The Other Side of Gravity

[RascalPuff]

The magnetosphere shields the surface of the Earth from the charged particles of the solar wind. It is compressed on the day (Sun) side due to the force of the arriving particles, and extended on the night side. (Image not to scale.) Wikepedia.

It was formerly thought that gravitational forces acting on earth were much different than forces acting elsewhere in the larger realm of solar system and universe.

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.

('The thump of a great apple in the stillness of a crisp October morn. Motivated only by the mere necessity of perfect ripeness.' - Hawthorne.)

Newton, finally acknowledged the conditional existence of gravity; only because his own newly invented calculus confirmed that, indeed the same force that motivationally generates falling apples, does likewise generate and sustain the orbits of planets. Yet, as we are about to be reminded, Newton took great care to point out that he did not know or purport to know the identity of gravity, and that his mathematical address to gravity is not concerned with or dependent upon its causal identity, or, its direction...

Newton’s thoughts on ‘the occult (pre ‘Field Physics' recognized) force (Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Field, omnidirectionally projecting <in the pattern of a spider-web> at light speed out of all material entities)’:
“It is inconceivable, that inanimate brute matter should, without the mediation of something else, which is not material, operate upon, and affect other matter without mutual contact.
“And this is one reason why I desired that you would not ascribe inanimate gravity to me. That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter , so that one body may act upon another, at a distance through a vacuum, without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty for thinking, can ever fall into it.
“Gravity must be caused by an agent acting constantly according to certain laws; but whether this agent be material or immaterial, I have left to the consideration of my readers.” - Isaac Newton, On Gravity.

As we shall see, the popular term 'Newtonian concept of attraction (a pulling force)', as applied to gravity, was never unconditionally endorsed by Newton. The concept of gravity as 'a pulling force of attraction' remains a speculative though understandably popular term, coined by Newton's beneficiaries. All of this is to say that the conceptualization of gravity as any sort of pulling force of attraction was not Newton's resolute conceptual or by any means exclusive definition of gravity. Allow the derivation of this last statement to be further qualified:

I wish to cite at this time what is to say the least, a most interesting alternative concept concerning the identity of (what Newton was always careful to call 'universal') gravity. An otherwise completely ignored statement which might even be correctly categorized as 'obscure', or 'inconsequential'. Were it not for the fact that this statement is made by Sir Isaac Newton. And, were it not for the fact that this statement is included in the very (3 page, non-mathematical) Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA.

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 @
http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie

[ScottAnfield]

My theory, mentioned in The Three Theory post, proposes that gravity is actually magnetism and it both pushes and pulls, attracts and repels which seems to fit with what you mentioned in your post

[RascalPuff]

My theory, mentioned in The Three Theory post, proposes that gravity is actually magnetism and it both pushes and pulls, attracts and repels which seems to fit with what you mentioned in your post

Dear ScottAnfield:

Magnetism certainly proves to play a role in gravitational phenomena, as presented in the initial, opening illustration of this thread (depicting far reaching 'action-at-a-distance').

Magnetism offers a resistant opposition to the impact of the sun's physical extension of electromagnetically radiant energy. On the other hand, magnetism can be insulated, whereas, until further notice, gravity - per se - has yet to be insulated.

With this qualification, certainly your post is entirely appropriate and I am grateful for your contribution.

I'll make a point of becoming familiar with your post; here's hoping you check out the above provided URL at my forum.

Best regards,
- RP

[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.

[N0B0DY]

Is the proposal something like gravitomagnetism?

If so, I posted it on a science forum and it wasn't taken too seriously. Nevertheless a great idea, imo.

[ScottAnfield]

No, it isn't a mix of gravity and magnetism, its that gravity is really magnetism. If you read my theory on www.threes.com in the features section, you will see what I mean. Or I've found a similar website to my theory which explains it in much greater detail- www.truesci.com

[N0B0DY]

I'm not entirely sure, but it seems the same from the following:

"Normally we or any laws don’t think about gravity with magnet,
But truly gravity plays an important role in magnetism; the gravity helps to divide the magnet in to two poles or two parts at the time of production of magnet in molten state. That is point at center of gravity where action takes place; center of gravity arranges the domains equally with equal magnetic strength in different poles. So only magnet has there own North & South poles even when broken, because every broken magnet has there own center of gravity."

http://www.truesci.com/Gravity%20and%20Magnet.html

[ScottAnfield]

I dont agree with that statement, as the electrons and protons (positive and negative/ attractive and repulsive) can arrange themselves without the need for 'gravity'. It is highly possible that the Earths own magnetosphere or that from other celestial bodies acting on the magnet could arrange the atoms charges and forces. It is also true that magnets can also be demagnetised and their poles switched. You can also magnetise other metals just by rubbing them with another magnet (when it isnt in molten form) which doesnt need a centre of gravity. The link I gave was mainly for illustration purposes, the views of centre of gravity are by the author, but certain parts such as the magnetic view of orbiting planets (http://www.truesci.com/basic%20Magne...d%20space.html) is just illustrating my theory better than words.

[dipayankar]

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

[ScottAnfield]

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

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.