[dipayankar]

Thanks a lot for such an enlightening reply. Could Gravity be a repulsive force at extremely small distances? Otherwise it would be impossible to define a TOE...

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Gravity vs. Magnetism Gravity and magnetism are not the same thing. In fact, they are totally and completely separate forces. Gravity is a force that acts between any two objects ... van.physics.uiuc.edu/qa/listing.php?id=225 - 10k - Cached - Similar pages Quickie Questions - Phascinating Physics - Gravity/Light/Magnetism Magnetism is a force, and like any other force it is governed by certain laws. One of them is that like poles will always repel each other. ... www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/kids_space/qphy_grav.html - 41k - Cached - Similar pages Howstuffworks "How does gravity work?" There are two forces in nature that we experience every day: gravity and magnetism. You may have magnets on your refrigerator, and you know that a magnet ... science.howstuffworks.com/question232.htm - 41k - Cached - Similar pages Gravity & Magnetism - A Common Cause? - Mountain Man's Usenet Archive Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the component of ... www.mountainman.com.au/news96_f.html - 42k - Cached - Similar pages Dipole Gravity, Gravito Magnetism Newtonian gravity does not dictate the localization of the satellite materials in a thin disk shaped location regardless of the origin of the debris. ... dipoleantigravity.blogspot.com/ - 84k - Cached - Similar pages Gravity & Magnetism - TIME A challenging item in the unfinished business of science is to find some connection between magnetism and gravitation. The universe is shot through ... www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,934567,00.html - 30k - Cached - Similar pages Do we really know how gravity and magnetism operate? Our theories for gravity and magnetism allow us to describe the essential physics of systems from nearly the size of the universe, to events at a scale of ... www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2532.html - 3k - Cached - Similar pages WikiAnswers - How does Nikola Tesla's anti-gravity machine work Believe it or not, gravity and magnetism are two totally different and really unreleated phenomena. Tesla's "Anti Gravity" machine uses magnetism. ... wiki.answers.com/Q/How_does_Nikola_Tesla's_anti-gravity_machine_work - 46k - Cached - Similar pages Abstract -- LARSE '93 The guide describes the gravity and magnetic fields of the Bay area and discusses how earth scientists use gravity and magnetism to "see" beneath the ... wrgis.wr.usgs.gov/gump/zulanger/bayarea/preface.html - 2k - Cached - Similar pages PhysOrgForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums ... I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a ... forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=15599&view=getlastpost - 108k - Cached - Similar pages Best regards, - RP

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Thanks a lot for such an enlightening reply. Could Gravity be a repulsive force at extremely small distances? Otherwise it would be impossible to define a TOE...

Dear dipayankar:

Excerpt from http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, where the main theme is that matter itself is in a constant state of accelerating expansion:

Gravity is thought not to occur - significantly - in the microcosmic realm of the very small. Whereas, gravity, like Gold, is actually where you find it, and how much of it you find; in large and *small, tenuous and *compact electromagnetic densities (*refer, nuclear binding forces). Moving in one of two possible - direction(s). Toward and/or away (impelling or repelling) from its material (4-D particle/charge) source.

Question: ‘Is matter expanding at the same rate of acceleration as light?’

Answer: ‘Yes, but, in a value of square (2). Consequently, the rate of acceleration is the same, but the expansion speeds vary with microcosmic (very small) and macrocosmic (very large) space-time, in a value of square.

Consider the (incorrect) distinction between electromagnetism & gravity as the status quo, i.e., the prevailing idea that microcosmic ‘nuclear binding forces’, ‘are not, and cannot be’ related to gravitational forces. This ‘disqualification’ of any unification of microcosmic electromagnetism with gravity is based on the false, prevailing and uncontested premise alleged in the ‘difference’ between large gravitational forces which cause planets to orbit, and the smaller forces which bind ‘particles’ together within the atomic nucleus - sometimes called ‘nuclear resinal forces’.


In this sense, contemporary physical science still dwells in the archaic conceptual world of *Ptolemic-*Aristotelean dualization of ‘earthly & heavenly motions’ - *when it was thought that the unidentified forces of the far flung universe and heavens were apart from - unrelated to - the unidentified forces acting on earth; until the time of Newton, who proved that large forces in the universe were the same forces acting on and near earth. That the fall of an apple was governed by the same forces that caused the moon to orbit the earth, and the earth’s orbit around the sun...


It is said that the electromagnetic force reciprocating between an electron and a proton is 1039 times the gravitational force; the gravitational force between these two ‘particles’ alleged to be ‘too weak’ to be measured’ at this microcosmic level.

The nuclear force which is distinquished from gravity ‘because’ it is 1039 times stronger, is (microcosmic - 'earlier Moment A') gravity (unrecognized and unacknowledged by physicists): this is due to the (4-D continuum) fact that the value(s) of time is covariant with the moment(s) of space it (time/motion) occurs in...

