playing in a 5 sided sandpit, what shape is yours?
IF YOU WANNA PLAY IN A 5 SIDED SANDPIT INSTEAD OF A FOUR SIDED ONE LIKE YOU DID AS A CHILD THEN I AM HAPPY TO LEARN WITH YOU, OTHERWISE I WILL CONTINUE TO INFLAME AND BURN EVERY ATTEMPT AT RIDICULE.
effilnuc.
Momentum is mass x velocity
acceleration is the derivative of velocity
Force is mass x acceleration.
Therefore force is not momentum.
Your sole purpose is to inflame and spread misinformation. I will no longer waste my time with your idiotic drivel.
NR: This is breaking news about the search for the Higg's Boson (or something like it) in the LHC.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110722/full/news.2
Note how they are being very very very cautious. This is not a discovery announcement. When/If that happens you should see it on mainstream TV.
Now you are getting the picture Manna,
Can you see that the only true force/energy is found in momentum (look at the atom and the energy it contains due to the momentum of the electrons) E = MC^2
You are almost there...don't be afraid to let go of your old patterns of thought.
Hi there, Newton's Rival!
How ya doin'? Sounds like you're overloaded with information. Time to get out . . . go dancing or something.
And when you're refreshed, bookmark these two links and read them slowly. My opinion? The answer is found beyond the "norm" as you well intuit. You'll find a piece here and a piece there amid all the verbage.
http://www.goldenmean.info/goldenproof/
and
http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/sta/sta16.htm
Check in with you later! Happy weekend!
effilnuc
Your sole purpose is to inflame and spread misinformation. I will no longer waste my time with your idiotic drivel.
@ gallileogalaxy - nice hyperlinks!
@ Manna in the wild - it is a shame you think you are a qualified judge and jury, this could be blocking your ability to understand this. I WAS VERY CLEAR - I WILL INFLAME YOUR ATTEMPTS AT RIDICULE AND BELITTLING...THIS IS NOT MY PURPOSE HOWEVER.
@ MANNA - don't feel bad, many like you throughout the ages have resisted changes like this to fundamental thinking. it is a shame you don't realise how helpful you were/are in my understanding of the concept that energy = momentum.
@ Newton's Rival - what do you think about
gravity is magnetism with a twist!?
@ Manna, this is exactly what is taking me so long, I only use accredited information. I have to weave in and out of all the bullshit! : )
@effilnuc -- Thanks!
Ok, @ gallileogalaxy, thanks for the links I will try to get to them soon. As for getting out and relaxing, 2morro is the day for that! Now.... @ effilnuc, I'm really not trying to be an ass here, but I will admit you truly are getting a little annoying. A lot of what your writing is babble. At least to us. It's hard to follow, it makes no sense in the way you are posting it, I want facts, that pertain to the ways that forces function. All the jumble mumble other than that, is really quite irritating. I can see why Manna is at his limit with you. Your talking to a man that has real experience in this field. I think he and I have a lot still to learn , as do all Scientist/thinkers in this field. However, he is going by text book black and white. This is the basis of Physics. The only way to find answers is to also go black and white text book, to show undoubtedly that it is a fact, or just a theory that still has holes in it that science can't yet explain. @ Manna I will read the link a.s.a.p!
thank you NR, very sound advice that i will embrace.
NR: You have a good head on you and I will try to give you facts. effilnuc has indeed become quite tiresome and it's no longer worth pursuing corrections. I have a lot of patience and quite an open mind but he does not seem to want to "think".
One thing I learned through university was how little I knew before, and how much there is to know. It comes as a bit of a shock that some of these rock-solid theories and formulas that we struggled with were conceived by minds of 300 years ago, and they are still valid today. It never ceases to make me wonder how they managed to do it.
There is something I need to really clear up. One of the most irritating phrases around is 'it's JUST a theory' as if a law or fact is somehow more important.
I've written a hub on that topic and you can check it out if you like. The point is that facts are pretty boring. They don't change, they are what they are. Laws are also quite simple. Newton's laws are extremely simple but they are 100% rock solid for their realm of validity. This means that every new theory conceived cannot, must not break Newton's laws within that same realm of validity. It's often said that Einstein proved Newton wrong but that's rubbish. You can reduce Einstein's general relativity theory to Newton's laws for massive particles moving at a significantly slow speed, or not in the presence of a huge gravitational field. It's the theories that are more important than facts in many ways because you can make predictions with theories.
Any new theory (yours included) must take into consideration all the known facts (of course) and also consider strongly all the well proven theories - that is, those that have stood the test of time. It's ok to go against a weak new theory with some reasonable explanation, but to break well established theory, you need a great deal of strong argument - extraordinary evidence.
A notable thing about a proof is that it is very difficult to prove true for all input, but it is trivial to prove false by only a single counter example. This is the reason (one of) for peer-review. The scientific method purposely tries to find counter examples and paradoxes and division by zero - when your theory reduces to absurdity through legitimate reasoning, it's in serious trouble.
For your theory, perhaps you should consider the dimensions of gravity and compare them to the dimensions of magnetism. Dimensional analysis like this is a good test for a theory. If gravity is magnetism, then the dimensions of the two should be the same.
If I claimed speed is the same as time, then you could counter that by saying no, because [L/T] =/= [T] and that's the end of the argument. (L means length, T means time)
I skimmed through the comments looking for the name "Nassim Haramein" and didn't see it. Check out his 8 hour lecture on Youtube or Google video or his DVD The Black Whole. He also proves one universal force... along with other "unifying concepts".
Now:.... You can can actually use the same basis with a ten gallon fish tank and quite literally re-create the solar system all of which completely functions on it's own. I have done this. Now tell me... Who else can do this ??? No one! Don't believe me??? Try it.
I would love to see this on youtube. Can you do me solid and upload this? thanks
If the earths core is a south monopole then maby all matter (slowed light) within the magnetosphere and the earths outer core is all or mostly north monopoles.Maby the question is how to turn south into north and vice versa?
Here is another simple reason why gravity is not magnetism. You can take the known (measured) values of a proton and an electron, a couple of formulas as calculate that the electrostatic force is about 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times stronger than gravity. This is why you can rub a comb on your hair and pick up a little bit of paper with the electrostatic attraction. This is despite the tug of war between a charged plastic comb and the gravity from the entire Earth. Now - electrostatics is about polarised electric charges. Charges in motion create a magnetic field. The two are linked, and you cannot discuss magnetism without discussing electric charge.
From this simple experiment you have to wonder how, if gravity is so weak, does it keep you firmly planted on the floor.
Another experiment: Go and buy a 1 Tesla NIB magnet. This is a seriously strong little magnet. You will be able to pick up a heavy wrench with it. (You can get a powerful NIB magnet from an old disk drive).
Another experiment: Take that 1 Tesla magnet and try to find any part of your body that it will stick to, or even slightly be attracted.
You will not be able to find a magnetic part of your body, yet despite how apparently weak gravity is as a force compared to electromagnetism, your boy is attracted to the Earth. This alone should tell you something. Gravity is very different to magnetism.
Ask yourself why, if electromagnetism is so strong, that we can even detect gravity at all? The answer to that is that gravity is a long range force, and it is accumulative, and it is a property of matter itself, and so every atom in the Earth has a little bit of gravity that adds up to create a force strong enough to hold you down. If there was such a thing as an "anti-gravity" propetry of matter, then you would have to assume the Earth is made up of gravity and anti-gravity stuff. In that case, the two would, on average cancel out and you would not even be able to detect the feeble force we measure today.
Electric charges, on the other hand, do exist as +ve and -ve. They are all around and inside stuff. But on average, they cancel out and this is why gravity usually dominates. It's why gravity is the dominant force for the motions of planets. Only locally, as in the comb experiment, can you separate enough +ve or -ve charges to do an experiment where electrostatics become dominant. And this is when they show themselves to be so very much stronger than gravity.
Here is a viable possible theory of everything. Testable, predictive and honest.
@ Manna , there is no reason that we can't be dealing with electromagnetism here. Your theory /experiment is not quite accurate in it's description when you say a strong magnet would not stick to us. What you have to look at is more so about what that strong magnet is doing to the inside of us. Just like a MRI machine. This is a machine using strong magnets. These strong magnets do in fact attract our cells to the inner surface of our bodies. Thus causing the machine to take pictures of our insides. Magnets do have an impact on the human body. If what we are dealing with is "THE strongest kind of electromagnetism" we wouldn't have a magnet that's force is stronger to prove or disprove the theory. One must remember ... like it or not... The earth is IN FACT a GIANT Magnet! yet, here we are inside of it's magnetic field. Now the question is if we know this for a fact , which we do, how come on our measurable scales we cannot demonstrate how that (THE EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD)effects us?
Ahhh, so Manna is the infamous Bob-A-Thon. Keep up the fight, Newton's Rival!
Whom is the Infamous Bob-A-Thon? Jus curious!
"there is no reason that we can't be dealing with electromagnetism here."
I gave you lots of reasons.
"Your theory /experiment is not quite accurate in it's description when you say a strong magnet would not stick to us."
It won't, nowhere near what happens with say, a paperclip. Our bodies do contain stuff that is affected by a strong magnetic field, but that's not the same thing as becoming grossly polarised.
"What you have to look at is more so about what that strong magnet is doing to the inside of us. Just like a MRI machine."
There is a small detectable effect yes.
"This is a machine using strong magnets."
Not amazingly strong really - comparable to a disk drive magnet.
"These strong magnets do in fact attract our cells to the inner surface of our bodies."
Slightly affected and importantly -- detectable but certainly not the major force. You don't levitate inside an MRI machine because gravity still dominates despite its relative weakness of 1:10^-40 but it dominates because it is accumulative and cannot be shielded.
"Thus causing the machine to take pictures of our insides. Magnets do have an impact on the human body."
Never said they didn't. I said you won't get one to stick to you and overcome gravity.
"If what we are dealing with is "THE strongest kind of electromagnetism""
There is only one 'kind' of electromagnetism.
"we wouldn't have a magnet that's force is stronger to prove or disprove the theory."
We don't need a stronger one. One from your kid's toy box will do.
"One must remember ... like it or not... The earth is IN FACT a GIANT Magnet! "
YES! It's freakin' huge - and despite that about as strong as a fridge magnet.
"yet, here we are inside of it's magnetic field. Now the question is if we know this for a fact , which we do, how come on our measurable scales we cannot demonstrate how that (THE EARTHS MAGNETIC FIELD)effects us?""
Because its total sum is so terribly weak. Yet we can STILL measure it easily using something as simple as a needle. We can measure it with a magnetised needle because the relative strength of magnetism compared to gravity is huge. Gravity dominates because the Earth is so massive.
P.S. I am not 'Bob-A-Thon'
This sentence is what led me to believe that Manna was Bob-A-Thon...
"Nassim's response to my original article is called "Letter to Dr. Bob-a-thon",
and his response to my criticisms of his Schwarzschild Proton paper is called "The Schwarzschild Proton Manifesto"."
That quote comes from the article linked to above by Manna, hence my (erroneous??) assumption.
Bob-a-thon had been hounding Haramein anywhere he could get his comment posted. It seems that when truth is approached there are those dedicated (or "assigned") to discrediting the person and/or idea into oblivion in order to maintain the status quo. Tesla, John E.W. Keeley, and Stan Meyer, come to mind as victims.
That's why I say keep up the fight, it is a fight to let the truths of science and technology come to benefit the regular human, not just black projects with economy breaking black budgets run by the various "alphabet agencies" of the world.
Incidentally, I recently saw a Nassim Haramein lecture previewing the release of a new paper that will further prove his ideas. The world at this time is getting to be a VERY interesting place to be.
One more thing before I retire from commenting here. I came upon this page from a link on Richard C Hoagland's Facebook page. Mr Hoagland is another forward thinking individual. His website, Enterprisemission.com, is continually hacked. His Facebook page is also hacked, as well as frequented by distractionary trolls. One would think that if he were really as off-base as the relentless nay-sayers claim then he would be left alone to fade into oblivion on his own failings. Perhaps Manna is posting here just because he has the time and desire to debate and found someone to go a few rounds with. Perhaps there are bigger things working. Just sayin'.
Manna, you claim that it is gravity that outweighs magnetism in an MRI and I'm sorry I disagree. I believe it is our own magnetism that outweighs the small magnetic effect of the MRI's magnetism. What you are telling me is contradictory in itself. Do you really believe that "this fricken huge" magnet that we live on has no "evident" effect on us? It is not evident to us because it is us! How can something be inside of a "Fricken Huge" magnetic field like we are and not become magnetized? (magnetic induction)...??? This is physics 101. I'm sorry but the bottom line is this makes no sense what so ever! We are within the field, we are magnetized from the field, we and the field are of one magnetic energy. Period.
"Manna, you claim that it is gravity that outweighs magnetism in an MRI and I'm sorry I disagree."
If you are right, then people would float or stick to the walls of the thing. They don't, so I am right.
"I believe it is our own magnetism that outweighs the small magnetic effect of the MRI's magnetism."
We are not made of a magnetic material to any significant extent. Let's put this in focus. A great deal of the body contains hydrogen. In the MRI pulse, these hydrogen protons roughly point 50% one way, 50% the other, with ONLY about 2 in every 1 million upsetting the split. That's hardly considered a magnetic material. When we leave the MRI (and after each pulse fades) the protons relax again - all jumbled up. We don't come out magnetised. Paper clips won't stick to us after an MRI.
"What you are telling me is contradictory in itself."
No it's not.
"Do you really believe that "this fricken huge" magnet that we live on has no "evident" effect on us?"
It's irrelevant what I believe, just make simple observations. Even a 1 Tesla magnet held near the skin for one year will have no lasting effect due to magnetism. You will get some chaffing and collect a few dead skin cells from the experience of physical contact.
(By the way the internet is rife with magnetic misinformation about the effects on the human body so be very careful when researching.)
"It is not evident to us because it is us!"
That's silly.
"How can something be inside of a "Fricken Huge" magnetic field like we are and not become magnetized?"
The Earth is a huge magnet. No denying it. It is a huge WEAK magnet with a magnetic field that takes a lot of space up. It's field is weak. This is what you need to realise. I keep saying - it's about as strong as a fridge magnet.
Tiny - say 2mm very strong magnets can have a strong field, but only extends a few cm before becoming insignificant. Huge magnets - like the MRI have a much wider-reaching field. This is why they will rip a spanner from your hand at a few feet away while a disk drive magnet can only do the same from a short distance.
"(magnetic induction)...??? This is physics 101. I'm sorry but the bottom line is this makes no sense what so ever!
Yes it does.
"We are within the field"
True
", we are magnetized from the field"
If at all, then totally insignificantly. Gravity dominates as a force on our body.
", we and the field are of one magnetic energy. Period."
Wrong.
"Mr Hoagland is another forward thinking individual"
I see. Conspiracy theorist, thinks the face in mars is something other than a rock (even though we have good pictures of it now), Thinks he can re-write Maxwell's equations, thinks there is something really special about 19.5 degrees latitude on every planet .... aliens, it goes on and on and on. This guy is a major nut case.
@ Manna I ask that you be patient with me. I do in fact want to rebuttal your claims. I want and am doing solid research. I also work a lot of hours. I am not making any excuses , I just want to be proficient in my rebuttals. So please allow me some time to continue the research I am doing and I will get back to you as soon as I can. As for Mr. Hoagland, I'll be honest I have never heard of him or his work. Another thing I must look into.
Enjoy Your Research.
Your insight on bonding on the Iron Ball = Water in Space
Was years ahead of NASA shortsightness and many others.
Also Dear I all most fell out of my chair when first seeing your research,As it is reveling how Planets spin.
My link YouTube.com/danielparis100 is to a vidieo of my prototype (UAV) Based on Magnetic Fields like the Sun and Earth combo causing spin in Object uav.
It can now be proven now, The Magnetic fields of the Sun interacting with Earths Magnetic Fields, Is what makes Planet Earth to spin, Tilt and Orbit the Sun.
@ Daniel, Thanks for posting your link here. As you know I seen it yesterday when we had email contact. I think other's will like it too!
@Daniel, The average surface magnetic field strength of the Sun is around twice that of the Earth. The average Field strength of the surface of the Earth is about 30-50 micro Tesla. So the Sun's is about 60-100 micro Tesla. The magnetic field strength of a fridge magnet is about 5 milli Tesla. That means that the fridge magnet you wave about in the kitchen is 100 times stronger than that from the Earth. A magnetic dipole's strength falls with the cube of the distance. The sun is 150 000 000 000 meters away. So the strength of the Earth's field on the Sun is 3375000000000000000000000000000000 weaker than a fridge magnet, and for the Sun's influence on the Earth it will be stronger by two times only. Do you really think that this tiny tiny tiny fraction of the strength of a typical fridge magnet is responsible for tilting and spinning of the Earth? The Earth has 6 x 10^24 Kg mass. By the way if it was, then you would have to explain why the Earth does not stop and spin the other way every 22 years when the Sun's dipole flips. Here is an experiment for you. Get 100 people to each wave a fridge magnet at the sun and expect to see it wobble. At least you will have 1000 times the normal influence on it compared to the Earth.
Newton's Rival 21 hours ago said:
"""@ Manna I ask that you be patient with me. I do in fact want to rebuttal your claims. I want and am doing solid research."""
No problem. Try the NASA sites. They have reliable facts.
Manna, Trillions of fridge magnetics would not make Earth spin. Note: my you tube video is based on the sun earth magnetic fields interacting togetter. Thus Proof of Spin by magnetic fields and replcation of the Sun Earth magnetic interaction, Did you view the videos?
Befor making your Wild Comment?
www.YouTube.com.danielparis100
Also using magnetic field strength at the surface of a object will not always yield the correct field strength of such objects with 'many' Magnetic Fields.
My working prototypes ( YouTube.com/danielparis100 ) are Proof of:
Rotation of objects by magnetic fields like the sun and earths interacting.
Now let see proof of you wild claim!
Time to toss the Phd!
Manna, Get real Guy, You make really good view points, If you ever became a 'Forward Thinking Person'
You would become a real Genius! Really!
Oh,just for you guy, The dipoles dont flip because their are more Magnetic Fields on the sun stronger then the Main field you are thinking of.
Got it now?
@Daniel who said "Trillions of fridge magnetics would not make Earth spin."
Trillion is a big number and Trillions is bigger. Still - you are probably right.
"Note: my you tube video is based on the sun earth magnetic fields interacting togetter."
Nah - Don't think so.
"Thus Proof of Spin by magnetic fields and replcation of the Sun Earth magnetic interaction,"
Nope - no proof of anything at all there.
"Did you view the videos?"
Yup - Then got board and went to watch paint dry as a pick-me-up.
"Also using magnetic field strength at the surface of a object will not always yield the correct field strength of such objects with 'many' Magnetic Fields."
True (but I took that into account)
"The dipoles dont flip because their are more Magnetic Fields on the sun stronger then the Main field you are thinking of."
The sun's poles do flip - every 22 years. The sun-spot cycle is every 11 years. These cycles are likely to be linked. The Earth's poles flip too, but unpredictable and a long time apart. The sun's magnetic field is messy and complex and bursty, and always there are dipoles so that a flare loops back on itself.
The radiation is quite nasty to us humans, and the solar wind just has enough pressure to strip the Earth's atmosphere but lucky for us, the Earth's magnetosphere (which, by the way extends only a few hundred Km from Earth to any useful extent) protects us from radiation by deflecting the Sun's electromagnetic bombardment.
"Got it now?"
What *you* propose is untrue, and your video proves nothing.
Manna, Your Wrong!
One liners dont prove anything Guy!
Earths poles are heald in place (every 22 years) by Earths other Magnetic Poles.
Does your Fridge magnetic have a Radiation Belt like Earths?
Why not?
You havnt Debunked Me or Newtons Rival nor have you proved your wild claims!
My videos Show the same Sun Earth Magnetic inter-action cause Rotation of objects by Magnetic Fields!And prove it!
Like it Not!
Hi, Newton's Rival!
Just stopping by to catch up on the latest. My gut tells me to follow your gut. Sometimes there's too much information, ya know? A little here, a little there . . . but all in all, follow your gut and let the informaton be second.
Enjoy! Isn't it fun?
Ooops! That didn't come out right.
"My gut tells me to tell YOU to follow your gut."
Now. That's better. :)
"One liners dont prove anything Guy!"
Like this ^ one above?
"Earths poles are heald in place (every 22 years) by Earths other Magnetic Poles."
What "other Earth's poles?"
"Does your Fridge magnetic have a Radiation Belt like Earths?"
It radiates. So does yours.
"Why not?"
It's not hot enough to radiate much, but it is above absolute zero, so it radiates photons. Heat it up enough and it will glow in the dark (and lose its magnetism!)
"You havnt Debunked Me or Newtons Rival nor have you proved your wild claims!"
You pretty much debunked yourself.
Which wild claim are you referring to?
By the way, I was being sarcastic about waving the fridge magnets at the sun. I hope you got that, if not, and you thought that was a serious experiment then you have a long way to go.
"My videos Show the same Sun Earth Magnetic inter-action cause Rotation of objects by Magnetic Fields!And prove it!"
Your videos don't show anything at all! No explanation, no idea, no conjecture, no hypothesis, no theory, no measurements, no diagrams. It's just 'something' spinning, hanging from 'something', powered by 'something' and accompanied by a noise made by 'something'.
That's not how to do science.
Manna in the wild!
Somewhere along the way you dont 'GET IT'
All you do is put up Endless Guff, So cling to whatever it is your beliving in and Best Wishs as the rest of the World passes you by!
Oh the 'powered by something' is indeed Magnetism!
Daniel,
So your demonstrating a magnetic coupling. Tell me how far apart you take the two components before they stop working.
Now imagine what conditions you would need to spin the whole Earth from as far away as the sun. Please - just think about it. Remember the magnetic flux falls off with the cube of distance. For every 2m the mutual inductance weakens by 8 times.
Manna, I had to find that to build my prototypes.
I found the ratio your refering to would only apply to Magnetic Fields of the same size.
So the distance of how far a magnetic field can interact with a smaller field can go much farther then if the fields are the same size. Also a field like the sun can "*reach-out" even more distance if there is other magnetic fields between the main field (The Sun) and smaller field (Earth)
*Such as mercury and venus and our moon.
The Ratio I found was 4-1 the overall field size to start an object rotating and 9-1 to maintain a object that is already spining.
Again the ratios change in relation to size of the objects.
Note: The Sun is about 108 times larger then Earth.
All of the about is currently unknown by NASA and others.
So lucky you, Im sharing all this New information with NR's Bloggers.
Your Q was a very good one! Dan
@Daniel,
what you may not realise is that close up the geometry of the devices affect the fall-off rate. As you get further away, the fall-off rate quickly tends to an inverse power law (cubed). There is no way that the Sun's magnetic field could influence the Earth's spin.
Manna,
The math shows it can,Heres the numbers I used.
Sun size 435,000 miles x 4 = 1,740,000 miles x 108 = 188,020,000 miles
one AU = 150,000,000 miles
Size of Earth 24,000miles x 4 = 96,000 miles
Thus: 39,016,000 miles of extra distance for interaction of the magnetic fields.
Keep in mind Manna, Plantary magnetism is currently a Unknown Science.
39,016,000 miles should read 38,116,000 miles
You should also read this from a reputable source: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?numb
This tells you why the planets and stars and galaxies rotate.
and this is a reliable source of information about the sun, and magnetism and sunspots and so on:
@Daniel, You did not tell me how far apart you separate your components for the point where it stops working.
Also - how strong are the magnets? For example, how much weight can they each lift?
Thank You for the links Manna.
There all the old status quo thinking.
I been giving you New Research Information on Unknown Science, Unknown by the Status Quo Science World.
So the first link you listed, When you go there the first thing they say is: 'the earths magnetic field.'
Their talking about 'ONE' weak magnetic field and their readings are highly unlikly!
The Earth has many fields more then ONE!
Earth would not have a Van Allen Belt with such a weak magnetic field.
The next link talks of Conservation of angular momentum (From so-called Big Bang)
So the big bang was 13.8 billion years ago.
Earth is belived to be only 6 billion years old.
So where was the momentum for 7.8 billion years before earth started its development.
If you can belive that way can you belive the momentim could build up from Earth being in a magnetic field of the sun for 6 billion years.
The other two links are not worth a comment as they show a lack of even 'Grade School' basic understanding of magnetism.
So Manna, Its about New Science or Same Old BS!
Also my researh shows the inverse law is not broken,Other then how Magnetic Fields are able to 'Reach-Out' to objects and I dont think anyone would dispute that.
Manna, I still waiting to do Patents, So I can only give some information on Magnets, The distance and other research information needed for the patent work.
The distance changes with the fields Im using, from 9 to 18 inchs on the prototypes in the videos.
I build a much biger unit that was 200 lb pull and its output over 250 volts DC, Input power was 120 volts AC.
It was to hard to film,So I use the smaller units.
"There all the old status quo thinking."
This attitude you have is damaging to your own progress. All of science has been built up slowly and carefully and you can't just throw it out or cherry pick the bits that suit your wrong ideas.
"I been giving you New Research Information on Unknown Science, Unknown by the Status Quo Science World."
I disagree. Magnetic coupling has been known for many years. To transfer any useful torque, the components need to be very close together, and the field density high. YOU are talking about accelerating the entire mass of the Earth with a field density of milli-Tesla at best, separated by billions of meters. It's laughable. AND clearly the dominant force by a huge margin is gravity, for two very unshakable reasons.
1) ALL of matter (stuff with mass) adds up in the gravity equation -- there is no anti-gravity. You cannot shield gravity.
2) Magnets are dipole, electric charges exist as +ve and -ve and tend to cancel each other out. AND you can shield EM.
"So the first link you listed, When you go there the first thing they say is: 'the earths magnetic field.'"
so what?
"Their talking about 'ONE' weak magnetic field and their readings are highly unlikly!"
Prove it.
"The Earth has many fields more then ONE!"
Yes - about 8 extra all up - very weak. but only two dominant ones. The rest are inconsequential and do not support your idea at all.
"Earth would not have a Van Allen Belt with such a weak magnetic field."
That's statement is just plain wrong.
"The next link talks of Conservation of angular momentum (From so-called Big Bang)
So the big bang was 13.8 billion years ago.
Earth is belived to be only 6 billion years old.
So where was the momentum for 7.8 billion years before earth started its development."
You don't get it do you? The stars and planets clumped from a mildly swirling gas - that's the momentum. Pulled together by GRAVITY. Due to conservation of momentum, as the Earth formed, it's rotational speed increased as the diameter decreased. There is no 'force' involved -- angular momentum is conserved. This is illustrated by pulling your arms in while twirling on a swing, you rotate faster. Put your arms out again and you slow down. The energy is conserved. It's not the Sun's magnetic field that causes the Earth to rotate.
"If you can belive that way can you belive the momentim could build up from Earth being in a magnetic field of the sun for 6 billion years."
Absolutely 100% NO. Not a chance. No way. No how.
"The other two links are not worth a comment as they show a lack of even 'Grade School' basic understanding of magnetism."
You mean you did not read, or did not understand.
"So Manna, Its about New Science or Same Old BS!"
Same old "BS" as you put it. You have said absolutely nothing to shake the "same old BS". The same old BS makes sense. You do not.
"Also my researh shows the inverse law is not broken,Other then how Magnetic Fields are able to 'Reach-Out' to objects and I dont think anyone would dispute that."
That sentence hardly makes sense.
You still have not revealed how close together you need to keep the two components to maintain magnetic coupling. As you said it's a good question. So why not answer it and at least estimate the strength of the magnets you used.
Do a scale model. a 1cm diameter magnet of 100 milli Tesla, and a 100cm diameter magnet of 200 milli tesla, 1.5 meters apart.
You better be quick with that patent: http://www.magnadrive.com/
The Outer Van Allen Belt about 60km (44,000 miles)from earth traps High Energy(0.1-10 MeV)Electrons.
How can a 100 milli Tesla magnetic field Hold or Trap such high energy electrons with or without factoring the Inverse Law?
For bloggers other then 'Manna in the wild' Check out this Forward Thinking Company for New Science in action!
AerosCraft Freight
Science Research and also NR's findings (*See: The Iron Ball Above)and many others research.
Show the Earth was SMALLER and has builded up LAYERS
(Manna just go did a hole in your yard this weekend to see for yourself)
and LAYERS for billions of years.
Thus your Statement of:
Earths diameter Decreased' at early formation is more Non-Proveable Status Quo BS!
So How could there be left over momentmum form object thats getting BIGGER for billions of years?
watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAWLLo5cyfE
then these
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQxeutcYP6I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zso7ChaQXQ&NR=1
The planets coalesced and angular momentum in the cloud from which they are formed is conserved, so as the particles group together under gravitational force, the spin increases as it forms.
It's not because of magnetism from the Sun. Anyway- if you still believe that, then explain why the sun rotates using your theory.
I'll get back to your "Van Allen belt and 10MeV" question later.
I'll let you work the figures. Here are some facts:
1 electron-volt = 1.6x10^-19 Joules.
1 Watt requires 1 Joule per second.
Work out how long 10 million electron volts would power a 100 W light globe.
Then you might understand your question about the Van Allen Belt.
In the Van Allen belt, particles oscillate (trapped) between the poles with a period from 0.1 to 3 seconds.
The charged particles follow the magnetic field lines.
They follow these lines in a helical path.
The helical radius is inversely proportional to the magnetic field strength B. (Smaller B, bigger radius).
Therefore, as the field lines and particles approach the poles, the particles spiral more tightly. Since the individual speed of each charged particle cannot change, and the spiral tightens, the net velocity along the field lines slows down as the field density B increases near the poles. At some point, (called the mirror point), these charged particles are reflected and this is how you get the oscillations.
The diameter of this helical trajectory is in the order of typically 100s of meters. The formula for this is:
r = mv/qB
therefore
B = mv/qr
Where r is the resulting radius, and m is the mass of the particle, and q is its charge, and B is the field strength and v is the velocity. Let's put some numbers in:
The inner belt consists of mainly protons, typically 10MeV. The mass of a proton is 1.6e-27Kg.
The charge on a proton is +e = +1.6e-19 C
We could take a stab, and guess these proton travel at non relativistic speeds. If so, then a decent estimate of the speed is calculated by it's kinetic energy at say - 10MeV.
E = (mv^2)/2
Therefore
velocity v = sqrt(2E/m) = sqrt( (2 x 10 x 10^6 x 1.6 x 10^-19 )/ (1.6 x 10^-27 )) =~ 45 million m/s
The field strength B required to maintain a radius of 200 m would be:
B = (1.6 x 10^-27 x 45000000)/(1.6 x 10^-19 x 200) = 0.00225 T
i.e. 2.2 milli Tesla
Remember - a proton is reasonably massive for a sub-atomic particle, and it certainly cannot travel at c. You might choose to do
the calculation for a relatavistic proton. In that case, you will need to use Einstein's equation.
E^2 = m^2 c^4 + p^2 c^2
where m is mass, c is 3.10^8 m/s, p is momentum and E is energy.
By the way, the outer Van Allen Belt consists mainly of electrons, and the inner is mainly of protons. You can see why because as the distance from Earth is greater in the outer belt, the field strength is a lot weaker, but electrons are a lot lighter than protons. Therefore the protons make it through and the electrons get trapped in the outer belt.
This theory also explains the aurora borealis (and australis) and why you only see it near the poles. When there is particularly energetic sun bursts, some particals make it through the mirror-point and hit the molecules in the atmosphere. This is what produces the lights.
Highly likely:
The Earth's magnetic field is not a permanent feature of the planet. It exists as an effect (not a cause) of the Earth's rotation. As we have explored, this rotation is due to the momentum of the gases that the Earth is formed from. Gravity hold the particles tightly together, and conservation of angular momentum sets the spin-rate in proportion to the diameter of the mass of the Earth as it is today. The original rotation rate of the gas cloud from which the Earth formed would have been a lot slower due to the gas-cloud's large diameter. Actually, those gas clouds that rotated too fast would not form a rigid body under gravity because the inertia would swamp the gravitational attraction of the particles. The liquid metallic core of the Earth is rotating and it is this which creates the magnetic field.
Manna
You stated:'The charged particles follow the magnetic field lines' and they do.
So from you writings you should know the field lines are inter-acting with 'Other" Electro-Magnetic Energies, Thus EZ to see a much highter Guass is holding the belts in place.
The magneto-speare and solar wind can increase the earths field strength.
So like NR states above: "Were most likly dealing with Electro-Magmetism"
My Point is:
The "WEAKER Than a fridge magnetic" was WRONG and very Miss-leading.
The Guass strengths you have refered to are 5 milli Tesla for the fridge magnetic and 30 to 50 micro Tesla for Earth and the "WILD CLAIM' the Kitchen magnetic is 100 times stronger!
Now you admit the Earths magnetic field is 2.2 milli Tesla. ( Can barely pull 1 OZ)
Thats 22 Guass! = 22 lb pull
Still thats not enough to maintain the Van Allen Belts.
So at some point you should see theires some thing inter-acting with earths magnetic fields.
The extra engeries are giving the earth energy to protect itself with the belts and maintain "Rotation" from the Sun.
You claim: Stars and Planets clumped from a mild gas and Pulled by Gravity as the Earth formed.
What you claim is not really suported by what is taking place in space!
Whats taking place in space is Planetary formation like 'The Iron Ball' Type and Layers upon Layer building up for billions of Years! Inter acting magnetic fields
And Dark Stars, Neutron stars,Pulars and Black Hole formation as from so-called Gravity pull.
What it all means is:
Planets dont form from Milding swirling gas planets and stars collapse from Gravity.
To be clear my findings are:
The 'SUN' causes Earths Rotation!
Not earths magnetic field!
The Suns Electo-Magnetic fields-energies are pushing on Earth and It Magnetic Fields, Causing the Rotation of Earth thru the magnetic field Interactions.
@daniel
"You stated:'The charged particles follow the magnetic field lines' and they do."
WhooHoo! I got something right!
"So from you writings you should know the field lines are inter-acting with 'Other" Electro-Magnetic Energies, Thus EZ to see a much highter Guass is holding the belts in place."
Again - a nonsense statement.
"The magneto-speare and solar wind can increase the earths field strength."
Wrong
"Now you admit the Earths magnetic field is 2.2 milli Tesla. ( Can barely pull 1 OZ)"
No I didn't. I calculated the magnetic field intensity required to contain a 10MeV proton in a 200m radius helical path. I just
picked 200m cause it sounded nice as an illustration.
B is inversely proportional to the radius. I re-did the calculations, realised a minor mistake and now get 670uT which
is still too high to satisfy you. But I just plucked 200m radius out of nowhere as a guess and in reality that's too tight.
