jsaldea12 Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Suggested attraction gravity of Newton experiment, re- ball-shaped magnet Material: A bar magnet 4 inches in length and 1 ½ inch equal four sides (width). Said magnet bar with equal positive and negative in length. Cut a cube, either on positive end or negative end, and grind to make such cube perfect circle. There should be the same magnetism all over the grinded ball-shaped magnet. Magnetism and gravity are fundamentally the same, the making of the opposite law, re with equal positive and negative property. . Jsaldea12 7.10.09.
insane_alien Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 you will not make a magnetic monopole this way, you will end up with a dipole spherical magnet. as it is a dipole the field strength will decrease with proportion to the cube of distance while gravity strength decreases with the square of distance. they are not fundementally the same, they are fundementally different in their action.
jsaldea12 Posted July 9, 2009 Author Posted July 9, 2009 Suggested attraction gravity of Newton experiment, re- ball-shaped magnet Material: A bar magnet 4 inches in length and 1 ½ inch equal four side (width). Said magnet bar with equal positive and negative in length. Cut a cube, either on positive end or negative end, and grind to make such cube perfect circle. There should be the same magnetism all over the grinded ball-shaped magnet. Magnetism and gravity are fundamentally the same, the making of the opposite law, re with equal positive and negative property. . Jsaldea12 7.10.09.
insane_alien Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 don't post multiple threads on the same subject.
Sisyphus Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 If I understand you correctly, then what you're describing is not how magnets work. There aren't postive parts and negative parts, only positive directions and negative directions. That ball would have a north pole and a south pole.
insane_alien Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 i explained this in the first copy of this thread. along with other problems with his notions of how magnets work
swansont Posted July 9, 2009 Posted July 9, 2009 Cavendish did an experiment to test gravity using nonmagnetic materials. Gravity was still there. I have magnetic shields in my lab, which reduce the ambient field by a factor of 100,000 or more (tough to measure at that point). Gravity is not reduced. Gravity is not a magnetic interaction. This notion has been falsified already.
Kyrisch Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Jsaldea12 7.10.09. You should probably also include the time of your post, seeing as the author, the date of the post, and the time are all important pieces of information that aren't already obviously displayed above the post.
jsaldea12 Posted July 10, 2009 Author Posted July 10, 2009 Please note the shape of the magnet is ball-shaped, which is all around, whose dividing line from all over surface is always equal downward to interior center...not anymore from one side to the other side, like north pole and south pole. Construction of compass, itself, has uneven needle,heavier pointing north, that is why it points north. If south point needle is brushed with bar magnet, the needle points downward toward center of earth. this is according to an experiment, as indicated in internet. thus, the possibility that magnet is flexible, resileint, that if it is hall shaped,the resilient magnetism is all around equal, The construction must not be like flat round magnet where the magnetism is sprayed positive, negative. Bar magnet is advisable, with positive and negative of equal length..to be made cube..because cut and cut bars always shows, each cut, equal positive and negative. regards. jsaldea12 7.10.09
insane_alien Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Please note the shape of the magnet is ball-shaped, which is all around, whose dividing line from all over surface is always equal downward to interior center...not anymore from one side to the other side, like north pole and south pole. what? have you ever even seen a magnet before? you will still end up with a dipole sphere, if you don't believe me you are welcome to try it yourself. Construction of compass, itself, has uneven needle,heavier pointing north, that is why it points north. i have several compasses with symmetric needles, infact, i don't have any with nonsymmetric needles. and using the old trick of turning a sewing needle into a compass i can make the heavier end go north or south without much trouble. you can do this to. no really, go try it and realise how much bull**** you are spouting. If south point needle is brushed with bar magnet, the needle points downward toward center of earth. this is according to an experiment, as indicated in internet. link, i want to read the experiment and possibly try it myself. thus, the possibility that magnet is flexible, resileint, that if it is hall shaped,the resilient magnetism is all around equal, not sure how this follows. you can just say thus and make it so. The construction must not be like flat round magnet where the magnetism is sprayed positive, negative. Bar magnet is advisable, with positive and negative of equal length..to be made cube..because cut and cut bars always shows, each cut, equal positive and negative. ...what ... i think you need diagrams for clarity. jsaldea12 7.10.09 this information is already part of your post, stop posting it, it gets annoying.
