[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield Hey rascalpuff, I have read the URL and found it interesting. You did say 'Newton, established for the first time, that it - the universal realms of the large and small - is all connected by a singular, commonly acting, unidentified invisible force. That is the gist of Newton's proven discovery - the proven extrapolation of the same force that causes relatively miniscule apples to fall, also causing the orbiting of the relatively enormous planets' While this looks on the surface to be gravity, it could in fact be magnetism as it says 'unidentified invisible force'. Magnetism is invisible. Does it then make sense that as we have an iron core in the middle of the world, that it is exerting an attractive force, i.e. pulling the apple towards its centre? As you know, even small magnets (such as Neodymium-Iron-Boron) can exert a huge force. If huge objects such as planets exerted an extremely strong magnetic force (both attraction and repulsion because of its bipolarity), wouldn't they all be attracted and repulsed by each other? Could it be possible that the way that each planet or star is in orbit is in a somewhat elegant nature where they are all in such a perfect balance with one another? Strong magnets can also heat objects by compressing their atoms together (so I believe) so this could explain how stars are held together. If a star is basically compressed gas, then if there was another star circulating it and pulling on it (by gravity), then wouldn't it be 'torn apart' and no longer be a star?! Also, if you look at the elliptical orbit of a comet (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~bds2/lt...TORB/COMET.HTM), can you see the similarity between that and magnetism? It is drawn in fast towards the planet and when it gets very close, it flips around and repels it, pushing it back away and starting the cycle again. Even with small magnets this flipping action is seen.

_____________________________

Dear ScottAnfield:

Been studying and writing about gravity and related phenomena for over 50 years, and although gravity has been ruled out as being magnetism, your approach I've not seen or considered before, and, relative to large scale phenomena (other than apples and smaller stuff like that), in the macrocosms, I think you're on to something.

Not so sure about your interpretation of the behavior of comets and their tail appendages but nonetheless, it looks to me like magnetism may play a larger role than Standard Theory recognises...

(To be continued)

Thank you.
Hope you become more familiar with the contents of http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie.

Wish to hear more from you about that.

- Best regards
- RP

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Gravity might actually become a repulsive force when we enter the micro world. Does or can Gravity change into nuclear forces??

Dear dipayankar:
In response to your unconventionally germane question; in accordance with authoritative information narrated in my work: Yes.

Please familiarise yourself with my provided URL and get back to me with your ferreting thoughts.

Best regards,
- RP

[ScottAnfield]

Hi RP, that's an excellent thing to hear that you've never heard of my theory in 50 years, just goes to show that it's moving in the right direction, new ideas etc challenging people. It is quite a simple theory that most people can understand its basis so it's got the simplicity factor. I did my best, with weeks of thought, to join the small with the large.

Can you give me more information or a link to the fact (or hypothesis) that gravity has been ruled out as being magnetism? Is it certified because it would destroy a large part of my theory if it is

I don't think I mentioned the comet tail appendages did I? About the comet, imagine a magnet circulating a stationary magnet in space and what directions they would be pulled. Can't really describe it in words.

[RascalPuff]

Dear ScottAnfield:
Enter 'gravity and magnetism' in Google, and please get back to me.

Also request that you become familiar with the contents of my site at the provided URL
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie
It's a condensation of my small press published works and I think your study of it may help both of us.

Best regards,
- RP

[ScottAnfield]

Hi RP, when I typed that into google and saw 'Gravity and magnetism are not the same thing. In fact, they are totally and completely separate forces' I got a bit worried, until I actually read it... Its actually made me more sure of my theory, here's why:

