Relationship Between Gravitational and Kinetic Forces and Electrical and Magnetic Forces

Originally posted by OmegaLogos
reply to post by Mary Rose

 

Explanation: S&F!

Is Ron implying that Gravity is a Monopole?

It is assumed that gravity is a monopole, yeah. But Dragan Hajdukovic expressed doubts about that. His theory is that antimatter carry gravitational charges of the opposite sign. Which could maybe solve the Dark Matter problem.

Originally posted by swan001
It is assumed that gravity is a monopole, yeah.

Gravity is a phenomenon, while the monopole is a hypothetical particle.

Putting them together like this sounds as retarded as "I'm going to throw ten pounds of world peace at you!".

reply to post by Mary Rose

I'm interested in his ideas because he's talking about the concept of the ether, which I think needs to be returned to science.

I call it "Ethereal" , or, "Ether Real". lol lol lol.

Its the other half of science that is, "Hidden". Why? Because it really does not exist on this side of the "Curtain", well, it does tend to show up when you least expect it.

Miss Identified as "Angels", "Aliens", "GFL", "Foo Fighters", "Muses", I believe, are "Ethereal" beings that pop into and out of our physical reality. They go into and out of, the "Ethereal". I suspect the true control of planets, galaxies, are controlled from that realm.

I, unlike some others, have lost my arrogance in that I can know or understand this realm. I submit myself and bow to it. I admittedly, I do not have the genetic material that would be required to comprehend this. I am but a humble observer of the phenomenon. I can say this, I believe the exploitation of this "Realm" will not be allowed.

We could solve all the problems mankind is experiencing if only all the "Intelligences" who are trying to "Penetrate" the ethereal would instead focus on humanity, it all could be resolved in a month.

Originally posted by All Seeing Eye
Miss Identified as "Angels"

What?

"Aliens", "GFL", "Foo Fighters", "Muses", I believe, are "Ethereal" beings that pop into and out of our physical reality.

What makes you think that aliens pop out of "reality"?

There is no reliable statistics on Foo Fighters, so that's irrelevant.

When I hear the term ether thrown about, I can't help but thik about Fear and loathing in Las Vegas.

And that's not good for the topic, not to mention I believe there is connections related between gravity and electromagnetics and dark matter.

Its there

Originally posted by Tranceopticalinclined
When I hear the term ether thrown about, I can't help but thik about Fear and loathing in Las Vegas.

And I can't help thinking eggs and bacon. I think I'm right!

Originally posted by vind21
The equations in GR have been shown time and again to be a very incomplete picture of a universe that does not exsist. Einstien himself never predicted many of the theoretical objects in our universe and states his theory is non represetative.

This is not debatable, he stated it.

Of course, GR doesn't describe the microscopic structure of matter. We know that.
Is it an incomplete picture of macroscopic gravity? Not as far as we've detected.

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Gravity is a phenomenon, while the monopole is a hypothetical particle.

I work with electrical circuits. For years they told me about magnetic poles. A magnetic field has two poles. "Two" is "di", so magnetic fields are "dipoles". Gravitational fields have only one pole. "One" is "mono", so g fields are "monopoles".

I dunno where you read "monopolies" are particles?... They aren't.

Originally posted by swan001

Originally posted by buddhasystem


Gravity is a phenomenon, while the monopole is a hypothetical particle.

I work with electrical circuits. For years they told me about magnetic poles. A magnetic field has two poles. "Two" is "di", so magnetic fields are "dipoles". Gravitational fields have only one pole. "One" is "mono", so g fields are "monopoles".

...and I thought it was clear enough that sources of the fields and the fields are separate entities... I guess I was wrong and assumed to much.

Electron is not the same as the electric field. Repeat 10 times.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
...and I thought it was clear enough that sources of the fields and the fields are separate entities... I guess I was wrong and assumed to much.

Electron is not the same as the electric field. Repeat 10 times.

You are getting more and more cryptic with each instant that passes.

I am talking about the dipolar properties of a magnetic field. I am not making any references to any particles, and never made any references to electrons. I am simply stating that in current physics we assume g field to have one one charge sign, while magnetic field has the possibility between two charge signs. That's what makes it dipolar. I'm not talking about the source of such field. Just the possible signs. Get my drift mate?

Whats with all the name calling and insults on this thread???

If you think someones theory is trash then atleast explain why you think so.

Personally i think if his evidence on light traveling through a gravitational field is correct then he is definitely on to something here.

Whether the theory he proposes is correct or not, the observation alone he made on light's frequency not changing the way they predicted is interesting to say the very least.

Originally posted by epsilon69
Whats with all the name calling and insults on this thread???

I said to the OP why it was thought gravity was a monopole, and here a particle physicist thought I was talking about a particle. So I tried to tell him that monopoles are not particles, just the property of the field.

Personally i think if his evidence on light traveling through a gravitational field is correct then he is definitely on to something here.

But mate... Light can already travel inside a gravitational field. That's why we still see the sun and the stars and each others and all that, even though we live inside such a field... Am I missing something??

Originally posted by swan001
It is assumed that gravity is a monopole, yeah.

Is that taught in universities?

Originally posted by swan001

But Dragan Hajdukovic expressed doubts about that. His theory is that antimatter carry gravitational charges of the opposite sign. Which could maybe solve the Dark Matter problem.

Does this article apply to what you're saying? "Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 2: In the quantum vacuum)"

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Electron is not the same as the electric field. Repeat 10 times.

Electron is to the electron as electric field is to_______?

if an electron is an electron and made of electron, what is the electric field made of?

Would it be accurate to say the electric field is made out of 'the effect moving electrons have on other moving electrons through space'? if the electric field is not made of electrons itself, how is the energy of an electric field transferred through space?


How much total mass of the universe is contained in the mass of the total higgs field? how much mass is a higgs particle expected to have?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
Electron is to the electron as electric field is to_______?

"Electron is to the electron"?

Same as in...

"Dyslexia is to stupidity".

Originally posted by Mary Rose
Does this article apply to what you're saying? "Repulsive gravity as an alternative to dark energy (Part 2: In the quantum vacuum)"

Yeah, that's the guy.

reply to post by swan001


But if I read the article will it apply to the concept of the OP directly in any way? Know what I mean?

reply to post by buddhasystem


Have you ever questioned about the universe by and from your self (using your knowledge, yes), or is all you have ever thought, exactly what you have read?

Have you ever envisioned, inquisitively tinkered with and further questioned the 'mainstream' portrayal of the ideas of physics? Such as gravity, light, space, standard model, higgs field etc. Yes gravity exists, yes light exists, yes magnetic attraction is real, yes there is distance between you and I and earth and the moon, yes 'stuff has mass', yes 'stuff is made of stuff'... but have you ever questioned any mainstream 'train of thought' you have read in your years of study and work?

Why are you so adamantly opposed to the idea of there being an aether? ( I dont use the term aether, as you assume everyone does, to mean a luminous aether, I use it as a word to express that space is not absolute nothingness, but perhaps some sort of medium we currently dont know much about)

Originally posted by Mary Rose
reply to post by swan001

 

But if I read the article will it apply to the concept of the OP directly in any way? Know what I mean?

I don't think so, no. I think dipolar gravitational fields have an effect only on galaxy rotational curve. It doesn't modify current gravitational laws themselves.

reply to post by swan001


Thanks so much! That's very helpful.

I learned a new person's name, though.