jsaldea12 Posted July 10, 2009 Author Posted July 10, 2009 Below is one item on "TIMES" cnn pertaining to gravity and magnetism. you are right: positive and negative, north and south pole are directions. As soon I can find again that article in internet pertaining to compass experiment, i will let you know. But one of the best is perform the suggested ball-shaped magnet experiment. It is very costly to me but as you have performed many magnet experiments, then try and let us see because i am confident the result is good in my favor. Earth is round, magnet is round. Regards. jsaldea12 7.10.09 Gravity & Magnetism Monday, Jun. 02, 1947Print Reprints Email Twitter Linkedin Buzz up!Facebook MORE...Add to my: del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on: TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace A challenging item in the unfinished business of science is to find some connection between magnetism and gravitation. The universe is shot through & through with electromagnetism; gravitation is everywhere too. Physicists have long been convinced that the two must be related somehow, but try as they would (and the most talented have tried), they could establish no basic connecting law. Last fortnight Britain's famed, curly-haired Professor Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett of Manchester University told the Royal Society how the problem might be (perhaps has been) solved. As everyone knows, said Blackett, the earth has a magnetic field, but no one has figured out why. The magnetism does not come from iron deep underground, because the earth's core is far too hot to be "ferro-magnetic." As early as 1891, physicists guessed that the magnetism might be due to some inherent property of revolving bodies. They could not prove it. A new bit of evidence came in when the strength of the sun's magnetic field was measured. It turned out to be closely proportionate to the earth's, allowing for the sun's greater mass and slower turning. But two observations are not enough to base a general law on; they might be mere coincidence. Guiding Star. Last year some new evidence turned up. Dr. H. W. Babcock of Mt. Wilson Observatory, Calif, performed the unlikely feat of measuring (by spectrum analysis) the magnetic field of the star called 78 Virginis. When Professor Blackett heard about it, he grabbed pencil & paper. The star's size, mass and speed of revolution could be estimated fairly accurately. Nothing more was needed. The magnetic field of remote 78 Virginis just about proved what theorizing had already predicted: it was closely proportionate to the magnetic fields of the earth and sun. Three matching bits of evidence in a row were more than coincidence. While the Fellows of the Royal Society watched intently, Blackett wrote down an equation* which may become as famous as Einstein's law, E—mc². It looked like the physical hybrid which science had been searching for so eagerly. On one side of the equation was magnetism, an electrical effect; on the other were basic gravitational quantities. Said Professor Blackett modestly: "It is suggested tentatively that . . . the above equation represents some new and fundamental property of rotating matter. Perhaps this relation will provide the long-sought connection between electromagnetic and gravitational phenomena." The new law can be checked by observing the spectra of stars, especially the dense "white dwarfs," which ought to have intense magnetic fields around their close-packed matter. It might even be proved in earthly laboratories, by spinning large masses of nonmagnetic material, such as bronze, and seeing whether they generate their own magnetic fields. Here was a fascinating assignment for a skillful (and well-financed) lab man. *P=ß (G½/2c) U, where P is the strength of the magnetic field; ß is a constant near unity; G is the gravitational constant (6.670 X 10^-8); c is the speed of light; U is the angular momentum (spin) of a revolving body. Print Reprints Email Twitter Linkedin Buzz up!Facebook MORE...Add to my: del.icio.us Technorati reddit Google Bookmarks Mixx StumbleUpon Blog this on: TypePad LiveJournal Blogger MySpace Most Popular »Full List »MOST READMOST EMAILEDWhy Are Southerners So Fat? Florida Wrestles with Its Python Problem On Tehran's Streets: Defiance and a Crushing Response Oh Crap! My Parents Joined Facebook The Outsider: Where Is Sarah Palin Going Next? Yes, I Suck: Self-Help Through Negative Thinking Advice from an Economist Who Saw 1929 America's Quirky Alcohol Laws Jackson May Play London After All, Via Footage A New General, and a New War, in Afghanistan Why Are Southerners So Fat? Advice from an Economist Who Saw 1929 Oh Crap! My Parents Joined Facebook Yes, I Suck: Self-Help Through Negative Thinking Is There Hope for the American Marriage? Florida Wrestles with Its Python Problem Why There Should Be More Oil Speculation, Not