Allow this pie plate chart design diagram < to represent the Moments A, B, and C, 4-D expansion of any given physical or spatial system, where the left-most intersection of the two lines represents earlier Moment A (the convergence of the 4-D space-time continuum emerging from out of the infinite microcosms) the right-most opening representing later Moment C, advancing into the infinite macrocosms, with the middle of this pie plate chart representing Moment B - the 'eternal now' - of the considered 4-D continuum. (The actual shape of which would account for acceleration, in a profile structure such as Riemannian geometry's representation of a 'gravity sink' <Refer 'rubber sheet analogy'; featuring Riemannian geometric shapes>).


The value of a linear, square or cubic mile of space on (earlier) Moment A earth, is not the same value as that same mile measured on (later) Moment B earth, or on (latest) Moment C earth.

When a motorist on Moment A earth drives his automobile at the speed he measures as 60 miles per hour, he is not traveling 60 of Moment B miles per Moment B hour...

Moreover, the velocity of 18 & 1/2 Moment A miles per second, traveled by Moment A earth around Moment A sun, is not the same velocity as compared with the 18 1/2 miles per second traveled by Moment B earth around Moment B sun...
Neither is the 365 1/4 days of Moment A year the same interval in time - in this case determined by the completion of an orbit around the sun - as the 365 1/4 days of Moment B or Moment C (providing that these moments could be and were compared with each other).

The velocity of light - C - in this continuum, correspondingly varies from one moment to the next, while remaining constant, relative to the space-time moment from which it originates and with which it is associated. This principle of relative velocity is what allows for an 'optical', or 'event horizon', for example.

When the ‘mini person’ inhabitant of Moment A earth may look ‘up’ along the positive (future) side of the 4th dimension of time, and see themselves at (later) Moment(s) B or C, they would see their own image as an incredibly huge, slow moving giant; if this slow moving giant of Moment A mini-person’s future could look ‘down’ along the past side of their continuously accelerating 4-D projection, they would then observe themselves as a tiny, very fast moving ‘mini-person’.


There is no way for Moment A mini-person (thinking in 3-D conceptual physics) to know that their 3 dimensions of space, and consequently their time will be relatively larger (spatially) and slower (chronologically) at (future) Moments B and C.

Conversely, there is no way for that same giant, slow moving person in (later) Moments B and C to know that the spatial dimensions and time of their entire (Moment A) universe was correspondingly more contracted in space, having proportionately smaller durations of time, at Moment A.

The false assumption is that the value of space is the same with the passage of time; that, if Moment A earth was compared to Moment B and C earth, it (the earth) would have the same uniform size and density in space, when compared with itself at different moments in time.


Newton contemplated a 4-D continuum but did not anticipate that the values of space and time would vary with different spaces and times of that continuum.

The ‘here and now’ dimensions of ‘space and time’ appear - and are 3-dimensionally conceptualized - to be uniform and unchanging. The law of conservation of mass-energy is not infringed upon, since this expanding continuum is always the same amount of energy distributed over an ever increasing space; maintaining uniform relative density.


The acceleration of the apparently static (‘non-expanding’) 3 dimensions of space along the 4th dimension of time (the 4-D space-time continuum) reveals a contracted micro-space accompanied by a correspondingly and inevitably contracted micro-time. and a dilated macrospace accompanied by an equally and correspondingly dilated (‘slowed down’) macro-time.

This is the reason that Einstein called ‘Space and Time’ :
Space-Time.


This is the cause of what Einstein calls ‘Non-absolute time’, and 'non-absolute space'.

It is also the cause of what Einstein calls ‘time dilation’. The value of time is determined by the value of space it occurs in. Larger moments of 4-D space result in relatively slower time, when compared with the value of time in smaller moments of 4-D space.

Best regards,
- RP
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[truedreamm]

Hi all very intresting thread with Gravity vs. Magnetism
what is magnetism???
charge is the stuff that ,when it flows or spins , creates magnetism ok

what is charge?
charge is the one of most common word used by science.
Without 'charge' science have no meaning.
Charge is the fundamental property of fundamental particle
charge is nothing but a force of attraction and repulsion
now we are going to see some deep understand about this charge
charge is a type of complicated magnetic force in quantum level of atom
it is very hard to understand this magnetism but it is 100% MAGNETISM

it is like two opposite mono pole magnetic partical (nucleus and electron )

so there is many level and many type of magnetism
NEW DEFINITION FOR MAGNETISM IS THEORY OF EVERYTHING

so there is no use of comparing present magnetism with gravity...
Gravity vs. Magnetism it is meaningless

what are the fundamental forces we know till now ???
The charge (magnetic force in quantum level) is one of basic basic FUNDAMENTAL FORCE in quantum level which creates the structure of atom.
so present four fundamental force are not fundamental force but they are resultant force.

Scottanfield thanks for using my site www.truesci.com as reference
my theory is based upon some new basics of atom,
That is our next level of science.
regards

[RascalPuff]

Originally Posted by dipayankar Thanks a lot for such an enlightening reply. Could Gravity be a repulsive force at extremely small distances? Otherwise it would be impossible to define a TOE...