A bit more resarch indicates that the radius for a proton of about 10MeV would be in the order of 40 odd Km (not 200m)
so factoring that correction in, the revised estimate is 10 micro Tesla which is just about right for the field strength
at some distance away from Earth.
"So at some point you should see theires some thing inter-acting with earths magnetic fields."
What are you talking about? Of course 'things' interact with it. What's the point you are trying to make?
"The extra engeries are giving the earth energy to protect itself with the belts and maintain "Rotation" from the Sun."
Absolute twoddle.
"You claim: Stars and Planets clumped from a mild gas and Pulled by Gravity as the Earth formed.What you claim is not really suported by what is taking place in space! Whats taking place in space is Planetary formation like 'The Iron Ball' Type and Layers upon Layer building up for billions of Years! Inter acting magnetic fields And Dark Stars, Neutron stars,Pulars and Black Hole formation as from so-called Gravity pull."
Rubbish - really... sorry for the one-liners but there's nothing to debate here, it's just so very wrong.
You claim:
"The 'SUN' causes Earths Rotation! The Suns Electo-Magnetic fields-energies are pushing on Earth and It Magnetic Fields, Causing the Rotation of Earth thru the magnetic field Interactions."
Have you any idea how utterly confused is that statement?
Manna,
Your above statement is more then rubbish!
Im thinking your maybe really just a Grade School Teacher! With a PhD.
As you seem to be 'uneducated' as to Earths "Ring Current" and how it works!
Also your claim "how utterly confused is that statement"
shows you have no idea of how Plasma acts as an electromagnet and extends the earths magnetism in space.
You also have used many readings for earths guass strength, all incorrect.
You have refered me to Grade Schooler type web sites to 'Prove some of your Wild Claims and comments'
So You are wrong guy. About most everything on this blog!
Now thats a FACT!
Daniel said: "Your above statement is more then rubbish!"
Your main claim is that the Earth spins because of the Sun's magnetism. This is crap. This illustrates that you either ignore or do not understand gravity, conservation of angular momentum, inertia, forces, fields, electric charge. I directed you to some clean explanations as an aid to understanding, not as 'proof' of my so called wild claims. For some bizarre reason completely beyond my understanding you seem to cling to this wacky thought despite being given plain evidence and rational thought in simple reasonable steps to counter it. Do you think you are some kind of undiscovered genius or something and if only the world could understand your super-advanced theories, then you will be understood? Will all the world's scientists hand in their resignations and bow down to your superior intellect? Learn when to use the word "then" then. It might give you more credibility than now.
You even challenged me that the Earth's magnetism was no where near strong enough to contain 10MeV particles, and I gave you all the formula and calculated a perfectly reasonable result. I've justified every claim I've made.
The Earth spins not because of a force or gravity or the sun. It spins at a [reasonably] constant rate because it requires an unbalanced force to make it do otherwise. This is one of Newton's laws -- perfectly applicable for the application, and try as hard as you like my friend, you will not be able to contradict this. I say *reasonably* constant because there are second order effects that do apply a measurable unbalanced force. The Earth's spin is slowing - the days are getting longer. The moon's gravity and Earth are tidally locked, The Sun, moon and Earth is a 3-body system, comets fly by, tiny effects from other planets are always in play. The Earth is not a perfect sphere, the Polar Ice caps shift, mountains stick out, Earthquakes apply an unbalanced force. And yes - even some tiny minor and interesting effects on Earth's precession due to magnetic interaction – but please please get this into proper scale. The forces involved with magnetic interaction are totally insignificant compared to what is required to accelerate the entire mass of the Earth. The forces communicated by charged particles are insignificant compared to the gravitational effects. The moon is a significant gravitational body and is slowly pulling the Earth at the equator and just as the fellow on that spinning disk who put his arms out is slowed, so slows the Earth as a result. This is conservation of angular momentum. The Earth spins because from whatever it coalesced from was spinning. Conservation of angular momentum -- NOT the sun's magnetic activity. See http://www.slate.com/id/2133359/ -- it's a good read.
You might ask why the gas-cloud that coalesced was spinning in the first place. That's because nothing is perfect. We know this by observations of the cosmic background radiation. It's nearly but not quite homogeneous, ultimately resulting in the clumping of matter, and just as it came into being 'from' the big bang slightly non-homogeneous, the distribution of momentum of the particles was also not perfectly uniform. The spin of the earth is a result of angular momentum from billions of years ago. Nope- don't know what happened before or 'AT' the big bang – I've no idea – so don't ask me. A tiny time after – that's a reasonable question. At that time – tiny fractions of a second, prior to the inflationary period, there must have been some symmetry-breaking. But I digress.
In summary the Earth spins because it spins, and it will spin tomorrow because it spins today! Yes – it's that simple. This is one of the most rock-solid simple easy physical observations yet 'inertia' is so badly misunderstood. No doubt you will call foul on this – but just do some proper research.
How much force is required to increase the spin of the Earth by 1 second over one year- assuming a linear acceleration? Can you work that out? It's not hard.
Guy, You had a chance to put two people up for a Nobel Prize ( Me and NR ) and you blew it.
I Nothing more to say to you!
This is where I stand on the position. I have spent the last 2 weeks doing nothing but research. Some is rubbish some is concrete. I personally HAVE NOT come across anything that debunks the Gravity=Magnetism theory. When it gets down to the nitty gritty parts , as I back trace all the concrete evidence I have come across. The bottom line is we have YET to explore/understand/research/studied these very important puzzle pieces to finalize the puzzle. We go by black and white text book, but being a scientist like all other greats include not just textbook facts, but having the ability and creativity to explore new realms and open new doors. This is what all the greats before us have accomplished. However we all still have a lot to learn, especially in this field. I do stick by my claim that these two forces are in fact one in the same. I appreciate all the bickering and input from all user's here, It really does help the process. I'm just not so sure Science is ready to truly explore this realm at this point in time. Until then here I will be exploring and learning everyday!
Hi NR,
I would be very interested in seeing a list of what you see as rubbish, and then what you see as concrete.
@ Manna, I came across so much information I really wouldn't know where to begin. Some from "Mad Scientists" : ) that really just had crazy far fetched theories, Some from College students that had merit to their work. So many wikipedia pages I couldn't keep count. Videoes from nut cases, and videos from college professors. I reviewed a lot of Newton and Einstein. Shifted from so many forums to other forums. I looked a lot harder into the God Particle. I always knew what the Higgs Boson was a search for, but I really wanted to take a good hard look into it as well. I wanted to know in detail what they were doing to attempt this feat. "Smashing Atoms" wasn't enough info for me. I research work being done in Sweden and other parts of the world. I had to separate the crap from the gold. There really is a lot that stands out to me to make me come to my conclusion above. So much research hasn't been done yet and that bothers me. I come across so many scientist that don't have an answer but they make judgments on claims that haven't been proven. As scientists (to me) this is unacceptable, Bring your proof to the table bottom line! I know I mentioned this above but I want to reiterate it ... How can so many scientists say, a "graviton exists" only on the basis that they believe in gravity so "it must exist"? That's bullshit to me, that's no different than what most scientists say about the existence of God. They laugh about a God being real, and mock ppl that live by the rules of Faith. Yet what is it called when you believe in something that you have never seen? FAITH! So scientists have FAITH in a graviton? Again... unacceptable. This is a pretty big claim that we have here. That Gravity is real... But we actually have never seen it? I'm not talking about the effects of it. I'm talking about the actual product. Where the hell is this graviton? Well all these scientists that say they must exist need to get on their game and find me just one single particle . But the problem is, because so many go on their faith that it is just there, the rest of science suffers. This is just one of my tensions about the subject. There are more. For me the end result is this... SHOW ME THE GRAVITON! All things have that one smallest form particle, where's mine?
Hmmm, You need to shake the idea that serious science is faith based. It's not like that at all. Please look up the history of Dmitri Mendeleev. He took known observations, some of which were wrong, and many correct, then arranged the results in a pattern. Gaps in the pattern made predictions about elements that had not been observed, and later they were observed as predicted. This is not faith-based. String theory and the standard model is in a similar position, the theory, if correct demands the presence of Higgs.
You would, by now know that the LHC was built among other reasons to look for the Higgs Boson. The only special thing about this Boson compared to other force-carriers in well established theory, is its mass. Other than that, just like the period table, there are patterns and symmetries that tell us where to look, and how hard to look. The LHC will be worth it whether the Higgs is found or not. If it is found, it tells us that the Standard Model - despite its complexity is correct, and has predictive power. Equally astounding will be proof that the Higgs does not exist. In that case, the standard model is in trouble, but scientists will welcome this because it will focus research in other ways. It's often what is NOT there compared to what IS there which is important. This is absolutely not the way of a faith-based idea.
What is the force-carrier for magnetism? How heavy is it?
Some notes I made for you about rotational inertia http://t.co/TW1E13z
Simple magnet + battery single-turn motor (It has to be single turn and never produces much torque - and it's inefficient) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG0pzGcy4xU&feature
But - this is a great illustration of conservation of angular momentum. See what happens when he turns the device upside down.
I need to shake the idea that Science is Faith based? To you I say Hmmmmmmmmmm!!!! But it is. I'll agree some scientist look at physical phenomena and observe it's actions, notice odd things and experiment with them to find answers. However, many many other scientist's get an idea in their heads about why something acts the way it does and use their creative yet educated side to explain it. For instance Stephen Hawking. He speculates on black holes. Has written books about them. Yet , what does he "really" know about a black hole? NOTHING. He can only go on what he already knows and "faith based" foresee the future actions. He makes his hypothesis only based on things he thinks happens inside of them. The only way to determine if his thoughts are accurate is with time/research. Just one example. Some ppl can figure things out without a notepad full of calculations. However it will not be accepted by science until that notepad is finally full of calculations. Did you know that Newton was a highly religious man? Look it up on the web. So many ppl respect his work (including me), so much so, that they will jump clear down the throat of a person placing any objection to him. ( i speak from experience, as you know my name here) However this is a man under any other circumstances because of his strong Godly beliefs would have been laughed out of science in a second flat. The real problem is, some dumb ass took science and separated it from God. Here is my personal opinion and I state it here loud and clear for any and all to hear. If it makes them irritated/offended/angry or argumentative that's their problem. I reiterate it is my personal opinion and as so, I am entitled to it! GOD: A power greater than our understanding and ourselves. SCIENCE : A power greater than our understanding and ourselves. So GOD=SCIENCE!!!! I have heard the same words resound in my head since the age of 5. "GRAVITY IS MAGNETISM". I am now 34 yrs of age. That is 29 long and mentally exhausting years of hearing the same 3 words. No matter how hard I try to just walk away from the subject, wash my hands of the whole thing, move on to a real life where my head can finally be clear of science.... There are those 3 words echoing from deep within...."GRAVITY IS MAGNETISM"... I can't escape them. Like I said since I was 5. I remember sitting in my kindergarten class when I first heard them. How many other 5 yr old's hear things like that? I don't care if people say I'm crazy. I don't have time to care. why? cause those 3 words block them out. I always end up right back to the same 3 words..."GRAVITY IS MAGNETISM"... If that's not GOD then I don't know what is. Science can be faith based. In any form. It should be accepted and respected. It doesn't matter how we get the real answers , just that we get them. And then prove them.
"many other scientist's get an idea in their heads about why something acts the way it does and use their creative yet educated side to explain it."
That's not faith-based. Only when said 'scientist' refuses to factor in all evidence and ultimately abandon the scientific method to conclude with the line 'It is because I believe it'. At that time, the scientists ceases to be scientific, and becomes a philosopher at best or a crazy theist at worst.
Please understand, I say the following with no malice or ill-wind. You seem like a wonderful person with a good level of intelligence and its been fun debating.
As an atheist, I am not troubled by gods and metaphysics or superpowers, omnipotence, omnipresence, hell, fear, and all the associated baseless mumbo jumbo baggage that people who are affected by faith have to carry around on a daily and sometimes hourly basis. I am an engineer, not a psychologist, so I can help with equations, and logic, and reveal inconsistencies and even dabble with philosophical topics, but a 30 year obsessive fact-less incorrect idea that won't go away is well beyond my ability to penetrate. If you are happy, then carry on. If not, then just maybe, someone properly qualified will be able to help.
I agree that it does not matter how we get the real answers as long as other people are not harmed in the process so best of luck to you!
For some reason I did not get your first message, usually it notifies me in my email, this time it did not. Now...It is faith based in a form. They get a "gut" feeling and they can't help but to follow it through to the best of their ability to see if they are correct. If they are in a situation like I am where they can't get the full extent of scientific knowledge YET that they need because it has yet to truly be explored. They continue on the known given path and make speculations/theories of what the final outcome is or will be. Then they BELIEVE it themselves. Not based on the actual science they obviously couldn't get to themselves but from what they already "believe" will happen. Then they "PREACH" these speculations/theories to everyone they can... "HOPING" as science continues on someday they will actually be proven correct and they can have their due credit for their "intelligence" ! BELIEVING...HOPING...AND PREACHING. Hmmmmmmmm! Sounds like faith to me. "but a 30 year obsessive fact-less incorrect idea that won't go away is well beyond my ability to penetrate. If you are happy, then carry on". I'm sorry this is just one thing that we will have to agree to disagree. And also as for the obsessive part, you see obsessive... I see A HIGHER POWER GREATER THAN MY UNDERSTANDING AND MYSELF. I have no qualms with ppl that do not believe in a God. To each his/her own. I just make the statement that Science in more faith based than all scientists want to admit. They forget about the real scientific process of what some of them have to go through. Then they twist it all up with intelligent words, and put it in the MOST ungodly way they can. Just so other scientists will accept them. But when it comes down to it. They have Faith in something. Even if it is just faith in themselves. Faith in any form is still faith. So I say again ... faith based science should be accepted and respected.
FYI : Newton had to hide most of his scientific work from the church because if they found out what he was doing they would have punished him. But a lot like me , I see no reason a person can't believe in both. What effect does that really have on other ppl? Why does faith always have to be an issue for other scientists? Why do they spend so much time trying to prove to other ppl that God doesn't exist. Here's my issue with the Boson ... When they find this one simple particle ( I do believe they will) the one particle of what all creation originated from will be staring them right in their face. Everyone will be excited , yeeey we found it... Media will be all over it!!! The Scientific Community all over the world will be informed and celebrating. It will be a really great time in Science for scientists. But here I will be, sitting there wondering to myself.... "Hmmmmmmmm ...I wonder where "THAT" particle came from???"....
I was going to write a note about the 'god particle' for you but it got so long, that I turned it into a hub. manna-in-the-wild.hubpages.com/hub/The-god-particle-what-a-stupid-nickname-for-the-Higgs-Boson?done
WOW lets stop using creative thought, which is only responsible for creation itself and have faith that a man called god causes electromagnetism sorry GrAvIty
so we can stop using our brains and finding soloutions.
It is the question that wins the nobel prize, not the answer, and not religious dogma's. More reaserch and ideas on magnetism are needed to help prosper humanity.Keep asking the right questions NR.
Have any of you read the books by Albert Roy Davis and Walter C. Rawls that I mentioned? Here is a quote from chapter 11 of "Magnetism and Its Effects on the Living System", titled "Magnetism and Gravity". "While we have up to this point discussed these energies and their effects on living systems, we will now show how magnetism and gravity are combined and react together, as we cannot have one without the other, and how these energies affect all living systems." This book was published in 1974.
Albert Roy Davis discovered, in 1936, that the north and south poles of magnetism are two separate energies with opposite effects on matter. His discovery has been verified by scientists from all over the world. Davis and Rawls were consultants to the U.S. government on the use of magnetism! Again, you might want to pay attention to their work. Here is a very good article written by Rawls. http://www.magnetage.com/Magnetic_Flow__BQLI.html
@Ray I read that magnetochemistry link. It has a lot of factual and correct information. Unfortunately it also is premised on a false assumption from the very start which makes the whole article invalid. As an electronic engineer, the idea presented is as laughable as stating that a hole in the ground flows, and by putting a lid on it illustrates this because the hole is prevented from filling up.
As for modified Newtonian dynamics... maybe. It's not really crackpot. Dark-matter or Dark-energy seem to have a lead for acceptance but exotic explanations like these leave doubts in many physicists' minds. Recently a large planet blacker than coal was found. Obviously this is 'dark matter' but it's not exotic. If we find that this type of matter is very abundant, they could make up the missing mass and it would be a very simple explanation (Much simpler than modifying Newtonian Mechanics).
Davis and Rawls : Don't know. I don't have much of an opinion on biomagnetic interaction.
A particle out there that is mono polar is far fetched. You see we can make generators and alternators and by the same principle molecules by nature align themselves to a perpetual uninterrupted continuous motion. Now if you were to ask me what a proton and an electron and a neutron looked like I would say "they all have very distinct characteristics that alloe them to do what they do. However, the chemical make up is the same only the shape is what gives them their unique ability makimg it seem one is positive while another is neutral and of course the negative. No that would be wrong because energy is energy. If there were 2 types of energy then we could say that anti matter is real yet the universe would be in chaos yet it is not it is in perfect balance otherwise the universe would have siezed to exist. In any case and to answer one question "why is not all matter stuck to earth like magnets stick together?" Simple... An atom has particles we have named protons neutrons and electrons yhe electrons travel so fast that even before the objects come into contact with each other they have already repeled one another. Gravity is not weak rather the amount of particles give each elemnt or molecule a differnt balance. Metals can be manipulated to create stronger bonds while glass has a different balance which tends to be more neutral yet the earths magnetic radiation will still have the same effect on all objects because of its stronger magnetism.
See Free Will Theorem - you guys will be arguing forever! LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_theorem
Axioms
The proof of the theorem relies on three axioms, which Conway and Kochen call "fin", "spin", and "twin". The spin and twin axioms can be verified experimentally.
1. Fin: There is a maximum speed for propagation of information (not necessarily the speed of light). This assumption rests upon causality.
2. Spin: The squared spin component of certain elementary particles of spin one, taken in three orthogonal directions, will be a permutation of (1,1,0).
3. Twin: It is possible to "entangle" two elementary particles, and separate them by a significant distance, so that they have the same squared spin results if measured in parallel directions. This is a consequence of (but more limited than) quantum entanglement.
In their later paper, "The Strong Free Will Theorem," Conway and Kochen weaken the Fin axiom (thereby strengthening the theorem) to a new axiom called Min, which asserts only that two experimenters separated in a space-like way can make choices of measurements independently of each other. In particular, they are not asserting that all information must travel finitely fast; only the particular information about choices of measurements.
[edit] The Theorem
The theorem states that, given the axioms, if the two experimenters in question are free to make choices about what measurements to take, then the results of the measurements cannot be determined by anything previous to the experiments. Since the theorem applies to any arbitrary physical theory consistent with the axioms, it would not even be possible to place the information into the universe's past in an ad hoc way. The argument proceeds from the Kochen-Specker theorem, which shows that the result of any individual measurement of spin was not fixed independently of the choice of measurements.
I honestly did not fully understand the theorems but I did understand the point you were trying to make. However, I do not mean to put anyones theories down rather I intend to encourage to keep working hard in order to prove what I too believe is a possibility. I will add one more thing to the puzzle. It has come to me in logical processing that the reason for not being able to create and destroy matter as stated in the third law of thermodynamics is because matter is simply folded space. Now how much space must there need to fold to sum up enought to make a proton in the least? A lot. That is why the "spliting of an atom releases such an intense blast. It is all that space unfolding causing a chain reaction around it. Look at a jet traveling at sonic speed. Something had to fold and unfold to make that sound like flaping paper. So then I came to the conclusion that space is potential energy that can be manipulated into making matter. And therefore space is matter and energy as raw material.
@Joseph, effilnuc is quoting almost verbatim from other sources on the net without supplying a reference. If these ideas interest you, then you will find it all using the keywords, "Free will theorem". It's a philosophical argument which has more internet exposure than scientific or mainstream philosophical exposure. Personally, I don't ascribe to determinism as is the conclusion of the theorem. You can read more about it here: http://users.tpg.com.au/raeda/website/theorem.htm
The topic does not seem to have anything to do with refuting or supporting whether gravity is magnetism.
@ Manna - I am quoting totally verbatim from the website that i referenced above the quote...
@ Joseph - read Quantum Pythagoreans by Mike Ivsin
@effilnuc my apologies for not noting the reference.
In that last comment I made I was trying to explain that the folding of spaxe into energy then into matter gives matter is shape and according to its shape you get a field of attraction and repulsion. One must first understand the roots of anything before we can understand the technicallities of an issue.
@joseph
How much energy is required to fold space?
That Mike Ivsin worries me. "He is adamant that experiments could prove that light is virtual (meaning it cannot exert pressure) if only scientists would do the experiments."
... but scientists HAVE done the experiments - way back in 1900 by Russian physicist Pyotr Lebedev. (and the maths == Maxwell's equations)
... and we now have nano-meter scale mechanical switches that can be flipped by light.
E=mc(2) this formula still applies to find out the part dealing with materialistic things, but to actually bend space without energy or matter requires faith as small as the size of a mustard seed. Without thought there is no physical world.
Quantum mechanics - the inclusion or exclusion of light in the third dimension.
Some geometric shapes allow for photons to cross over from being virtual to real and therefore influence electrons switches, however light is one dimensional and exists before space.
A rectified perspective of the dimensions that still needs augmentation is
Nothing, Zero or the Whole = O
1st dimension - light
2nd Dimension - space
3rd Dimension - matter - light folded into space geometrically
4th dimension - organisation of matter - life
5th dimension - control of matter - space travel
6th dimension - awareness of the first 5 dimensions and their opposites - or folds - memory and extrapolation
7th - 11th dimensions are the virtual opposites of the first 5 dimensions.
It would seem that the "control" points of the whole is found in the 1st and 6th dimensions.
@ Joseph, have a read of my blog
I wondered if the force of gravity could be calculated as tesla's so I looked up Tesla, very interesting.Tesla's dynamic theory of gravity as I think describes gravity as what holds all life, matter,LIGHT, everything together from the atom to the earth and obiviosley the more mass and density one has the more attractive power (magnetism , gravity same thing different scale. I aslo relised that if you had a beach ball sized magnet representing earth and two coin sized magnets, they will first have greatest attraction to the larger magnet because of its greater density and power. But this does not eliminate the power of the two smaller magnets it simply is greater in the same respect as if you have a magnet in each pocket and one faals out it will go down first and not to the magnet in the other pocket because the earths magnetism is greater.
I've always instinctively felt gravity = magnetism so I was trying to educate myself to learn why I didn't understand! I thought typing "gravity is magnetism?" into Google and this was the 2nd hit. I was even more surprised to see this is still being hotly debated.
I've not read it all yet (will take some time to digest) but I just wanted firstly to thank the OP and secondly to let everyone else know that I think this concept should be explored fully, even though it challenges the paradigm.
Take a breather and re-read Descartes' "Discourse on the Method" is the best help I can add right now!!
Hi OP, now I know these are moderated, can you edit my post above?!? It was supposed to read "...I thought typing 'gravity is magnetism?' into Google [would quickly answer this question but surprisingly this] was the 2nd hit.
NB I've now read a lot more of the thread (but not quite finished and still have a lot to learn) and one thing that I do like (science aside) is how well a personally moderated thread can work, especially when you've got guys like Larry & Manna around who are prepared to spend the time educating folks like me :)
One year I might come back and add to this page but as a sign-off I'd just like to add that instictively I've always felt harmonics/frequencies are more fundamental than forces (as effilnuc says). I know my scientific opinion counts for shit but I think there are more fundamental/higher 'powers' (metaphysical/spiritual sense) underpinning all this so hopefully my contribution is still valid!
(Sorry, wrote that as a note to you OP but then forgot my audience mid-way through haha. Feel free to edit it as you wish. On a personal note, Kudos from me to you for your attitude. Even if you're wrong I can see that you are only interested in enlightenment. If you don't achieve that through scientific means I think you will other ways).
Dear room I have an interesting question that some of you may find idiotic but if so i do appoligise
Is it possible that a neutron, as it is a form of atomic mass(neutral particle?), can be ionised(i know ionised is the wrong word but this is a lil new) by a type of force that effects only mass?(such as nuclear force). If so wouldn't the resulting ionisation be a type of magnetic mass prortional to the size and shape and mass of the neutron? And since the physical mass of the neutron itself cannot interract magneticaly, once the prtonos begin to interract with with electrons, the prton is pulled away from the neutron instead of staying in the form of a cloud around the neutron. Therefore, would this not mean that the number of directions the proton is being pulled with the intensity of the pull in each direction explain the number of protons in each atom?
I appoligise if you think this is an outlandish theory.
But if not, wouldn't it be possible to say that a neutrons strong-force is the result of some type duplication of the neutrons mass into energy? Inorder for its mass to interact magneticaly inorder to prevent from being sucked into he neuclei.
Thus woldnt this mean magnetism is the result of neutral objects under the effects of gravitational force therefore creating a proton mass? Or mass of positive energy.
And to further this just a bit, if you were to add the electron and proton mass together and then find the speed of the particles in oreder to find the frequence and then amplitude you can then use the waves(vibrations) to calculate the amount of energy or mass lost as a result of their intteraction giving you the exact mass of the neutron itself with a very very small negliagble margin of around .00001 mass difference.
Any thoughts????
@ mrrichiet I will not edit any of your comments, that is not what I do here. I only edit or delete disrespectful ppl with nothing better to do than harass my posters or me. And I agree completely.... Manna and Larry's presence are greatly appreciated here. They are very helpful and intelligent.
To everyone else... I really do appreciate everyone's thoughts, knowledge and opinions. That's what it takes to come to a real conclusion in any topic. You guys are great.
So wouldn't this mean that magnetism and gravity are not the same forces but are derived from the same mass?
Or basicaly i guess gravity and magnetism = mass
This sounds reasonable, but I don't know enough about the math to truly grasp it. If it's true that gravity is just a weak magnetic influence, then the best way to disprove your theory is to see if a planet with significant mass without a magnetosphere still has what we call gravity. Mar's magnetic field is fairly weak; isn't it?
Thanks for sharing this,
Dan
Thank you for the reply Dan.
To begin to answer your question, we can use what we already know that yes mars has a very weak magnetic field.
Secondly we already know that the surface gratational force of mars is 3.5 N/kg(which is 36% that of the earth)
Then when talking about the outer gravitational force.
Earths gravitational force compared to mars is greater than mars. That means that objects are easily pulled into earth, whereas it is harder to pull objects into mars, because the gravitational pull is less than earth. With that, satellites on earth could easily fly out of orbit while they are orbiting mars because they have more inertia. With that, the gravitational pull isn't strong enough to overcome the inertia.
Does this answer it?
Sincerely,
Don E. P.
So yes, though the magnetic field of mars is weak, it does display gravitational force.
But as the magnetic field is weak on mars so is the gravitational force.
Or vice-versa
Since the gravity is weak the magnetic field is weak.
Please note i am not saying that is how the mag field is created on mars, just a hypothetical assumption.
If you take a object of mass mixed with a bit of iron and super compress it due to gravity or other neutral force if the pressure is great enough to cause friction you will eventualy have heat and then current and then magnetics.
But to cut through all of my bullshit i posted on mars, i at the moment belive magnetism and gravity to not be one in the same but counteractive force and energie to provide stability to prevent destruction of matter.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/23/world/europe/switzer Was Einstein wrong? New findings from Cern state that matter can travel faster than the speed of light. Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting.
NR - My bet on that cnn story is that we will hear nothing more about it. i.e. the experiment won't be able to be independently verified. If, however, it can, then we will be ushering in a very exciting era of new physics.
Gravity is the accumulation of all matter(positive, negative, neutral) into mass.
When enough matter of positive or negative charge is accumulated in one area, enables magnetics to take place.
The result of Gravity is the accumulation of all matter(positive, negative, neutral) into mass.
When enough matter of positive or negative charge is accumulated in one area, enables magnetics to take place.
Sorry the other was not written right.
Just wow... I've been reading this for the past hour or so and am greatly interested. I'm currently studying Electrical Engineering because it was the only field which had any practical application (to me at least) of magnetics. One of the most surprising things about studying Engineering is how all the different fields have very similar forumula's: for example, electricity in a wire and flow of liquid through a piping system. And that extends across all of physics. Now I really like your theory, and support it. A lot of the arguements against your theory can be nullified by assuming an electron/proton is a monopole as you stated in your theory. Seeing as how I'm currently at work and don't have any of my electromagnetism textbooks with me I won't be able to refresh myself to make an informed post as to why those arguements are wrong, but later tonight I shall start at the top with mathematical proofs and the such. So, I'll content myself with giving support instead. Alas.... back to work I go. =(
Don E.P.,
If you're right, then it would be a lot easier to build an "anti-gravity device;" would it not? A sci-fi writers dream :) I'd be curious to know the relationship of a positronic monopole versus an electron's.
Thanks,
Dan
To help the discussion please read what Russian theologist Blavatskaya wrote about magnetism 200 years ago. Sorry if the link was already used. I feel it very appropriate here because all the creativity of the author during her life was under the symbol of mixture of religion, history and science.
Images of 'Planet formation' by Hawaii Astronomer show no signs 'Gravtatal collapse' related to the planets formation.
Supporting planet formation theory of "The Iron Ball"
(See NR's post above/Top of Blog)
Status Quo - Wrong Again!
Sorry for the typo above.
Interesting read, though have some confusion.
Came across this due to thinking along the same lines.
Have my own version of this hypothetical.
Do not have a high understanding of physics, and don't plan to test the theory.
The idea came about from an observation from a device i had been testing, that some how must relate to gravity.
Since we don,t know what gravity is, and due to the device having a planetary type of motion, similar to a solar system, many theories starting emerging as to if gravity and magnetism are related.
unsure if the hypothetical should be posted in this blog.
have considered approaching a physicist at a university, though concerned i will be called a crackpot which seems to happen on physics forums.
Must be hard to believe in new concepts, even though it would be rewarding if the hypothetical was proven to be true.
Highly doubt a graviton will be found at cern.
Note: have only a basic understanding of physics
It is my end theory and conclusion that string theory is in fact Magnetic energies and vibrations on different levels and manifestations.
I 'am curently making a motor for my senoir year project that runs on nothing but magnets, and I have been searching all over the internet for more reliable sources to put in my paper. I have also been trying to make it so the average jo can understand it too. I always thought magnetism was a form of gravity and readying this makes me think that more. Cause if you think about it if protons have a north pole yet they are together maybe it's the neutrons that hold the protons together in the bundle much like a bunch of magnets to a bar of steel. When you think of nuclear fission a nuetron strikes the adam breaking up. The massive amount of energy released could be the protons repulsing each other.
Awesome clip whoever .^. is, thank you.
Hi NR, now what to do?
@ NR - Could we revisit hydrogen separation from oxygen using harmonics please?
If one concludes that magnetism is gravity is light is matter is anti-matter is energy is power is responsibility ....manifesting on different frequencies then...
A sovereign acceptance of the notions that
energy is
- abundant,
- equally available to all, and
- debt free
are fundamental to our collective future.
I agree that magnetism is def gravity. I'm a electrical engineer and i am working on math and experiments to prove this if any buddy want to help and join me contact me which i all ready have the experiments just not the math, but i almost have the math
Who ever doesn't think magnetism is gravity they are crazy. Its all about scale humans cant get past the scale. I'll bet My marbles magnetism is gravity and I have the experiments to prove it and and I almost have the math, But ill also promise you that E=Mc squared. And I also have an idea for a space ship that could get us out of or solar system in 45 days which is shit and getting.
Another thing humans invented time meaning the clock on the wall, but guess what all of time is no more than one second where just so small to it it seems like its for ever. think out side the box. I promise its all about scale for instance hypothetically if i could shrink you down next to an ho scale train set and i put u in front of it it would kill you, but me at are normal size i can stop it with my hand . its all about scale . scale my friend scale
lets not forget that they in rich uranium with magnetism. Albert Eisenstein also bent light with magnets. hey a black hole has a north and south pole Waite light cant escape well duh the earth has a magnetic field Waite if a meteor come in at a rate of speed it can create a explosion bigger than any nuc we have well wait every thing is a conductor Waite if you move a conductor threw a magnetic field it becomes charged magnetism is def the secret to life and space and time
Every one who know me will tell you i will drop your jaws its def about magnetism. But i will tell you this there is no such thing is perpetual motion and if and one thinks they can achieve it there wrong and it tell me they don't know what gravity is it a electric charge to be precise. but when u have a charge and electron move u have a magnetic field so the electric charge or magnetism could be gravity
@ George - Again, now what do we do?
George: Correct, perpetual motion is impossible, and yes, when a charge moves in any given frame of reference, you need to account for a corresponding magnetic field.
Gravity is not electric charge. Albert E did not bend light with magnets. Photons have no electric charge and are not influenced one tiny bit by a magnetic or electric field.
It's drawing a long bow to claim that everything is a conductor and leads you to a false conclusion. There is no such thing as "charged magnetism".
Your conclusion about shrinking someone to H0 scale is clearly wrong. Do you think you could kill a mouse with an HO train? No chance.
I don't agree that whoever thinks gravity is not magnetism is crazy. I don't believe it. In fact I can (and have) stated it's wrong and given many reasons. But I am not crazy.
Scale is important but it's not the whole picture. I promise you, you do not have experiments to prove that gravity is magnetism. Nobody does.
It's amazing how so many "almost have the math" or "Don't understand physics, but they know they are right", and so many have experiments to prove something but no way to explain it or convince anyone who knows what they are talking about. This is not science.
Matthew: People have been trying to make motors with nothing but magnets for hundreds of years. It will not work. I don't mean to squash your creativity. Heck, I went through that stage too (at 12 years old). But when you learn more about thermodynamics, conservation of momentum, friction, the Carnot cycle and fundamental forces, then it becomes crystal clear why every perpetual motion machine will fail. Even worse, any machine that purports to create energy from nothing is wrong.
Let's put this into perspective. At the quantum scale, a vacuum is teaming with virtual particles. These do really create particles and break the conservation of energy law but with a BIG caveat. That energy MUST be returned to the vacuum almost immediately. In an environment where you can feed external energy into a concentration, then that energy will allow virtual particles to become real for a longer time. But you need to ADD that energy. You need to add a LOT of energy. This is what the LHC is all about. It adds a LOT of energy to charged particles and smashes them together to feed the virtual particles which then become real for long enough to detect. The elusive Higgs' boson is a particularly difficult-to-detect virtual particle, and this is why you need a huge accelerator. How much energy? It's in the order to trillions of electron-volts. Theory strongly suggests the Higgs' is the particle responsible for giving everything 'gravity'. By contrast, a photon is the force-carrier for Electromagnetism. And photons are very easy to detect arn't they? Electric and Magnetic fields are intertwined. So when you are comparing gravity with magnetism, you are really comparing gravity with light. Are you prepared so easily to claim that gravity is light? I don't think so. A photon has no rest mass.