Less Can Language Skills Ward Off Alzheimer's? A Nuns' Study The Outsider: Where Is Sarah Palin Going Next? What Does Life-Extending Drug Mean for Humans? Quotes of the Day »Get & Share "It was big." MICHAEL PHELPS, sixteen-time Olympic medalist, after breaking the world record in the 100-meter butterfly with a time of 50.22 seconds More Quotes »/time/includes/article_video.xml VideoMore Videos » 10 Questions for 'NY Times' Editor Bill KellerTime.com on Digg Upcoming Popular Today 96 diggsTIME: America's Alcohol Laws - Quirky Rules Across 50 States43 diggsWhy There Should Be More Oil Speculation, Not Less18 diggsWhy Are Southerners So Fat?13 diggsWhy Southerners are fat.5 diggsLondon Tabloid Shocker: Celeb Phones Hacked!POWERED BY digg Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedBelow is partial portion article on relationship of gravity and magnetism. Regards. jsaldea12 7.10.09 Mountain Man's UseNet Archive Do Gravity and Magnetism have a Common Cause? a post from Ralph Sansbury Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia in the Southern Spring of 1996 ________________________________________ What is Gravity and Magnetism ? Date: 11 Oct 1996 22:08:10 GMT From: rsansbury Newsgroups: sci.physics Subject: The Common Cause of Gravity and Magnetism The basic idea here is that gravity may be due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the negative pole, with some multiple of the electron's charge, is the inner pole and the outer pole has enought positive charge so that the total charge is that of a proton; the distance between oppositely charged poles is between 10^-12 and 10^-18meters inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the value of each dipole increases with the distance between it and all other dipoles so the force between any two dipoles is proportional to the distance between the dipoles squared taking into account their relative orientation; this means that the instantaneous dipole-dipole force which varies inversely as the fourth power between colinear dipoles reduces to an inverse square force; the different sizes of dipoles determined by different pairwise interactions and their different forces when summed together over all pairwise interactions yields a single force and implies a single unique dipole in each nucleus intermediate to the pairwise extremes given above and closer to the the measured values of nuclear radii in different contexts, about 10^-15 meters. From this premise it is possible to derive all of the substantiated predictions of General Relativity, most of which have to do with the explicit interaction of gravity with electrical and magnetic forces, without recourse to the assumption that the force of gravity is a functon not only of properties of the force source like its size, density, location but also of its velocity and acceleration. The dependence in GR of the gravitational field on the velocity and acceleration of the force source leads to counter intuitive and subjectivist space time distortions beyond Einstein's fantasies eg. those of Hawking, Penrose, Whitten etc.. To make the same predictions as GR we must also correct a similar mistaken assumption in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic forces. Maxwell had to withdraw his claims of a crowded if not distorted ether filled with invisible cams that propagated not only characteristics of the source like its volume, density,and location but also of its motion; the mathematics gave accurate predictions so perhaps one could ignore the cams or isomorphic mechanisms. It was like the grin of the cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll's Wonderland also of the 1860s. But one can't accept Maxwell's mathematics and ignore its absurd implications. The mathematics predicted the observed radiation but it also implied a mechanism for transmitting the effects for which there was no independent evidence, which was thus invisible but had the rigidity of iron. Such absurd implications were swept under the rug and not until Feynman's QED theory of Einstein's photons and probabilistic theory of light and its interactions with matter was the problem resolved -by substituting photons for waves at all frequencies. In Maxwell's theory, the fact that the source of a radiated force, a moving charge, was oscillating in a repetitive pattern helped; just like the regular pattern of planets orbiting the sun and the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy etc helped Einstein's use of a similar assumption in GR. Maxwell's absurd implications can be avoided without Feynman's circumlocutions that permit some general description of the interaction of light with matter but prevent one from knowing the specific interactions of specific photons or their source with the receiver. If one acknowledges that light is not a moving thing but the result of instantaneous forces at