It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Gravity as a magnetic force

page: 1
7
share:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:07 PM

Let's say that what is imaged here is some iron atoms and that those red ones are those which poles (or the poles of their electrons) are free to rotate. The poles in the blue ones are stuck on the other hand in random directions. When the pole of every atom is in random directions they mostly cancel each other out, hence the material is not magnetic.

When you put a magnet next to this mass, depending on the strength more and more of the red ones will have their poles aligned with the magnet. The poles when aligned creates a larger/stronger magnetic field and hence the mass will be attracted towards the magnet.

Since they are free to rotate it doesn't matter which side (positive or negative) of the magnet you put next to this iron mass, they will just rotate towards it and pull the whole mass towards it.

If you experience with this at home you will now notice that the iron mas has become magnetic on its own and can pick up binders for example. This is because the poles of those which was rotated still has mostly kept their directions, hence maintaining the strong magnetic field they together were able to create,

But now if you hit the iron mass hard with a hammer for example then the poles of the red ones will shake and end up in more and more random directions again, hence the mass will loose its magnetic properties and not be able to pick up any more binders (yes, I have confirmed this experiment).

But now to a theory I have in the works (a simplified version of it):

If you put two iron masses next to each other will they attract? I think that the fields they already have (when not magnetized by a magnet) is not strong enough for them to affect each other much, meaning that not many of the "red atoms" will turn towards each other (there could be a big space between each of them), Hence you wouldn't be able to feel it when holding them in your hands!

BUT and this is a big but!
I do believe that SOME of the red atoms would turn towards each other and create a weak attraction!

Now lets think of the same image as an image representing the atoms in our Earth! Yeah, not all the atoms of the Earth has poles which can rotate at will, maybe some are stuck, maybe some are neutral atoms, etc. For simplicity I will compare it with the iron mass I talked about! And I do believe that some of the red atoms will turn towards the sun and that some of the sun's red atoms would turn towards the Earth!

Hence you would have a weak attraction towards each other and I do believe that this explains gravity!

The main argument behind the gravity theory is that "gravity only pulls", that it has no poles. Well, that's a weak argument when I can beat it with this logic!

Yeah I know, of course there will now be many questions and other things I will have to explain before this theory can be accepted... But I do believe that these details can be worked out! And in my head I have some worked out. Please do not dismiss it because we doesn't have all the answers yet, they can be found if patient.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:13 PM

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:22 PM

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

Have you seen those small round magnets bought online and in toy stores?
If they are put inside a medium in which they can rotate (maybe separated by plastic or/and oil with room for them to rotate) and then have lots of them inside this material (forming a ball which has lots of these tiny rotate-able magnets inside it).

Would these balls not be able to attract each other and could simulate planets attracted by each other? It is worth an experiment if you ask me. It would be interesting to see how many of them would behave, if they could "form a solar system" or not.
edit on -05:00pmTue, 12 May 2015 19:24:07 -0500pm52015Tue, 12 May 2015 19:24:07 -050005pmTuesday by ParanormalGuy because: .

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:22 PM
An experiment was conducted 65 million years ago when a rather large asteroid (hammer) struck the earth (magnet) therefore resetting the "gravitic-magnetic atoms" and causing us to float off into the...oh wait, that didn't happen...

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:28 PM
Please go to school ... and study hard.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:29 PM
So ... my body is attracted to the earth. If I stand on my head, I should go shooting up into the sky or at least become negatively affected by gravity?

Hang on, I'll try it!

Nope ... still here.

Hmm. Nope, sorry.

P

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:33 PM

originally posted by: pheonix358
So ... my body is attracted to the earth. If I stand on my head, I should go shooting up into the sky or at least become negatively affected by gravity?

Hang on, I'll try it!

Nope ... still here.

Hmm. Nope, sorry.

P

Inside you there are also many atoms with poles which would rotate towards the very powerful magnetic field coming from the ground you are standing on hence keeping you stuck on it no matter if you rotate your body or not. But you are not stuck to the weaker field of a magnet since there is not a high enough concentration of these rotate-able poles in your body for you to get stuck to it.
edit on -05:00pmTue, 12 May 2015 19:37:04 -0500pm52015Tue, 12 May 2015 19:37:04 -050005pmTuesday by ParanormalGuy because: .

