It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tauristercus
Originally posted by Axial Leader
The value of "K" has to be selected for each solar system.
Actually K does NOT have the mass of the sun (or any other primary body) factored into it. K was derived from nothing more than 2 basic values, namely that of a distance and that of a time period. Therefore it can be used anywhere in the universe ... just as can Newtons.
Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1
Well it certainly was not electromagnetic as we know electromagnetism. So whats left is the thing we call gravity.
Originally posted by AutOmatIc
Most of the equations used naturally assume that the "force" gravity itself actually exists as Newton and Einstein theorized. If gravity doesn't exist per their theories, then where does that leave the OP's original equation?
See my post on pg. 2 of this thread here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1
Yeah I don't deny that there may be some undiscovered connection between the 4 main forces of the universe, after all isn't that the holy grail for physics. But that doesn't change the analysis of what the OP is doing. He hasn't come up with the unified theory of everything - he merely derived a formula for a given situation with certain knowns. His formula still cannot predict the force of attraction between two stationary objects like Newton's law. And Newton's law certainly can. It has been verified. That does not mean Newton or Einstein's theories are the end all, be all.edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Originally posted by MegaMind
reply to post by mnemeth1
Yeah I don't deny that there may be some undiscovered connection between the 4 main forces of the universe, after all isn't that the holy grail for physics. But that doesn't change the analysis of what the OP is doing. He hasn't come up with the unified theory of everything - he merely derived a formula for a given situation with certain knowns. His formula still cannot predict the force of attraction between two stationary objects like Newton's law. And Newton's law certainly can. It has been verified. That does not mean Newton or Einstein's theories are the end all, be all.edit on 8-10-2010 by MegaMind because: (no reason given)
I would say it can't predict it because the force of "gravity" isn't the actor in the experiment.
The results are misconstrued.
"Gravity" in the Newtonian sense would be zero, but the electromagnetic dipole attraction between objects is still being registered.
Originally posted by MegaMind
A force is predicted, measured and verified. That measured force is used to calculate G. This in turn is used to accurately predict the orbits of satellites and planets. Obviously the same force that "works" on the lead balls also "works" on planets. Call that force what you may - convention calls it gravity.
If you're talking about this:
Originally posted by mnemeth1
Since the electromagnetic field and gravitational field both obey the inverse square law, I don't see how you could be so certain that it is "gravity" bringing the balls together.
When magnetic dipoles are aligned through deep freezing them, objects float in the air.
See super conductive magnets.
edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by mnemeth1
Magnetic field can be shielded, gravity cannot. Acceleration in magnetic field varies with mass and material of the object, acceleration in gravity field depends only on location in it because of the equivalence principle. Gravity field slows time, electromagnetic field does not..
There are too many dissimilarities to say gravitational attraction we observe is caused by electromagnetism.
Originally posted by nataylor
If you're talking about this:
That happens because superconductors become perfect diamagnetic. The object levitating there is a permanent magnet. It still requires the interaction of a magnetic field outside the superconductor.
So obviously in the absence of a strong outside magnetic field, superconducting magnets do not self-levitate. If they did, MRI machines would be floating out of hospitals all day.
Originally posted by mnemeth1
This is specifically what I am talking about.
When the superconductor is not frozen, its dipoles are oriented toward the earth and it is pulled toward the earth due to newtons "gravity". When frozen, its dipoles become locked and subsequently it can be magnetically levitated. However, it always has pull toward the earth because of newtons "gravity"
I suspect that if one were to conduct the Cavendish experiment using super-conductive balls instead of lead, there would be no attractive force between them.
edit on 8-10-2010 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by nataylor
If it is the tiny magnetic dipoles in the earth that attract the dipoles in the currently-room temperature, currently non-superconductor to the earth, giving the apparent force of gravity, how does it suddenly become able to repulse a magnetic field when cooled to its superconducting temperature, yet still experience the exact same amount of force exerted by the tiny dipoles in the earth, maintaining the exact same apparent force of gravity?
If you are saying that the apparent force of gravity is really due to traditional magnetic attraction on some sub-atomic level, how do you explain the superconductor's repulsion of magnetic fields from traditional magnetic material, yet still complete susceptibility to this "magnetic" gravity?