I will make perpetual motion possible and what you all will have to understand is that according to Newtons third law of thermodynamics this is possible. It is possible because I am using the law of conservation to build the most efficient machine ever. If all goes well anti gravity vehicles will be the future. I once went into a store and saw some metal dolphin with a magnet attached singing endlessly now tell me perpetual motion is not possible? Just cause you cant use it or fing a good use for it does not mean perpetual motion should be discarded. Anything is possible my machine will be ready in 2 months from now be ready.
Hi Joseph. Newton did not formulate laws of thermodymanics.
The Carnot theorem sets a provable upper limit on the efficiency of any engine. You cannot do better than that.
Your dolphin probably had a battery in it or more likely in the base to energise a coil and make a crude motor.
Your perpetual machine will not work. Sorry to say, but that's just how it is.
I urge you to visit http://www.khanacademy.org/video/carnot-efficiency
which is a video done by an MIT graduate. You will not be disappointed.
The person that said it cant be done is always interupted by the person who just did it. I think all imagination is realy a kind of inherited memory such as instinct, giving us hints to what is possible. The similarities to gravity and magnetism I think are so obvious that all that's missing is more imaginative question's on the subject. Perpetual motion to me is something that can run a liftime without any extra fuel. You could say our sun is perpetual motion sure it will die someday but how perpetual does one need. Questions are the father of all answers. Better of saying dont know how yet rather than sorry give up its immpossible.
Manna in the wild try say that to Tesla, we are here because we want to upgrade the current model of physics, please don´t try to disturb.
.^. Tesla died in 1943. It's hard to tell him anything.
M: Who's (or what) lifetime sets the standard for your personal definition of perpetual motion? A gnat, a mouse, elephant, tortoise, a galaxy, a sparrow, your Mum? You can't pick any and say it's perpetual can you? Whatever meagre similarities you can muster for gravity and magnetism are swamped by the differences. And your philosophy for progress needs upgrading. If you don't abandon blind allies then you will never turn your attention to new things. In real proper science, a discovery of impossibility is as important or more important in some cases than a successful breakthrough. In the same way you navigate a maze by eliminating bad routes. This (massive) blog is littered with people that are bashing away with previously proven dead ends. If you want to try something useful, turn to some of the 'open questions' in maths and physics. Don't pick away at long beaten problems. Having said that, it is useful sometimes to consider impossibilities as a stepping stone to other results. It can help the creative process but take it for what it is.
@NR Yes - maybe, just maybe string theory will give us an explanation, but your interpretation is not quite right. Tiny loops and strings might be the correct models to explain gravity and explain magnetism, but it will not predict they are the same thing.
Follow the links to video google on this topic:
Manna in the Wild- What set's my standard for perpetual motion is stated on the free online dictionary point 2.Continuing or lasting for an indefinitley long time.
What do you call perpetual. All philosophy needs upgrading including your's it called evolution. And yes discovering how something won't work is a important discovery, there are infinite ways to attempt and fail just as there are to succeed. nothing in time is impossible. All these BLIND AllIES as you call them are seekers of new truths as there is no single truth.Please tell me what new idea you have discovered because new idea's come from the present, not old science text books.
You will see the device after I finish constructing it. Now if I can power up an entire city with this invention for 100 years, even 20 years, even 5 years even 1 year before it breaks down and needs maintenance then I say its pretty much perpetual don't you think. My work is not about creating a power that is beyond human comprehension it is about economizing and trying to make some fuel or means of power for mechanical purposes and cut down on the use of gasoline, pollutants while making energy cheap for the world. Its about helping the world where maybe some day there is one class, the rich and wealthy class.
Just came across this new webpage that just posted recently.... It is very comprehensive. I suggest Manna takes a good reading to it. Everyone appears to be trying to get on my train... lol! Published by a Dr. www.gravityismagnetism.com BTW ... she took over my number 1 spot on the search engine. I think because I published mine with hubpages, and she owns her own domain, I have been pushed down to slot 4 (sad face) lol!
Joseph: who said "Now if I can power up an entire city with this invention for 100 years, even 20 years, even 5 years even 1 year before it breaks down and needs maintenance then I say its pretty much perpetual don't you think"
No, I don't think that. "Breaking-down" is different to "perpetual". You can't make an over-unity engine at all, so it's irrelevant how long it takes to "break down" because it won't run at all.
@NR: The link is full of crackpot pseudo science mumbo jumbo words all strung together to look impressive to the uninitiated, and not worth the time of day to the initiated.
Just one sentence into it, and it falls apart. It claims to find that gravity is created inside the nucleus of an atom. That can't be true because a photon is a massless particle without a nucleus (of course) and yet it has a gravitational effect. In any case, the exchange of pions in the nucleus (it should say virtual pions) is involved with the strong nuclear force - that which is responsible for holding the positively charged protons close together, and this force has an effective range of less than 10 femto-meters (look it up) -- gravity has unlimited range.
The strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force and electro magnetism have proposals (called GUT theories or Grand Unification Theories) to combine them into a single theory. Yet gravity stands alone.
Gravity is not magnetism.
M: said "new idea's come from the present, not old science text books."
Rubbish. Most new ideas are modifications of previous ones. Sometimes serendipity comes into play, and rarely, something completely new pops up.
Manna: Even modifications are new ideas (present ideas)do you have any for this topic of gravity and magnetism???
Here is another very strong reason why magnetism and gravity are very different.
If you heat a magnet to its Curie point, then any observed asymmetry is gone. i.e. it's no longer acting like a magnet.
The property of gravity is not temperature dependent.
@M "do you have any for this topic of gravity and magnetism?"
Well, there are two hot-of-the-press ground-shaking ideas that are properly researched, mainstream and exciting.
One was mentioned here before about faster than light Neutrinos. I predicted we would probably not hear more about it. However, I'm wrong on that count for sure, because it's still generating a buzz. The latest on that one is a new and better experiment : http://blogs.nature.com/news/2011/11/neutrino_expe and http://www.nature.com/news/neutrino-experiment-rep
This is quite stunning and I am excited to be wrong about the prediction but it's not a "done-deal" by any stretch.
And now there is a paper that claims that the quantum wave function is not probabilistic and instead, it's a real physical thing. This is radical because it means that quantum theories cannot be probabilistic. It has far reaching consequences in physics and philosophy. http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-
If you would like to exercise some creativity, imagination and generate new ideas - contemplate the possible consequences of these two pieces of new research.
Manna in the wild are you still waiting for graviton show up?
@ .^. Yes: Some ranges of energy have been eliminated which has had implications for supersymmetry theory (SUSY) because it pushes the energies up and reduces the 'niceness' of the theory. The good thing is, that a negative or positive result will be exciting -- it's win-win. If it shows up, then it's the last particle in the standard-model to be observed. If not, then as far as I understand it, it could mean that gravity is not quantised - unlike all the other forces. (The massless graviton would be a quantised force-carrier for the gravitational field). If gravity is not quantised, then it means there is something radical to be discovered about physics at a very fundamental level. It would explain why QT and GM cannot be unified in their current form and lead to new areas of research. OTOH if the standard model is verified, then people can put more effort into quantised gravitational models and unification with the other forces.
What you have to realise is that the standard model and general relativity are independently spectacularly accurate, yet they refuse to be joined. This implies a new theory must envelope both theories in the full form while also providing exceptions to both at some scale or energy level or other parameter(s). In other words, you could start with the new theory and reduce it progressively say from it to GM to SR to Newton's Laws by taking a path containing certain conditions where Newton's laws are known to be accurate. Or you could derive thermodynamic laws from it or derive quantum theories and Maxwell's equations and many other known theories or new theories.
LHC data is very exciting. At present the ranges for Higg's that have been excluded are forcing it into areas where new physics might be required.
In either case, gravity is not magnetism because if the Higgs' is found, the quantum gravity requires a graviton of spin 2, while magnetism requires the photon of spin +/-1. If the Higgs' is not found, then gravity cannot be quantised which means it is definitely totally separate from magnetism.
Do you see why I am so strongly against the idea that gravity is magnetism? If you look at Maxwell's equations, one of them says, "Magnetic monopoles cannot exist".
Yes i understand, each person must present his point of view is why we call theories.
I leave here a link to a channel that presents an interesting concept, and feel free to analyze the supposed impossible monopole.
.^. That video is nothing significant.
If you didn´t catch ,you should watch the whole channel.
.^. Still nothing to see. It's all crap. Consider the consequences of an over-unity machine (made possible by macro magnetic monopoles - i.e. so called magnetic charges.) This breaks physical conservation laws. Once you allow that, then you would expect to see things in this world that just don't happen. Your coffee could cool, then start heating for no reason. Things could just appear in front of your eyes from nowhere. You could throw a ball that would speed up and slow down of its own accord. There are a million things that support conservation of energy and the equivalence principle, and Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, and thermodynamic laws. Nobody nowhere, ever has seen or made a magnetic monopole. The closed you will get is an infinitely long thread-like dipole which is a mathematical construct. Due to infinite length, the single exposed end would model a monopole. As yet no-one has seen that either (It's called a Dirac String). The closest approximation has been found in spin-ice.
Carl Sagan promoted a thinking tool that he called the baloney detection kit. Try it. It works:
Thanks for your response, you still do not understand the simplicity of the design presented in the video to understand my point of view you simply must watch the videos link to the google videos, after watching, combine all the information presented in all my posts and hope you can understand.
Carl Sagan was a wise man, but Richard Feynman came close to the answer that we seek.
One idea I had is since the earths gravity bends space/time, why not try to use the earth's structure as a model. So I thought what if you spun compresed plasma at roughley 1700kms per hour (as fast as the earth spins) or faster around a powerfull electromagnet ( the plasma representing magma, the the crust the conductor, or the shell of the craft, and the magnet the earths core) Asking this question I found some very interesting reading on anti-gravity coincidance?
I also understand that this model woul also need the magnet (core) to spin slightly faster as the earths does, and if you wanted a model of something such as a space craft that can warp space/time while travaling throught space at incredible speed without feeling any G force the Earth itself is in my humble opinion a perfect example to study.
I also understand that this model woul also need the magnet (core) to spin slightly faster as the earths does, and if you wanted a model of something such as a space craft that can warp space/time while travaling throught space at incredible speed without feeling any G force the Earth itself is in my humble opinion a perfect example to study.
M: How do you propose to spin plasma? How do you propose to compress it? Why compress it? Where would the energy come from to compress it? What does this have to do with gravity? Why use an electromagnet? How is the magnet powered? What does this apparatus look like? What fundamental principle is it trying to exploit? How can it be tested? What results are expected? Why does it have to spin faster than the Earth? Why only slightly faster?
I personally have not read the new website yet, like i said It was just a new site that popped up under search that kinda threw me off guard. I am looking forward to reading it, however I will say I was contacted by the site owner and she said the site was not based on theory but on actual experiments. Also several Dr's and Physicist's she claims assisted. I still have to read the pdf. However Manna I think you may find this link interesting... http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-faster-light-find This is another story about Einsteins faster than light theory that you thought we would hear nothing more about. Well, we're hearing more about it!
effilnuc...It is my belief that harmonics are capable of splitting atomic bonds on many levels. Not just dealing with Hydrogen. You should toy around a bit and do some experiments. You might be surprised with what happens.
You know Manna, and I say this with respect and jokingly... I wouldn't hold my breath to long waiting for the Graviton to rear it's little head, one could turn blue very quickly that way! lol!
Richard Feynman Magnets
Manna: How to spin plasma? with powerfull electro magnets which is currantly in use with the hard ion collider, and compression, well with presshurizing the electrified gas (plasma),and why? the more presshure the more power, with what energy? nuclear energy is the most perpetual choice for now, and what does this have to do with gravity? anti-gravity, the fundimental of all questions on the subject. As for rotational speed I simpley used earths rotational speed as a example, earths core rotates faster, but of course if you could make a faster rotation such as Jupiter's you bend space/time to a greater extent with more magnetism, which I think would be important to control space time around such a craft what ever shape it may take.
And why use electro magnets? so you can control them with a switch.
Richard Feynman on - philosophy, Why question, Modern science and Mathematics
Philosophy is logic, science is a means of trying to put together the puzzle of answers that logic provides,there are no answers without questions that logic or philosophy comprehends ,question everything and all is possible.
Sorry to quote but i feel it might modivate more research
on such a valiable subject lol...
NR: "However Manna I think you may find this link interesting... http://news.yahoo.com/scientists-faster-light-find This is another story about Einsteins faster than light theory that you thought we would hear nothing more about. Well, we're hearing more about it!"
We certainly are! Like I say though, there is still a lot of verification to be done. I hope its validated, but still have doubts (like many physicists).
As for 'waiting for he graviton'. I am not waiting for it. I am waiting for an outcome of the LHC search for Higgs' - positive or negative. But I guess you are right, this could easily take a year, and that's plenty of time to turn blue.
.^. One of my Maths friends took at look at http://nige.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/summary-expla and although he is really good at maths said it was highly technical but with a 'crackpot' feel to it. I get the same feel. For example, a Tensor's rank is simply the number of indices required in the matrix to write it down. The article's definition seems to confuse tensor rank with the order of a differential equation. When I see confused babble like that, then I stop reading in detail as it is a waste of time. I disagree with the definition of DIV and CURL too. It makes no sense. The diagrams are very sub-standard. The prose reads like techno-babble, the article smacks of 'conspiracy theory'. I've no idea why some people put so much effort into misleading drivel sometimes.
I know it's not a perfect article, but analyzes the views that look like they are no longer priorities of modern physics, I thought it was the only way for you to understand that I am not here trying to wander, rather far from it, I I sincerely believe we have an electromagnetic universe and that in recent decades, we walked to fail future generations.
For me, the theory Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the most correct scientific point of view but it lacked detail, there are no black holes(they are Exotic stars) or the space warps(is electromagnetic distortion).
The graviton isn´t a particle, but a state of wave, that's what I've been trying to show here, so that confirms, Richard Feynman was right and yes gravity is magnetism.
--------------------------------------------------------
Quantum electrodynamics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_electrodynami
Feynman diagram
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feynman_diagram
Exotic star
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star
Magnetic field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field
An electrodynamic model of the Galactic center
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988ApJ...333..735B
Black holes and scientific fraud [Archive] - Physics Forums
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-1
Walter Russell Vortex Video - The Cosmology of Twin Opposing Electro - Magnetic Vortices
.^. "I sincerely believe we have an electromagnetic universe" Why? I mean - sure that's true in many ways, but it's not in place of gravity. It's in addition, separate to gravity.
"For me, the theory Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is the most correct scientific point of view"
QED is a successful theory not just a point of view.
"but it lacked detail"
It has a lot of detail. It's a spectacularly accurate work.
", there are no black holes(they are Exotic stars) or the space warps(is electromagnetic distortion)."
The scientific community now accepts the presence of black holes, they have been indirectly observed (via accretion disc) It is certainly a gravitational phenomenon directly predicted by Einstein's field equations.
"The graviton isn´t a particle,"
Yes it is. It's not been observed, but the theory states that it is a particle.
" but a state of wave," All objects also have wave-properties but only quantum scale objects are significantly affected. Wave-particle duality is one of the conundrums of quantum theory.
"so that confirms, Richard Feynman was right"
You have not really stated what confirms that R.F. was right about. He was right about a lot of things, but I am not aware that he thinks gravity is magnetism.
If you watch his QED lectures, he frustratingly insists that the photon is a particle right in the face of wave-experiments that seem to say otherwise. I don't know what he said about the graviton (theoretical spin 2 massless particle - like the photon).
"and yes gravity is magnetism." no no no, with a capital N.
BTW - why do so many people think this? I mean - magnetism and electric charge are two components of the same thing, but you don't see many people claim "Gravity is electric charge." Why is that? You know - there is not one single solitary experimental (or sound theoretical) basis for anti-gravity, and you can't shield gravity. But you can easily - like baby-experiments on the table-top - easily show how to shield magnets, and make two of them repel. Static charge is hugely strong at present temperatures compared to gravity, after all, a small plastic comb can be electrically charged enough to be several times stronger than the entire gravitational pull of Earth. What presses you guys so strongly into thinking that gravity and magnetism are equivalent? Magnetic monopoles could create perpetual motion machines (maybe), anti-gravity or gravity shielding may also permit it. But it can't be done. Moreover, it's easily provable based on the laws of thermodynamics and energy conservation that it's not possible. And based on every day observations of normal objects, and the way that things heat and cool and move, these thermodynamic laws must hold. People have tried for centuries to create a perpetual motion machine but always fail. This MUST tell you something! Gravity is not magnetism (or electric charge).
A uniform gravitational field is undetectable by any local measurement, but a uniform magnetic field is detectable.
This, I believe, you will find hard to counter.
The Physics of Anti-Gravity
To say that a uniform gravitational field is undetectable by any local measurement is accurate. However it does not mean that it is NOT detectable at all. I would find it hard to believe that it's quite easy to measure a field that one has become a part of. Gravity is magnetism on a different measurement, a different manifestation if you will. The apple fell from the tree. Bottom line this must be detectable to some extent. http://www.av8n.com/physics/gravity-perception.htm
What you refer to is Galileo's findings, but even Gailileo was searching for a different force to measure. He did not realize they were in fact one in the same force.
.^. " so that confirms, Richard Feynman was right and yes gravity is magnetism." can you please show me where he makes exactly this claim...?
Watch
Richard Feynman Magnets and The Physics of Anti-Gravity.
Manna in the wild.
why are you so passionate about disclaiming this site.
what are you trying to improve...
Ok, I hate to bring us back here. But here I go... I want us all to think about an MRI and how it functions. For those that do not know I'll place it here...MRI is a technology used in visualizing the internal body structure. Aligning nuclear magnetization of the hydrogen molecules present in the body water with the help of a magnetic field is the core of Magnetic Resonance Imaging technology. The magnetic field is altered using Radio Frequency fields. The process results in the production of a rotating magnetic field that can be detected by a scanner. MRI is newer than the X-ray technology and was introduced in 1973. Earlier, MRI was known as nuclear magnetic resonance imaging (NMRI).... Ok, Now I want ppl to think about this long and hard. If we were not magnetic, how then would these magnetic fields align our cells in order for the MRI to take images? Someone answer this question. It is not a myth or a theory this my friends is a fact. And now lets take it to another level... All living things on this planet MUST HAVE magnetic properties to survive. IE... Iron, Magnesium, etc... All plants, animals, etc... Why is this. Another question that must be looked at in depth. Another fact, not theory or myth. As for Manna discrediting the site, please do not look at it from that perspective. Manna is doing what any physicist will do in this situation he is breaking down all the barriers and questions that many others would do if this theory is presented publicly to science. The questions and points he poses are valid in Science as we know it and need to be acknowledged and accounted for. The fact that he is here and placing opposing valid views is actually a good thing. It makes the wheels spin and the answers to be sought out... Now someone please tell me the answer's to my questions..@ .^. can I find this video on youtube? and how many min's in will I find this statement? When did he first make this claim?
I do not think there is some video on youtube directly with that statement, he spoke in code I do not know why, the only way to confirm this is talking to his family.
Ok, .^. this is not something that I have not known, I think we are all familiar with the fact that strong enough magnetic fields do in fact bring objects to zero gravity. This is actually a point I have been making for years. I think there are video posts here somewhere where materials like glass and other "non measurable magnetic materials are at zero gravity because of this". Like the frog video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1vyB-O5i6E , which brings me to the point of... why would a magnet bring a living thing to zero gravity? like I stated above.
I also began to have doubts of the official theories when I saw this video a few years in the doc BCC series of horizon, unless I am mistaken.
If you analyze all the data I have presented here, you will understand.
Yes there was a youtube video on this, I just watched it a few minutes ago. I am going to go through your comments and check out your links now.
Energy from the Vacuum series
@ Manna, please be more specific as to why you think that this could not possibly be accurate, From my understanding of string theory, I found it to be completely plausible. "It is my end theory and conclusion that string theory is in fact Magnetic energies and vibrations on different levels and manifestations."
I just watched your monopole video you just posted, I wonder why this did not make BIG NEWS. This is exactly what scientists have been searching for, a proof of real monopoles existing..... wtf??? I don't get it!
Iam not the creator of that video,i only want to know the Why question that Richard Feynman always talked.
Your interpretation of string theory is plausible, check
Antony Garrett Lisi work.
That video was not headline because of the industrial complex machine, they don´t want to show how the universe works.
@NR
"To say that a uniform gravitational field is undetectable by any local measurement is accurate. However it does not mean that it is NOT detectable at all."
It means exactly that. In fact I should be even more rigorous. Any local measurement cannot detect a uniform gravitational field at all. you don't feel gravity in the same way that you feel other forces.
In fact, No measurement of any sort can detect a uniform gravitational field and no local measurement can detect any gravitational field. Since all your parts are accelerating together, gravity creates no strains. The reality of life is though, that on a *large* scale, you can't find ANY uniform gravitational fields (only on a small scale can you approximate it).
Contrast this with a uniform magnetic field. It's easy to detect that. For further information, look up Larmor frequency.
This is a very very significant difference between magnetic and gravitational fields.
On MRI: we have already discussed how a very small percentage of molecules' dipole moments are aligned to the applied magnetic field, and then relax back each time the field is pulsed, It is this tiny effect which is
measured. You don't become permanently magnetised after an MRI, neither do you float in the machine.
@ .^. "I do not think there is some video on youtube directly with that statement, he spoke in code I do not know why"
Oh - really? Feynman never spoke in code. He always tried to be as clear as possible. I encourage you to seek out videos of some of his lectures. They are freely available.
" I think we are all familiar with the fact that strong enough magnetic fields do in fact bring objects to zero gravity."
Never does that happen. Not ever, anywhere. If you brought something to zero gravity, say, by placing it in a hypothetical gravity-shielding sphere, then a little nudge would send it infinitely in that direction, EVEN it if was inside the event horizon of a black hole, in a straight line, uninfluenced by any mass until it happened to bump into something like an air molecule, a hydrogen atom or a planet etc. But the fact is, everything (even a magnetic field) has a gravitational component.
The floating frog is just a case where there is enough repulsive magnetic force between the source and the frog to oppositely balance the particular gravitational force at that location on the Earth. If you change the field strength, mass, location or composition of the frog the frog would fall or rise further. If you shielded the magnetic field, the frog would fall. This is no more remarkable than holding up a frog with a spring, yet you would not claim the spring is an anti-gravity device.
NR: MRI, and hovering frogs are possible because at least one electron is a feature of every atom, and it has a charge, and it is free to move, it has a magnetic dipole moment (the g-factor for an electron is a little over 2.0). There is no getting away from that. The electron also has mass AND it's own gravity. Therefore the exact physical equations for calculating magnetism involves BOTH gravitational equations, and current-loop equations.
Because the property of gravity applies to everything - and I mean everything (even a massless photon), and because it is always attractive, then there is no way to cancel gravity. It always adds up. But those little magnetic dipole moments come from current LOOPS, so they must have a positive and a negative which gives North and South in every case. There are no magnetic charges (even though there is an approximation technique for surface magnetism calculations that finds it convenient mathematically to assume the notion of magnetic charge.) The conclusion that you must draw from this is that electric charges, and therefore magnetic dipole moments can be geometrically arranged en mass in such a way that the macro-effect is cancelled. Indeed, this is the normal and most common state. Under some circumstances, and in some materials, it is possible to fix magnetic domains containing dipoles in a co-operating orientation. This is what makes a material magnetic. So you can imagine that even in something like a frog, held in a massive magnetic field, it's possible to align enough domains in the frog to oppose the applied magnetic field with a force that is sufficient to overcome the weight of the frog. But this is definitely not an illustration of anti-gravity. The frog and applied magnetic field would be repelled even in free-fall (i.e. a small-scale uniform gravitational field).
On energy from the vacuum: No. That violates the laws of energy conservation. It is not possible to make it do work. The mechanism that creates pressure in the Casimir effect allows us to infer its existence, but not make it do work.
"That video was not headline because of the industrial complex machine, they don´t want to show how the universe works."
This is a classic conspiracy-theorists cop-out claim. The real reason that the video is not headline is because it's crackpot. The biggest problem with massive conspiracy theories is that it's a monumentally impossible task to keep tens of thousands of people from making a break for it and cashing in on the story. So either someone or some group pays off everyone involved so handsomely (and possibly threaten their grandchildren), that they have no incentive to blab. That's a complex theory aside a simpler theory which is "there is no conspiracy; it's just bogus rambling". It's also a sign of last-resort. So if you start to read that kind of rebuff in an intellectual argument, then you know your opponent has run out of options.
Manna in the wild explain to me your interpretation of the "project paperclip".
Conspiracy theories often go against a consensus or cannot be proven using the historical method. What's project paperclip got to do with this?
Everything,compartmentalization was born from that.
If you don´t believe watch this interview.
I'll take a look tomorrow if I get time.
@Manna..To say there are no conspiracys, is to say all story's are 100% accurate and knowbody lies. if that were true then corruption would not exsist, or misinformation as that's all conspiracys are, lies, corruption and misinformation.
M: That's not what I am saying. There are persistent crackpot conspiracy theories who's proponents invent ever more outlandish additions to the theory despite incredibly strong and reliable evidence to the contrary. One such conspiracy theory is the one drawn out above about a worldwide corporate suppression of disruptive energy technology. If an 'invention' violates the laws of physics in such fundamental ways as conservation laws and/or thermodynamic laws, then it's broken. When the only avenue is to claim "suppression of technology" as an explanation why it's not huge worldwide news, then it's clearly crackpot.
Manna in the wild hows your thanksgiving going? This is George Herrmann again. You told me that I was out there for think every thing is a conductor. Well I can assure you that I can prove everything is in fact a conductor. I have studied electronics and electrical theory for many of years I graduated college with my master's degree in electrical engineering. My GPA was 3.8. In other words I know my stuff Sr. You also said I was wrong about the Ho scale train. I said if humans could hypothetically shrink them self's down to a ho scale level, and I mean as small as the model scaled people that would make the train look real. I bet the train would kill them if they stood on the track and got hit by the train. You countered by saying can the train kill mouse if it was on the track. Well probably not, but you have to think Sr that the mouse would be about sixty feet long and 20 feet high. Sr that's like a dinosaur! I don't think a real train would kill a dinosaur if it hit it. I bet it would derail as well. Just like the mouse would derail the ho scale train. first off if I hypothetically shrunk my self down to the ho scaled correct level meaning human size of that scale and the mouse as well. The mouse would be a little bigger than a grain of sand. I would be willing to bet my nuts that the train would kill the mouse then. You will never hear from me again. I promise you remember the name GEORGE HERRMANN. I'll also bet if you were alive during the days of Columbus that you would have said he was wrong about the world be round. I promise you I know exactly what gravity is. Its is not magnetism ,but closely related and I can see why the person of this article above would think it is magnetism. But its not exactly magnetism. Here is something for you to think about if I took a battery here on earth and threw it at you at 10 mph and hit you with it, and then we went to the moon with the same battery and I threw at ten miles and hour their. Where do you think it would most like hurt. Well duh the worst no doubt the earth. So the Question is what gave it's energy. Well DUH gravity. I'm sure your gonna say I'm wrong and I'm an idiot, but I promise you I will prevail. This earth has not had a grate thinker in along time and and you cant hate on me for trying and think and I promise you every one who I talk to says I have a grate mind and I don't ever ask for the complements I just talk and get awarded them. Well I know your gonna attack me because that's what people do of your kind of nature. So it's your loss my friend and I will win I will not give you any more information. So enjoy your place in history as i will enjoy mine lets see who remembered man in the wild OR GEORGE HERRMANN. O and also how i discovered exactly what gravity was. It happened mysteriously just like what happened to newton. It was dumb axident. I CAN SWEAR I GEORGE HERRMANN KNOW EXACTLY WHAT GRAVITY IS AND YOU FOR SURE DON'T
Manna.. So anything that is important and suppresed by the media is for crackpots?
Mr George Herrmann, I find your response puzzling. My challenges are generally about the arguments not the people. So anyway, perhaps with your grade average expertise and masters you can explain exactly how, and I quote, "Eisenstein also bent light with magnets."
On your HO scale idea, I am not shy to admit being wrong when proven so, and welcome such because that is the nature of learning. But there are several things that don't scale properly in physics. For example, the air molecules in HO are the same size air molecules in human scale. You can't scale down human skin cells to HO level, or the vascular system etc. This is why bugs are so incredibly tough. You can flick a fly from one side of the table to the other and it will be barely hurt, but if you scaled the bug up to human scale and applied enough force to flick it an equivalent up-scaled distance, then it would probably get smashed. You might counter this and say - well, let's permit everything to scale exactly... but then you won't be able to tell anything at all different so it's a null-experiment. Anyway - enough of that because it does not seem relevant to this hub except to say that if you were HO scale, you could very likely fall from an indefinite height without injury. A mouse can fall from 10 stories and run away, a cat can survive just about without injury, a small dog might die from injury, a human would most likely die, a horse would most likely splash. The smaller you are, the tougher you are in a *relative* sense. Small bugs experience flying in air as we would experience swimming in treacle, and they are comparitively unaffected by gravity.
We know what gravity is. We have known for years since Einstein formulated GR. What we don't know is "WHY".
What is the point of saying you have discovered something exactly, and then not say what it is? Anyone can say that. Let me see, "Oh- I've discovered how to factor prime numbers in polynomial time, and I know you for sure don't". Yes - that was kind of fun. Now tell me you believe what I said is true, or alternatively tell me why it's almost guaranteed to be a lie, and tell me why it's not certainly a lie. Someone with a masters will find that a trivial challenge. While you are at it, tell me why this would be an important discovery.
Hi M: No of course not. I don't know where you get that impression. But things that purport to overthrow hundreds of years of incredibly accurate experimentally verified PRINCIPLES are by far most likely crackpot, and if someone (or these days, more likely a few hundred people) finds a ground shaking important discovery, it's not kept secret, it's put out for scrutiny. BUT it IS kept secret when the scientists still have serious doubts about their theory. A classic example is the FLT neutrino experiments currently under debate. This is a great example of the scientific principle in all its glory.
.^. I watched the video, now I feel guilty... for wasting the bandwidth. But I did thumb it down and gave an ouch response. The guy is deluded. Look closely at the start of the video when that ball floats and the other thing flies off. The 'table' wobbles and the ball wobbles and it's a cheap trick. The camera is obviously anchored to the setup, and the whole setup is rotated. That clockwise and counter-clockwise bit of plastic he calls a 'cell' is fun but nothing special. It's not symmetric. So what's it showing? An asymmetric object illustrating asymmetric dynamics. It's not a big deal. Apart from that all his blurb and that certificate is unsubstantiated nonsense.
Small thing's survive falls better because they have less mass in relation to the strength of earths gravity. If earth spun faster and generated more magnetic pull such as jupiter does, at 10 storys a mouse would hit the ground 2.5 times harder. It does not mean the mouse is tougher because its smaller.
Here is a full description of that 'cell' a.k.a. a "Rattleback". Take note of the physics section, and the Myths.
M: "Small thing's survive falls better because they have less mass in relation to the strength of earths gravity."
Nope. They "fall better" because they are tougher per unit volume, and more likely to be slowed by wind resistance (depending on SHAPE not mass).
"If earth spun faster and generated more magnetic pull such as jupiter does, at 10 storys a mouse would hit the ground 2.5 times harder."
Not even Crap. Possibly utter crap. Prove it any way you like. Do you think that a non-rotating Earth-size planet would have no ability to stick you to the surface? BTW - it's already been noted here that Mars has bugger-all magnetic field. It rotates so how - using your idea did the Mars-rover rove? How can Earth's rotation have any effect on how fast you fall?
Research frontiers in magnetochemistry by Charles J. O'Connor.
"Research frontiers in magnetochemistry by Charles J. O'Connor."
Why? and What about it - what's your point?
I have done my research well to learn , that give up isn´t a option.
I love this forum! The discussion and your perspectives provide amazing insight into gravity and magnetism as well as human relations.
I am a linguist, NOT a mathematician or scientist by any formal means.
From a linguist's perspective, one cannot say that "gravity is magnetism", nor "magnetism is gravity" if both are considered to be nouns (the name of a force). However, if both words are adjectives, simply describing a perceived affect of FORCE then one is grammatically correct in saying GRAVITY IS MAGNETISM or MAGNETISM IS GRAVITY.
Please consider the following carefully...
"damp is wet". Both damp and wet are adjectives for this statement to be true but each word carries with it an inherent frame of reference as to the minimum and maximum conditions to which the word/adjective applies.
Something that is damp may well contain more water than something that is wet, however both adjectives describe a perceived affect of the operation of the noun water.
If one considers that "gravity" is an adjective, and "magnetism" is an adjective, we can all stop arguing and move on to what the essence of this thread now reads...
There is one FORCE in the universe that can be described by various adjectives, being
-Strong
-Weak
-Magnetic
-Gravitational
The perceived effects of this single Force vary according to the scale of awareness of the observer(s). Inside an electrical motor the Force is labelled Magnetic,
Traveling between Earth and Jupiter, the Force is labelled Gravity,
Splitting an atom the FORCE is Strong,
and then there is the Weak Force of which I know the least, probably because it is not very noticeable until it becomes, strong, magnetic or gravitational from our current collective perspective.
Seeing as EVERYTHING is part of/effected by this single FORCE, my understanding is that these adjectives, or labels that describe the perceived effects of the Force, merely refer to the dimensional perspective of the observer(s) posting comment.
If one looks at the four adjectives that describe the effects of FORCE listed above, one will recognize the relevance of the scales and perspectives to which each adjective best fits.
Mandelbrot showed us the pattern of the Cosmos that is scalar...the FORCE that created this Cosmos must therefore be scalar and of a frequency such that it unfolds in a manner that has multiple DIMENSIONS that are scalar and that can be experienced separately or harmonically.
In summary, there is but one true FORCE or ENERGY whose effects have been described according to the dimension(s) from which they are experienced and/or observed. Perception is part of the experience and always forms the outcome.
As participators, ALL things are conclusively conductors of the original Force or Energy as energy cannot be created or destroyed, only conducted from one form to another.
The human linguistic mind that is trained to group, label and exclude, currently understands the Force as four separate forces differentiated by the scales of the dimensions in which their effects are observed.
I can comfortably express that the force of gravity is magnetism that is sometimes strong and sometimes weak...