a distance on charged matter whose inertia etc., delays the appearance of received radiation, then the interaction of light with matter can be described in terms of what actually happens and not merely probabalistically. Is such a theory of light consistent with measurements of the speed of light? Yes in all but one case the observed values can be so interpreted; the exception is Roemer's crude measurement which is far enough from the other values to be regarded as a non coincidence. Roemer's measurement is also an inconsistent one when moons of Jupiter besides Io eg Europa are taken into account. Similarly the absurd or probabilistic implications of GR can be avoided by finding an alternative to the assumption that the gravitational field is a function of the velocity and acceleration of the source of the field. This alternative is the assumption of instantaneous electrical interactions that account for the delay in the appearance of received electromagnetic radiation, for the apparent bending of light and frequency shifts of radar due to the sun, of gamma rays due to the earth, etc.. Getting back to the basics of the proposed alternative theory. The proposed electrostatic dipoles also exist in current carrying wires, transverse to and proportional to the driving force of the current, inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons of current carrying wires formerly characterized as their spin.These dipoles which also increase with the distance between interacting wires and decrease with the currents in other wires as explained below produce the magnetic field of a current carrying wire. (Experiments suggesting that electrons and atomic nuclei do not have electrostatic dipoles do so only after the effects of spin have been taken into account) These dipoles are superimposed on the dipoles associated with gravity. Electrostatic dipoles in the atomic nuclei of ferromagnetic materials can also explain the magnetic field of these materials; unlike materials composed of any of the other elements, the atoms in these materials are bound together by their electrons in configurations that prevent to some extent the nuclear dipoles from changing direction so as to line up with the gravitational field of the earth of which they are a part; that is they prefer to line up with the nuclear dipoles around them in the same domain or in the entire bulk material of which they are a part. To make the nuclear dipoles in such materials line up completely with the gravitational field of the earth it is necessary that the bulk material containing the nuclear dipoles also changes orientation - as in a compass needle. Now a magnetized piece of iron or steel held below a piece of paper with iron filings on it can cause the iron filings to line up in a certain way giving rise to Faraday's notion of invisible lines of force; a piece of copper, silicon or what have you will not be able to produce the same effect on the iron filings; the reason for this is that the electrostatic dipoles in the nuclei of silicon and of these other materials change direction constantly so as to line up with the earth's radius from these atoms toward the center of the earth etc; The force of gravity can be shown to be nothing more than the collective force of an enormous number of such electrostatic dipoles. The Argument: • 1) We argue that the spin of electrons and nuclei can be better characterized in terms of charge polarization inside the electrons and nuclei; • 2) that electrostatic shielding involving the relative displacement of free electrons and lattice ions in conductive materials producing a relatively large dipole does not shield against the effects of charge polarization inside the free electrons and lattice nuclei of such materials when they are carrying a current, ie their so called magnetic effects; • 3) that the electrostatic dipoles associated with the gravitational effects of satellites, planets, stars, galaxies, clusters, superclusters etc were produced by a primordial force whose initial effect was the forward motion of the atomic nuclei within a large collection of nuclei and charge polarization transverse to the forward motion and subsequently a torque on these collections of transverse electrostatic dipoles which moved together causing the galaxies etc to spin and spin off stars and stars to spin off planets and planets to spin off satellites etc.; • 4) that the attraction of planets to the sun requires a dipole inside nuclei tracking the sun in addition to the one whose orientation is constantly changing so as to be directed toward the center of the planet etc.; • 5) that Cavendish's measurement of the horizontal gravitational force between lead balls is due to the attraction between the transverse component of radial oriented dipoles inside the atomic nuclei of the attracted balls; that to sustain the dipoles in the atomic nuclei of