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:33 PM
One has to encourage you OP for at least trying to think about the issues.
But there are so many things wrong here. Think trees, do they fall down because they are attracted by gravity? Or is it magnetic gravity?
Apparently the moon is almost completely rocky, even down to its core, but there she is, shining beautifully in the sky at night. In a gravitational dance with the earth.
And then I guess aluminium, even if it is metal, is just a bloody rebel as well.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:41 PM

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

Have you seen those small round magnets bought online and in toy stores?
If they are put inside a medium in which they can rotate (maybe separated by plastic or/and oil with room for them to rotate) and then have lots of them inside this material (forming a ball which has lots of these tiny rotate-able magnets inside it).

Would these balls not be able to attract each other and could simulate planets attracted by each other? It is worth an experiment if you ask me. It would be interesting to see how many of them would behave, if they could "form a solar system" or not.

Well, I'll leave this as my best argument then! Because that experiment would work! The balls would attract from all sides. And when it is proven that it does, we should really open our minds instead of trying to just figure out ways this hypothesis "can not" work...
edit on -05:00pmTue, 12 May 2015 19:42:48 -0500pm52015Tue, 12 May 2015 19:42:48 -050005pmTuesday by ParanormalGuy because: .

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:41 PM
Space causes gravity when matter clumps in it. Matter is attracted to other matter initially by many means including magnetism but it is not gravity. Once matter deforms space (bending it toward it) space becomes warped and any near by matter then falls toward the original clump.

I cannot define space for you other than possibly describe how it might work. It is like a lattice everywhere, that bends when matter clumps in it. It is this clumping and then bending of the lattice that is gravity. Your a clump on a bigger clump. No insult intended
. That bigger clump is falling toward an even bigger clump following the bent lattice that is space except the Earth has enough momentum to continue to orbit rather than fall in.

That my theory hah. I think the key to the kingdom lies in understanding what space is.
edit on 12-5-2015 by Xeven because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:45 PM

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

Have you seen those small round magnets bought online and in toy stores?
If they are put inside a medium in which they can rotate (maybe separated by plastic or/and oil with room for them to rotate) and then have lots of them inside this material (forming a ball which has lots of these tiny rotate-able magnets inside it).

Would these balls not be able to attract each other and could simulate planets attracted by each other? It is worth an experiment if you ask me. It would be interesting to see how many of them would behave, if they could "form a solar system" or not.

Well, I'll leave this as my best argument then! Because that experiment would work! The balls would attract from all sides. And when it is proven that it does, we should really open our minds instead of trying to just figure out ways this hypothesis "can not" work...

Make those balls out of wood, see where that gets you.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:46 PM

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

Have you seen those small round magnets bought online and in toy stores?
But if you flip them 180 degrees they repel, right?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?
If I understand the hypothesis, this would test it:

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
Inside you there are also many atoms with poles which would rotate towards the very powerful magnetic field coming from the ground you are standing on hence keeping you stuck on it no matter if you rotate your body or not. But you are not stuck to the weaker field of a magnet since there is not a high enough concentration of these rotate-able poles in your body for you to get stuck to it.
So if you stand inside a giant coil with the magnetic field oriented one in direction or the other, you should be able to use the coil to cancel the effects of gravity?

Which magnetic poles in your body do you think are aimed at the Earth? North or south, and why? And why do the magnetic poles of the Earth seem to have no effect on measured gravity?

Believe me, scientists have been looking for linkage between gravity and electricity/magnetism for a century, at least. If there is one, they have yet to find it. The idea of a "unified field theory" is that we could link them somehow so you're not the first person to have the idea there could be a linkage, but I think your experimental designs need improvement if you want reliable experimental results.

edit on 12-5-2015 by Arbitrageur because: clarification

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:51 PM

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

Have you seen those small round magnets bought online and in toy stores?
But if you flip them 180 degrees they repel, right?

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?
If I understand the hypothesis, this would test it:

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy
Inside you there are also many atoms with poles which would rotate towards the very powerful magnetic field coming from the ground you are standing on hence keeping you stuck on it no matter if you rotate your body or not. But you are not stuck to the weaker field of a magnet since there is not a high enough concentration of these rotate-able poles in your body for you to get stuck to it.
So if you stand inside a giant coil with the magnetic field oriented one in direction or the other, you should be able to use the coil to cancel the effects of gravity?

