Gravity vs Magnetism.

[rigney]

I have read, read,(reread!) and (reread!),until at times I wish physics had been my prize. Likely I would have had a better shot at Russian, or 20 different dialects of Chinese. I realize that nothing is perfect, but formulation without absolute stipulation stuns me. How can a formula be true for one application of a situation and not, for another part of the same event; even though they concern the same thing? I'm referfing to gravitational and magnetic shielding in sub atomic findings. And how can anything be so absolute when nothing is at rest in the universe? This is just one of many. Is the guy just another crackpot, or on the level? It's just too deep for me to understand.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project124.htm

Edited February 26, 2012 by rigney

[swansont]

I have read, read,(reread!) and (reread!),until at times I wish physics had been my prize. Likely I would have had a better shot at Russian, or 20 different dialects of Chinese. I realize that nothing is perfect, but formulation without absolute stipulation stuns me. How can a formula be true for one application of a situation and not, for another part of the same event; even though they concern the same thing? I'm referfing to gravitational and magnetic shielding in sub atomic findings. And how can anything be so absolute when nothing is at rest in the universe? This is just one of many. Is the guy just another crackpot, or on the level? It's just too deep for me to understand.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project124.htm

 

Gravity and magnetism are distinct interactions. They do not "concern the same thing".

[ydoaPs]

Also, they behave entirely differently. The divergence of magnetism is zero. The divergence of gravity is negative. So, as swansont said, they concern different tings, but also they don't even look the same.

 

[math]\bigtriangledown{\cdot}{B}=0[/math]

[math]\bigtriangledown{\cdot}g=-4{\pi}G\rho[/math]

[qsa]

Rigney,

 

The "gravity" force that you hear of in superconducters and condensed matter has nothing to do per se with GRAVITY. They just have some common similarities in their behaviour that gives hope in understanding the real one.

[rigney]

Rigney,

 

The "gravity" force that you hear of in superconducters and condensed matter has nothing to do per se with GRAVITY. They just have some common similarities in their behaviour that gives hope in understanding the real one.

To let you know how dumb I think, let's say the universe slowed or stopped in its tracks tomorrow. Would gravity still exist or not? I don't think so, since to me it is only a metaphor of magnetism. But I believe magnetism would still be viable, since everything is made of atoms, and atoms are an intrinsic part of all matter. Edited February 26, 2012 by rigney

[The Observer]

To let you know how dumb I think, let's say the universe slowed or stopped in its tracks tomorrow. Would gravity still exist or not? I don't think so, since to me it is only a metaphor of magnetism. But I believe magnetism would still be viable, since everything is made of atoms, and atoms are an intrinsic part of all matter.

 

 

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say gravity is just a "metaphor".

 

 

[Klaynos]

To let you know how dumb I think, let's say the universe slowed or stopped in its tracks tomorrow. Would gravity still exist or not? I don't think so, since to me it is only a metaphor of magnetism. But I believe magnetism would still be viable, since everything is made of atoms, and atoms are an intrinsic part of all matter.

 

There are several things that I find somewhat confusing here. I'll echo the above and ask what you mean by saying gravity is just a metaphor.

 

Motion is relative. Therefore you are at rest with the earth. So if things being at rest with one another did not exert gravity I cannot see how you would be able to stand still without floating up into the air.

 

I think it might interest you to have a look at some fundamental electrodynamics. The origin of magnetic fields are electric fields in a different inertial rest frame...

[rigney]

Can you elaborate on what you mean when you say gravity is just a "metaphor".

All I'm saying is, magnetism is a known factor that can be changed to meet qualifications such as electronics, motors and many other applications. Static electricity can also be altered by speed to include the effects of one material on another, and lightning is only one of them. I'm not knocking gravity. I just cant bring myself to believe it is a force in itself, but a facet of magnetism. Even electricity is only an extension of magnetism. Edited February 26, 2012 by rigney

[qsa]

All I'm saying is, magnetism is a known factor that can be changed to meet qualifications such as electronics, motors and many other applications. Static electricity can also be altered by speed to include the effects of one material on another, and lightning is only one of them. I'm not knocking gravity. I just cant bring myself to believe it is a force in itself, but a facet of magnetism. Even electricity is only an extension of magnetism.

 

And how did you come to that conclusion. Any model, or any equation to give even the basic hint. I know of a fringe theory that regards gravity as a risdue of a small difference in electron and proton charge, I will try to dig it up for you.

[rigney]

There are several things that I find somewhat confusing here. I'll echo the above and ask what you mean by saying gravity is just a metaphor.

 

Motion is relative. Therefore you are at rest with the earth. So if things being at rest with one another did not exert gravity I cannot see how you would be able to stand still without floating up into the air.

 

I think it might interest you to have a look at some fundamental electrodynamics. The origin of magnetic fields are electric fields in a different inertial rest frame...

If the universe slowed or stopped in its tracks tomorrow, would gravity exist as we view it today? I think not, since to me, it is a product due to static electricity caused by the constant speed of our universe. But I do believe magnetism would still be viable, since everything is made of atoms, and atoms are an intrinsic part of all matter.

[StringJunky]

If the universe slowed or stopped in its tracks tomorrow, would gravity exist as we view it today? I think not, since to me, it is a product due to static electricity caused by the constant speed of our universe. But I do believe magnetism would still be viable, since everything is made of atoms, and atoms are an intrinsic part of all matter.

 

You are starting from an erroneous premise. If the universe encompasses all of space what does it move through? Answer: nothing since it doesn't make sense for something to move through itself. Therefore, the universe does not move. Because the universe clearly doesn't move with respect to something else that blows your static electricity idea out of the water.