...depending on the frame and scale of reference of the observer and his/her audience.
From Manna's perspective, gravity and magnetism are different because they operate in different frames of reference and on different scales.
For those of us whom have a more inclusive perspective, the words 'gravity' and 'magnetism' are labels defining the parameters within which one is describing the dimension, scale and frequency of the observed effects of one FORCE that, depending on the circumstances is best described by the common terms - gravity and magnetic.
effilnuc..Brilliant description, you really summed it up, it's all the same force but changes its behavior on differant scales, such as water, imagine being the size of a fly and seeing water from that perspective. It would be like having a one tone bead of water rolling around in front of you like mercury..
Magnetism is gravity on a small scale and gravity is magnetism on a huge scale or vice versa, I think questioning how scale affects magnetism could lead to the answer we have all been looking for.. ANTI-GRAVITY!
Manna.. forgive my late reply but you said a way back that when a magnet is heated to its curi point it looses it's magnetism. True with a perminent magnet but I doubt that a magnet the size of the moon and 3 times as dense (equivelent to the earths core) with the huge amount of electricity receaved from the sun would loose it's magnetism because the more electricity (heat) a electro-magnet receives the more power.Earths core is not a perminent magnet but a huge electro- magnet. Spin generates more energy again like a turbine and earths core spins faster than the outer core, that friction also generates more electricity. but off course the amount of energy generated from spin is also relivant to the mass spinning. A huge generatore opperating at it's slowest will generate more electricity than the smallest generator at full speed.
Perhap's if there was know sun and earth stopped spinning, it's core would become a much weaker perminant magnet and retain as much gravity to an extent as the moon does due to it's mass alone.
Perhap's if there was know sun and earth stopped spinning, it's core would become a much weaker perminant magnet and retain as much gravity to an extent as the moon does due to it's mass alone.
Maby it's more accurate to say gravity is electro-magnetism...
I was having difficulty embracing the difference between magnetism and electromagnetism when I was drafting my previous post.
M's perspective that Gravity is electromagnetism (a function of the momentum and mass of the interacting objects) fits perfectly into a scalar theory.
When one compares the dynamics between the 'parts' of an atom to the parts of the solar system and galaxy, the scalar nature of one force best illustrated by the double helix interweaving in opposite directions maintaining perfect balance at all TIMES.
We need to clarify the definition of anti-gravity.
Anti-gravity does not mean NO gravity. The only way to have no gravity is to have no mass. If there is no mass or matter, then the concept of gravity is void - the relationship between matter and gravity holds.
But in the absence of mass, the force that was called gravity is still present, but must be expressed with a different term to clarify the absence of matter and the presence of waves.
Where there is no matter there is space and it is in this medium of space that the force that was previously labelled gravity, now becomes wave based (not particle or matter based) and is labelled a magnetic force rather than gravitational force.
If one begins to move the mass/particle/matter within this wave field, one can introduce the label of the resultant new force, electro-magnetic force.
If there was a way to creat enough electro-magnetism/gravity to bend space/time as the earth does, move into a point of attracted space and then turn off the power, then theareticaly it could be possible to travel by not really moving from point to point but by attracting points of space to us.I realize this may be a dream now but also possible if we learn how to manipulat the effects of gravity.
With enough persistance and time all is possible.
"From Manna's perspective, gravity and magnetism are different because they operate in different frames of reference and on different scales."
This is not entirely true. That the forces are different in scale is only one aspect of their differences. effilnuc, you have made amazing progress in some areas but a full understanding still needs more revelations. The electromagnetic force, and the gravitational force operate on the same scale in that their range is infinite, and this is a direct consequence of the massless condition of the force-carrier. For EM it is the photon, and for gravity (if gravity can be quantised), it might be the graviton. We need to be careful when saying 'massless' because unfortunately, the same word is used unqualified in different contexts. In the context above, massless means it cannot be accelerated or decelerated. You can add more energy to a massless particle but this will not make it speed up. Then there is 'spin'. In quantum theory, spin is a property of a particle. It's not like the spin of the Earth or a spinning top and this difference is strongly illustrated by spin 1/2 particles (like the electron). I'll try to verify this, but I think you could visualise that a spin 1/2 particle has to be mathematically rotated 720 degrees to bring it back to it's starting configuration. These are known as fermions, and a property of fermions is they cannot occupy the same quantum state. Therefore, a particle's energy and state are both quantum parameters. You can have two electrons at the same energy level, but only because you can have one in 'spin up' and one in 'spin down'. When you add another electron to that system, it must occupy a different energy level.
The photon has a spin of 1, and the graviton would have a spin of 2. Again, these differences are absolutely fundamental and it has nothing to do with scale. This fact alone makes gravity and electromagnetism very different forces. They both co-exist in the same scale as they both have infinite reach. Both these are Bosons and in contrast to Fermions, Bosons can occupy the same quantum state. This is why you can create a 'laser beam' of light containing particles of the same energy level (in the visible spectrum, this is colour). It's also why the effects of gravity are allowed to accumulate. But the most significant difference between gravity and electromagnetism is the unavoidable fact that gravitational effects ALWAYS accumulate while electromagnetic effects typically on average cancel unless certain configurations are created. This is why you can observe the gravitationally induced behaviour of distant objects and note that the gravitational forces completely control their motion compared to any observable magnetic or electrostatic force. Nowhere ever in the whole observed universe can we see an example of gravitational shielding. In contrast, you can do an experiment right now that demonstrates E.M. shielding. (Just close your eyes.) But we have seen examples of gravitational lensing. This is where E.M is bent around a massive object (e.g. during an eclipse) proving that the photon has a gravitational property. So we are in the situation where the photon with no REST-mass still has a measurable gravitational property while also being a fundamental particle. Gravity is not magnetism because magnetism is a component of E.M. and the photon is the force-carrier for E.M. yet is influenced by the gravitational force.
I won't go into the strong and weak forces now, but if you want to research it, look up QCD and GUT theories and 'gauge bosons' and "The standard model".
You said, "The only way to have no gravity is to have no mass."
Nice. More accurately: "Because of the mass-energy equivalence principle, the only way to have no gravity is to have no energy."
"But in the absence of mass, the force that was called gravity is still present,"
I will have to think about that hard. Now you are really pushing the limits of human knowledge. The absence of mass leaves you with the quantum vacuum which is certainly not empty, and so I can't dismiss your proposal out of hand. Actually, it's a current idea that gravity is leakage from another dimension. To research that, try "Brane theory of multiple dimensions". In many ways, the non-rejection of such ideas in the mainstream scientific community is testament to the fact that gravity is not magnetism. Really - if it was so simple, then we would have solved the 'why' of gravity hundreds of years ago - it's not like no one has thought about it.
"Where there is no matter there is space and it is in this medium of space that the force that was previously labelled gravity, now becomes wave based (not particle or matter based) and is labelled a magnetic force rather than gravitational force."
No.
"When one compares the dynamics between the 'parts' of an atom to the parts of the solar system and galaxy, the scalar nature of one force best illustrated by the double helix interweaving in opposite directions maintaining perfect balance at all TIMES."
This is just babble.
M: Your idea of space-folding cannot be dismissed as far as I know.
"Maby it's more accurate to say gravity is electro-magnetism..."
No.
@ Manna - not sure if the rules allow just a NO response to quotes. They are statements, not questions so you need to state "I disagree with this" or state, "NO, because I believe or we know that ...."
I trust you appreciate the importance of this respect to us all.
Would one consider perfect balance to be an apt description of anti-gravity?
IE: When the "forces" operating within a defined system create a repeating cycle of events and/or movements, such as the orbits within a solar system or the orbits within an atom, the resulting situation is in perfect balance, and each component in the system becomes relatively weightless to the other components of the system - this is equivalent to anti-gravity.
This then means that the concept of gravity is really about the force that is bringing the cosmos into perfect balance.
Currently our minds are trained to consider space/time in a linear fashion, with a beginning and an end.
One must establish the notion that time is not linear.
If the atmosphere of the body is air, then the atmosphere of the mind is time.
Time moves forwards, backwards, up, down, right and left...it is not linear, there is no beginning and no end...only repeating cycles, harmonic resonance and frequencies. The mind is programmed to identify and harmonize with these patterns. As the awareness of more complex patterns and rythms within this matrix arise, the human species and the whole planet as a single bio-sphere can begin to evolve once more.
It is obvious the collective life on earth has not evolved in the last 40 years! We have destroyed and killed way more than we have evolved...two steps forward, one step back so to speak.
Technology is not the problem, the planet is not the problem, we individually are not the problem but our the sum of our collective thoughts is obviously very imbalanced and hence destructive rather than constructive.
By opening our minds up to possibilities within 3d time as opposed to linear time, we can find the way out of this very exciting and somewhat anxious period.
We are experiencing a global EMERGENCY in the sense that a new way of considering and engaging the cosmos in which we live is EMERGING as our collective head space reaches critical mass.
The end of time forecast next year could well just be the end of linear time and a return to synchronicity and symmetry with OUR cosmos.
The domination of the Gregorian Calendar began an effective separation of the human psyche from the natural order of time. The Gregorian calendar is so out of synch with natural order that in only 400 years since it was introduced, we have almost destroyed our home.
Sorry to go off topic a little, I thought that rather than speaking of conspiracies etc we focus on the facts and the logical conclusions one can draw if one steps back and looks at the natural cycle of time and overlays mans construct of time (12 months a year WTF??) - ignore the moon and every other celestial body and use a machine to guide our interactions with each other and the planet rather than the natural order that was followed very successfully by many cultures before organized religion introduce unnatural time matrices; the situation is obvious.
If the timing is off, everything else stuffs up, we know this to be true. There is no way to compensate for bad timing!
So, let's look at the definition of time as related to the laws of gravity and electromagnetism and see if we cannot tweak the definition of time so as to find the missing link between the two concepts and open Pandora's Box...we do not seem to have many other options left.
"Would one consider perfect balance to be an apt description of anti-gravity?"
No.
... and a statement is something that is either true or false. "No" means false where I used it against a statement, so read my response as "false" where I said "no". In future, I will be more careful.
It's good that you are thinking about different models for what we call time. You might be interested that there are theories that permit not only positive time, but also negative time and positive and negative imaginary time.
For insight into that, you need to understand that 'imaginary' is a historic label assigned to the numbers which lie on a line after multiplication by the square root of -1. (Electrical engineers use the symbol j, and mathematicians and physicists use the symbol i, where i = j = sqrt(-1) as a definition. For several hundred years the usefulness of this definition was noticed but not accepted and that's how it got the label 'imaginary'. This is the basis for complex number theory that is used extensively in physics and mathematics.
Imaginary time is a similar concept. Geometrically, imaginary time is perpendicular to real time. A lot of physics does not actually rule out negative time as the equations involving negative time are symmetric to positive time and nothing seems to absolutely rule it out at a fundamental level. The problem with negative time is the paradoxes that arise from considering it.
Imaginary time is essential to the formulation of quantum mechanics.
Your 3D time would involve another axis perpendicular to real and imaginary time, and 4D time would have another axis perpendicular to those three. Although this is very tricky to imagine, the logical progression using vectors and then tensors is simple. Once you do that, it becomes very difficult to discuss ideas without talking in 'mathematical language'.
The Big Bang is a singularity in "normal time." i.e. an equation that divides something by zero and has no numerical limit. But when visualized with imaginary time, there is no singularity so the Big Bang appears like any other point in spacetime.
So you are on to something with the 3D time although it's not a new idea by any stretch.
Obviousley time is varied by mass as a dog is smaller so the years are longer hence the more mass the more magnetic attraction the greater worping of space/time, or the less with less mass but relative to its size.
M: "Obviousley time is varied by mass as a dog is smaller so the years are longer"
False -- although a creature's sense of time is subjective.
"hence the more mass the more magnetic attraction"
False
"the greater worping of space/time, or the less with less mass"
True (but not related to magnetism)
"but relative to its size."
False
@ Manna - thanks for taking the time to give me some background.
It makes sense that additional vocabulary (mathematical) is required to discuss the notions of 3d and 4d time...perhaps you can help us all learn more in this regard from time to time?
Rather than consider the vectors of 4d time as directional, such as in the x - y - z axis of conventional 3d geometry, is it possible to discuss time in terms of a relativity between the three/four vectors.
Let us consider light which is the constant when it comes to measuring TIME, or was until they found something that is traveling faster
Consider E = MC^2 where the accepted quantum of the speed of light is not the speed of light traveled between points A and B in a straight line (in a vacuum) but...
the actual speed of one single photon traveling in a helix spiral (of relatively very small x & y vectors and a hugely enormous Z vector (the linear vector between points A & B).
This would make the actual (not perceived and currently accepted) speed of light significantly greater than the currently accepted quantum of less than 300,000 m/s if the quantum of the x & y vectors is added by multiplying the wavelength of light by frequency by the z vector distance traveled in one second.
This seems a relatively simply equation, @ MANNA, I think you could work that out faster than me for sure...would you mind giving it a crack and coming back to us with your findings...(that is of course, assuming that what I am saying makes mathematical sense on some level.
@ M - I must say that the relative life span and biological development of smaller dogs and larger dogs is not, in my opinion, a case of the years being longer. Technically, a year is the amount of time the planet (on which one is speaking from) takes to orbit its central sun. Time is a construct of the mind that is only existential when relative to something else.
Time itself cannot be defined, but periods of time can be accurately defined relative to other periods of time using concepts of scales, resonance and frequencies.
We do not know that time is linear, it is only a recent concept that in my opinion has failed.
According to every living thing, natural time is cyclical and mother nature including every living thing we know of, pretty much ignores ALL but the natural order and observable cycles of the cosmos.
We humble humans are the only living species that we are aware of that has attempted to step outside of this natural cycle by
firstly - imposing a disgustingly crude date keeping system used today by most of the western world, and
secondly - trying to distort Einstein's theory of relativity by stating that the speed of a photon is to be considered a linear quantum vector rather than 3d.
If one steps back a little from one photon and looks at a plethora of photons moving in this helix spiral - one will find the waveform of light.
To stretch this hypothesis even further let's say
we have a whole lot of photons in line, one after the other, traveling through space in this spiral helix pattern creating observable wave like effects from certain perspectives and under certain repeatable conditions... but when the first photon in this long line of photons moving as a wave is intercepted it then acts independently as a single 'free' photon but has all the energy from the momentum of all the photons behind it that divert slightly and continue traveling as a long string of single photons, one after the other until the next photon in line hits the same thing or something else.
In summary, there are many, many, strings of photons pouring out of the sun towards the earth and every other direction. There is no space between the photons linearly as they move in a spiral helix towards earth, some hit the magnetosphere at just the right angle that they are able to penetrate, perhaps 1 in a thousand is able to penetrate, maybe 1 in a million photons makes it through to the surface. Even better still, maybe 7 photons as a cluster in a million make it through and are the visible photons of the light spectrum that then refract, maybe a few thousand photons as a cluster every billion photons make it through and these now behave so differently (as a lower frequency, larger cluster), that they are observed and described using the term radiation.
These theories are just that but I think they could be tested without much problem using the technology now available.
Remember Einstein said it would take at least 100 years for humanity to fully grasp the theory of relativity. If everything is relative, and time is constant and E=MC^2, the Energy must flow equally in two opposing directions within the geometric structure created by the molecular bonds within the Mass.
If you managed to read this far, I hope I expressed my thoughts clearly enough for you to grasp these ideas. As Manna in the Wild said, a much bigger vocabulary and probably greater frame of reference and experience is needed for me to explain these concepts further. If there is anything that doesn't make sense AND you would like me try and express more clearly, please ask.
In any case, I love any honest, considered feedback.
What if all matter/mass is actually photons of light moving at the same velocity they always do but are just trapped inside a shape based on geometry, symmetry, frequency and harmony.
The forces of gravity and magnetism and electromagnetism are labels used to describe the observable and predictable results of interactions between two or more bodies of mass/matter...clusters of photons.
The energy or velocity that is within a light wave (countless numbers of photons moving along one after the other) is the only energy/force of the cosmos. The energy is everywhere and is always in perfect balance by flowing in opposite vectors with symmetrical velocity.
This force is scalar and resonant such that as photons are clustered into various atoms, elements, molecules and planets, they use a certain amount of their velocity or energy to maintain the bonds necessary for them to maintain their state of equilibrium with other photons within the same atom, element, molecule or planet.
Now, the forces we currently call magnetism are based on clusters of photons within a piece of matter that are relatively so close together that this cluster of photons usually has name like lead, or water, or gold or hydrogen.
The forces we currently call gravity are based on the external relative velocities of two or more relatively separated masses or clusters of photons.
The perceived difference between the force of gravity and the force of magnetism is related to a mathematical formula based on grouping and scaling photon particles using the double spiral helix, geometry, frequency and symmetry.
I know that none of these ideas are really anything new, but hopefully I am wording things in such a way that it may trigger something in someone who is 99% close to figuring this out.
If one understands the compounding effect (as in resonance) of the velocity of each photon traveling along certain paths, such as in iron, one can understand how it could have a net positive force which we call a magnetic field currently. This magnetic field is in addition to its gravity field that is still a factor of the energy or velocity of the photon.
So, saying Magnetism is Gravity is correct if one is using both terms as NOUNs - ie the label of the underpinning force/energy inherent in the event.
AND, saying Magnetism is not Gravity is also correct if one is using the terms as adjectives to describe the dimensions and context within which the single force is being expressed.
This really is important if we want to stop going round in circles!
To put it really simply...
Energy = Matter x Speed of Light or
E = A x B^2 or if one considers that light is moving as a 3 dimensional wave with a constant frequency then...
E = X x Y x Z / frequency, or
Energy is a factor of the velocity of each photon through all three dimensions of space divided by the frequency of times the matter returns to the same point on any one of the XYZ axis before it returns to the same point on all axis. IE, it may oscillate between X and Y 50,000 times per cycle back to the same point on the Z axis.
It could be that light returns to the same point on two of the three axis every cycle, but alternates which two axis every cycle.
We have all been initially educated by Governments or private institutions that have been pretty much under the thumb for at least 60 years of many and various corporations with many and various agendas of which some are seemingly genuine and some questionably nefarious.
Unfortunately, each one of these institutions has been governed continuously for at least 200 years, some longer, by a time keeping system and more recently, time keeping machines, that is not aligned harmoniously with the natural order of the cosmos we see all around us...the law of equilibrium.
Ergo, it is logical to assume that many facts we were taught are 2 dimensional in nature. Many facts are completely true but not whole, they are one sided.
This is like Gravity and Magnetism. If you are taught only parts of the "right" facts, you can be trapped in the belief gravity and magnetism are real separate things but if you are aware of all the facts or, rather all of the facets/dimensions, gravity and magnetism become virtual descriptions of the one real force of equilibrium.
Both gravity and magnetism are subjective descriptions of the ONE force called equilibrium which flows in two opposite spiral helix vectors.
Light and dark are the first dimensions of this ONE force, as the photon flows outward the darkness flows inward to maintain equilibrium.
In the case of a Black Hole, the velocity of photons flowing inwards must equal the velocity of dark particles flowing outwards - hence why all we see is BLACK. This is PERFECT EQUILIBRIUM or the true ZERO STATE.
The other state of Equilibrium is the Whole state or ONE.
Then comes integers or dimensions that are in periodic equilibrium if they are whole but not in a state of perfect equilibrium as in 1 = 0 or Light = Dark
One could speculate that
E = MC^2 is
Dark Matter = Matter x speed of light^2
...I don't know enough to begin to try and prove or disprove any of this, perhaps you can?
This would mean that the ratio of dark matter to matter in the universe is a ratio close to the speed of light squared which implies that matter is literally light that has had one or more of its three vectors confined into orbit.
Or it could mean I have lost marbles!
If time/space was only valid to our dimension (our size) I cold agree, but to say our dimention (size) is the only correct size is to say an insects time is unvalid because they are not our size. If you were one, you would be content with your liftime as all beings are more or less, unless you were a insect percieving the life of a human youe life would shurley flash befor your eyes. Time is leagthend on scale to accomadate the nessecary lifspane of every organism, I beleive that is how it is so, otherwise existence in this reality is void.
look at how fast bacteria spreads, to us in a hour breeds millions of generations, do you really think that each individual bacteria has time granted on the same perspective. I bet in there world they experience no difference to us realating to time/space, generation after generation.
effilnuc.. my currant therey is that dark matter is a plasma that keeps gravity (magnetism) from contracting all matter, as you wonderfully stated, energy can not be created only conducted, and since the majority of reality is dark matter it is this plasma that all is bourn. If we where fish we would see outside of the ocean as space as we see the outside of earth space. I think the father of all (to our perspective) energy must be from this infinite plasma we call space/time all we need to do is find the connection..
I predict dark matter is anti-gravity.
effiluc: I'd start gathering those marbles. But there is one paragraph which makes sense:
"What if all matter/mass is actually photons of light moving at the same velocity they always do but are just trapped inside a shape based on geometry, symmetry, frequency and harmony."
I'll re-phrase this.
What if all matter/mass is derivable from fundamental geometric configurations of loops or strings of energy?
This is course, is 'string theory'. It's had a rocky history. At first it was ignored, then it was taken up, then there were issues with it, then a breakthrough, and presently it is a mainstream theory. Nobody knows if it is correct but it (might be) a proper testable scientific theory.
Some insight into the language used is:
* scalar
A number which multiplies a quantity without changing other properties. For example, the zoom-function in your word-processor applies a scalar to all elements to expand or shrink the contents. A scalar has no direction.
* vector
A direction, multiplied by a scalar.
Therefore, a speed of 4 Km/h is a scalar, and a velocity is a speed of 4Km/h due North.
* unit vector: A vector who's scalar is unity. Therefore a unit vector (also called a basis) can be used to convert a scalar quantity to a vector quantity.
E.g. if scalar 4Km/h is multiplied by the unit vector 1N, then the result is a vector 4Km/h Due north.
* dimension: The (scalar)number of values required to represent a vector. e.g. a rendezvous point: I'll meet you at map reference BD-F4 on the fifth floor at 8am. This could be abstracted as a row-vector: (BD,F4,fifth,8) or more general: (x,y,z,t) --- a 4-dimensional object.
This coordinate system relies on t being completely independent, and it works fine for almost everything. However, Einstein realised that if this were true, then space must be perfectly Euclidean. In reality, you cannot find a perfectly Euclidean place. Everything possesses gravity, and since light must, therefore be affected by a gravitational object, there cannot be anywhere in the universe where light can travel in a straight line (in the Euclidean sense), instead, light rays travel on Geodesics which is the path it takes through space on a co-ordinate system that is non-flat. This is what is means by 'warping' of space-time. He had to couple time to space to accommodate a finite cosmic speed-limit for energy. The effects of this is most pronounced near a huge gravitational field, and/or travelling extremely fast. To protect the finite speed of light, space-time must change. This leads to time dilation or length dilation, and the change in time or length as measured by an observer is dependent on that observer's speed and the local gravitational field-strength. Time is no-longer an independent absolute quantity.
General relativity demands therefore, a four-dimensional space. The literature refers to this as Minkowski-space. (due to historical reasons).
At this point I'll quote from Wikipedia so you can see the general idea of a 4-vector used in relativity:
"Vectors are classified according to the sign of ?(v,v). When the standard signature (?,+,+,+) is used, a vector v is:
Timelike if ?(v,v) less-than 0
Spacelike if ?(v,v) greater-than 0
Null (or lightlike) if ?(v,v) = 0"
Manna in the wild, This is all I'll give you and nothing else why would i give you my work I'm not finished yet E= Mc Squared Is the equation for every thing most people don't understand It and Einstein over look it he had the equation for everything. (Here is a Quote from someone on hear,(""Remember Einstein said it would take at least 100 years for humanity to fully grasp the theory of relativity. If everything is relative, and time is constant and E=MC^2, the Energy must flow equally in two opposing directions within the geometric structure created by the molecular bonds within the Mass."") I'll also tell you this manna in the Wild I learned how to split the atom reading electric theory and i did not learn it from Einsteins equation ,But only from electric theory Nikola Tesla, and George ohm are the real icon legends they had it first and can prove it and I swear on my life and my kids that if people actual understood electric a little better they would see it too. I swear most Scientist still don't Understand E=Mc squared and it funny how i can link the equation to ones that where created before it. Its sounds like A COUPLE PEOPLE ON HEAR UNDERSTAND IT , BUT I have to say the majority don't I'll LEAVE YOU TO FIGURE OUT WHO DOES not!!!!!!!!!!! HINT HINT And it isn't me good day too you SR.
Oh and MaNNA OF THE WILD YOU THINK I DON'T KNOW MATH HAHAHAHAH OK. nAH I DON'T KNOW THE FUNCTION OF X OR AX^2+BX+C =0 OR INEQUALITY OR NO I DON'T KNOW MATH NO I DON'T NO HOW TO FACTOR (X+6)(X-6) OH WAIT x^2 - 36 AND YEAH THAT'S A EASY ONE BUT I'M GIVING YOU THE IDEA I ALSO DON'T KNOW DERIVATIVES TO GIVE YOU ONE d/DX (SIN^-1X) = 1/ SQRT OF 1- X ^2 NO I DON'T KNOW DIFFERENTIAL EQUATIONS OR LINEAR ALGEBRA SO MAYBE WE COULD HAVE TALKED AND WORKED ON IDEA TOGETHER, BUT YOUR TO IGNORANT. ill TELL YOU THIS I SUCKED AT ENGLISH BUT I KNOW MY MATH. gOOD DAY TO YOU sr.
Manna of the wild With the Ho o Scale I told you to think hypothetically seems you can't and I also said people of the world cant get passed the scale of things it seems like you cant neither. Just like 99.9 percent of the population doesn't understand relativity nor E=Mc^2. I'll Give you A hint Time is no more than One sec Your just so small to it that it feels like for ever. Remember humans developed a clock. Think if Jupiter was a habitual planet and you lived their for your life cycle you wouldn't even have revolved around the sun once. REMEMBER ITS ALL ABOUT SCALE. just like most who don't understand RELATIVITY you'll probably never understand that time is no more than a second it just seem like for ever because where all micro to all space and time. Well I'm done here i don't have time to try and ex plane something to someone who will just simply never understand.
Hello Mr Herrmann. I'm sorry about your English but that's ok if you are good at maths. Anyway - the factors of (X+6)(X-6) are -6 and +6. What you did was use the distributive property. I've no idea why you are insulting me though. I do find your posts almost opaque and it's hard to work out what you are really saying.
Thanks Manna!
If I understand correctly, space is 3 dimensional - xyz and time is only 1 dimensional - t?
Manna in the wild i was not insulting u i might have seemed that way, but i sure you i was trying to tell you how i feel. and the (x+6)(x-6)is the difference of squares. i was just demonstrating that i know my math. i thought you said previously that i didn't know my math. Im sorry if it felt like i was insulting you i promise i was not sr. just making a claim. Maybe we can get to know each other on here for awhile then we can exchange phone #s and i can ex plane to you over the phone what i mean, but we should talk on here for awhile first if teats ok.
But from the geodesic path of light, it must be 3 dimensional also?
From reading up a bit on it, it appears to me that light actual travels on 3 virtual geodesic paths between two points every wave cycle.
At the completion of every wave cycle, the light particle has moved a tiny distance in space.
There is a tiny, tiny, brief moment between the two points in space when the light particle passes into virtual space, becomes three particles (maybe more?), travels along the virtual geodesic paths and completes its cycle to reunite and become a particle again.
This is why light is observed as a particle when obseved at "points" in time (or space) BUT BEHAVES AND TRAVELS IN WAVES WHEN NOT INTERFERED WITH!
A simple visualisation is a piece of string. How many parts to a piece of string...only one? The best way move energy through a piece of string is buy moving it up and down in waves - vibrating it.
Cut the string in half and you now have two bits of string and 4 end points.
Cut those in half and you have 4 bits of string but 8 endpoints.
See how the number of strings increases by symmetry and the end points increase by factoring and there is also a scalar reduction in the actual length of the "piece of string".
Sounds very similar to the outcomes of many experiments with light and other Quantum issues?
Big Bang - the first cut of the piece of string, released the most energy (relatively) and started a chain reaction.
Second Big Bang - cutting the 2 pieces of string into 4 pieces of string.
Third Big Bang - 4 pieces into 8 pieces
Now we have many parts that can start to cluster together to form elements, get two pieces of string and you create hydrogen so to speak, eight pieces and you have oxygen, 5 pieces and you have hydrogen.
It is important here to remember that the "string" description is an analogy to describe how light, being both particle and wave in rhythmic sequence has similar properties to a piece of string in that it it is both scalar and a factor of itself.
When light is reduced, it multiplies the number of end points or particles or nodes such that more options to group and cluster are manifested and potential increases.
The clustering of these end points creates matter and the matter clusters using the same patterns to create other matter, and so on.
By definition, the more times the string has been divided, the more potential is available.
Take Uranium - big atomic number means it is made up of heaps of tiny bits of string with lots of end points and lots of potential.
Start unraveling the knots using the pattern that made the uranium cluster and you begin to release the potential.
This fundamental pattern (Mandelbrot gives lots of insight here) applies to everything but as it is both scalar and a function, one can miss it if one is too focused or too general.
What if the 'size' of a light wave is not constant?
What if light always follows the same geodesic path shape but the scale of the wave changes as a function of the space it travels through in the instant?
This would make light the relative constant but... it would make light appear to BE space????
This means that our notion of time is actually measured by each light wave cycle which is now relative to the scale in which we exist.
If you are a big planet in lots of space, the light wave cycle is relatively huge to a human light wave cycle as our light wave cycle is relatively huge to that of bacteria.
The driving motivators to discover the secrets to gravity and magnetism seem to be about energy and space travel.
If one follows the patterns the keys are there.
My question is this...(sorry, questions are these)
Why do we need to travel through time?
Why do we need to travel leave the planet?
Why do we need perpetual energy?
My answer to the first two questions is that we don't unless we reckon that we have stuffed things up so bad that we need to go back in time to change things or leave for a "better" place.
My answer to the third is this - perpetual energy and motion is all around us, it is called momentum and life. If the quest is to find 'free energy' then talk to the oil companies because they are the ones who are charging for energy that they have stolen off us all.
Energy is free, has always been free and always will be free. Ask any living thing (unfortunately none can talk) and they will tell you!
The notion that a virtual concept ($$) is what determines the flow of energy around the planet is somewhat disturbing and needs attention.
Back to science...
There are heaps of different models around that are very effective within certain ranges ie at a particular scale.
The trick is to lay all the proven models, one top of the other and rotate them (so to speak).
This process began by our forefathers started with overlaying the seasonal cycle, solar cycle, stellar cycle, lunar cycle with our own bio-cycle and has been successfully used by human societies for generations.
We now have several thousand working models on all scales, but in the process of digging so deep, we have lost the unifying perspective we once shared.
Unfortunately, this has led to the human society existing relatively out of sync with the rest of nature.
My analogy is this.
Using our current calendar, it takes only four years before we are substantially out of sync with the solar cycle.
If other scientific models we have been using are "almost right", then just how far off are we having extrapolated on them.
Perhaps it is time to insert a scientific "leap theory" to realign scientific models with reality.
For those wishing to realign the scientific community I have started a hub at
effilnuc.my answer to your 3 questions is 1. space and time are one in the same and the more advantages we creat the more advanced we become.Growing is evolving.
2.I answer with this question, why travel at all and 3.Great point...
effilnuc: "There is a tiny, tiny, brief moment between the two points in space when the light particle passes into virtual space, becomes three particles (maybe more?), travels along the virtual geodesic paths and completes its cycle to reunite and become a particle again."
Yes - kind of. What you are nearly describing is the digital form of a classical wave function called the Schrödinger equation. The generalised time-dependent Schrödinger equation transforms to Feynman's path integral forms. These path integrals are probably best thought of as intermediate steps in the final calculated trajectory of the path of (say) a photon but it could be something else - like an electron or in principle anything). Each of these paths can represent quite nutty ideas like a virtual photon that wanders about from A to B, or backwards in time and so on. The calculation demands consideration of an infinite number of paths. Each path has an 'amplitude' who's square is proportional to the probability that the virtual photon took that path. The sum of all of these amplitudes give the probability for the trajectory of the real photon. So in a way what you describe is something like this.
The ultimate path that the photon takes is a straight line - but you have to say that in the context of a curved space-time backdrop. The curvature of space-time is GRAVITY. Mass distorts space-time. The photon is the force-carrier for electro-magnetism which travels through a curved space-time which is curved because of mass (including light itself a little bit). This is why we can observe light 'bending' when it passes close to a large star. Do you see how gravity and magnetism are so very different? So we know the WHAT and HOW about gravity, but not WHY. The WHY is difficult, and is an unsolved problem in physics. You should also be able to imagine how a quantum treatment of gravity is incompatible with General Relativity.
As for what else you posted, I can't make head of tail of it. Except to comment that you cannot make classical analogies for quantum mechanics.
Classical (traditional) analogies (questions)are the birth of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics are not the birth of analogies..
We cannot use old books for new analogies, we need new books that speak in laymamds tearm's. The truth when realised is always simple, complications are meant to confuse in order to hide truth.
Hi NR and Manna. There's a new kid on the block. I should be able to understand the P-chem, but I'm too scattered to focus on it at the moment. Here's the link.
@ Manna - With the greatest respect...concluding that I am wrong because you do not understand my words is not good logic or reasoning.
If a student does not understand nor cannot make heads or tails of a professor's lecture, the student should, first attempt to widen his/her frame of reference, well before concluding that the lecturer is nuts!
Might I suggest you take the same approach here. I know I have had to do a lot of reading and research to understand and apply some context to much of your writings.
I would appreciate the same respect back...if not out of respect for me, then respect your own evolution.
@ Manna - With the greatest respect...concluding that I am wrong because you do not understand my words is not good logic or reasoning.
If a student does not understand nor cannot make heads or tails of a professor's lecture, the student should, first attempt to widen his/her frame of reference, well before concluding that the lecturer is nuts!
Might I suggest you take the same approach here. I know I have had to do a lot of reading and research to understand and apply some context to much of your writings.
I would appreciate the same respect back...if not out of respect for me, then respect your own evolution.
I KNEW IT!!!! As an intellectual American with only a high school diploma, I must say I am thrilled to find that many of my hypotheses are also being pondered by the scientific community. Or maybe it's just that simple after all lol...
@Shoopy, You would have to admit that I'd be in a unique position to "KNOW" whether you are correct or not. Here is a clue: American: no. "Only a high school diploma?" Not true. Since you don't state what are your hypotheses, then it's impossible to comment on them.