Which magnetic poles in your body do you think are aimed at the Earth? North or south, and why? And why do the magnetic poles of the Earth seem to have no effect on measured gravity?

Believe me, scientists have been looking for linkage between gravity and electricity/magnetism for a century, at least. If there is one, they have yet to find it. The idea of a "unified field theory" is that we could link them somehow so you're not the first person to have the idea there could be a linkage, but I think your experimental designs need improvement if you want reliable experimental results.

I have an even easier experiment.

Take a metal bin lid, put a magnet on top of it. Hurl it high into the air, if it keeps going, he is right, if it doesn't we have to change the polarity of the magnet and do it again. And when/if it fails twice we can be certain the theory is not complete.
edit on 12-5-2015 by Jonjonj because: bad format

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:54 PM

originally posted by: Jonjonj

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: ParanormalGuy

originally posted by: Grimpachi

So basically you have a hypothesis. What kind of test can you design so it can become a theory?

Have you seen those small round magnets bought online and in toy stores?
If they are put inside a medium in which they can rotate (maybe separated by plastic or/and oil with room for them to rotate) and then have lots of them inside this material (forming a ball which has lots of these tiny rotate-able magnets inside it).

Would these balls not be able to attract each other and could simulate planets attracted by each other? It is worth an experiment if you ask me. It would be interesting to see how many of them would behave, if they could "form a solar system" or not.

Well, I'll leave this as my best argument then! Because that experiment would work! The balls would attract from all sides. And when it is proven that it does, we should really open our minds instead of trying to just figure out ways this hypothesis "can not" work...

Make those balls out of wood, see where that gets you.

We could make them of frogs too, but not easily measure it:

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:58 PM

We could make them of frogs too, but not easily measure it:

Wut?

Oh ok, I see your point, gravitically magnetic levitating frogs!

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 07:59 PM
Gravitational fields do work, and they have a vanishing curl. Magnetic fields, on the other hand, never do work and their curl is nonzero. They also have zero divergence, while gravitational fields most certainly do not. So, how can your theory explain all of these clear facts while still maintaining that gravity is caused by magnetism? A solenoidal gravitational field has never been found in nature. Ever.
edit on 12-5-2015 by Diablos because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:01 PM

Inverse square law.

until you account for this property of gravity, which is a stark contrast to EM, you will only have the already implied relationship between gravity and EM.

What if gravity is nothing but dimensional pull from "in" (the 4th dimension is in/out, in addition to up/down, left/right, forward/backward). A force that derives from tetraspace as a result of the mass of the 3d item that exists there moving in 4d space pulling the part of the item in 3d with it, distorting 3d space in the process. Time isn't really affected....it just seems to take longer because of the distance you are travelling into tetraspace, which isn't really any further physically in our 3d space. I just made that up, but your post made me think of it.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:10 PM

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Inverse square law.

until you account for this property of gravity, which is a stark contrast to EM, you will only have the already implied relationship between gravity and EM.

Coulomb's Law has an inverse-square law dependence, as does the Biot-Savart Law. That's not the problem, as one can develop an analogue of Gauss's Law for gravity that only works because of the fact both describe an inverse-square law (the fields fall off at the same rate that the surface area of the Gaussian surface grows at).

The main problem, as I understand it, is the fact gravity is only attractive while the electromagnetic interaction is both attractive and repulsive.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:17 PM

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

Inverse square law.

until you account for this property of gravity, which is a stark contrast to EM, you will only have the already implied relationship between gravity and EM.

What if gravity is nothing but dimensional pull from "in" (the 4th dimension is in/out, in addition to up/down, left/right, forward/backward). A force that derives from tetraspace as a result of the mass of the 3d item that exists there moving in 4d space pulling the part of the item in 3d with it, distorting 3d space in the process. Time isn't really affected....it just seems to take longer because of the distance you are travelling into tetraspace, which isn't really any further physically in our 3d space. I just made that up, but your post made me think of it.

Well I thought it was funny anyway.

posted on May, 12 2015 @ 08:21 PM

there you go....the rest of my night will be spent reading over some material that arose from searching this.
thanks.

top topics

7