planets and stars the transverse dipole component fields may sustain one another; that is the radial and longitudinal dipoles transverse to a force in the latitudinal direction produce fields at right angles to one another; • 6) that the longitudinal dipole field can produce a radial dipole and the radial dipole field can produce a longitudinal dipole and thereby the radial and longitudinal fields can be selfsustaining (Note in Newton's theory the radial force of gravity comes first and the orbital motion of the earth is due to this force and a uniform velocity that was assumed always there or produced by a First Mover who then went away. Here we are assuming that a primordial force was partitioned into ever smaller circular movements and forces and that the force causing the earth ot orbit the sun and spin is a part of this total primordial force. Gravity then comes second and results from the dipoles produced by this force on particles held in orbit by electrical forces; The resulting dipoles may be self sustaining or the primordial force, perhaps initiated a finite number of years ago with a big explosion remains, however far removed from the earth and acts to sustain the Hubble accelerative expansion and may act directly and constantly to sustain the electrostatic dipoles inside every atom after thermal collsions.); • 7) that Einstein's explanation of the bending of starlight by the sun etc can be otherwise explained in terms of a small relative delay in response to em radiation due to the greater residual dipole in atomic nuclei on the side of the earth facing the sun; similarly for the red shift of radar reflections from planets. Regarding the magnetic effects of current carrying wires: Electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and free electrons can produce the magnetic force observed between parallel (or however oriented) current carrying wire segments r meters apart where the currents are nevA and nev'A' say. The Amperian force per unit length between the two parallel current segments then is 10^-7 times (nevA)(nev'A) divided by r^2. which could also be written as (9 times 10^9 divided by ((3)(10^9))^2) times ®(v/v')(nevA)®(v'/v)(nev'A') divided by r^4 which is the force per unit length between nA and nA' electrostatic dipoles which are larger the greater r is and the greater v is compared to v' etc.. That is the electrostatic dipoles are in part due to the emf causing the speed, v, of the electron and in part due to the lack of interference from other dipoles. When the current in one wire is much larger than the current in another wire, the interference effect on the smaller current is greater and so the increase in its dipoles is less than the increase in the dipoles in the wire carrying the larger current. The expansion of the dipoles inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons can be represented as K(S)res and k(s)reS where K(S) is the ratio of one dipole before consideration of the other eg S over s+S or over s; k(s), similarly. The mechanism for the expansion of the dipole can be described in terms of the elliptization of an orbital system ie of an initially circularlly orbiting particle made to move in a transverse ellipse perpendicular to an applied tangential electrostatic force at some point on the orbit. The assumption that there is only one orbiting charge and that the the magnitude of the charge being polarized is that of a single electron or positron can be modified; perhaps the simplest assumption is that the proton consists of a negative charge of -e and a positive charge of +2e so that the net charge is as observed. One might object to this theory on the grounds that electrostatic shielding is not effective in shielding against magnetic fields; the answer is that a large number of similarly oriented small electrostatic dipoes inside the nuclei and free electrons of a piece of metal produce entirely different fields than an excess of free electrons on one side of the piece of metal and a deficiency on the other; this can be shown mathematically as well as by the experiments cited below. One might also object that each pairwise force between one wire segment carrying current i(1) and many other sements would imply different dipoles associated with the same segment; Now it is true that a dipole inside one wire segment cannot at the same time be the product r(1,2)s(1) and also r(1,3)s(1) where s(1)=i(1)/c and the distance between segments 1 a
Sisyphus Posted July 10, 2009 Posted July 10, 2009 Patrick Maynard Stuart Blackett died in 1974. He did, in 1947, hypothesize a unification of gravity and electromagnetism based on observations of Earth's magnetic field, but he later proved it false himself by experiment. So that's a bit out of date. Another way to falsify it (unavailable in the 40s and 50s) would be in noting the extremely weak magnetic fields of other planets.