@effilnuc. It's you that said you might have lost your marbles - not me. I just suggested you should start looking for them :-) . Now and then, I've been able to parse your difficult prose and make comment. Some of it is near to existing mainstream theory, and if so, I've expanded and supported. But to be honest, for the large part what you have written is incorrect, and mostly I've either ignored that or taken the time to directly refute it as clearly as possible. A lot of what you have written so far makes no sense whatsoever. It's not even possible to research it or look it up. I am concluding that you are wrong because of what you say has been wrong (apart from some things - and I've noted those). You are a linguist. Is that right? So you understand syntax, grammar and semantics . That's not my field, but while I acknowledge your command of grammar and syntax, your semantics for topics within my field are often impenetrable. In the latter case, I have simply stated that I don't know what you are saying, and so it's not fair to support or refute it, neither can I research it.
@Larry, Hi! I've taken a look at that link already because it was posted previously. I don't think it can possibly be valid research as it's based on a naive understanding of physics. The chem could be on the money - but the particle physics is certainly not. Apart from that, it's never expected that a solid serious scientific theory would need to appeal to a blanket audience like this: "Dear men and women friends in physics, We ask your attention for this website,
because it will bring you pioneering news
from the field of physics." A likely interpretation of that could be written, "Dear people that really know what you are talking about, we have no idea whether what we say is true, and we don't really know what we have found but you might, so please tell us that it is right, then we will have accidentally happened upon a reason for you to see us as geniuses, so there. You're wrong, we are right".
If you can interpret the Chem, it would be interesting to know what you find. Chemistry not my field, so I will not draw conclusions.
But as an example of many: the article references "electric Tension Photon". Since the photon has absolutely NO electric charge, and it's very easy to demonstrate that, then it cannot have 'electric tension'. Historically, 'electric tension' means voltage - circa early 1800s. But a photon is energy measured in electron-volts. In order to measure a voltage, you need two reference points. So it makes no sense to say, "voltage photon". What is this? It is some kind of special photon that has 'voltage'? It's rubbish. It also states that gravity's origin is within the nucleus. But we know a photon is influenced by a gravitational field, and so is an electron. The former is not charged and has no rest-mass, the latter has rest mass and a charge. Neither have a nucleus yet they exhibit gravity. The article is wrong.
Manna, thanks for saving me the trouble of wading through it.
As they say, you can lead a horse to water...
Effilnuc: Perhaps you might like to peer-review the article and explain why it is correct. You will of course need to explain why my objections are wrong.
Effilnuc: Perhaps you might like to peer-review the article and explain why it is correct. You will of course need to explain why my objections are wrong.
@ Manna I am not saying the article is correct, I tend to agree with parts of your perspective...but in my opinion, that is your handicap, your perspective is limited and somewhat immature in my opinion. You are very caught up in your head.
@ Larry, yea I found her and posted it here already, nice huh? : )... @ shoopy, please elaborate, like Manna I agree, you have posted no context to your statement.
"@ Manna I am not saying the article is correct"
Good.
What does "You are very caught up in your head" actually mean?
If you are trying to imply a lack of imagination or creativity on my part, then you are in no position to hold any opinion on that. I am quite capable of exercising the 'what if'. Like, 'what if every point in our universe was connected through a 5th dimension to the same point.' Using this, I can formulate possible explanations for the double-slit experiment, for quantum entanglement, for Bose-Einstein condensation, for the difficulties in QM interpretation, for the wave-particle duality conundrum and even as a possible explanation for the Faster Than Light Neutrino experiments if they are strongly verified. This kind of idea might also explain the "why" of gravity as a distortion in space-time. I don't have a feel for how it might explain the seemingly one-way notion of 'time', but I can see how it might explain the values of some universal constants, including the speed of light. So don't tell me please that I am 'caught up in my own head'. What you must *not* do is form new ideas and theories that totally upturn thousands of years of strong solid fundamental laws of physics on a whim, and that's the problem with what mainstream scientists call 'crackpot' theories.
Ponder that. If you know what science has already verified to stunning accuracy about our 4D description of the universe, and what are still open questions, then you can test the theory for consistency with what we know. If the new idea causes contradictions to well known laws of the universe, then it's *most likely* wrong. If it also elegantly solves some of the open questions despite the contradiction, then it will require extraordinary evidence to support it.
Also - a theory is one thing... actual measurements are another, and they can't contradict can they? If they contradict, then one or both is wrong in some way. Whether you abandon a theory or modify it or not depends on how it is wrong, in what areas, and how often, and whether there are better simpler explanations around. If solid, verified practical measurements contradict your theory, then your theory is the one that will suffer.
For a 'gravity is magnetism' theory, it's doomed for many reasons.
Try playing with the idea I posed above about a common nth dimensional point.
@ Manna - Nice post!
The 'accurate' 4th dimensional construct of the universe is a perspective of the mind.
The notion that all points are connected through the 5th dimension requires an external point or source separate from the mind and its 4d construct, which unifies all points in space/time.
This source or connection point to the 5th dimension begins with your heart/soul/spirit.
Get out of your 4d head and into your 5d heart and you will begin your journey of understanding the vibrant and not so accurate 5d universal reality.
The whole notion of proof through accurate measurements when dealing with quantum physics is an anathema.
Light vibrates, everything vibrates, so the only way to measure is relative to the vibration of something 'else'.
So when something is proven, it is only relative to the perspective, awareness and scope of the subjects.
Light is only light when relative to something else and vice versa.
When something is not relative to something else it becomes space...ie light is space when there is no matter for it be light relative to and matter is space until it has either light or other matter to be relative to.
Following this train of thought, time is also space if not relative to something else and everything else can only be defined in 4d reality relative to time...because...NOTHING IS CONSTANT except the patterns or frequencies to which everything must dance.
@ Manna - Try and get the right side of your creative brain around that and it might just join back up with your left side...if only for a moment. lol
...Listening to the rythmic beat of your heart beat is a great place to start.
...then start listening to your breathing
...then become aware of the relativity or patterns created when you overlay the two.
After that, start looking for other patterns, there are only a few basic patterns but when you are aware of them all, they interact in the most amazing ways you could NEVER imagine.
Could someone answer for me please?
Is the chemical state of liquid pure water the same as the frozen or gaseous state of water?
Can you use gravity to split hydrogen from oxygen or to combine hydrogen and oxygen?
Can you use magnetism to split hydrogen from oxygen or to combine hydrogen and oxygen?
Can you use electricity to ....?
Can you use momentum to split ...?
Can you use light to split...?
Can you use sound to split...?
If anyone knows of experiments that have been done regarding the above could they let us know? Ta
@ Manna - The force of creative thought and love are unquantifiable (unless you are the lucky recipient of good lovin' you have no real perspective).
Despite the mind's inability to measure these forces, they are widely accepted to exist.
"What you must *not* do is form new ideas and theories that totally upturn thousands of years of strong solid fundamental laws of physics on a whim, and that's the problem with what mainstream scientists call 'crackpot' theories."
To me, dismissing notions because they lack measurements and proof is why mainstream scientists, such as yourself Manna, are struggling.
Just as everything in the ocean is connected by water, so everything is connect by the fifth dimension of space to which all other things attempt to replicate by filling.
Our current notions of space are 4d limited, hence our minds can only fill up within those 4d "accurately measured" limitations.
Space is space, it has no limitations but needs definition for it to have relative meaning. If you try and relate the meaning of the universe to your head only, you are limited, you need to expand how you relate to the universe to increase your understanding of the universe beyond a 4d mind construct.
In order for the mind to understand the universe, it was necessary for it to create boundaries, parameters within which it could relate to same.
Our minds have pretty much explored the finite ends of the parameters it self imposed to incredible ACCURACY as Manna has correctly stated...
An infinite space is a necessary prerequisite for the law relativity which defines all things.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SI_base_unit
Look at the picture on the right side of webpage and read the quote from same site below.
"The SI base quantities form a set of mutually independent dimensions as required by dimensional analysis commonly employed in science and technology. However, in a given realization of these units they may well be interdependent, i.e. defined in terms of each other.[1]"
So there are 7 mutually independent base units required by current 4d analysis but they must be dependent when realized. And you scientists have fallen for it!
Seeing as the basis for all these accurate measurements you are relying on is not constant, why do you continue to perpetrate such a limited viewpoint Manna?
The more I read on this subject to more obvious it gets, gravity is magnetism and to say otherwise is like saying magnetism and electromagnetism are compleatly unrelated. Just as Manna thinks gravity is or as he thinks he knows it is. But someone who thinks they know all similarities and differences on the subject will never learn because they think there is nothing left to learn. Think outside the box Manna..
wouldnt this also support the hollow earth theory? it seems like there would be a separation of the poles, creating a pocket between the two magnetisms? this may help explain the rotation of the earth in compliment with the earth around the sun. just like in atoms there is a space between the electrons and the protons. neutrons may be a temporary state of protons?
effilnuc said, "So there are 7 mutually independent base units required by current 4d analysis but they must be dependent when realized."
The above statement is false. You misinterpreted the information in the wiki page. BTW - there are dimensions as in the context of measurement of a quantity - like time, length or mass... and there are dimensions (different) as in the number of axes if you like to uniquely identify state. Dimensional analysis is about the former.
SI units are not the only units that one can choose to use. Dimensional analysis demands that whatever basis of measurement that you choose to work in are independent. There are several different sets of fundamental dimensions that you might adopt for dimensional analysis, the choice influenced by the particular discipline. The units are arbitrary, however the dimensions are fundamental. In fact, no matter what system you choose to use for your dimensional analysis, any equation that reduces to "gravity=magnetism" will prove to be incorrect due to the dimensional analysis.
Here is the proof:
In SI units, Magnetisation (Magnetic moment/unit volume) has dimensions of I/L
in CGS units : M^(½)L^(½)T^(-2)
in Gaussian units: Electro Magnetic Units: pole cm^(-2)
gravity has 'units' of of of - oh wait... gravity is not a dimension is it? It's due to a geometrical distortion in space-time.
@Squatch Measurements do not support a hollow-Earth theory. The rotation of the Earth is not due to magnetism. After all, there are plenty of planets that do not have a significant magnetic dipole and yet they rotate just fine. Rotation is due to the conservation of angular momentum. There is no useful analogy between a solar system and the way that an atom works. Yes - neutrons and protons are related refer to "electron capture" (also called inverse beta decay)
Just to remind everyone, the earth is neither flat or round, but either state can be proven within a certain set of parameters.
"There is no useful analogy between a solar system and the way that an atom works. "
Well, well, well Manna, you certainly have done it with that statement!
Following your logic there is no useful analogy between a black hole and the way of quantum mechanics.
Gravity is just a dimension of infanit scales of magnetism, the opposite to so called empty space which is known as dark energy. Manna you say this is false and if you or no one can still explain what gravity is with all these extream similarities staring you in the face. Then its no different to say these similarities are not realy similarities.In saying that you would not be fooling anyone but yourself, unless you can convince otherwise but explaining what you think gravity is.There has been many questions by you on this page that have been answered intelligently about other peoples thery's, and it appears the more the answers make perfect sense the more often you stop asking more questions and change the subject of the debate because you know they are right.I guess you prefer to tell the majority there wrong.
By the way, magnetism is due to angular momentum, just like rotation...or have I got it the wrong way around? Is angular momentum and rotation due to magnetism?
The acceleration of human evolution show's that we are not far away from achieving anything we can first invent in our mind. This is a historical fact..
I reckon if we get the angular momentum of the acceleration of our evolution right, we will go along way towards this state of being.
In other words, we gotta get our perspective in order.
@ Manna - "You truly are NOT a FOOL."
Unfortunately, your perspective is that statement is a compliment.
I stopped reading at "The South pole of the earth is always tilted more towards the sun. Hence the South always being much hotter than the North."
Anyone bold enough to claim to be Newton's rival (which demands equivalency) but can't even grasp the concept of the seasons, how they happen, and why the northern and southern hemisphere's seasons are opposite to each other, holds no merit.
I stopped reading at "The South pole of the earth is always tilted more towards the sun. Hence the South always being much hotter than the North."
Anyone bold enough to claim to be Newton's rival (which demands equivalency) but can't even grasp the concept of the seasons, how they happen, and why the northern and southern hemisphere's seasons are opposite to each other, holds no merit.
""There is no useful analogy between a solar system and the way that an atom works. "
Well, well, well Manna, you certainly have done it with that statement!"
What you don't appreciate about this statement is how much physics it embodies. Very fundamental observations about the world demand that the atom and something like a solar system are so different that it's not only not useful to draw an analogy, such an analogy is damaging to students' progress in physics. For a start, the electron is surrounded by a sea of virtual particles. There are strict limitations on how many electrons can exist at a given energy level. There is no restriction for planets around a solar system, neither are there virtual planets popping in and out of existence. There are allowed energy levels of an electron around a nucleus are quantised but there is no comparable quantisation of planet orbits. Planet orbits are deterministic. Electrons' momentum and position are not deterministic.
The wave-particle duality nature of physics rules calculations at the scale of atoms. In solar system calculations, wave-particle duality may be totally ignored. If electrons orbited the nucleus like planets orbit a star, then the electron would have to spiral in to the nucleus in a very short time and nothing you see around you including yourself would be here. All electrons are identical. No two planets are identical. The contents of the nucleus dictates how many electrons are allowed to surround it. The contents of a star does no such thing to planets. The contents of a luminous star is plasma but a dead-star is in a different state. In either state, planets could orbit because that depends on gravity which is a distortion in space-time. The contents of an atom instantly affects the permitted electron orbitals allowed.
So anyone who cops-out and teaches a child that the atom is like a solar system is setting that child up for a whole world of confusion and roadblocks to his or her learning about physics because just about everything about the atom that you try learn beyond "electrons go around a nucleus" and "planets go around a sun" is going to lead to false conclusions if you start with that as an analogy. It NOT useful to make that analogy. I stand by my claim.
It's tempting effilnuc to tell you that you are a fool. Unfortunately your perspective is that statement is a compliment.
@ Manna - Are you kidding me, that is even better than your last statement.
THE TRUTH IS
The contents of a star determine its mass and hence determine the orbit of any virtual and real bodies orbiting it and the way it orbits other real and virtual bodies. All bodies of mass orbit other bodies of mass based on the same laws of physics - pure and simple.
The same laws of physics apply, the same harmonies apply...anyone who cops out from seeing this is totally unaware and has come to the end of a dead end road.
@ Aingeal - if you stopped reading, how did you end up at the bottom here writing a post? If you haven't read the entire post, you really should refrain from comment...anyone bold enough to comment without all the available facts holds little merit here. You're perspective is obviously limited as you do not have all the context of this post.
@ Manna - Definition of a True Fool - "the spirit in search of experience"...hence why I and most honest people consider it a compliment. Sorry if you misunderstood.
Well pardon me. sarcasm/ I suppose so called true definition of fool is not as it has been since middle English and instead your definition derived from one instance of a whimsical description of a Tarot card is the one true meaning. /sarcasm
In the earliest Tarot decks, the Fool is usually depicted as a beggar or a vagabond. effilnuc, perhaps you should Pull the Fool card out and stick it where you can see it daily. The Fool is almost always completely apart from the sequence of trumps in the historic decks.
Unless you draw a very specific context, "fool" will mean by default:
as a noun:
1.
a silly or stupid person; a person who lacks judgment or sense.
2.
a professional jester, formerly kept by a person of royal or noble rank for amusement: the court fool.
3.
a person who has been tricked or deceived into appearing or acting silly or stupid: to make a fool of someone.
4.
an ardent enthusiast who cannot resist an opportunity to indulge an enthusiasm (usually preceded by a present participle): He's just a dancing fool.
5.
a weak-minded or idiotic person.
Synonyms
1. simpleton, dolt, dunce, blockhead, numskull, ignoramus, dunderhead, ninny, nincompoop, booby, saphead, sap. 2. zany, clown. 5. moron, imbecile, idiot. 6. delude, hoodwink, cheat, gull, hoax, cozen, dupe, gudgeon.
Antonyms
1. genius.
I fail to see how on the face of this Earth any normal English speaking person could possibly default to accepting "fool" as a compliment. But that seems to be your goal: to contradict as a matter of principle all that is well worn and established. I fear that you might be intrinsically incapable of accepting knowledge born from another's toil.
The content of an atom is of protons and neutrons. The number of protons absolutely 100% no questions asked dictates the number of electrons that can occupy clouds of various energy levels around it. There is no analogue for a solar system. Or are you now going to throw away the periodic-table? Heck why not. Mendeleev won't mind. After all, You chuck out Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Maxwell, Hawking, and countless others. Mendeleev may as well fall as well. I guess that leaves Feynman for some reason. Oh well. Small mercies.
I did provide the context - that being 'truly or 'true', something you tend to miss!
The mass of a sun or any other body dictates absolutely no questions asked the number of planets that can occupy the space around it, why do you not see the analogy. The content of a sun or any other cluster of mass is protons and neutrons too....wow!
You are so much fun Manna, thanks.
@ Manna - for someone so into the detail and accuracy, you sure do miss a lot!
@effilnuc It is you who missed the detail. Consider a hydrogen atom. It has a single positively charged proton at the nucleus. Around it there can only be zero or one electron and its orbital is indefatigable. You cannot create a system with two electrons around a single proton and that is a fundamental principle.
Contrast this was a planet or a star. There is no principle that limits any particular star or planet to one satellite. It is also possible for a satellite to orbit at any arbitrary distance.
In contrast, an electron is confined to certain energy levels.
... and what really blows your analogy is the p-orbital in more complex atoms. That orbital is 'dumbbell' shaped. You will not find a dumbbell-shaped orbit for planets and stars.
The attractive force between nucleus and electron is electronic. The attractive force between planets and stars or moons is gravitational.
Note: my use of the term "orbit" for planets, and "orbital" for electrons is carefully chosen. These are
very different.
I can argue that a better analogy for the filling of electron shells is better placed using a multi-story carpark than your solar-system attempt.
Once again, gravity is not magnetism.
@Manna..
More so called facts about impossibilities, why not say know one has discovered or worked it out yet. I guess in your mind only differences exist not similarities. Focusing on differences is what creat's chaos instead of harmony.
So much for thinking outside of the box..
There are greatly more similarities with magnetism and gravity so logic will say that any differences are caused by scale, so of course gravity is magnetism..
and that's not to say that an atom is a mini solar system. Maby it's another universe all together. Do you manna know haw the universe works in all it's infinitcey. If you do I guess you believe the library knows everything that ever will ever be.
True wisdom is realizing how little you know..
M: For gravity and magnetism: List the similarities. List the differences. That's not hard. Just collect those from posts above. Then make a logical assessment. You will find that the overwhelming evidence is that magnetism is not the same as gravity.
No one knows all the intricacies of the universe. I've listed several open problems in physics already. I fail to see why you felt the need to say that. At no time have I even implied that any scientist claims to know it all.
But humans do know a lot of things to a great deal of certainty. This is why I can state as a fact that system of atom and its electrons has no useful analogy with that of stars and planets. Even the simplest configuration of an atom (one proton, one electron) is completely different to the simplest two-body celestial system ( one star, a small planet ). In the former, the possible position of the electron is 'somewhere' (anywhere) within a fuzzy spherical shell and it is, in principle impossible to know exactly the position and momentum to arbitrary precision at any given time and you cannot add another electron into that orbital ans you cannot take a measurement at one time, then calculate where it will be in the future. In the latter, a planet will orbit on a plane scribing out a near-circle and you can independently calculate position and momentum to stunning accuracy and make predictions about its position and momentum in the future. There is of course a limit to that accuracy because of several reasons. One is due to limitation of the measuring tools which is practical, and the other is theoretical when your desire for precision enters once again the realm of the quantum scales. But you can add millions of planets to that simple star-system. The analogy never even gets beyond. "A goes around B". That's not useful.
To learn things, it is often far more instructive to compare two systems and work out the differences than find the similarities. Analogies always break down at some point, but the good ones provide useful insights along the way. Using a star-planet analogy for the modern understanding of an atom is not useful because it does not even match the simplest configuration. It's far more instructive to point out the differences.
Whilst I agree with many of Manna's points I have a different perspective.
The time scale of quantum physics is tiny. We are attempting to peer into the tiny quantum world from a relatively huge perspective, particularly on the time scale.
If one extrapolates the time scale used in quantum mechanics (using statistics and probability) one can determine the path of the electron around the proton, in time, this statistical spread becomes predictable.
Now, if one looks at the orbit between earth and sun, one believes one " can independently calculate position and momentum to stunning accuracy and make predictions about its position and momentum in the future"...
...ASSUMING THAT THE SYSTEM CONTINUES TO RUN EXACTLY AS IT HAS ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST.
Looking at the human history we have a relatively small snapshot of time when it comes to the time scale of planets and suns.
Imagine with your creative brain that you were so small in size and your time scale was equally small that you could watch an electron orbit a proton on the scale that we currently watch the moon orbit the earth.
I reckon that if you were this tiny, you would actually be able to follow the real path of the electron around the proton...and you would probably notice a whole lot of other stuff as well.
In summary, using the correct scalar understanding of the universe, one can draw many conclusions and analogies between stars, planets, trees, frogs and dogs.
@ Manna, how well versed are you on Mandelbrot? I have been playing with his equations and sound...its amazing!
Try the following on for size. lol
Take one orbit of the Earth (E) around the Sun (S) as the measure of one unit of Time (T).
Now take one orbit of the electron (e) around the proton (p) as the measure of one unit of time (t).
If one divides the larger unit of Time (T) proportionately to S/p or E/e then one has a unit of time that is very small.
If one uses the time unit of 1 solar orbit being the same as 1 electron orbit then the behavior of both is the same.
Following this, watching the behavior of an electron for even 1 millisecond, is like watching the behavior of a solar system for 1 billion years sped up to one second.
This is why the paths of electrons seem unpredictable to mainstream science...in truth the paths of any two body orbital system is as predictable as the path of the moon around the earth.
To make it even easier, a two body system can be considered as a single body when calculating the orbital paths of a third body, and this cluster can be considered as a single body when calculating the paths of a fourth, fifth etc.
This principal starts with the first Proton and electron and the clusters go from there. The same laws are always followed, the scale is just different.
As they say, the only difference between ten dollars and a million dollars is the number of zeros.
Now, we all know that ten dollars is NOT a million dollars, but if one understands Einstein's theory of Relativity, of course they are the same.
This is obvious REALLY, to an observer - ten dollars to a street sweeper is the same as a million dollars to Bill Gates.
To Bill Gates - ten dollars is very different to a million dollars.
To a street sweeper - a million dollars is very different to a tenner!
To us looking at the ten dollars and the million dollars and relating them to the street sweeper and bill gates, we say they are the same, only a few zeros added.
Is this the same effilnuc? 'cause this one in the post before last made sense. There are two things to add. One is that I was assuming a two body system. A three body system (or more) is too hard to calculate except for short term predictions. All current theory and experiment states that it is however incorrect to state that you can calculate the position and momentum at quantum scales to arbitrary precision. This is the famous Heisenberg uncertainty principle. It's difficult to convey on a few short words how a) important, b) fundamental is this principle and c) the consequences of it. So while I understand your $10 analogy, unfortunately it does not scale to the quantum world. Put bluntly, the quantum world if effin weird. It's so alien that no classical analogies really help much. The way we cope with this is through mathematics because only then can you divorce yourself from the human desire to form classical pictures of quantum events and systems.
Also - praise where due - that's a nice thought experiment about being so small (and presumably a super-fast calculator of events) that you could observe an electron. I am not sure if it would lead to any insights but it's worth thinking about. The problem we have is to be that small is also to be unobservable from outside. You do know about Planck length and time right? Here is a Wiki link that describes Planck units (which is another system like the dimensioned SI units discussed earlier) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units
You will note yet again reasons to abandon the thought that 'gravity = magnetism'. I will quote :
"The electromagnetic force operates on a different physical quantity (electric charge) than gravity (mass) so it cannot be compared directly to gravity."
Take a good look at Table 4 in the link. If you can do the algebra then it's rather interesting how Planck units simplify things for physicists .
Things below the Plank length and time cannot be directly observed because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. Here is the relevant equation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
( It's not possible to do math symbols in Hubpages - so I have to link things).
Since you like scale - imagine what happens to h-bar at macro scales... its effect becomes insignificant. This is why we can abandon quantum calculations for large scale problems. So while it is possible to do quantum calculations on classical problems, the opposite is impossible. This is why classical analogies fail at the quantum scale.
Manna - You are so close to understanding, it is making me squeak!
Please consider your statement "the problem we have is to be that small is also to be unobservable from outside."
My perspective is - the problem we have is that our mind, which is presently dominated by the ego, does not allow us to imagine our perspective to be unobservable from the outside because to the ego, unobservable is equal to non existent.
Let go of your ego and you can begin the next journey.
Now, as for Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The problem with his theory is that physical properties are scalar representations of frequencies. Frequencies can always be accurately measured because they are by definition the ratio of certain properties at the exact same moments in time.
So by comparing physical properties using cycles and frequencies rather rather than rods of time, we can continue past Heisenberg's mental monkey bars and appreciate the scalar nature of nature.
It's an intimidating mind gym to cross but it is a lot clearer on the other side.
Finally, Matter or mass is a cluster of electrically bonded protons, neutrons and electrons held together by magnetism.
A solar system is a cluster of electrically bonded stars, planets and virtual bodies, held together by magnetism.
As always in Quantum physics, the observer plays an important role. As an observer of planets and protons, our perspective in space, scale and time determines the final interpretation of the noted results. In order for our minds to maintain relevance in scale and application, we have distinguished clearly between magnetism and gravity.
From the perspective of the biggest thing in the universe and/or the smallest thing in the universe - the force of gravity and magnetism is ONE in the same.
Quite simply, the biggest thing in the universe is made up by multiplying the BIGGEST NUMBER of the tiniest thing in the universe,
and the tiniest thing in the universe is the biggest thing divided by the BIGGEST possible NUMBER.
What came first, the tiny thing or the big thing?
NUMBERS came first, then the thing instantly became both the biggest and tiniest thing in the universe and has been in constant flux since...the only constant are the Numbers, the rules that the thing(s) must obey. when they either divide or multiply.
The biggest number to divide or multiply by is 0 and the smallest is 1.
Thanks to our wonderful minds, it is not such difficult concept to ponder.
Manna will hate me for this but Planck's Units are as nefarious as the SI Units.
I had no idea how much crap formally trained scientists and mathematicians have been fed making the truth unpalatable; almost unrecognizable.
Time is a period measurement. It measures how long it takes A to do something in respect to B doing something else during the same period.
Time is not something separate to A and B, it is created by the interaction and observation of A and B.
Let's imagine the effects if time was no longer considered a CONSTANT in scientific circles.
I have now just read Popper's criticisms of Heisenberg uncertainty principle (after writing the above)...it was bloody obvious back then just as it is glaringly obvious now.
For those who don't know, the history of this area of science is buried in nuclear physics.
The Heisenburger bullcrap is taught as a fundamental pillar of quantum and nuclear physics which includes power generation and electromagnetism. It was agreed upon by some group of elitists in Copenhagen.
From Wiki
"The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics.[1] It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities of observing, or measuring, various aspects of energy quanta, entities which fit neither the classical idea of particles nor the classical idea of waves. According to the interpretation, the act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values. This feature of the mathematics is known as wavefunction collapse. The essential concepts of the interpretation were devised by Niels Bohr, Werner Heisenberg and others in the years 1924–27."
Manna - you have been brainwashed into believing that classical mechanics and
"the quantum world is effin weird. It's so alien that no classical analogies really help much. The way we cope with this is through mathematics because only then can you divorce yourself from the human desire to form classical pictures of quantum events and systems."
The reason the quantum world is effin weird is because the entire principle on which it is founded is effin lies.
The act of measurement using linear time rods is what causes only one set of probabilities to become "real". If time loops are used, multiple realities become possible and a perfect measurement at the same point on the time loop can be taken of two separate physical properties.
Manna. you stated again that electro-magnetism is based on electric charge and gravity is based on mass, but again they are both based on mass and electric charge. The more powerful the electric charge the more mass needed and vice versa. As for how many similarity's and differences,there are of course way more similarities, read this page again it's not hard you will see my conclusion obvious.
@effilnuc I agree,knowledge is power and those in power will infect knowledge to stay in power. Tesla must be one of the most suppressed genius's in history and I would be everything that what information we have on Tesla's idea's is not even half truth.
Ooop's bad type up I would BET everything lol ..
Effilnuc, now you have switched back to crackpot mode. Nothing you have written since my last post is worth squat. Also - your patronising style, "Manna - You are so close to understanding, it is making me squeak!" makes you seem narcissistic. When you make stupid statements like "The biggest number to divide or multiply by is 0 and the smallest is 1." then it puts everything you say into question. That's not the way to push an idea is it?
I have NOT been brainwashed. Physics cannot possibly be based on lies. That's ridiculous. The uncertainty principal is not a theory. That's why it's called a principle. Do you know the difference? Do you understand why it is profound and important? I've been very patient here, trying to explain in clear terms why gravity is not magnetism but I have arrived at the point of understanding that you are actively piling on the bullshit as some kind of twisted game. Have fun with your pseudo science and private little fantasy world from which there seems no escape. I've spent over 30 years learning this stuff, finding what's true, what's false, sorting out consistencies, and recognising the unfathomable vastness of knowledge yet to learn, while simultaneously aghast at the simplicity, complexity and beauty of the natural world. The more I learn about physics, the more humble I become because it's only as you learn more, that you realise how incredibly smart people were 300 years ago and more. It's astonishing what they deduced. Sure, they made mistakes - like the Bohr model of the atom, and for sure, we make mistakes today. But it's a process of building on foundations, and modifying little by little. Your approach is foolish. You can't throw out on a fanatical whim, long standing well verified experimentally backed highly independently studied laws, theory and principles.
I've given you a small window from which to look out from your toxic little world. Why not take a look? It's a lot more exhilarating than the zany nonsense you are presenting. But I warn you, it's a lot of work. You will have to accept many things before you reach a point of intuitive understanding.
When a learned person reads something like this: "The reason the quantum world is effin weird is because the entire principle on which it is founded is effin lies." the reaction is "What an idiotic thing to say". The scientific community is ruthless and cut-throat. There is absolutely no way to base an entire discipline on lies because frauds (and poor scientific methods) always get exposed and shunned. Science would be unworkable if it did otherwise and we could not use it as a tool to advance.
I think I will leave now. Gravity is not magnetism. Go read some reputable texts and wean yourself off the crackpot and nut-job writings. You have a lively mind and should do something more significant with it or forever be trapped in la-la land.
Manna everything we don't understand is weird, once understood it's simple, the best way to make people misunderstand is with misinformation or con science.
Half truths are the most dangerous kinds of lies because they can be half backed incontestably.Look at history and behold the lies the establishment (The Vatican) how much science they have suppressed from mankind, I think you fall under the category of people who take the word of the establishment as the only fact's we have to work with. you are no Galileo, why don't you change the word crackpot into blasphemers lol...
And to think some one saying your so close to understanding some one's point of view is patronising then your massive ego has truly got you by the short and curly's.
Gravity is magnetism...
The difference between a theory and a principle is that a principle guides the direction of the theories.
Are you telling me that Heidenburgerdurger's principle of uncertainty is that which is guiding modern day physics?
My god, you physicists are crazy, you are guided by a principle of uncertainty.... and yet you wonder at night why you are so bloody uncertain and why everything is so "effin weird".
Whilst a principle of uncertainty is guiding my thoughts, the outcomes are well, I am not quite sure, maybe they are this, maybe they are that, maybe, they are both this and/or/but/maybe that!
@ Manna - the first sign of brainwashing is vehemently defending that you are not. Come on, show us what the second sign is!
In QM, the uncertainty principle isn't only about measurement. It is the real nature of particles. It explains why atoms have a diameter and why matter has a volume.
Feyman -- because of his maverick nature, and tendancy to question all he was told, and for his legendary creativity and different ways of looking at things was asked once, "Can you imagine how an anti-gravity machine could be built". Without hesitation, this outstanding genius frankly stated quite correctly, "I can't".
After a suitable pause to let the disappointment fade in the audience, he went on to explain that in science creativity is important but you need to understand that it is within a straight jacket. He nailed it. He explained how you can't just change the laws of physics for the sake of creativity. The world is as it is and you can't change it. If it turns out that we learn something new in the future that changes our understanding of the laws of physics, then theory and experiments change accordingly. But currently there is no evidence, no suggestion, nothing known that permits an anti-gravity machine. It's likely there never will be any new physics that permit such a device but of course it cannot be ruled out completely. This is because in science we make a guess, then do some calculations and make predictions, then do some experiments and see if it agrees. If it agrees, then we repeat the cycle until something new is found and it shows that we are wrong. So we can know instantly from careful experiment when we are wrong, but never be able to prove complete correctness.
This brings me to a conclusion, your guesses are wrong because experiment disagrees with them. Gravity is not magnetism.
Experiment shows that Q.E.D. explains all of physics EXCEPT the nucleus, and gravity. Why do you thing gravity stands out so?
Would I like to see Q.E.D. falsified? You bet! General Relativity? Absolutely! Thermodynamics? Yes of course! All of the above please. Bring it on. Will effilnuc, NR, M and others or me here bring that to bear? It's not impossible, but its not likely either.
It's clear from your diatribe on HUP that you don't understand what it means. Go look for and find some videos or good texts by using the keywords "Heisenberg's microscope" with any luck it might pull a few concepts together for you. It should also provide some interesting history of conflicting minds about the matter including the danger of using classical thought inside the quantum realm.
"Fool" is an insult. "Crazy" I am happy with.
Oh you crazy fool! lol.
An anti gravity machine is called momentum! The machine is created virtually through the balanced velocities of the objects involved. Relatively, each object is experiencing anti gravity but to an outside observer, the whole cluster is still in constant motion.
The earth and sun have created an anti gravity machine together with Venus and other celestial bodies. It's not perpetual in that it is unchanging, its perpetual in the sense that it is perpetually changing within a defined set of patterns, laws of physics as you say.
The Heisenrudenburger principle is not a law of physics. Equilibrium is a law of physics. Harmony is a law of physics, relativity is a law of physics.
"Experiment shows that Q.E.D. explains all of physics EXCEPT the nucleus, and gravity. Why do you think gravity stands out so?"
Mmm, conclusion from you statement is that the force of gravity and the magnetic force inside a nucleus are the same thing, that's why the current diluted understanding of physics cannot explain anything.
Think of the "refresh rate" or processing speed of your brain. It is bound by the electro-chemical processes that are bound by a time scale controlled by the orbit of the earth around the sun. The processing speed of the brain, and its current conceivable ideas and machines of measurement are limited by the time scale of the electro-chemical behavior of atoms (which control the processing speed of the brain). Chemical reactions occur at precise periods, if these periods could be altered, we could alter processing speeds.