1) 'No matter what they are made of, both objects get pulled towards each other just because they have mass' - In my theory, this is true also, as everything is made up of atoms and every atom, because it contains protons, neutrons and electrons, exerts a magnetic force. Therefore, it reasonably follows that every atom can either push or pull. So, the larger the mass, the more atoms it has, and the larger magnetic pull it has.
2) 'Unlike gravity, which occurs between any objects, magnetism depends on specific properties of objects.' - This, 10 years ago seemed to be true, but recent discoveries, such as the floating frog in a magnetic field shows that EVERYTHING is magnetic through a process called molecular magnetism. I've left the link on other pages but here it is again -http://www.hfml.ru.nl/froglev.html. They can levitate apparently non-magnetic objects such as wood, water and living objects in a field of about 10T.
3) 'If you measure very carefully, however, you find that there are small magnetic forces between magnets and ’non-magnetic’ materials like pieces of copper or pieces of wood or people. Some of those ’non-magnetic’ things are attracted to magnets and others are repelled' - reinforces what I've just said, contradictiory to what the author wrote a few lines previously.
4) 'On the scale of the solar system, with planets far apart, gravity is much more important than magnetism' - this actually looks to be true, but just because gravity goes down by a factor of 4 and magnetism goes down by a factor of 8, does not mean that magnetism is not acting, other planets surrounding the said object would also be having an effect on the object, not to mention stars enorous magnetic force. It is all balanced carefully and very elegantly, as Brian Greene would say!

I'll be sure to check out the EinsteinGroupie forum sometime today and hopefully there will be some matters we can open up there.

Cheers, Scott

[dipayankar]

It seems gravity and magetism are very closely related. However is gravity bipolar?? It is very interesting that we cannot actually touch anything because of repulsion. But what happens when we touch anything that is ionic or has an unbalanced electrical charge??

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield That's one of the problems that I have with gravity, as it goes against the 'every action has an equal and opposite reaction'. However, the theory that gravity is actually magnetism could be a possible answer to this, because of its obvious bi-polarity. It's the same for larger objects such as planets as well as at the micro level such as atoms. I'm not sure about your second question, but my theory hints that they are actually one in the same so there wouldn't need to be a change form one into the other. Have you seen a documentary called 'What the bleep do we know?'? It says that you never actually touch anything because the atoms in both surfaces repel each other (by magnetism) so this could explain repulsion on the micro level.

[ScottAnfield]

That's one of the problems that I have with gravity, it's uni-directional and does not fit with the statement 'every action has an equal and oposite reaction' as it is only attracting. Is it just me, or does anyone think that if gravity is only attractive, then why do the galaxies seem to be moving apart from one another and wouldn't this force pull everything in the universe together, speeding up as the centre gathers more mass, increasing its magnetic pull? Furthermore, where would the centre be?

I don't know what ionic means, nor can I decipher the wikipedia explanation of it. Can you give me an example of two of something that would have an unbalanced electrical charge?

[N0B0DY]

For whatever my opinion is worth, I would really suggest considering what RascalPuff advocates on this matter. He is quite a genius.

Personally, if two like charges repel and two stronger like charges are added on the outside, I think the two inner ones would force together wouldn't they?

[dipayankar]

Dark Energy (or whatever you call it) is antigravity because then we have completed the epithet ' to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' and that every matter has an antimatter. Hence antigravity is Dark energy. It could be gravity to antimatter...

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield That's one of the problems that I have with gravity, it's uni-directional and does not fit with the statement 'every action has an equal and oposite reaction' as it is only attracting. Is it just me, or does anyone think that if gravity is only attractive, then why do the galaxies seem to be moving apart from one another and wouldn't this force pull everything in the universe together, speeding up as the centre gathers more mass, increasing its magnetic pull? Furthermore, where would the centre be? I don't know what ionic means, nor can I decipher the wikipedia explanation of it. Can you give me an example of two of something that would have an unbalanced electrical charge?

[ScottAnfield]

I respect everyone's views on every matter and all I am doing, by contradicting them, is offering a different POV. If you're refering to RP, he did say 'Been studying and writing about gravity and related phenomena for over 50 years... I've not seen or considered before, and, relative to large scale phenomena (other than apples and smaller stuff like that), in the macrocosms, I think you're on to something.'

As for the epithet, what actually is antimatter and dark energy? The exact opposite of their counterparts? Where does antigravity come into it, we don't fully understand gravity.