jsaldea12 Posted July 11, 2009 Author Posted July 11, 2009 Thank you for the info. He should not have give up because he was on the right direction. Is there not undeniable electromagnetism in the atom? So is in micro, so in macro. But pertaining to that compass experiment, unlocated in the internet. Here is the simple experiment: Remove the compass needle, then tie the needle, at the middle with thread to hang in balance, then rub the tip of south pointing needle with magnet. As you hold up the other end of thread on which hanged the needle, the south pointing needle, instead of pointing south, will point downward toward the center of earth. Regards. Jsaldea12 7.11.09
the tree Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Thank you for the info. He should not have give up because he was on the right direction.Well, obviously not. but he later proved it false himself by experiment. Is there not undeniable. electromagnetism in the atom?Yeah, along will the other three fundamental forces. So is in micro, so in macro.You're kidding, right? But pertaining to that compass experiment, unlocated in the internet. Here is the simple experiment: Remove the compass needle, then tie the needle, at the middle with thread to hang in balance, then rub the tip of south pointing needle with magnet. As you hold up the other end of thread on which hanged the needle, the south pointing needle, instead of pointing south, will point downward toward the center of earth.So, demagnetising a needle and then watching it fall? Why not use a regular needle for that and not take apart a compass in the first place? Jsaldea12 7.11.09 Really, you've been told.
Pantaz Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Here ya' go... spherical magnets... http://www.allelectronics.com/make-a-store/item/MAG-103/NEODYMIUM-SPHERE-1/2-DIAMETER/-/1.html
the tree Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 Yeah, they're not surprising, they just aren't monopoles.
John Cuthber Posted July 11, 2009 Posted July 11, 2009 This statement "He should not have give up because he was on the right direction. " does not tally with this one "he later proved it false himself by experiment" This experiment "Here is the simple experiment: Remove the compass needle, then tie the needle, at the middle with thread to hang in balance, then rub the tip of south pointing needle with magnet. As you hold up the other end of thread on which hanged the needle, the south pointing needle, instead of pointing south, will point downward toward the center of earth. " will show you about the angel of dip, but not anything important about gravity. It will give the opposite effect in the other hemisphere too. This was explained by William Gilbert in the Elizibethan era. Anyone who thinks you can make a monopole by cutting a magnet in half just doesn't have the basic understanding of electromagnetism to have a hope of making any progress on unification theories.
jsaldea12 Posted July 13, 2009 Author Posted July 13, 2009 You all are making me nervious. But please try the magnet experiment I am also looking for local makers of soft magnet, may take some times. But earth is evidence. What makes it all attraction is its shape. The only attraction in this universe is the opposite law, re UNLIKE ATTRACT. That is no different from all attraction of earth. Both attractions are one and the same. In the meantime, here is another experiment or proof: The gravitational force of the sun bends light of a background star, just like the spacetime of Dr. Einstein which had been proven to bend light. Regards. jsaldea12 7.12.09
the tree Posted July 13, 2009 Posted July 13, 2009 You all are making me nervious.What?But please try the magnet experiment I am also looking for local makers of soft magnet, may take some times.Ruining a perfectly good magnet in the hope of creating a monopole - which no-one has ever managed before in all of history? No. But earth is evidence. What makes it all attraction is its shape.No, gravity is directly proportional to inertial mass, and the extent of a gravitational force doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the objects. The only attraction in this universe is the opposite law, re UNLIKE ATTRACT.Except gravity, which as you learned when you were a kid, is an attraction between any two objects with mass. That is no different from all attraction of earth. Both attractions are one and the same.Again, gravity, being 1036 times weaker than magnetism and behaving in a completely different way, is not, at all, in any way, the same force. The gravitational force of the sun bends light of a background star, just like the spacetime of Dr. Einstein which had been proven to bend light.Yes, gravity bends light, big whoop. What do you expect that to prove?
Recommended Posts