It is not possible for our minds to measure something smaller than that which is being used to process the measurement.
The brain is classical by nature, the spirit is virtual by nature. Virtual calculations, measurements and processing must occur in the spirit realm of quantum physics and leave the classical calculations of the real world to the brain.
PS, my perspective is that the true geometric reality of light waves/particles/photons is why matter has volume, atoms have diameter and space is everywhere in between!
Why Gravity = Magnetism (scalar description).
If you align the patterns of electron paths, you increase the magnetic field. If you lay pattern over pattern, correctly aligned, you increase the magnetic field proportionately.
If you lay say 10 patterns on top of one another you have magnetic field X. If you lay 5 patterns on top of one another then another 5 patterns are layed together on top but slightly misaligned to the first 5, the magnetic Field is less than X.
Now let us look at matter, a whole cluster of atoms bound through electro magnetic force such that collectively they have a single magnetic field on a scale equivalent to the mass of the cluster but the actual strength of the field is dependent on the alignment of the individual magnetic fields of each atom within the cluster called matter.
The bigger the mass, the greater the scale of the field but the strength of the field is proportionate to the alignment of each individual electro-magnetic field of each atom.
This easily explains the similarities and differences of the concepts of gravity and magnetism but shows that they are descriptions of the same force operating at different scales. It is the Heisenburgenbugger principle that is not allowing us the measure gravity and magnetism at the same time.
The more focus put on one thing, the more blurry the other becomes... time to harmonize the descriptions with a better understanding of relativity.
Why Gravity = Magnetism (scalar description).
If you align the patterns of electron paths, you increase the magnetic field. If you lay pattern over pattern, correctly aligned, you increase the magnetic field proportionately.
If you lay say 10 patterns on top of one another you have magnetic field X. If you lay 5 patterns on top of one another then another 5 patterns are layed together on top but slightly misaligned to the first 5, the magnetic Field is less than X.
Now let us look at matter, a whole cluster of atoms bound through electro magnetic force such that collectively they have a single magnetic field on a scale equivalent to the mass of the cluster but the actual strength of the field is dependent on the alignment of the individual magnetic fields of each atom within the cluster called matter.
The bigger the mass, the greater the scale of the field but the strength of the field is proportionate to the alignment of each individual electro-magnetic field of each atom.
This easily explains the similarities and differences of the concepts of gravity and magnetism but shows that they are descriptions of the same force operating at different scales. It is the Heisenburgenbugger principle that is not allowing us the measure gravity and magnetism at the same time.
The more focus put on one thing, the more blurry the other becomes... time to harmonize the descriptions with a better understanding of relativity.
What a load of bollox.
@Manna
That's definitely not a intelligent response..
Effilmuc and M;
It seem to me that Manna in the Wild never heard of Weber's 'Fundamental Electrical Law' much less his 1870's paper on 'Proton-electron (force) mass ratio.
That seem to be the 'LINE IN THE SAND' for Most Status Quo Defenders.
Magnetism is a 'Gravitational Force'
It is the main force of Gravity on many levels of magnetic fields even atomic.
@ Manna - Let me know what you think of this article? You can probably imagine my perspective.
@ Daniel - Thanks for the into to Weber, I had not read any of his stuff or even heard of him.
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spr
"It gets more interesting. Weber has already dared, in the 1870 paper, to conceive the notion we know today as the proton-electron mass ratio, which leads him to wonder as to the possible motions of the different configurations of particle pairs. It turns out that, according to his relativistic electrical law (one which was never considered in the accepted, modern formulations of atomic theory), it is possible to develop an orbital system for the case of a lighter electrical particle of one sign, orbiting a heavier particle of the opposite sign! It is also possible for two similar particles of the same sign to develop a closed system of oscillations along the straight line connecting them.
We leave to a future time, the treatment of the last major accomplishment of Weber, the refutation of Clausius’ thermodynamics and the Helmholtz Energy Principle.16 The problem with the fraud known as modern, academically accepted science, is not merely that credit has not been given for these prior discoveries. Far more devastating is that, in the modern formulation of notions similar to those that Weber had derived far earlier, there is no lawful derivation. We fly, rather, by the seat of our pants, hoping to reach the destination intact."
there is a book recently published on this topic as well. check out the website, its a lot of complex experiments that prove gravity = magnetism. kind of cool. the site lets you download the book for free, or purchase it. it reads pretty easy as the PDF. anybody have any idea why it would be difficult to submit the results of these experiments to journals? the author says the major publishers rejected his work!!!
"anybody have any idea why it would be difficult to submit the results of these experiments to journals? the author says the major publishers rejected his work!!!"
Read my posts.
Michael, since you asked, I took a look at the pdf they submitted to Nature. In the first page, it explains how they carefully took the moon's magnetic field into consideration. It sounds like good science on the face of it, but when you consider that the non-dipole magnetic field of the moon is only about 1/100th that of the Earth, and it is 384403 km away, and at the very best you could do, an approximation to a magnetic monopole would have a field strength that falls with the square of the distance. But a non-dipole ( has N and S but mixed up a lot ) would have a magnetic field strength that falls of probably about the cube of the distance or faster since it's non-dipole. If they consider the moon to be a potential interference, and not nearby magnetic or electromagnetic sources then it's obviously rubbish. But the most telling sign that it is pseudo science is there is no mention of control of measurement and errors. There is no statistical analysis. It's total rubbish. No reputable journal would give it more than a cursory glance even if it proposed something feasible. Many would not read past the title.
@Manna. So now you believe know-one on earth would have the will, money and power to have major publishers suppress any reference's to technological information they don't want released. And you think everyone else is in la-la land. You may as well say oil company's are not interested in money and want's everyone to have energy free of charge!!
Maybe you work for the oil company and if not maybe unknowingly your doing there job for free, ether way your doing a terrible job trying to convince us against the status quo. Maby you would have a better chance convincing everyone the sky is brown lol..
Daniel put it in great context saying "magnetism is a gravitational force" it does not get simpler.
Gravity is magnetism.
M: I've illustrated scores of ways that you can reason, without using complex mathematics or language that these are two different forces. In return, I've been given baseless illogical unsubstantiated fantasy. I've been directed to crackpots as 'proof'. I've been accused of arrogance, close mindedness, of having no imagination, of being unable to think outside the box. I've been presented with conspiracy theory as proof. It seems to you to use the conclusions of 1000's of respected scientists is a handicap because it's all based on 'lies'. It matters not apparently that hundreds of thousands of people with no commercial interest would have to collude for hundreds of years to perpetuate these so called lies. That in itself is ludicrous. Apparently, thousands of supporting independent observations over hundreds of years that gravity and magnetism are different is irrelevant to you. No-one here at any time has given me one single logical argument that suggests gravity could be the same as magnetism -- not a single one.
Every logical path I follow concludes that gravity and magnetism are not the same. In fact one is a distortion, the other a dimensioned quantity. This is like saying bending=inches. The kind of thing you guys are trying to say is like "Inches is a bending force" is the equivalent (dimensionally) of "magnetism is a gravitational force". It's so plainly obvious that gravity and magnetism are not the same and yet you all are seemingly incapable of escaping your fantasy. This is rather fascinating but also frustrating.
I've been told science does not know what gravity is, but we do know what it is. We've known and verified since Einstein's GR theory that gravity is a distortion in space-time. What we don't know is 'why'. What we don't know if even IF there is a gravitational force that can be unified with all the fundamental forces.
I've said this before but it needs emphasising, "QED is a spectacularly accurate and successful predictive theory about all of physics EXCEPT gravity and the nucleus". Why do you think that is? Why do you think QED cannot describe gravity? What do you think we would be able to use QED for if gravity was essentially non-existent and somehow just magnetism? Don't you think that would easily be shown in QED? But it's not. It's excluded from the theory. Gravity is excluded from a spectacularly successful experimentally verified theory because gravity is very different to magnetism.
It's simple. I read that first part then used the slider to go straight to the bottom of the page.
Well, the last statement was just the first paragraph. Let's look at the second. You claim that the Sun is a monopole north that pulls on the Earth's south pole. In addition you seem to claim that the Earth's north pole is responsible to keeping the Earth from being pulled into the sun and that it's the attraction to the south and repulsion to the north that is responsible for the Earth's tilt.
Far too many problems with these claims. For starters, if there was such an attraction to the south pole and repulsion to the north, there is nothing stopping the Earth from tipping until the Earth is essentially "on its side" with the south pointing at the sun. The south pole would then continue to point at the sun throughout the year which would mean that the northern hemisphere would be in perpetual darkness.
Not only is this not the case, but evidence suggests that the movement of the Earth, with regards to tilt, goes against it.
Then there are the proven results that nonmagnetic bodies are also effected by gravity.
I'm also pretty sure that light, not being a charged particle, can not be bent by magnetism yet light can be bent by gravity.
I'm pretty sure neutrinos are in the same boat.
@effilnuc who asked why I think of http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spr
If it were written on toilet paper, then I could still not find a use for it.
There's a huge difference between proposing a rival theory in Maxwell's time and promoting a scientifically discredited theory in our time.
Aingeal,If you read all the postings on this blog,Youll understand how earth does spin and orbit the sun.
Mania, Your using Giberish again regarding my post above.
Your 'bending = inches' rubbish.
Look at the link Effilnuc give you,Its not rubbish.
Also if looking into Weber's work. Notice mass was commenly 'KNOWN AS' Force befor E=Mc2.
Also the so-called 'Gravitational Constant' is: Not constant at all,far from it.
Its a manmade constant number only and set only as a standard for math.
Thats Remembering "Big G and Little G in Grade School"
Manna in the Wild, Most Grade schooler text books still use the word force instead of mass to help in the understanding of E=Mc2, Why,Because No one really knows what/How mass is mass. ie: What is it?
Again Mass was known as force and the force comes from,You got it now?
Right Manna its magnetism!
"Most Grade schooler text books still use the word force instead of mass"
Show me one. Scan one and post a link to it or find an example in Google Books or something.
Gravity is currently seen as a "distortion of space/time" because our current definitions of space and time are relative to one another, not independent.
So, when one calculates using the current standard units or planck's units, one finds that space/time is distorted. If the true notion of time is understood and independent of the notion of space, time/space will not distort, but space will. Time, or frequency cannot distort, it can only resonate or change its scale relative to the quantum of the frequency used as the basis of the time scale in the calculation.
By changing the scale correctly, space can be folded precisely whilst remaining "in-time" with the rest of the universe!
Note the importance of the understanding of frequency and resonance when calculating magnetism and electromagnetism. Now, extrapolate this understanding and apply it to larger bodies, such as planets, interweaving at particular relative frequencies...you have gravity.
Manna in the wild
I will get right to it sometime this week, As Im waiting on the HSC press release.
Hey in the mean time why dont you explain to Aingeal why Plantet Earth dont 'Roll Over' every 11 years!
Thanks Alot, OK?
"Hey in the mean time why dont you explain to Aingeal why Plantet Earth dont 'Roll Over' every 11 years!"
This is because it can't change what it is doing without the application of an unbalanced force. (Newton's Laws).
effilnuc said, "Note the importance of the understanding of frequency and resonance when calculating magnetism and electromagnetism."
Yes this is really important.
"Now, extrapolate this understanding and apply it to larger bodies, such as planets,"
Ok - planets are suitably vibrating...
"interweaving at particular relative frequencies"
OK - I've done said knitting and weaving.
"...you have gravity."
Ta Dah! Brilliant - absolutely brilliant. That's what gravity is. Now I understand exactly how you think and surely the whole world will benefit from your amazing scientific insight. Go get your Nobel prize.
Here’s Bob Parks 7 warning signs of voodoo science:
A discovery is pitched directly to the media, bypassing peer review, e.g., Pons & Fleischmann’s claims about cold fusion and Dennis Lee‘s claims about free energy.
A powerful “establishment” is said to be suppressing the discovery.
An effect is always at the very limit of detection.
Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
A belief is said to be credible because it has endured for centuries, i.e., commits the fallacy of appeal to tradition. E.g., acupuncture and Ayurvedic medicine.
An important discovery is made in isolation (the “lone genius”).
New laws of nature are proposed to explain an incredible observation. A common lament of parapsychologists.
Who of you accept this as a valid explanation: "The Moon and Sun: As these objects revolve around the Earth, have you ever wondered why none of them fall down? Probably not because you have been blinded for so long by secular propaganda and were told not to question these things. Imagine how horrible it would be if the Sun or the Moon fell down to Earth? Entire countries would be destroyed! Thankfully, God is good, holy, righteous, and perfect that he wouldn't allow such atrocities to happen. In the creationist worldview, this makes sense. This does not make sense to people who believe in the myth of gravity." ( http://questiongravity.blogspot.com/p/arguments-ag )
Manna - thank you for the response
@Effilnuc - what do you want to know about Mandelbrot? The man, the equations, both? It's a fractal figure. Benoit Mandelbrot took a lot of flack for his ideas initially and it's an interesting story. "fractal" is a contraction of "fraction dimensional." It identifies in part the 'roughness' of shapes that have certain characteristics -- like a coastline. If you measure a coastline with a 1m stick you get length X, but if you measure it with a 1/2m stick you will get X+Y and if you use a smaller measure, the measured answer is longer still. In the theoretical limit, as the measure stick tends towards zero in length the resulting coastline measurement tends towards infinity. Mandelbrot worked out a measure called a fractional dimension such that a theoretical line has one dimension, an area has two, and the fractional coastline is somewhere between those two dimensions.
@Manna, I thought you were leaving...
@ Manna - Manna please stay! You really are helping people see the truth, even if you can't.
As for a Nobel Prize, NO THANKS, what an insult.
I Note it was said before that the photon would be of measurement 1 and the Graviton would be 2 (when it is discovered).
If the photon (particle) is understood as a wave, would not it's value then become 2 same as the elusive graviton needs to be?
When light is a photon particle it is magnetic and electric. When light is a wave it has properties more recognisable as gravity.
Just a thought (not for you Manna, don't worry)
If a photon has no rest mass, then all mass is a derivative of momentum, velocity and scale.
Photons and gravitons have no rest mass. Therefore each is a long-range force. Both are Bosons which means they are not constricted by Pauli Exclusion Principle. The implication of that is that light (and gravity) cannot be 'hard' because multiple Bosons can occupy the same quantum state. But a photon is a spin 1 particle, while in theoretical quantized treatments a graviton is predicted to be a spin 2 particle. Both are force-carriers for their respective forces. Photons are exceedingly easy to detect, gravitons have not been observed (and might not exist). (i.e. gravity and magnetism are mediated by very different force-carriers).
Yes - light is a field of force constructed from magnetic and electric components.
It's not ok to say, "when light is a wave" because wave-particle duality is the very nature of all particles including a baseball, a photon, an electron, a graviton, the W and Z particles, an elephant... In each case, whether you can measure or need to consider the wave-properties of each depends on scale. The most we can say about wave-particle duality is that certain experiments illustrate that the object has wave-like behaviour, while other experiments on the same object shows it is a particle.
The force-carrier for light and for gravity travel at the cosmic speed limit (about 3x10^8 m/s)
Here is another major difference between gravity and light (when we say light, this embodies magnetism):
the wavelength of a vibrating object through space is calculated by:
v=fL
where the velocity v is a vector quantity, f is the frequency of vibration measured in Hz = cycles / second, and L is the wavelength.
We can find all around us, evidence of high frequency photons in the form of radio, X-ray, gamma-ray, visible light. The wave length is theoretically any non-zero value, but in practice, the vast majority of observed EM is in the range 1Hz to 10^24Hz. This corresponds to wavelengths of 10^8m down to 10^-16m.
Gravitational waves have not yet been directly detected. This is a) because the wavelength of all postulated sources of gravitational waves are very long (several times the diameter of Earth), and b) the strength is very feeble.
You said, "If a photon has no rest mass, then all mass is a derivative of momentum, velocity and scale." That logic does not make any sense.
"If the photon (particle) is understood as a wave, would not it's value then become 2 same as the elusive graviton needs to be?" No, and why would it? Spin is not a property of being wave-like, it is an observation about the symmetry properties under rotation of tensors used in the mathematics.
In the classical world, you can take an object - say a cup, rotate it 360 degrees, and it looks exactly the same. In the quantum world, spin 1 particles do this too, but spin 2 particles need two rotations to get back to the starting configuration, and spin 1/2 particles (like the electron which is a fermion) show symmetry after 180 degrees and again at 360 degrees. But that's just a guide on how it might look. Don't try to picture this at the QM scale - just imagine a matrix with complex elements that describes the particle is subjected to a rotation operation (these mathematical descriptions are spinors). Spin (aka spin direction) describes degree of freedom. In QM, spin is quantised, you can change its direction, but unlike in the classical scale the speed of 'rotation' cannot be changed as it is a fundamental property of the quantum particle.
Correction: "rotation of tensors" should read "rotation of spinors" (tensors are used in General Relativity) -- sorry - my mistake.
Correction: "rotation of tensors" should read "rotation of spinors" (tensors are used in General Relativity) -- sorry - my mistake.
Common Manna, you are starting to sound a bit flustered. Are you sure you really believe what you are writing?
Did I just read that
"In each case, whether you can measure or need to consider the wave-properties of each depends on scale. The most we can say about wave-particle duality is that certain experiments illustrate that the object has wave-like behaviour, while other experiments on the same object shows it is a particle."
Manna - common baby, let your conditioning go, you are speaking truths without understanding the truth.
@effilnuc: please focus.
I'll summarise the paragraph that you object to.
The photoelectric effect can only be explained in a particle theory. While polarisation can only be explained by a wave theory. In both cases, photons are the subject of experiment.
So, you finally agree!
Three cheers for Newton's Rival!
Agree with what?
Thanks to you Manna, and everyone else, we have our first collective Scientific Leap Theory.
I will leave you here Manna, thank you for all your time and input. I trust you will read and, after testing the First Scientific Leap Theory,
which is
GM force (the force of gravity and magnetism) is the FORCE OF RESONANT ACCELERATION,
you will reply honestly as always.
What I do understand very clearly is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Your "theory" is nothing more than thinly veiled semi-public pseudo-intellectual self-gratification. However, what puzzles me is whether you truly think you have uncovered anything of value or you are just being a troll.
On a more interesting note: the LHC is homing in on the mass and discovery of a Higgs' particle at about 125 gigaelectronvolts which is considered very light. The observation of the Higgs will validate the standard model which in effect further cements that the source of gravity is certainly not magnetic -- as if I really needed to provide any more proper scientific reasons why NR is incorrect, you are incorrect, Daniel is incorrect, and M is incorrect. What's more, ATLAS is producing similar tantalizing conclusions using different methods. We still need to wait for stronger statistical certainty before a discovery is announced. At present, the hints represent a 2% chance of being random fluctuations. We need that to shrink to 1 in 10^6 to be sure.
Are the current theories, Newton SR, GR, QED, Standard model correct? It's not possible to know for certain because it's not possible to test everything. But are they definitely incorrect? No, and that's a NO to a very high degree of certainty because these theories are so well tested. Any of these theories could fall in the face of extraordinary substantiated experimental evidence. The last four words of that sentence are very important.
Your theories are definitely wrong because there is a stupendous amount of experimental evidence proving so.
So your position is this:
Find real extraordinary evidence that current mainstream theories are incorrect and find ways to experimentally prove your theories. Don't just string obscure words together and suddenly claim that people like myself have helped you 'collectively' develop "Scientific Leap Theory". I find that very insulting.
Manna, no one can "uncover" anything of real value, all we can hope to do is understand that which is of real value.
I feel I understand the nature of the universe much better than you do, but, that is just my opinion to which I am fully entitled, as are you to yours.
I think it is a bit gutless of you to constantly criticize anyone who posts creative thoughts here, but you yourself have NEVER posted anything that is remotely original - are you that afraid of criticism? Is your self esteem so low that you can only repulse? Or are you consciously suppressing new ideas?
@ Manna - did you actually read the posts at http://effilnuc.hubpages.com/hub/The-Scientific-Le
@ Manna - My position is that Gravity and Magnetism are descriptions used to describe certain effects of the one simple force of resonant acceleration.
There is nothing you can say Manna that proves otherwise. You can postulate and extricate but you cannot prove this to be wrong...it will take a while before it is widely accepted, understood and applied, but nonetheless, it is not incorrect.
If i say that light is a particle, I am not wrong, but I am not entirely correct. If I say that light is a wave, I am not wrong, but I am not entirely correct.
If I say that magnetism = gravity, I am not wrong, but I am not entirely correct.
The particle and the wave duality of all things is why this one single force seems to be two distinct forces, it all depends on the context of the observation.
Particles are not waves and waves are not particles, just like gravity is not magnetism and magnetism is not gravity. BUT - particle/wave describes the natures of light as does Gravity/magnetism explain the natures of force.
Manna - you are highly intelligent it seems, but your mind is only as good as the "drivers" that you have installed and is ultimately subject to the extent of your personal "operating system".
Often computers become so cluttered with programs, all of which are correct and functional when used in isolation, but when too many isolated programs try to execute at the same time, the computer system freezes and is no longer able to process.
At this time, press the reset button and return to your primary BIOS - basic input output system. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed from one form to another. Energy is creates force, one simple energy, realising itself in many different contexts, one is commonly called gravity, another is commonly called magnetism. It is the same energy, the same force but the context and parameters have changed.
@effilnuc: you exhibit all the characteristics of a classic crackpot. Creativity is one thing, imagination is one thing, reality however is as it is and no amount of fantasy on your part or any others' will actually change that. Yes - creativity and fantasy are essential for problem solving it's even permissible to create imaginary differential diagnoses as a stepping stone to a solution of a new idea but you will not change the laws of physics. It is possible to alter our models of the universe, but our descriptions will not change the actual state of being.
You say, "If I say that magnetism = gravity, I am not wrong, but I am not entirely correct."
No, you are definitely wrong there.
This however is possible: "what causes gravity and what causes magnetism may have derived from a simpler, more symmetric system".
I've chosen those words very carefully and there is quite a lot of physics embedded in the statement.
I suspect you found the words, "resonant acceleration" in some text about cyclotrons. Care to actually define the term? If you can't then your 'theory' may as well be theology.
@Manna."creativity is one thing, imagination is one thing"
creativity is having a imagination which is what you don't have, only other peoples which you repeat like a brainwashed child trying to brainwash others with your illness, which is not contagious on this site. About half lies, half or less of what you say is true, and the least important half. Its the question (creativity) that wins the nobel prize but all you have is answer's and criticism. Others think your helping, you are half helping the least important half. effilnuc is correct about perspective in more ways than one especially about scale and the way it changes the way things work using common sense not con science. You think small things are always tougher because they can survive fall's and not that they are simply lighter and not effected by gravity because of there scale of mass reacting with this planets gravitational strength. Its as simple as the bigger they are the harder they fall. Antigravity does exsist it's call space where mass has know weight, and now days known as dark energy. if this is another scale of a invisible plasma then plasma could be used to create anti gravity. I recall stating that spinning compressed plasma around a powerful electro magnet could show results, you asked how I answered and again you changed the subject. I guess they really taped up that box your in. So now you want to throw a few more CRACK POT remarks around like that help's people see your boxed up point of view, while you probably believe in talking snake's and gravity and magnetism has nothing to do with one another, people with common sense and imagination on a better world prevail with more creativity standing on the box your sitting in.
Magnetisms gravitational force has infonit scales and are one in the same.GRAVITY IS MAGNETISM...
And Manna if you do possess creative ideas it is yet to be seen, only others peoples work. and for you to state the gravitron may not exist I can grantee that in a infonit universe anything us humble humans imagination can generate all ready exists, but you probably think the human mind is the limit to reality.
There are know limits in a infinite reality and even earth has infinite space. this space (dark energy) is probably what Tesla discovered before his most important work was stolen. The question is how did he conduct this energy..
The only conclusion from all this is: Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you at their own game.
--------select quotes from wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crank_(person) not aimed at any particular individual here, but collectively and of links made from here to crank science...
"Crank" is a pejorative term used for a person who unshakably holds a belief that most of his or her contemporaries consider to be false.[1]"
Check.
A "cranky" belief is so wildly at variance with commonly accepted belief as to be ludicrous."
Check.
"Cranks characteristically dismiss all evidence or arguments which contradict their own unconventional beliefs,"
Check.
"making rational debate an often futile task."
Check
"Although a crank's beliefs seem ridiculous to experts in the field, cranks are sometimes very successful in convincing non-experts of their views"
Check
"The term crank is often applied to persons who contradict rigorously proven mathematical theorems,"
Check
"or who deny extremely well established physical theories, such as the special theory of relativity, conservation of mass-energy, or a round earth (See Flat Earth Society)."
Check, Check and Check.
"More engineer-minded cranks may claim to have invented a magic compression algorithm or a perpetual motion / free energy machine."
Check
"Nonetheless, since the nature of mainstream opinion can change over time,..."
This I freely admit, indeed embrace. It is fundamental to the scientific method.
"it is useful to define crankery in terms of characteristics which are independent of the allegedly cranky belief."
Noted.
"Indeed, it is widely accepted that the true hallmark of the crank is not so much asserting that, for example, the Earth is flat as making this assertion in the face of all counterarguments and contrary evidence."
Check.
"Certain authors (see the references) who have studied the phenomenon of crankery agree that this is the essential defining characteristic of a crank: No argument or evidence can ever be sufficient to make a crank abandon his belief."
"Check".
"virtually universal characteristics of cranks include:
Cranks overestimate their own knowledge and ability,"
Check.
"and underestimate that of acknowledged experts."
Check.
"Cranks insist that their alleged discoveries are urgently important."
Has been seen in this blog comments.
"Cranks rarely, if ever, acknowledge any error, no matter how trivial."
Check
"Some cranks exhibit a lack of academic achievement"
Can't draw that conclusion.
"in which case they typically assert that academic training in the subject of their crank belief is not only unnecessary for discovering "the truth", but actively harmful because they believe it "poisons" the minds by teaching falsehoods"
Check.
"Others greatly exaggerate their personal achievements, and may insist that some achievement (real or alleged) in some entirely unrelated area of human endeavor implies that their cranky opinion should be taken seriously."
Check.
"In addition, many cranks:
seriously misunderstand the mainstream opinion to which they believe that they are objecting,"
Check.
"stress that they have been working out their ideas for many decades, and claim that this fact alone entails that their belief cannot be dismissed as resting upon some simple error,
compare themselves with Galileo or Copernicus"
Check.
"(or in a religious context, Noah), implying that the mere unpopularity of some belief is in itself evidence of plausibility,"
Not seen here.
"claim that their ideas are being suppressed, typically by secret intelligence organizations, mainstream science, powerful business interests, or other groups which, they allege, are terrified by the possibility of their revolutionary insights becoming widely known,
appear to regard themselves as persons of unique historical importance."
Check.
"Cranks who contradict some mainstream opinion in some highly technical field, such as mathematics or physics, frequently:
exhibit a marked lack of technical ability,"
Check.
"misunderstand or fail to use standard notation and terminology,"
Check.
"ignore fine distinctions which are essential to correctly understand mainstream belief."
Absolutely.
"That is, cranks tend to ignore any previous insights which have been proven by experience to facilitate discussion and analysis of the topic of their cranky claims; indeed, they often assert that these innovations obscure rather than clarify the situation"
Check.
"In addition, cranky scientific "theories" do not in fact qualify as theories as this term is commonly understood within science. For example, crank "theories" in physics typically fail to result in testable predictions, which makes them unfalsifiable and hence unscientific"
Check.
"Or the crank may present their ideas in such a confused, "not even wrong" manner that it is impossible to determine what they are actually claiming."
Oh yes... Check.
" poorly supported conspiracy theories,"
Check.
"or pseudoscientific claims."
Check.
"some of the common crank characteristics (see above)-- such as the lack of technical ability, ignorance of scientific terminology and claims that alternative ideas are being suppressed by the mainstream"
Check.
True Manna, let us stop arguing then!
I did a search on the cyclotron and found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cyclotron_re
thank you, I had not read anything about this before...wow.
Manna - could you look at the maths on the above link (it is way out of my field) and apply it to the concepts etc you know of gravity and using your maths, see what sticks and what doesn't?
Luckily, the maths in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cyclotron_re is rather simple. I can't recall if it was here, or another forum where I estimated parameters for the radius of a cycloid which results from the interaction of charged particles from the sun as they enter the Earth's magnetic field. These particles get trapped in the magnetic field, are funnelled to a pole, bounce back and oscillate with the opposite pole which is good for us otherwise we would fry.
The link mentions a gravitational field but that may be an error or needs properly putting in context because only charged particles are affected by a magnetic field.
I have to do other stuff now - so I'll probably either do a youtube video or a separate hub on it because it needs diagrams to explain properly.
Manna you fit your above profile of crank then any of the people you listed as so-called cranks. As all of us so-called cranks have give better links then you have.
Check
I myself refered you to 'Weber' as to Help you understand E=Mc2 source of Mass.
Check
You venomly defend words Gravity and Mass when theirs no Proof of what they are!
So maybe your the Crank and the Status Quo.
check
Manna face it guy the old Standard is falling apart and your going with it, As your Locked In to some kind of belife.
Check
Now that Manna is off doing other stuff, check out the following! Just what Manna could expect from a crackpot...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclotron
This is one of the practical applications of resonant acceleration when understood.
The inventor and patent holder is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Szil%C3%A1rd
If the Maths is so simple, why is it not used to explain the force behind gravity/mass/matter/magnetism/light?
Because this SIMPLE RESONANT ACCELERATION FORCE is what is used in Magnetrons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetron, Gyrotrons http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyrotron, and Military applications such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Denial_System
Gotta go now!
Effilnic,
Your above post pretty much drives the Nail into: Manna's Wild Claims!and dirble.
"dirble" Love it.
"Dirble" - Urban Slang - noun - a person or group of persons that is lazy and/or is a couch potato.
Probably a typo that was intended to be DRIBBLE, thank you for picking up on that for us Manna.
Thats all Manna does Effilnuc, Dribbling for others, Defending Status Quo BS, Name Calling and Trash Talking others.
He's is a fool!
Following on, the latest application of Resonant Acceleration is using the Klystron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klystron which is used by the company http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Global_Reso that won Innovation of the Year in Popular Science and Time Magazine in 2007 but is no longer operational.
Actually, the word you are looking for is drivel!
Manna a few of us have told you we like your insight and most of your comments,Then out of the blue you go into the name calling and teenage type bully drivel.
So we all know ny now you belive the hardcore standard status quo and Gravity is not magnetism!
So why calling us cranks and crackpots?
Thats not helping anyone. Were all (most of us) are talking about some of the Newest and oldest Research that others dream of talking about.
So I dont care if you think Im a crackpot or not.
As I enjoy the input of others on this site.
So you must enjoy the blog also. Are why are you allways here?
You can get a life and show respect to others if you want others to respect you. We have not tried to tear you down as you stated above. I value all the respectfull reply's even if its yours.
If your defending something else, Just say so and Im sure most everyone would try to respect such.
But calling us names and crackpots is making you seem like a foolish clown.
Blogger Daniel
Cheers Daniel, Ditto!
I am trying to tackle the logic, not the person. If the logic stinks, then I'll tell you. I was careful to say that the crackpot post is not aimed at anyone. It is, however undeniable that many of the widely recognised signs have popped up repeatedly here.
Read back and look at the flack I've taken and ignored, it's quite substantial. If you want me to leave then I'll leave, it makes no difference to me but I like passing on knowledge and insights so if there is a little bit of proper learning going on then that's great. If I am "flogging a dead horse", let me know and I spend my CPU cycles elsewhere. Also - it's not one-way. One of the best ways to learn is to read critically, and teach, so I am getting something out of it regardless. When my BS detector starts red-lining you will know about it and I'll tell you, but that's a criticism within a debate - nothing personal ok?
Do you want an explanation of the wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_cyclotron_re or not?
Ok you did say collectively, Just others do follow this blog some in the media. So I know you give alot of people replies manna and most are real good. Just you got your bully side in there alot.I need to jump back if implyed or called a crackpot or such.
Also It seemed to me you were bullying Effilnuc and short changed him on the www.32stcenturyscientech.com web site when you said it was Tolet Paper!
I read that site and was waiting for your real take on it.
I was disapointed with your reply and seemed to me you were not really being Honest about it. maybe you were in a hurry to reply so just acted like a bully again.
So yes we do look forward to your take on such even if we disagree. So if you need more time by all means take it.
At least by me.
I allready know about the cyclotron and going to look over the CERN press release some more. I though you or NR would be talking more about the Higgs particle. So hope we can all enjoy this blog and the information.
Cheers Daniel, Ditto.
Resonant Acceleration 101
The acceleration of an object does not increase or decrease monotonously, or linearly. Acceleration occurs on a wave like path such that there exist optimal frequencies that cause
three states of resonant acceleration -
1. zero acceleration,
2. monotonous/linear acceleration, and
3. exponential acceleration.
Each particle, object and cluster has optimal frequencies that can cause any of the above three states of acceleration.
Gravity is a state of linear acceleration, but it is the same force of Resonant Acceleration that is operating at an optimal frequency such that linear acceleration occurs.
At another frequency however, a state approaching zero acceleration is achieved - earth orbit of sun, moon orbit of earth.
At another frequency exponential acceleration occurs, like in a black hole, where the acceleration is exponential.
I reckon those them there be some pretty juicy statements that require serious comment Manna!
Seems like new tech for Space Travel
Before I can comment effilnuc, I need to understand what you are trying to say, and to do that, I need to know your definitions of:
a) acceleration
b) resonance
and then
c) resonant acceleration.
... and what are the consequences of exponential "anything" - let alone exponential acceleration?
The state of Resonant Acceleration can be either positive or negative for monotonous and exponential acceleration. It is always zero for Zero Resonant Acceleration.
Zero resonant acceleration uses 0
Monotonous resonant acceleration uses +or- 1
Exponential resonant acceleration uses +or- 2
This creates 5 states of existence - 5 dimensions.
An optimal interference between two bodies with monotonous resonant acceleration creates an exponential resonant acceleration in one or both of the bodies.
The result is - energy input is LESS THAN energy available/ouput.
Acceleration is the rate of change of velocity
Resonant is the frequency
Acceleration is always relative
Resonant is independent
There is a relationship between the Resonant quality of an object and its limit of resonant acceleration.
The lower the resonant quality, the lower the limit of acceleration or its limit of velocity.
The higher the resonant quality, the higher the limit of acceleration/velocity.
By increasing the resonant value of an object, its velocity increases.