Please note the documentary recorded in the middle of Chapter Two, regarding repulsive forces at extremely small distances, at
http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...ies.html?ltr=T

In consideration of the thoughtful contributors to this thread, it seems fairly evident that there's a near if not total consensus that electromagentism and gravity may be one and the same; which is the (notably abandoned) objective of Einstein's unified field theory; which finds electromagnetism and gravity as being two apparently different manifestations having the same causal identity. Gravity may in fact possess and manifest as two different vectors - both a push and a pull; inclusive of the special and general theories of relativity. Excerpt from the above URL follows:

-----------------------------------------------------

From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:

“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."

That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .'

It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force.

It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. That is fact #1.

Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied?

That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date.

The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states:

'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown').
------------------------------------

Quotation excerpted from Total Field Theory at the above provided URL.

Hidden Agenda's issuance of chiral motion...



... may be a key factor regarding the morphology of a trans 3 dimensional universe.

[dipayankar]

Hi RP, though I did not know so much, I did have a thought that at extremely small distance Gravity is a replusive force, even if you take Gravitrons as the basis of Gravity.

Originally Posted by RascalPuff Please note the documentary recorded in the middle of Chapter Two, regarding repulsive forces at extremely small distances, at http://www.toequest.com/forum/toe-th...ies.html?ltr=T In consideration of the thoughtful contributors to this thread, it seems fairly evident that there's a near if not total consensus that electromagentism and gravity may be one and the same; which is the (notably abandoned) objective of Einstein's unified field theory; which finds electromagnetism and gravity as being two apparently different manifestations having the same causal identity. Gravity may in fact possess and manifest as two different vectors - both a push and a pull; inclusive of the special and general theories of relativity. Excerpt from the above URL follows: ----------------------------------------------------- From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote: “For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain." That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact. I repeat the quote (of particles and systems-of-particles: of matter), 'are either mutually impelled towards each other and cohere in regular figures (orbits; juxtapositions), or, are mutually repelled and recede from each other .' It implies directly and categorically, that gravity may in fact be the opposite of the universally considered impelling or 'pulling force of attraction'; that is to say, Isaac Newton and his formal definitions, directly and resolutely suggest that gravity may in fact be a repelling or pushing force. It is difficult to over dramatize the very existence of this statement, its author, and especially its contextual implications. It categorically allows that everything Newton mathematically confirms and describes in The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA - from orbiting planets, falling apples, aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric tides - all the large and small phenomena of gravity - is caused by one of two kinds of forces: the conventionally considered impelling or pulling force of attraction, or, its exact opposite, a repelling/ pushing force. That is fact #1. Fact #1 evokes at least one question: Allowing possible advantage in Newton's Gravitational Alternative that gravity may in fact be a repelling (pushing) force rather than an impelling (pulling) force, how might any such advantage be experienced and applied? That question and its derivation might still be deemed obscure and inconsequential, if its direct unequivocal answer did not exist, most profoundly, at the heart-foundation of the latest and most advanced generalized theory of gravity in the history of Physical Science. That being Albert Einstein's GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY. In the first quarter of this century, Albert Einstein, in observing the already well known inversely proportional equivalence of gravitational and inertial mass values (which will be explained, shortly), described this equivalence as: 'an astonishing coincidence', and then applied the cause of his astonishment to the monumental task of formulating an unprecedented theoretical generalization concerning the identity of gravity. That, being none other than the General Principle Of Relativity; which principle is quite literally the foundation upon which rests Einstein's entire General Theory of Relativity. The most advanced statement about gravity, to date. The General Principle is also misnomered as the 'Equivalence Hypothesis', or, more appropriately, 'The Principle Of Equivalence', which states: 'There is no way to distinguish the effects produced by the inertial force of acceleration (a pushing/repelling force) from the effects produced by gravitational force (assumed to be a 'pulling/impelling force: identity unknown'). ------------------------------------ Quotation excerpted from Total Field Theory at the above provided URL. Hidden Agenda's issuance of chiral motion... ... may be a key factor regarding the morphology of a trans 3 dimensional universe.

[leskey]

Originally Posted by ScottAnfield 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... 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

Hi, All.

Could someone please answer a couple of dumb questions from someone who is simply interested in this topic?

Is it a fact that the earth's core is iron?
Has it ever been postulated that the earth's core contains a tiny massively compressed particle that "generates" gravity?

Many thanks, from just another "ever curious soul."

[dipayankar]

1) Yes
2) No

Originally Posted by leskey Hi, All. Could someone please answer a couple of dumb questions from someone who is simply interested in this topic? Is it a fact that the earth's core is iron? Has it ever been postulated that the earth's core contains a tiny massively compressed particle that "generates" gravity? Many thanks, from just another "ever curious soul."

[leskey]

Originally Posted by dipayankar 1) Yes 2) No

How is it proven that the earth's core is iron?