Edited February 26, 2012 by StringJunky

[Klaynos]

If the universe slowed or stopped in its tracks tomorrow,

 

That statement makes no sense.

 

would gravity exist as we view it today? I think not, since to me, it is a product due to static electricity caused by the constant speed of our universe.

 

Again I don't know what this means. There is no evidence that I've ever seen that gravity is an electrostatic effect.

 

But I do believe magnetism would still be viable, since everything is made of atoms, and atoms are an intrinsic part of all matter.

 

Whereas this sounds completely counter what we know from electrodynamics which includes magnetism.

[rigney]

You are starting from an erroneous premise. If the universe encompasses all of space what does it move through? Answer: nothing since it doesn't make sense for something to move through itself. Therefore, the universe does not move. Because the universe clearly doesn't move with respect to something else that blows your static electricity idea out of the water.

 

Your quote:If the universe encompasses all of space what does it move through? Answer: nothing since it doesn't make sense for something to move through itself. Therefore, the universe does not move.

 

You're not that naive? With earth spinning on its axis at a 1,000 mph, revolving around the sun at approx. 65,000 mph, and our galaxy spinning at 600,000+ mph, with everything in the entire universe moving at 000,000,000 mph?, while trying to get away from its nearest neighbor, you say nothing is moving. What do you consider speed? I can't even go there.

Edited February 26, 2012 by rigney

[Klaynos]

 

You're not that naive? With earth spinning on its axis at a 1,000 mph and revolving around the sun at approx. 65,000 mph, and our galaxy spinning at 600,000+ mph, with everything in the entire universe perhaps moving at 000,000,000 mph?, trying to get away from its nearest neighbor, and you say nothing is moving. What do you consider speed? I can't even go there.

 

 

Speeds are relative, not absolute.

[rigney]

Speeds are relative, not absolute.

 

Relative, yes! But relative to what? Can you quote a specific time that these speeds have changed to any degree, unless one body has slammed into another body?

[Klaynos]

Relative, yes! But relative to what? Can you quote a specific time that these speeds have changed to any degree, unless one body has slammed into another body?

 

Well they are relative to whatever other frame you are comparing them to. You cannot just state a speed you need to state x speed relative to y.

[rigney]

Well they are relative to whatever other frame you are comparing them to. You cannot just state a speed you need to state x speed relative to y.

 

Are we supposed to relegate these brilliant "scientists" who calculated and defined such speeds, to a looney bin? Ok! Starting at 2 P.M. (x), The hog drinks a quart of buttermillk before he starts, (y), runs 30 minutes and two miles before he farts. (z) With 20 miles to the finish line, at what time should he stop to sh--t?[/b] Edited February 27, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

Are we supposed to relegate these brilliant "scientists" who calculated and defined such speeds, to a looney bin?

No, because they calculated those speeds with a specific frame stated. The frames are 1)

With earth spinning on its axis at a 1,000 mph

Frame of the center of the Earth

2)

revolving around the sun at approx. 65,000 mph

Frame of the barycenter of the Sun and Earth

3)

with everything in the entire universe perhaps moving at 000,000,000 mph?

Reference, please.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

No, because they calculated those speeds with a specific frame stated. The frames are 1) Frame of the center of the Earth

2) Frame of the barycenter of the Sun and Earth

3) Reference, please.

=Uncool-

You referenced everything perfectly, but if you noticed, I didn't try giving an overall speed to the universe. Edited February 27, 2012 by rigney

[uncool]

You referenced everything perfectly, but if you noticed, I didn't try giving an overall speed to the universe.

Yes, I noticed, which is why I was asking you for a reference. The last line simply doesn't make sense under any circumstances I can think of.

 

Do you understand the point that Klaynos was making? He was saying you can't just say a speed; you have to say a speed relative to some frame.

=Uncool-

[rigney]

Yes, I noticed, which is why I was asking you for a reference. The last line simply doesn't make sense under any circumstances I can think of.

 

Do you understand the point that Klaynos was making? He was saying you can't just say a speed; you have to say a speed relative to some frame.

=Uncool-

I give up. What is your time frame, concept and reference of: "Universal Time"? Edited February 27, 2012 by rigney

[qsa]

rigney,

 

I think it will be easier if you explain you idea in few lines by answering my post #9

 

 

 

And how did you come to that conclusion.

 

 

 

Than racking your brain about speed and relative. it is like you say the world is a cube because it must have volume and then you stop. what is the point?

[uncool]

I give up. What is your time frame, concept and reference of: "Universal Time"?

I have no idea what you are referring to with any of the above. I haven't said anything about "time frame" or "Universal Time" anywhere in this thread, and as far as I can tell, neither have you.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

All I'm saying is, magnetism is a known factor that can be changed to meet qualifications such as electronics, motors and many other applications. Static electricity can also be altered by speed to include the effects of one material on another, and lightning is only one of them. I'm not knocking gravity. I just cant bring myself to believe it is a force in itself, but a facet of magnetism. Even electricity is only an extension of magnetism.

 

So your body is attracted to a magnet? In a fashion similar to how you are attracted to the earth? Why aren't magnets attracted to the earth in the same way they are attracted to ferromagnetic materials? Why are non-ferromagnetic materials attracted to the earth in the same way that ferromagnetic materials are?

[ajb]

So your body is attracted to a magnet? In a fashion similar to how you are attracted to the earth? Why aren't magnets attracted to the earth in the same way they are attracted to ferromagnetic materials? Why are non-ferromagnetic materials attracted to the earth in the same way that ferromagnetic materials are?

 

Actually you have made a very good point. There is no such thing as the "electromagnetic equivalence principle".