There exist optimal resonant values and optimal resonant value relationships that allow monotonous(linear) or exponential or Zero acceleration.
By Exponential I mean by 2, not by 2.718281828. Not sure if this makes a difference?
My understanding of exponential acceleration is accelerating at
1 meter per meter per second per second.
hope that helps!
Zero acceleration - 1 meter per second
Linear acceleration - 1 meter per second per second or 1 meter per meter per second
Exponential acceleration - 1 meter per meter per second per second
I can't unravel much of what you said unfortunately. But let's focus on a few basics.
Zero acceleration means a constant speed just as you say: distance/time. We normally just say "speed" if the direction is unimportant, or "velocity" if it is in a particular direction.
acceleration (any kind) is the rate of change of speed as you illustrated. If you have an equation that describes the speed or velocity of an object, then you can use calculus to differentiate that equation and get an equation that describes its acceleration.
"exponential" means "to the power" like 2 (the base) to the power n, where n is an integer like 0 1 2 3 4 5 ...
In this case the exponential 2^n grows rapidly like this 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 ... etc.
e=2.7181818... is a special number because the value is its own differential. e crops up in a lot of natural processes like radiation decay and rabbit breading and many other situations, especially harmonic functions and things that vibrate. (look up Euler's theorem). Sometimes, a base of e is needed, and at other times, different bases are appropriate.
An exponential function grows very very quickly and when you apply an exponential function to something like speed (or acceleration) of an object, then it will soon be limited because nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and no object with any rest-mass can reach the speed of light. (This is the reason for the relativistic equation shown in that link about electronic cyclotron). I'll explain all that later.
So you cannot have unbounded exponential acceleration without breaking Einstein's special relativity. It may be an applicable relation for low speed up to perhaps 20% of the speed of light or something, with increasing error.
That's all I have time for right now. (Am watching a film)
You should read
I quote
"Under an appropriate transformation of the affine parameter, which guarantess
that the particles will continue to move along geodesics, we may show that this nonlinear
interaction problem corresponds to a parametric resonance. In this case the
external action (the gravitational wave) amounts to a time variation of the frequency
parameter of the initial system (charged particles in a magnetic field), so that in the
overall system the equilibrium at rest (x1 = 0) is unstable. Any deviation from this
state, however small, is sufficient to lead to a rapidly increasing displacement along
the peprendicular direction (Landau and Lifshitz 1976). Further analysis shows that,
in any of the above propagation cases, the overall result would be an exponential
increase of the perpendicular energy of the particles involved in this interaction, as a
function of the affine parameter and, hence, of their proper-time as well."
IE by adjusting the resonant frequency of particles or clusters, the speed limit of the speed of light can and will be exceeded through exponential resonant acceleration.
The resonant frequency of all matter/mass (which is made up of light), determines the top speed of matter - the speed of light. It is like a redline limiter on an engine.
By finding the optimal resonant frequencies of particles, or clusters of particles (more difficult) the third state of exponential resonant acceleration will be achieved, thereby allowing the "top speed" to be exceeded (redline limiter override) and the particle or cluster to move instantly through space/time.
That is my opinion Manna.
This process will be fairly easily achieved with a single particle using a sender and receiver at specific frequencies.
Trying it with small clusters of particles will be more involved but not much more difficult.
Achieving it with non living objects, that is hard.
Moving living beings through space/time, finding the optimal resonant frequency to achieve exponential resonant acceleration, is the holy grail so to speak.
Better stop there, starting to sound like a crackpot! That should save anyone else having to say it.
"The only freedom which counts is the freedom to do what some other people think to be wrong.
There is no point in demanding freedom to do that which all will applaud.
All the so-called liberties or rights are things which have to be asserted against others
who claim that if such things are to be allowed their own rights are infringed or their own liberties threatened.
This is always true, even when we speak of the freedom to worship, of the right of free speech
or association, or of public assembly. If we are to allow freedoms at all
there will constantly be complaints that either the liberty itself or the way in which it is exercised
is being abused, and, if it is a genuine freedom, these complaints will often be justified.
There is no way of having a free society in which there is not abuse.
Abuse is the very hallmark of liberty."
-- Former Lord Chief Justice Hailsham
Effilnuc, It is as if you are trying to deliberately cloak and mislead for reasons I have no idea. Just to be clear, to someone else who may be reading this, you quoted selections from a very complex and specialist paper without understanding any of it and then somehow came to the conclusion "IE by adjusting the resonant frequency of particles or clusters, the speed limit of the speed of light can and will be exceeded through exponential resonant acceleration."
Nowhere anywhere in that paper does it even suggest that as a conclusion. What you propose is preposterous.
From a quick browse, and without the benefit of reference to previous papers, it seems to be discussing how a gravitational wave moving through interstellar space would resonate particles along the way (something like the vibrations caused by high winds as it passes around buildings). It says absolutely nothing about particles exceeding the speed of light.
I decided it's not worth my time to do a nice video of that electronic cyclotron wikipedia page. Instead, here is a short but accurate interpretation:
The page gives two equations. The first one can be used when the electron is stationary or slow with respect to the speed of light.
It says, w = eB/m
w = 2 pi f
so
f = eB/2m(pi)
f is frequency in Hz.
B is the strength of a uniform magnetic field.
e is the charge on the electron which is a constant.
m is the mass of the electron which is also constant.
pi is also a constant.
Therefore you can conclude that
f is directly proportional to B (which cannot be true for all B but it works for a certain range.)
It also states without proof but by reference to the Lorentz force, that an electron in a static magnetic field will move with the locus of a circle. f is how many times it does the loop each second.
So... you can see that an isolated electron will just stay in one spot. In the presence of a very weak magnetic field, it will move in a circle very slowly. As you increase the magnetic field, then it will do these circles faster.
If the electron is moving along the magnetic field lines, then it will take a helical path. If the electron is moving perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, then it will take a cycloid path. (The same kind of path as the valve on your bicycle tyre)
This first equation only works for low magnetic fields because as you increase B, the speed of the electron around the loop increases and it cannot do so past the speed of light. The second equation is the exact solution that works for low B and as high as you can think of and no matter how quickly the electron is moving through the magnetic field.
Here is how it works:
gamma is an adjustment (a correction) made because of
special relativity. It's used in many relativistic equations.
gamma (that squiggle) = 1/( sqrt( 1-(v/c)^2))
c = 3.10^8 m/s (speed of light)
Let's look at what happens to gamma as v increases.
(v by the way is the speed of the electron as it takes one of the paths described above.)
Let's assume v is near zero (i.e. a low speed), then
1/( sqrt( 1-(small/c)^2))
small/c = very small indeed.
square that, and it's even smaller
1 - smaller than very small indeed = pretty much 1
sqrt(1) = 1
1/1 = 1
Therefore gamma is extremely close to 1.
Note that gamma is on the denominator of the corrected equation.
f = eB/(1)(2m_0(pi))
m_0 by is the rest mass of the electron.
This is the same equation as the approximate one.
(because v is small with respect to c)
Now consider what happens when v is close to c, lets
say 99.999% of c.
gamma = 1/( sqrt( 1-(v/c)^2))
= 1/(sqrt( 1-((.99999)^2) ) = 223 (about)
And so f = eB/(223)(2m_0(pi))
e = 1.60217646 × 10-19 coulombs ( a measured constant)
m_0 = 9.10938188 × 10-31 kilograms
so at 99.999% the speed of light, f = B(((1.6 × (10^(-19))) / (223 * 9.1 × (10^(-3)))) / 2) / 3.14 = 1.25549239 × 10^(-20)
i.e. f is pretty much zero. It's not going in circles any more.
From the second equation, you can see that as v approaches c, gamma tends to infinity which makes f tend to zero. In other words as the electron speeds up and approaches c in any given uniform magnetic field, then it ceases to move in circles, spirals or cycloids.
Now... we know that if B is zero then f is zero no matter what speed the electron moves, and we know that as B increases, it rotates the electron and it is limited how fast it can be sped up because of SR. This means that there are some parameters, i.e. a speed and some electric field strength where we get a maximum cyclonic movement of the electron. This is why it's called resonance because resonance means simple harmonic motion style vibration - just like a violin string or air when you blow across the top of a bottle - only in this case it means little circular movements.
So next time you cook your food in the microwave oven, you will understand the value of the magnetic field produced in the oven's magnetron has been chosen to resonate the stationary electrons in your food at a suitable frequency and therefore produce heat.
The wiki article gives you the values of B used in a typical microwave oven.
Sorry Manna you do not follow, I know that others do.
You have made a mistake in my opinion.
B cannot = zero
f cannot = zero
zero velocity = zero mass
Now, go and recalculate!
@ Manna - The conclusions are mine, not from the paper, and they are not preposterous, they are factually my conclusions.
I am sorry you do not follow the logic, as I have said before, you are locked into a thought pattern that is hindering your perspective.
It is important to understand Manna that as the electron approaches the speed of light and its frequency approaches zero, by applying resonant acceleration (vibrating the electron as it approaches the speed of light) an optimal resonant frequency is found that allows the electron to accelerate past the speed of light - relatively.
In essence, you are stopping the collapse of the wave function and "bounce" it through space/time.
@effilnuc: You have wasted my time and will not waste any more. I am not saying you are a dickhead, but you are responding like a dickhead and I don't know why, and I don't care. I assume that my careful and basic step by step explanation that YOU asked for was still completely and utterly above your level of comprehension. You obviously don't want to learn anything properly. It just seems to satisfy you to randomly string together scientific terms like bric-a-brac and then narcissistically crow about it like some kind of mad street-preacher.
So Goodbye. I will not post here any more.
Thanks for your help Manna, you will be missed.
I wonder if there is a way of imitating density (mass) and its effects to produce gravity/magnetism to a greater extent to produce the same energy. I hope someone has ideas of how this could be possible. The best I can think of for now is condensed plasma acceleration and electro magnetism. Maybe the correct question is how can we produce the attractive power of density with the least amount of mass or how does mass/density generate power because dark energy seemingly has know mass but is equally or more powerful than gravity/magnetism and more abundant from our current perspective.There can never be enough research, so lets see if we can find the right question that can lead to a obvious answer as they most often do.
@Aingeal, then I feel sorry for you, cause if you had continued to read on, we have already established the theory to not be accurate in its description, the comments go on further than that, you missed/missing a great read. Get the facts first, you should have read instead of judged. But You also pose a good point in the same aspect, for new readers this may be confusing so therefore I will post the Real Theory instead.
Wow, A lot of heated debate. And I suppose Manna is leaving. Well that is his choice. I admit I don't understand a lot of what effilnuc says either, however I have to respect that all people do not communicate whats going on in their heads very well in writing. I try to sift through and put the pieces together myself, I will also admit that this is a difficult task. Recently I was watching a video on you tube of a magnet spinning on its own field interacting with another magnets opposite field. Then something scary happened. The Top magnet stopped spinning reversed direction and begun spinning again. I suppose one would look at this is just the common magnetic field reversal, however When I thought about the larger scale and envisioned the Earth and the Sun, and the earth doing this magnetic reversal it occurred to me, that , um yeah, all the worlds water would actually move so fast and hard that the earth would be submerged in water. Even if only temporarily, it would be completely flooded. Food for thought!!! Here is a link about how often it happens...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/when-our-magnet anyone know when the next one is due...???
Here is a link of an experiment with this, I'm having difficulty finding the one I seen the other day. It starts at 3:30 and ends about 4:55. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqEd3KHuEHU THIS IS NOT MY VIDEO!
I am pretty sure the mass of oceans slows and stops at the same or similar rate as the dry land, thereby avoiding the "washing machine effect".
As the magnetic pole shift has occurred in the past, there should be evidence of a "washing machine" effect from past magnetic reversals, I have not found any evidence or indicators of this.
I would suggest that massive and sudden weather changes, particularly wind and temperature, are more likely...causing possible tidal waves etc but not a huge ocean shift...just my opinion.
My opinion...
One cannot extract more energy out of a system than that which has entered the system.
One CAN extract energy out of a system faster or slower than the frequency with which it entered the system.
Dark Matter is the most abundant source of energy because it is PURE POTENTIAL ENERGY that defines everything else.
Mass and light have realized some of this POTENTIAL ENERGY to maintain their respective forms and thereby hold less remaining potential energy than DARK MATTER.
total energy = potential + realized
energy = the amount of space defined by the realized energy
So, light, which defines the most space, holds more energy potential than a rock, which defines relatively less space.
A rock r that is mass A, with minimal radiation, defines less space and has less energy than rock R, uranium with same mass A, that has relatively high radiation and defines more space. The field of force (radiation/magnetic/wave function) of the rock is what defines it, not the field of matter.
A black hole, whilst it has little or no mass, defines an enormous amount of space, it even defines light and therefore holds more energy than light despite being of relatively small field of matter.
Does that make sense? I am trying to express it clearly.
Applying spirals, orbits, rotations, and resonance of different materials - one could define a relatively large amount of space (potential energy) in a relatively small amount of time.
This potential energy could then be realized, directed and released at a desired rate that is relatively faster than the time it took to "generate".
@ M - If Dark Matter is everything that is yet to be defined by light, it is potential matter or mass, therefore it is potential energy.
If a "space" (dark matter) is defined without collapsing the wave function of the electron energy within that "space"(using resonance), the potential energy is confined to the space but is not yet realized.
Example
Take 7 metal spheres orbiting a virtual 8th sphere that is defined by the orbit of the 7 real spheres.
Speed those spheres up, as in, increase the momentum with which they are moving such that the relative velocity between any two of the seven spheres is greater than the speed of light whilst the real velocity of any of the 7 real spheres relative to the virtual central sphere is still less than the speed of light.
At this point, the 8th virtual sphere contains all of the potential energy of the real momentum of the 7 real spheres.
So, the space defined by the 7 real spheres x their real momentum = the potential energy of the 8th central sphere.
Just a thought, I don't know how applicable this is.
Using 7 spheres orbiting at the correct frequency, one can create a virtual barrier that does not allow photons to penetrate into the defined space even though the barrier is made up of more space than matter.
NR,
Liked your recent posts and Its belived earths magnetic field can flip over without planet earth rolling over, As earths core is a liquid it can roll over without the planet.
A planetary roll over could happen if another planet or planet sized object with a strong magnetic field or magnetic body were to come too near or past by the earth.
The earth would have weather changes following the fields roll.
An analogy
Just as when air is "split" by a wing, air travels faster over the top of the wing to rejoin its counterpart air on the other side,
so too does light "split" and rejoin its couterpart.
When light is "split", the part that has the furthest "distance" to travel, will speed up so that it rejoins with its counterpart.
Any measurement of light will show the whole light particle/wave has traveled no faster than the speed of light, even though part of the whole must have, in order for the whole to remain and be measured.
The force that brings the parts of light back together as a whole is the binding force, sometimes called gravity.
This is the same force that brings parts of water back together and parts of air back together.
We use this force to move through air, and we use this force to move through water, why can't we use this same principle to move through space/time? HELP!
Air is the medium for an atmosphere, water is the medium for an ocean??, light is the medium for space/time??? Just thinking out loud!
Effilnuc. Moving through space time Using a Magnetic Field is something claimed by a Mehran Keshe.
He can be found on YouTube.com and his foundation is:
Keshefoundation also on youtube.
Hes viewed as a scamer by Manna types.
But has claims he has developed Startrek type tech.
Also he claims to have helped Iran develope its first UFO using his tech.
His youtube video's are good.
"A MUST READ" If into Electro-Magnetics,Space travel and such.
Thanks Daniel, I have made contact with them following your suggestion...my main interest (and practical experience) is actually food processing.
I have been thinking about the definition of plasma and I have come to the conclusion that everything that we know is plasma, to common understanding plasma is electrified(magnetised) gas but all light, from a flame to lightning is also plasma yet thinking deeper our most ancient plasma is our sun a star which all that we know so far to exist is the source of all matter witch is essentially light at it's most basic, yet since all matter came from this source including water and air ( airanother gas) then you could say that all slowed light, which is also cooled light, is plasma evolved to a different form. Maybe it is the various density's of this plasma that needs to be compromised e.g it has been discovered that creating an air pocket (bubbles) at the nose of a submarine proven with torpedoes that much greater speed can be achieved. In the sky aerodynamics play a major role. It is from this that the only thing I can think of for now is that a strong magnetic field around an object could erase all or least most friction (plasma) in a similar way how light (plasma,space/time) is warped around our own planet instead of hitting and reflecting, in the same way a air pocket at the nose of a torpedo smoothly guides the water around the nose instead of smashing against it resisting its path. everything (plasma) is magnetised so finding the right magnetic field in theory could at least be a good start to erasing friction for faster travel.
It seems to me that all viable light is created from fiction (heat) and invisible light is the last stage of this process. In as sense since dark energy/space is the predominant as supposed to matter, when you light a match first there is friction, then slowed light/matter as fuel, then while converting that light-matter into dark matter, which like I stated is the last visible process of plasma. almost like anti-gravity consumes more than gravity/magnetism, hence why most of our viable universe is this dark energy, or should I say most of our invisible universe...
Could it be that what we here as reverse engineering might be be better understood as reverse chemical engineering. The beginning of our universe was apparently a kind of super compressed ball of matter which grew from nothing into everything. But I do not believe in nothing there's always something even if it's not visible. From my perspective I can imagine that the beginning of our universe could be compared in a way to bacteria multiplying from one, while seeing this under a microscope the space between and around the bacteria as empty, or like some air plants that keep sending of shoots needing only air mixed with H2o. Air is also a plasma as electricity from the sun electrifies our atmosphere (electrified gases)day and night as there is still light visible and invisible.It could possibly be that all existence begins in the invisible realm of dark energy where some of this energy collides and slows down to create enough gravity/magnetism to become dark matter and finally become visible matter? if so this could mean that gravity comes from anti-gravity/space collides and forms visible plasma stars. Just a thought.... I'm hoping that trying to comprehend dark energy might make anti gravity easier to understand like north and south on a magnet by trying to realize how these forces begin and end..
I suppose this would not require as much energy e.g nearly or totally eliminating the resistance of space/time as opposed to attracting it such a way to create a wormhole. With all the possibility's I'm sure there must be many way's in witch to revolutionize travel and render anti gravity. But it seems that even with ultra-light materials a lot of energy would be needed....unless????
Maybe gravity/magnetism and dark energy are one in the same like time/space similar to how a magnet can attract and repel.
If one looks at gravity/magnetism/dark energy as Potential energy, and one then understands resonant acceleration, the expansion of the universe is a logical outcome.
Instead of the terms -
matter,
anti-matter and
dart matter,
let us use the terms
kinetic (realized) energy or kinetic action
kinetic (realized) energy or kinetic reaction
potential energy
The reason we currently use "matter" as the base for the terms of anti matter and dark matter, is because when humans began this journey, matter was the foundation of reality. Now, a few centuries later, we understand that energy is the corner stone of reality so let us adapt our terminology to suit.
Energy or force can be either potential energy (as in dark matter) or it is REAL (kinetic) energy as in MATTER/ANTIMATTER. Potential energy is neither positive or negative. Kinetic/Realized energy is both positive and negative...for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Before the Big bang, there was only potential energy or "dark matter". There was no light (matter) or darkness (antimatter). There was no movement, no momentum...only potential.
The BIG BANG process created Light; positive kinetic energy (MATTER) and its necessary counterpart; "Dark" (anti-matter), real negative kinetic energy.
An understanding of kinetic energy is important...from wikipedia
"The speed, and thus the kinetic energy of a single object is frame-dependent (relative): it can take any non-negative value, by choosing a suitable inertial frame of reference. For example, a bullet passing an observer has kinetic energy in the reference frame of this observer. The same bullet is stationary from the point of view of an observer moving with the same velocity as the bullet, and so has zero kinetic energy.[2] By contrast, the total kinetic energy of a system of objects cannot be reduced to zero by a suitable choice of the inertial reference frame, unless all the objects have the same velocity. In any other case the total kinetic energy has a non-zero minimum, as no inertial reference frame can be chosen in which all the objects are stationary. This minimum kinetic energy contributes to the system's invariant mass, which is independent of the reference frame."
See how one can use kinetic energy (momentum) and resonance to accelerate the relative velocity of an object to another past the speed of light thereby giving said object the respective energy associated with moving faster than the speed of light.
Just as sound waves are compressed in front of a speeding plane until they burst, so too can light waves be compressed using kinetic energy, rotation and geodesic paths. Breaking the light barrier is no longer a barrier!
Chemical energy, and electro magnetic energy are really just forms of kinetic energy.
In a chemical reaction, the bonds between protons are released and formed such that the rotational kinetic energy within each atom is released collectively.
In electro magnetism, it is the same story, the kinetic energy of the electron is released or transferred via magnetic field.
Positive kinetic energy accelerates, negative kinetic energy decelerates.
Effilnuc.. Thank you for your insight it is as always very valuable. I agree everything has kinetic energy as everything from microscopic to telescopic is moving. I understand that the faster something travel's the more kinetic energy it absorbs especially from the same velocity point of view. Kinetic energy then in my opinion is magnetism, as everything is magnetised its relative movement dictates it's power relative to everything moving at the same velocity. Therefore kinetic power is magnetic power. Could it be that energy moving objects gain is dark energy until it collides and goes back to its source. Including simple chemical movements within a battery.
Effilnuc. Thank you for your insight is as always valuable. I agree everything has kinetic energy as everything from microscopic to telescopic is moving. I understand that the faster something travel's the more kinetic energy it absorbs especially from the same velocity point of view. Kinetic energy then in my opinion is magnetism, as everything is magnetised its relative movement dictates it's power relative to everything moving at the same velocity. Therefore kinetic energy is magnetic energy. Could it be that the energy objects absorb is dark energy until it goes back to its invisible source. Including simple chemical movements within a battery. They say kinetic energy can only be positive, but if you define kinetic energy as magnetism it would make sense that kinetic energy is responsible for deceleration, not just acceleration just how a magnet repels and attracts from different perspectives.
It then follows that magnetism and kinetic energy are energy that is +/- realised, whereas the concept of gravity is unrealised potential energy that is neither positive or negative...like a monopole magnet.
Breaking it down we have one single potential force that, when realised, becomes a +/- kinetic force. This +/- kinetic force is expressed in 5 states of matter but is the same original potential force.
That then means that a hydrogen atom is made up of
proton = +ve kinetic energy
electron = -ve kinetic energy
neutron = total energy of the proton and electron = zero energy or POTENTIAL ENERGY
Or if we break it down to quarks, we have the pentaquark, or 5 states of matter, or 5 states of kinetic energy.
Its a bit simplified.
From Potential Energy we have the FOUR Fundamental Forces
+/- kinetic energy based on full spin from which comes
+/- kinetic energy based on half spin
That's really simplifying it!
If spin of atoms are perpetual what way could we conduct there energy in comparison to conducting electricity from a turbine, which of course spins to conduct energy on a much larger scale. Something tells me that nano technology could provide an answer. And if all matter is made of atoms then it might make sense to say anti-matter is made of anti-atoms, possibly atoms built and or working in reverse, as for dark energy, since all matter and atoms originate from light (plasma) which is made of photons, perhaps dark energy is made of anti-photons some have called virtual photons. In a way that colliding atoms in our atmosphere create lightning but on a much smaller scale.
This could mean that what we see as empty space is pure untapped energy and all light and matter are just variations of this energy brought to light by colliding and bonding at infinite velocity's and magnetic frequency's.
Its nice to know that the Potential is there if needed!
Effilnuc. it is only nice to know if it can be available as a common resource, which can only become a reality if understanding of this infinite resource is solved and recognized in order to stop our dependants on oil, so that mankind has more incentive to evolve a greater reality. The more freedom the more potential...
Let's try to figure out how to access this resource, not for recognition but for a better reality. Witch would be the grater reword.
Every ones idea's on this page is rewarding in it's self. I wonder if we can turn the best of them from dream to reality.
As always time will tell.
I like your style M. I am dying to post more in a few days, after the family festivities are over.
Happy Festivities Everyone!
So where are the new angles...
Good luck everyone for 2012!!
Check out
http://www.keylonticdictionary.org/online/index.ph
It provides a solid foundation on which one can communicate.
Thank's effinuc I will look into it!
I don't think people realize how strong and serious conviction it was when people knew the earth was flat. But in all fairness of course it is from visual perspective. Our currant perspective is that its round, which is true if your in a space shuttle. I have looked into the crazy OLD THEORY that our earth and most large astral body's are hollow with much scepticism yet much curiosity. The main points supporting this THEORY IS ASTOUNDING.1. A atom is hollow with a nuclear centre (nucleus). now imagine a hollow sphere magnet with 2 holes at the poles. A piece of metal will stick to the outside and the inside of the sphere and on the sides of the holes. Now if you placed another strong magnet like a electro magnet in the centre it should float in the middle because only opposites attract and it should spin the sphere via the positive charge from the central magnet repelling the positive charge of the inside sphere just like a atom!2. If the earth has 2 polar openings it is a much better explanation for auroras only being seen there because when a solar flare blankets earth it should be SEEN everywhere not just at the poles unless it is coming from the inside our earth. I would like to point out when I read this what came to mind was that on the website SPACE WEATHER (the NASA space weather bureau) I saw a photo of the moon with a unexplained green fog at its north pole, I think it was a aurora. 2. the sun has permanent coronal holes at its poles.3. sunspots move much faster than the suns equator proving they are a atmospheric phenomenon.4. A lot of smart people have theorised the earth is hollow such as Edmond Halley the brilliant astronomer who discovered Halley's comet, not to mention Tesla and Einstein and many others including our ancestors.5. most of the worlds fresh water is the ice caps at the poles indicating fresh water flows from the polar openings.6. when earthquakes occur they can be detected many time over on the other side of the globe in the way a bell rings, witch is impossible with a solid object and the same detection occurred on the moon when NASA crashed a satellite to look for water vapour it rang for 15 hours! the boxing day Tsunami quakes where detected on seismographs after occurrence for 2 weeks!.7. Mammoth carcases have only been found at the north polar region with the discoverers stating they where so well preserved there meat was still edible. Impossible unless they died in modern times indicating that water flows out the north and into the south just like the magnetic fields of a magnet or atom etc, meaning they could have fallen into the winter ice near inner earth's openings frozen instantly and in summer carried out to sea.There are many more interesting points and evidence but i need a break lol...
Google www.ourhollowearth.com/expeditionupdate.htm
It makes a lot of sense.
I would say the best way to hide amazing truths that put powerful people at great advantage over others is to tell the world, while stating some guy made this up and its all just a fantasy. why is it this theory explains the unknown to science. I watch space weather every day to see what the suns up to. it shows daily the Earth's polar
auroral ovals which are always there, when a CME (coronal mass ejection) hits earth the oval grow large of course, but I have very very often seen them that large with no solar flares. This only makes sense if the auroras are coming from earth.I have seen X class flares (the most powerful kind) hit our atmosphere and the auroras nearly cover south New Zealand, I have seen the same with no solar activity. So we are supposed to believe that the suns solar wind creates auroras you can only see at poles from CME's, but nearly half the time the auroras are just as intense with no CME's! I would like to try the idea I had of a magnetic sphere with a electro magnet inside in theory it should float in the centre and spin the sphere JUST LIKE A ELECTRIC MOTOR. If you check out that site they even explain how using Newtons law they can prove that the Earth's crust can have enough mass to generate the gravity we have. Meaning the centre of gravity is at the centre of the Earth's crust not the core, for us on the surface...
I would also like to add that NASA has admitted that our moon has less density on it's outside than the inside.They say this is probably due to cave's lol must be big caves, they have also said the moons never had volcanic activity.
just more evidence. Look into strange facts about our moon,
there's much more..we really need to look at all these facts just as we did when the Earth was flat!!
Oops I meant NASA admitted that our moon is MORE dense on it's outside......
No wonder scientists have trouble understanding gravity. Its like brainwashing a kid that reality is a cube into a round hole while hiding the cylinder..
I could always be wrong but I have to say if I had to bet all in I know where I'd put my chips!
effilnuc. keylontic's
very interesting I think it explains better then string theory, It makes sense everything is a sphere within a sphere e.g a soap bubble is round because it is the most energy officiant configuration. We are made of sphere's, atoms...
The theory also states that the polar opening would be 890 miles from crest to crest and we see the horizon line at approx 180 miles, and since gravity/magnetism holds the water to the openings you would not realize you where going down, as you would not realize you are upside-down standing at the south pole..
I find this a much better understanding of gravity...
A hollow earth or any object in space is more likly than a solid object.
Also it would be easy for many magnetic fields to form in such space objects due to iron pushing outfrom the center of sping objects and pushing downward from the surface.
It could also be why earth has the Van Allen Belts even with earths weak magnetic fields.
Oh like your above post M
dan
When doing my own research on magnetic objects spining. I found the more magnetic fields in the object caused a Faster and More Stable spin of the spining magnetic object.
Daniel. I never heard of Van Allen Belts so I looked into it and found experiments simulating Van Allen Belts. To my surprise found it was done using a hollow magnetised sphere with a electro-magnet in the centre!,just as I imagined.It was done in a vacuum and had gas pumped into the SPINNING sphere to create a plasma. It gave birth to ion rocket thrusters and the coil gun witch evolved into the electro-magnetic rail gun, and all this 100 years ago!
it was done by Kristian Birkeland. I wonder what else he discovered in his experiments, my guess is it got suppressed just as much of Tesla's work..
Many scientist have said it is impossible to generate a magnetic field with a solid object. No wonder so many physicist's have trouble with gravity when they are so sure the earth is solid and the sun is just a ball of gas, and so can not explain why two very different bodies can both have/generate magnetic feild's.
I found through the years of my research I kept hitting dead-ends till I stepted out of the establishment box of science.
We now are seeing ideas from over 100 years ago had it right all along.
It seems the suppressed research in the passed and still today is to maintain the Status Quo and such.
As everything seems to change when taking a deeper look.
Its seems everywhere you look in orthodox science, Its wrong or overly miss leading.
Big Bang
Plantary formation
Solid core Stars and Planets
Magnetic fields
The list seems endless nowdays!
It just goes to show if it does not make sense it's normally not true.
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated" -Dr.Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD" -Gibson's law....
It just goes to show if it does not make sense it normally is not true.
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated" -Dr.Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD" -Gibson's law
Great Comments M, I agree.
Dan
Another interesting point is that it is claimed our Earth's core (residing in the hottest part of the planet so to speak) will not melt because it is under to much pressure. which is the same as saying enough pressure will stop Iron reaching melting point. That makes about as much sense as seeing light's on the moon and NASA saying it's actually not really there it's all in you head lol!...
You know NASA !
If it aint Swamp Gas then its in your head, Theres Nothing to see Folks! Also
They coundnt find swamp gas on YU 55 so they havnt given the public or News Media any close up photos yet.
Nothing to see gang!
I have also read impact craters prove planets are hollow. Because small impacts are deepest in proportion to the size of the asteroid, medium size craters are shallower and wider with a peak in the centre much like when a water droplet hit's water and the centre rises,meaning the surface rebounding which is impossible with a solid object. And huge craters are of course very wide but the shallowest in proportion without a centre peak indicating that the extream impact caused the crust to rebound many times levelling out the surface indicating the planets surface rebounds to resume its previous spherical form via the magnetic push from the centre.
If earth is hollow, Then the magnetic field is not at the center of earth. It may only be 400 to 700 miles deep.
It would change science as we now know it.
Like craters on the moon,we see pikes in the middle of craters and what looks like surface rebounding in craters giving a flat look.
Also our Sun could interact with earths magnetic field very EZ if its only hundreds of miles deep.
WOW!
A little more digging and science will know in a short time.
On the subject of digging, I came across a youtube video of a guy talking about H8O, instead of H2O.
Upon further digging, I uncovered a copy of a document http://www.archive.org/stream/anaturalphiloso05qua/n3/mode/2up that states in 1856 that pure water was 8 parts Hydrogen and 1 part oxygen.
Looking at the Hydrogen Atom and the Oxygen Atom, it makes sense that PERFECT water would be 8 parts Hydrogen to 1 part oxygen.
Does anyone know of any other info on this...?
If Perfect Water is 8 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen, that would make water the ULTIMATE anti-oxidant?
I have also realized the a solid core due to pressure is also the same as thinking enough pressure on a ice cube will stop it melting..funny!
Daniel. "only 400 to 700 miles deep" 400-700 miles is a long way. The deepest hole ever drilled was in Russia at a depth of 7.5 miles.The highest commercial jets travel's is between 6 and 7 miles. space begins at around 62 miles up so if the crust is 700 miles then hypothetically speaking there could be at least 5 worlds with a sky 62 miles hight and a crust 62 miles deep each (artificial or natural).
My guess with magma is that there probably is not as much of it we are lead to believe. It is possible and likely that magma is created not by friction but by chemical reactions of water reacting with concentrations of minerals and radioactive metals.Some minerals explode when in contact with water and we know how much heat and pressure can come from explosions.also it could be that maybe 100 miles of the centre of the crust could be magma leaving 300 miles each side.I would think more likely there are massive pockets of magma in some areas of the crust. Also it is predicted the earth's crust to be up to 800 miles thick!
Effilnuc. Interesting.. How would we come across water of that purity and what would the major significance be..
Effilnuc. in away there is no need for H80 because what it is that we breath is what allows us to be, FOR NOW.
Life is proven to thrive everywhere. The are places on earth discovered to be living in areas of life that are comparable to finding bacteria in a beacon full of sulphuric acid, one of the most corrosive (heat generating acids!)....
NOT TO MENTION EVERY OTHER acid and mineral......
M : Yea. 400 hundred miles is not that far compared to the miles to the core.
Thats why I was a sayer of a 'hollow earth' would change science as now known.
You listed only a few things above, The list would be too long for this blog.
Effilnic, I heared H80 in the 1800's was put on Tonic lables of lixers and such. Also its now a name on some type of cleaning products.
Daniel. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I know i have probably only listed a few thing's. So I would like to here more interesting points on the matter, even if it's to long for this blog.
I do have another. When I was looking into simple exercises with static electricity I came across one called the Invisible leg. All you need is a stocking and a sandwich bag, stocking the stocking with the sandwich bag from toe to end in the same direction. Then holding the stocking on the opening the stocking fill's with electricity giving the impression of a invisible leg.When you stroke the nylon with the plastic bag. these 2 material acquired opposite electrical charges. Because the stocking material became the same charge and all like charges repel each other, the sides of the stocking repel each other, taking on the shape of a real leg. This means the crust of the planets could be thinner in many cases than predicted or vice versa, and supported by the same way a the stoking is filled with the same charge...
I mean't stroke the stoking with a plastic bag not stoking the stoking...lol..
M:
Yea, also I found that the Van Allen belts are nearest the earth near Brazal and earths field is highest there.
My guess is their is now enough data to prove where earths field is really located.
400-500 miles down or at the center of earth.
I belive there are now at least two ways to do the math on it.
I hope someone beats that Clown Manna to it!
Brazal = Brazil
Earth's surface magnetic field near Brazil is alittle over 2.2 Gauss.
I did some simple math from using the Van Allen Belts size and Im showing from that a centre point of earths magnetic field should be at apox,440 miles below the mean surface of earth and is about 100 to 200 miles thick. (thickness is a estmate based on distance between the proton belt and the electron belt)
DLP 1/18/2012
Daniel.. Very interesting, aprox 440 miles(because it is reletively close to the equator where the crust would be thickest because of centrificle force, which is why the earth is slightly squashed vertically) I guess this is what NASA would call another coincidental optical illusion. It is strange it is closest to Brazil. I wonder why, it would be great to here some idea's. Understanding the earth this way could make the answer to anti-gravity so much simpler.
It should mean the field is tilted (In Earth) somewhat like the axis tilt. With a high point off Brazil. Also the So. Pacific Anomaly is at the same area.
Im thinking it maybe related to the field also.
knowing the true size and location of the field would be more then interesting. Also why the anomaly is at that location could be another clue to the field itself.
So. Pacific should read So. Atlantic.
See both.
So the sun field hits the earths field at an angle. Supporting the findings of the suns field causeing earths rotation, orbit and tilt.
It will make more sense if there is a similar anomaly at the opposite side of the globe, like a east and west pole???
Perhaps the crust is not as conductive for some reason in that area?
The field in the N. Pacific is weaker.
So the magnetic field is all over the place but the researchers are slowly sorting such out (the other many fields)So we already known of the tilt,now its seem to me its tilted ib the globe also. Its also confusing as some will say the field is weaker and on checking its stronger. Depends on where they checked the field.
M : Theres consern because the(di-pole)field has been weaking in the area,with increase's in rad's.
The surface readings are 2.2 . 2.4 and past highs of 2.6 guass
do-pole readings 70,000 nano-teslas
Manna in the wilds claims were .oo4 milli tesla.
So he was just a no nothing bully ! Wonder what other BS he was trowing we didnt catch?
Please forgive my typos.
ib the globe = in the globe
do-pole = di-pole
di-pole reading at the poles 70,000 nT (nano-tesla)
di-pole readings at equator 35,000nt
What is all means!
The Magnetic field is not centre on the globe or in the center of globe and its tilted.
DLP 2012
Google The cause of Earth's Magnetic Field SOLVED
It is a good insight into the Atlantic anomaly.It would be a pleasure to here it summarized. And please note that THEY are masters of disinformation. a theory only works when it make sense In my humble opinion...
I think it's all like setting up a new tv, there are lots of ways to connect the wires but once in the right order you have a clear picture.
google. the Beifeild-Brown effect
A pioneer on anti-gravity
LOTS TO RESEARCH!!
The Internet is truly history's biggest library...
homopolar motor
It could be possible that what we call mass is really true space and vice versa. Such as small holes inside a rock full of electricity in varying density's, labelling these small holes we might live in as mass and the foundation around them conducting invisible light as space. Perhaps the term physical is just a name for visible.
If space is real mass, than however nature creates the visible is the key to finding free energy. It seems complicated but I think complications come from misinformation witch seems more abundant than information. If the best way to hide something is in plain sight than we might be able to call currant technology not even half of it's true potential. Einstein said it was not that he is smarter than anyone else, he just stayed with problems longer..
You can vote for Magnetic experiments in the Space Lab.
Experiments are from 14 to 18 year olds to YouTubeLab. Go To:
YouTube.com/SpaceLab
Voting ends Jan24-2012.
One reld good experiment is 'Can water orbit a + positive charged rod in space as Oxygen carries a - negitive charge. (H is + charge)
Many good magnetic experiments made the finals for voting.
Another real good experiment is: Will a compass in space point to earths North Pole or the Suns.
Oliver Heaviside was able to show the relationship between gravity and magnetism in 1890s. Conventional physics of the day dismissed the Heaviside circuit however new evidence clearly shows its existence and the scientific community is fast catching up. I would not be surprised to see some of this technology made public before the year is out.
Look up THE HEAVISIDE PAPERS FOUND AT PAIGNTON IN 1957 from the Library of Electrical Engineers in London.
All of the information is already found, it just needs application.
From what I can gather, most of this stuff has been researched very seriously in the last 60 years and whilst itis currently used privately by corporations and militarily, it is not public knowledge thanks to copyrights, trade and water mark laws developed in last century.
Now, thanks to the threat of terrorism and the like, even less of this type of information is being made public for PUBLIC SECURITY reasons.
Think about it, if YOU had developed Free Energy Technology and anti-gravity machines, would YOU make them completely public so that any Tom, Dick or Harry could construct them and abuse the inherent power such devices hold? I certainly would not!
I think that if you are able to figure this stuff out for yourself, you have earned the right to use the technology!
With 7 billion people on earth we need to find ways to create new development that improves the world and life.
Space Development even if very very slow can do that.
Finding ways for all nations to be a part is another story.
All nations are a part of it, we are all human beings and the old divide an conquer is what has given the illusions of fear that suppress evolution, which is ironic because evolution is nature and can not be pined down. technology is the footprint of this process not the process itself. We are all the same just in subjective experiences. There is lots of technology we use that has not been our own individual creation. When the world realises that the individual is a branch on the same tree than I think technology will evolve at a rate that only the crazy can imagine. For anyone crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones that do.
Ivor Catt talking about Oliver Heaviside
@ .^. Thanks again!
@Effilnuc :)
More videos about the "famous" Beifeild-Brown effect:
-Possible explanation and experiment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBBlZ8agldE
-How to build one
Ok, i had an idea the gravity was magnetism when i was a child as well. Then, of course, school tried to teach me otherwise. Now however, I have not only a theory, but i have multiple experiments that will prove that the atomic magnetic field generated by protons and electrons extend far beyond the orbits of the electrons. Thus attracting and being attracted by magnetic fields generated by nearby atoms. And the more atoms collected in this matter(generating more mass), increases the magnetic field's diameter and strength. This theory does strengthen the fact that the greater the mass, the greater the gravity. This will also explain the fundamentals of Black Holes, and other gravitational phenomena.
I do understand that this theory is generally shunned by the scientific community, but then, so was all theories that originated against the norm of popular opinion.
Maybe Normal is a blueprint for for extremeness of conformity, where the current leaders investing in a moving monotony, in a circle of perpetual involvement of all of us. Some of the worlds new seeds are sprouting. All evolves, even time....
mrthewanderer1. would be great to see your proof..
What are the most significant of your experiments so far.
Victor Schauberger was a real pioneer of free energy and anti-gravity. He realised natures ultimate formation on all scales is the spiral/vortex, which can be found everywhere from our DNA structure to galaxy's. He found that like empty space water has huge amounts of energy which is obvious when you see twisters, cyclones. He believed all our technology is back the front because we use explosive force that is destructive and fighting nature, which is why it is not perpetual because nature counter acts this force with dissipation, where implosion he noted was working with nature hence the term reverse engineering. Look into Schaubergers work with the vortex, I think understanding his research could be priceless.
Back the front is really just a matter of perspective.
Explosion, exclusive v implosion, inclusive.
Dissipation from one perspective is really inclusion from another.
An explosive force is also an inclusive force and an implosive force is TRULY exclusive...just give me a point reference!
Free Will = choice of perspective!
Collective unconscious determines the point of determination between exclusion and inclusion.
Sorry, the collective unconscious determines what is excluded and included.
Have a look. Food for thought.
M:
Proof has not yet been obtained, otherwise my conversation here would actually be taking place on a global scale. :)
Two of the experiments would need to be done in space, away from other gravitational objects (like the earth itself).
So first i need to complete the few experiments I have that can be done now and here, then i will present the findings and try to get assistance on the last two. (If these actually find information in favor of the theory).
MUST SEE: Water droplets obriting knitting needle in space - NASA Space station experiment.
Google:
Youtube.com/Science off the sphere
Daniel. Amazing, what a simple experiment can prove to people that are told what to believe. It shows that even a non conductive substance can still be magnetized with static electricity, causing matter (in this case water) to be pulled in spirals to the magnet along it magnetic fields..
Please look up, unlimited free energy identified. A You tube video proving the best place to hide something is in plain sight!
And proving this short video, look up, mini Tesla coil with
110v led bulb.asf..and be shore to read peoples comments..
I have also read and realised that Victor Schauberger's perpetual water implosion generator carried electric currant through the water vortex
as opposed to using a wire coil. Like a Tesla coil that uses water as the conductor instead of copper wire. because the water moves rapidly the voltage literally being moved by the water increasing the CURRANT.....
Yea M: Thats why I think even Tesla would have loved to have seen that water orbiting the nettle in space. As it conferms so much.
Typo above: nettle should be: needle
I've actually been contemplating whether gravity = magnetism or not, and I think it is. In fact, I plan to devote a significant amount of time to experimenting and researching whether magnetism = gravity.
Magnetism, Energy, and Gravity/Mass "or illusion of mass" are all based off of Magnetism in various degrees. Magnetism is the most logical theory to explain all of these forces and magnetic properties explain both energy and gravity/mass and how they work with the Conservation of Mass and Energy. If one force is both, aka magnetic particles, however decided by how the magnetic particles are arranged would explain how the universe could of been one for so long, how the universe contracts and expects beyond understood means, and hold true to most laws of physics.
To J, Newton's Rival, and others, instead of just testing whether Magnetism = Gravity/Mass, also be sure to research it's affects on energy, wave lengths, and so forth since they are all logically tied together by single magnetic particles and how they're arranged within a given space. It doesn't mean Newton was wrong, nor Einstein, or others, it just explains more in depth how right they were and why. Trust me, what you find will be exciting.
Magnetism is electricity and all is magnetic!!!!
Electricity is infinite in frequency's or forms gravity is only one of them...
Gravity is JUST another gradient of electricity. And the various density's of matter is JUST another...
M : Im thinking your saying;
'Gravity is a electrical gradient' of electro-magnetic field's.
M, I do believe electricity is Magnetism, as is mass, not the other way around, it's just easier to see it's interactions as such than such as it is with mass. Magnetism decides the mass, energy, magnetism, and whether it is matter or antimatter in nature of anything and everything and only it is constant and can explain all that we have seen and measured in the universe as a singular force in a reasonable and rational manner.
Today on space weather someone photographed a brilliant blue cloud on the top of the setting sun and in this report it states that there have usually (through out history) been a emerald green flash seen on top of the sun at sunset(because the sun appears bigger at sunset because it is magnified) on occasion by some astronomers. NASA has the same statement as with everything.. ITS a optical illusion (its not actually there!). Just as has been seen on the moon and of course Earth (auroras).. I spoke of the likeliness that Earth and all celestial body's are hollow, and that auroras come from the polar openings! how much more evidence is there when you have PROOF of brilliant coloured clouds at the polar openings of the Earth the Moon and the SUN!!!
GlenHMJr..I have also been thinking that permanent magnets must be basically natural capacitors ( storage of electricity) and so could be literally used as battery's if set up correctly..
Daniel. I think that one example of the gradients of electricity could be shown in the basic gravitational sense as various G-forces, grater speed/velocity conducts more electricity, or gravitational/magnetic forces. I think that more kinetic energy in a object is basically that the object has become a capacitor storing MORE electricity by movement. Just as G-forces become greater by more movement. Which explains why non explosive warheads (depleted uranium projectiles) are so much more powerful than the conventional being based solely on kinetic energy.Or shall we say electrical energy..
J. How much evidence do you need? no matter how much you find there is always more, some more significant than others. At the end of the day witch has more evidence hence which makes more sense..
Of course evidence has to make sense or it is not evidence. We cannot afford comfort zones when we discover new realities.Instinct is our freedom to evolve new comfort zones, and to discover the hidden but obvious.
J. I do sincerely hope however you do find more clues on this important subject.
Im thinking objects in space are more likly to be hollow than not and if true such leads to new understandings of how the solar system works.
Many more new realities unfold.
Daniel. Agreed, it also makes a lot of sense there are infinite realities in so many way's than the land, sea and space that's always on TV. and if the whole earth at one stage was all over thick ice, even for a few months how could any prehistoric man survive with no ocean or land? unless earth is more like a giant geode in structure and every other active astral body.
Lets just hope that unjust secrets really can not be kept from the majority in this lifetime.
But as for keeping them forever, I think evolution will reveal all..
Yes,I think so also. Everything is so much more than anyone ever belived. You say it very clearly M.
Lets also remember the sun has permanent coronal holes at its poles venting out permanent solar winds. Just as the Earth does, logically speaking regarding the earth.
The funny thing is, depending on how you arrange the Magnetic Particles will decide gravity, energy, magnetism, and both whether it's matter or anti-matter. I do agree M that it makes a great capacitor, however wouldn't it be so much more fun to truly tap magnetism to travel close to the speed of light squared. Just imagine being able to travel to the other side of the universe within less than a year or being able to send probes to study black holes very closely and knowing they can go into it and get back out (of course with the shield holding from the pressure), and so forth. Humanity truly exploring other Galaxies, Solar Systems, and such with each all by using magnetism properly. Just accounting for the wavelength of particles and using magnetism to make them more efficient to reach higher speeds and gradients.
please google, the sun is cold, there is also a part 2, sounds pretty far fetched (the title) but the simple points made in these two articles are incredible and obvious.
I've agree that gravity is just another word for magnetism. Although I do however believe that matter on Earth is pressed to the Earth because of pressure from our atmosphere and internal core elements, not gravity or magnetism. The elliptical orbit of the Earth around the sun explains that gravity does not cause orbit. This simply explains that our 2 poles and the Sun's main North and South poles cause perihelion and aphelion. If the force of gravity was the same no matter what, objects wouldn't fall faster and faster if they were up high, they would fall at whatever speed gravity was pushing, which by all scientific definitions, is a constant speed. Gravity is not real.
I congratulate the author of this thought provoking hub, with a long chain of comments that I could not finish reading all. Thanks for this hub.
I found the most curious points in this article that the higher the altitude the colder it gets, hence ice caps on mountain tops, there for if the sun is hot as it is said to be the closer you get to the sun the hotter it is, but if you go anywhere at day light,go hight enough altitude and it gets freezing. Plus that comets have been seen travelling so close to the sun and miss! comets are mostly ice. Anything considered close the the sun in astronomical terms should burn up from the extream heat. The idea that makes most sense is that our atmosphere is gases and when the sun's cold plasma/radiation (electricity) hits it makes it glow because of the powerful fiction from the collision of the solar winds and the atmosphere.
Ooh, I like this, the Sun is not hot and air pressure creates the observations we call gravity - gravity is a myth!
I had not posted for a while because I have been working on the same theory...there is NO SUCH THING AS GRAVITY...it is purely a term for various common observations - it is NOT A FORCE.
Temperature = Pressure
When there is an explosion, it is the air pressure, or water pressure that creates a pressure barrier that contains the pressure of the explosion and focuses the energy of the explosion.
In space, there is no air pressure, it is a vacuum. So when there is an explosion in space, it is much, much different than what we OBSERVE here on earth due to the atmospheric pressure.
So, it makes complete sense that the SUN is not HOT but a pressure barrier is created by the atmosphere/magnetosphere/ionosphere that creates a potential difference by trapping the magnetic energy of the sun, putting it under pressure and converts it to heat.
Just like electricity is not hot when it runs through a wire that is extremely large (no pressure/atmosphere), when the electricity/magnetism is forced under pressure (resistance)...that creates heat!
So, the Sun is like a big cold electro magnetic generator that is NOT HOT...the heat only comes when the energy from the sun is compressed in our atmosphere...like RESISTANCE in an electric wire.
Higher altitude = low pressure = low heat
SPACE = no pressure = no HEAT
CONCLUSION - IT IS HOT ON THE SURFACE OF THE SUN AND BENEATH THE SURFACE, BUT IT IS NOT HOT NEAR THE SURFACE OF THE SUN - OUTSIDE OF ITS IONOSPHERE perhaps!
Under the Sun's Surface there is a lot of pressure which equals a lot of heat!
Just a few concepts that could be worth considering or trying to disprove!
@ Newtons Rival - Hi, I hope your are well, we have not heard or seen from you on this post for a while.
I would love to know what you think about the hypothesis that Gravity is an Observation, not a FORCE.
ie: GRAVITY IS NOT MAGNETISM but simply an observation of magnetic force under certain constant conditions.
It disagrees with your original theory that Gravity is Magnetism but yet it also supports a lot of your arguments.?
Thanks again for creating this public discussion.
Little side thought...this would make an anti gravity machine - any machine that creates an outcome opposite to the outcome normally observed.
So, a Plane which creates an observation opposite to the NORM, is an anti-gravity machine.
An elevator which creates an observed situation (observation) opposite to the NORM is also an anti-gravity machine.
Now that we have realised that anti-gravity has been "solved" many, many times before...can we please try and figure out the truths behind electricity and magnetism?
Physical laws such as the law of gravity are not true FORCES, they are merely labels for consistent observations under certain conditions.
Put two people in the same situation and they behave differently...unless a LAW is used to make them behave the same.
Put two objects in the same situation and they behave the same...and a LAW is created by us to label the set of constants which create this predictable outcome.
See how a LAW such as the LAW of GRAVITY or the LAWS of THERMODYNAMICS are not TRUE FORCES but OBSERVATIONS of predictable behavior under a given conditions. We are confusing the labels (laws) which are simply agreed observations and outcomes (observed conditions) with the TRUTH.
All laws are man made because they are all founded upon human observations of a real set of conditions and outcomes. Unless we claim that we have observed all conditions and outcomes possible, we are not able to truly claim that a LAW is TRUTH, until then...
Any LAW is only a label for a known and agreed set of conditions that precede a foreseeable outcome...such as GRAVITY which all began when NEWTON tried to explain something he OBSERVED!
Perhaps RATE OF CHANGE IN PRESSURE is the key. Consider the following train of thought.
Seeing as we have
Air pressure
Fluid Pressure
Electric/magnetic Pressure
and probably some others that I am not aware of,
and we know that rate of change in pressure of fluids and gases is very important then perhaps...just perhaps, we should also be looking at the rates of change in pressure in electrical circuits.
By this I mean - the rate at which voltage (potential difference or "pressure")changes - scale, vector and volume.
If rapid and sudden pressure changes generate heat, ie more pressure, which is fed back into the initial system, we have more pressure, or potential energy available than we started with.
So, if you have an electric circuit with a potential energy or pressure of say 12V and you pulse that circuit rapidly so that there is a sharp change between high and low pressure, you will introduce more potential energy, pressure, into the system.
Because we know that electrical energy is wave like, we know it has a certain frequency. If we pulse the circuit at a rate fast enough - at the right frequency, the wave generated from each new pulse will be overlayed exactly on the existing pulse traveling through the circuit. As we know, the addition of 1 wave on another creates a bigger wave than the sum of the 2 waves...this is the key to zero point energy...energy must be added at the zero point of the wave in order to exponentially increase as a standing wave.
Because these waves are three dimensional, the zero point is not as it appears on one of those screens that measure the wave of electric currents (forgotten what they are called).
Think more of a wave that pulses around the earth, it gets wider and weaker as it nears 1/4 way, comes back to a strong point at 1/2 way on the opposite side of the planet, returns to widest and weakest point at 3/4 way (same place as 1/4 way) then returns to its starting point, where all the wave energy returns to a single or zero point.
$$$$$MONEY$$$$$$
An analogy (just an analogy) is Money is the same as electrical energy.
Money is really worthless except when exchanged for something else.
Sometimes it is goods and services, sometimes it is other forms of money...the exchange rate! (a transformer is like an exchange rate)
Someone can try and make money by changing a small value they paid for a product and selling it for a larger value...this is the hardest way to make money. (like putting coal in a machine to drive electrical current)
The simplest way to make money is through rapid exchange. This may be in the form of goods...ie cash flow or it may be in the form of exchanging with other forms of currency (energy).
The banks know that the fastest and most reliable way to make money is through rapid, really rapid exchange of money, just money! The faster it changes hands, the more money is generated! The exchange rates are the key. (transformers/diodes play a vital role in free electrical energy.)
The RATE OF CHANGE (pulse frequency in DC circuits) is the key! However, unlike money, the concept of harmony and synchronicity and synergy are crucial to discovering unlimited electrical power in the same way banks discovered unlimited financial power!
I wonder if these means that for the old
e = mc^2
Energy = rate of change between matter/volume and speed of light^2.
Because lightspeed is a measurement of two vectors, distance and time, then it needs to be squared in order to match the 4 vectors of matter being 3 distance and 1 time.
This means that the potential energy is greatest when described as the rate of change between the two known extreme states - being matter and light!
There are many other little amounts of energy realised during smaller states of change in between these two extreme states... such as when the state of coal is changed.
Again, the key is the rate of change between states as well as the scale of the change.
energy = the change in state or (current state - initial state) * rate of change
or
full potential energy = the difference between the state of light and the state of matter
So, universal energy or full potential energy exists between the sun - light source and the earth - matter source.
The energy or power is not sourced at either extreme but found in the system as a whole.
Its actually very similar to the observations of gravity...
Gravity exists between two masses of different scale. Gravity does not exist if there is only 1 mass...there must be two different bodies in mass for "gravity" to be observed.
So, just as a graviton cannot be discovered, so to will a pure energy source forever remain hidden.
The true source of energy is found within the system. If the system is broken apart into its individual components, the energy is lost, destroyed!
If you want to destroy energy, destroy a system....energy can be destroyed and energy can be created because energy is not matter and it is not light....it is the system and rate of change that creates and distributes the universal, ever present, limitless potential energy.
In this sense, new energy sources will always be discovered until we realize that the TRUE source of energy is found in the type and rate of CHANGE. How efficient the energy created is, is determined by the finesse and knowledge used to CREATE the TYPE of change and and CONTROL the RATE of change in any system.
Reading the first comment from "reality" makes one realize the outrage from the scientific community when you tell them their version of God known as "gravity" is made up by scientists just like trying to tell a Christian their version of God is made up by Christians. Both are made up, plain and simple. No physical evidence of gravity has ever been found other than scientists saying that every occurrence related to the law of attraction is a force called gravity. God forbid they actually look at the KNOWN phenomenon (magnetism) that actually does cause attraction and repulsion. I guess that would make sense.
Dark matter is another scientific religious belief. Since astronomers don't understand why galaxies spin at the same speed at inner and outer bands, they created a magical force that serves the purposes of wrapping itself around galaxies and spinning them around.... weeeeeeee!!! well of course they spin equally because clearly stars are attracted to one another and are constantly being pulled together. Galaxies might look like whirlpools, but they function like anything but. Magnetism and the basic concept of attraction /repulsion are the forces in this universe that makes everything move, not unicorns, gravity or santa clause.
I typed in "photos of sun from space" and found this. http://www.turbophoto.com/space/webart/sun-small.j
on the site
http://www.turbophoto.com/products/spc/home.htm
There are very few photos of the sun from space to be found on the net...I wonder why...seriously? There are heaps of earth and the moon, and heaps of earth with the sun in the background.
The photo listed above is a photo of the sun, from space, and without any filter, it is obviously blue and is not sending out light and heat to the solar system, but rather some sort of electromagnetic energy.
Answer me this!
Scientific community says that when an asteroid flies close to the sun it begins to burn up because the sun is really hot!
Scientific community says that when an asteroid flies close to the earth it begins to burn up, not because the Earth is hot but because of the earth's atmosphere. Huh??
These two statements are in conflict with one another.
The truth is that the Sun has an atmosphere, and we are inside that atmosphere! The faster the rate of change within an atmosphere, (pressure change) the more heat that is generated.
The Sun's atmosphere is as "hot" as the earth's atmosphere. When an object enters either atmosphere and the rate of change in pressure is great enough, the object burns up.
Just as there is a distinct "line" where objects begin to heat up upon entering the Earth atmosphere, so too there is a specific "pressure line" outside of which one is safe from burning up near the Sun.
Just as we cannot see below the atmosphere of Jupiter or Venus, so too can we not see into the atmosphere (corona) of the Sun!
An atmosphere is created by magnetism, not gravity! Mass is as unreal as Gravity! Volume and pressure and rate of change are the key! NOT mass and density and acceleration- as these are simply relativity statements between dimensions!
This is a bit like saying the Earth is round, not flat...it is going to piss a lot of people off...but that does not detract from its essential truth!
I go further into the concept of mass which is behind the Universal Gravitational Constant on my hub http://effilnuc.hubpages.com/hub/The-Scientific-Le
The simple truth of Einstein's, is that energy released or absorbed is proportionate to the the rate of change between phases or states or, the electromagnetic spectrum.
The states range from Gamma rays to ELF and any change in wavelength, compounds or disperses energy. This energy is added or multiplied depending on the ratio of change in state.
IE lots of small changes of the right ratio will generate more energy than a few big changes that are not of suitable proportions.
This is called the Law of RELATIVITY!
Effilnuc, My grandfather told me in 1958, That gravity was related to fluid flow (Oils and water) until the early 1900's. Most people belived that what we think of as gravity, (Newton's Gravity) was Air Pressure and Magnetism. They knew better and didnt think much of Newton at all.
Oh, can you tell why you think, Mass is unreal?
Also Time keeping is a man made marking of something that happen or is happening or going to happen.
'Just Saying"
Effilnuc's hub page is loaded with alot of new type information, NR bloggers take a look, Its a real good HubPage.
Daniel
Another point to back up the idea the suns outer atmosphere is hot while the surface is cold, is that earths most outer atmosphere the thermosphere (translates as hot sphere) is the hottest layer of our atmosphere. Just a thought..
The most amazing fact though is that Mercury can come as close as 47 million kms to the sun and the recent comet Lovejoy (made of ice) survived coming as close as 120,000 KMS!!!
Comet Lovejoy was estimated to be between 100-200 meters, after it survived the sun! NASA said well it must be more like 500 meters to survive LOL!!!!
From Wikipedia "Thermosphere"
"The highly diluted gas in this layer can reach 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) during the day. Even though the temperature is so high, one would not feel warm in the thermosphere, because it is so near vacuum that there is not enough contact with the few atoms of gas to transfer much heat. A normal thermometer would read significantly below 0 °C (32 °F), because the energy lost by thermal radiation would exceed the energy acquired from the atmospheric gas by direct contact. In the anacoustic zone above 160 kilometres (99 mi), the density is so low that molecular interactions are too infrequent to permit the transmission of sound."
It is crucial to understand that temperature is really a ratio of pressure and velocity of electromagnetic interference. It is a statement of relativity.
Effilnuc. the temperature of the atmosphere is the temperature of the atmosphere. You cant say the hottest level of our atmosphere is freezing when its much warmer on the ground. I know what there saying but it doesn't make sense. Its like saying the hottest part of our atmosphere is the flame on a hot air balloon.
If one understands "hot" to be a number of Kelvin or a degree in Celsius, then one is looking at air pressure and molecular velocity only. At the upper level of the atmosphere, the ratio of air pressure to molecular velocity is minimal so the Kelvin or Celsius measurement is also minimal...however...
If one understands "hot" to be high levels of electromagnetic interference then the thermosphere is "hot" and the lower atmosphere is cooler.
As for the Sun. The Sun is "hot" in terms of electromagnetic interference, however, one might suggest that above and below its thermosphere/corona, it may well be substantially cooler in terms of Kelvin or Celsius due to a lack of atmospheric pressure or molecular activity/density.
We know that electromagnetic wave interference, density and resistance gives rise to heat. We know that particle interference, density and friction give rise to heat.
The cause of the heat is the same in both cases, interference, density or potential difference and resistance. This occurs simultaneously between the wave functions of electromagnetic fields on an atomic scale as well as between particles on a quantum scale.
An experiment to try.
Take a glass container of air from earth's atmosphere at sea level. Launch it in to the thermosphere such that the electromagnetic waves from the sun are able to interfere with the air inside the glass container. The "temperature" in Kelvin or degrees Celsius would rise considerably higher than the temperature measured outside of the glass container where there is less potential interference of electromagnetic waves.
The shows us that the energy from the sun is not provided by combustion or thermal induction but through electromagnetic interference. This is what I mean by the sun is "cold", it is NOT a big heat lamp, rather it is an electromagnetic generator probably driven by a zero point vacuum.
Through this understanding, one can develop much more efficient uses of solar electromagnetic energy instead of the current applications for solar atmospheric thermal energy...there is a significant difference between the potential energy of the two forms of energy harvesting.
True Heat is about electromagnetic interference, temperature as we understand it in Celsius or Fahrenheit is about heat transfer through particle contact.
The thermosphere is much Hotter in this sense than our sea level atmosphere, however, because the sea level atmosphere is denser, it has more capacity for heat storage and heat transfer through particle contact.
So, although it is Hotter in the upper atmosphere, there is less thermal transfer through particle contact but more electromagnetic interference due to the same lack of particle density.
The energy of heat initially comes from electromagnetic interference, however the transfer of thermal energy is done through particle contact. Can you see why it is really ignorant to use thermal combustion to drive electromagnetic motors to transfer energy through metal wires. The truly efficient manner for harvesting and transfer of energy is found through electromagnetic wave potential and rates of interference...wireless!
The above is right on, Effilnuc, Seems like you got it spot on.Its a great take on Heat and the Sun.
It also shows how heat is tied to Electrical Energy.
Something mostly unknown by people to this day.
Very Good!
Effilnuc.Great answer!
Hello guys I know this isnt an actual magnetics question but its about E=mc^2 and how to explain it. Any comments would be appreciated.
Each part of the atom is comprised of multiple same charged particles(i.e. electron), which are repellent of each other but are forced together into a mass by a more dominant opposite charged mass(in this case proton), causing the repelling particles to react with the stronger force instead of the weaker forces, which by using coulombs law, we can see how the interaction between two opposite charges magnitude increase from the decrease in the distance between the two.(hence q1 x q2 / r^2) We also know that when we bombard an atom with enough em energy we can overload the electron and cause it to burst apart due to the proton no longer being capable of maintaining the balance due to the increasing distance of the two oppositely charged masses as well as the increasing energy of the electron. By knowing the ionization energies required for an atom, we are able to calculate how many particles or how much energy an electron of an atom must have in order to interact with its own charge and burst apart(the em particles that make the electron) instead of the opposite charge which is at a further distance away(but larger mass).
My point is, that the magnitude built up in each particle of the electron mass is released upon the removal of the electron at a distance that is negligible(0) and since particles are mass less energies it requires a negligible amount of energy in order to transfer the momentum to the particles energy. For example charge1xcharge2/r^2 where r is equal to 0 and the charge of the particle is its speed would give you c x c or c^2/r^2(where r is still equal to 0) In addition anything divided by 0 is considered to be infinite, and since the charge is the speed and the speed of light is considered infinite or absolute then c^2 is your released energy per particle(and not just the speed of light) in an object of mass of x. So we would take the mass multiply it by the released energy per particle and voila!!! e=mc^2.
DEP
yes, e = mc^2 when
e = 1 energy unit contained in 1 particle of matter
m = 1 particle unit containing 1 energy unit
c = 1 unit of distance traveled by 1 particle unit of light in 1 period
e = mc^2 is a joke! It has taken us 100 years to get the punchline - it is a theory of relativity...this means the units used to quantify and define the variables e,m,c are relative!
I prefer to say that
e = infinity/zero
where
zero = 1/infinity
therefore
e = infinity/infinity
or
e = 1
So
1 = mc^2 is more correct than e = mc^2
or
1/m = c^2
or
1/c^2 = m
or
m = m
or
c = square root of 1/m
or
e = 1
m = 4
c = 1/2
1 = 4 * 1/2^2
1 = 4 * 1/4
1 = 1
therefore electromagnetic wavespeed or lightspeed (if you prefer) is a universal ratio, not a universal constant!
Lightspeed is a ratio of energy to mass of 1/4
Wow ty, you reitterated the fuk out of what i said, i just hate numbers. So to continue, 2 same charged particles contained in the same area for a long enough period of time, will build potential energy equal to the particles speed magnified times the repelling particles speed. So my question is why does this not change the calculation for the energy of a free neutron, since neutrino speed is much slower compared to that of the speed of light along with them having a much larger mass compared to that of a light particle?
DEP -
If Lightspeed is an inverse ratio of energy to mass, then the Neutrino, which has a large mass, will have a slower speed compared to the electron which has relatively no mass...
There is another theory about electrons that is not so well known.
Protons repel electrons - they do not attract them.
Space is filled with a sea of electrons that are repelled and compressed by the repulsive force of protons.
Neutrons are mini black holes that attract mass(protons) but not electric charge.
The neutrons reduce the repelling force of protons allowing the electrons to get closer to the proton/neutron centre.
If space is full of electrons, the wavespeed within this sea of electrons travels at "lightspeed" meaning that the electrons do not move at lightspeed but rather the wave function through which their energy is transferred, moves at lightspeed.
Not a very good theory mind you!
Remember that detection of protons, neutrons and electrons is not a perfected art...it is still just a series of observations without knowing all the parameters.
The whole notion of protons and electrons and neutrons is a theory in itself, not a fact!
What is a fact is positive and negative electric charges which induce magnetic fields, waves, interference patterns and poles of repulsion and attraction....
Protons, electrons, gravitons, neutrinos...these are labels that are used for theoretical mechanical scenarios for the purpose of input/output forecasts.
Within certain parameters, these labels and the theories work to forecast output with a known set of inputs...however, the labels and theory is not able to forecast all outputs within all parameters...hence the attempts to discover a unified field theory.
When one attempts to reconcile a gravitational field and a magnetic field...one repeatedly fails. A unified field theory does not exist...a single field theory does exist.
There is a substantial difference between unifying existing field theories into one unified field theory and the real single field theory.
One could say that the only theory that works to tie a magnetic field and a gravitational field together is with strings...string theory, but even this does not satisfy all outcomes within all parameters.
Yeah, I told you earlier on, sometimes I think waaaay to much about all of this, and need to take breaks , to just clear my head and start over with what I already know, and things that I've recently learned. Lately, it's all flushing in my head again, so I'll take some time read through all the comments and respond. : )
NR, I cant wait to hear your opinions on such valuable subjects, please don't think there is such a thing of thinking to much. Remember Einstein believed it was not that he was smarter, but just stayed with problems longer...
Problems always have been and always will be opportunities..
My mum taught me "necessity is the mother of all invention!"
TIMLORD 3 years ago
THE NEXT STEP---COPY NATURE,THE BEST DESIGN FOR THE ULTIMATE STAR SHIP.