Electromagnetic Gravity

[seeger carbajal]

This brief paper describes how and why (credible causality) Sir Isaac Newton's gravity force can be described as a simple force of electromagnetic attraction; that is not only compatable with Einstein's gravity and relativity, but actually provides credible causality for it...

Seeger Carbajal

 

 

ElectromagneticGravity

1)… Introduction… Sunlight (the speed of light) takes approximately 8.3 minutes to reach the earth, so that when we see the sun in the sky, we are not seeing the sun where it is now, but we are seeing the sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago. Sunlight does not point back to the sun's true center of gravity, whereas gravity always points back to the sun's true center of gravity. So if gravity is radiation it is instantaneous, propagating so fast (infinite speed) that it reaches the earth instantly, before the sun moves in the sky…

 

The equation for Sir Isaac Newton's inverse square law of gravitation,described "gravitational radiation" that propagated at "infinite speed"; and his equation gave an accurate answer, so it was considered proof that gravity was "radiation", and that it propagated at "infinite speed". Newton lived before Charles Coulomb's inverse square law of electromagnetic force. So he could not consider that gravity could be an electromagnetic force of attraction.

 

Albert Einstein knew that gravitational radiation could not propagate at a speed faster than the speed of light. And if it propagated at the speed of light, gravity (like sunlight) would not point back to the sun's true location; and as a result the planets would drift away from the sun and leave the solar system. So he said that gravity could not be a force. And because he knew that the gravity of a massive body (star) could act as a "gravity lens", and that it was the curvature of a lens that focused light; he proposed that gravity was the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time around a body, and developed the mathematics to describe it.

 

2)… But consider what happens if you simply reverse the direction of gravity… Then gravity no longer needs time to propagate from the sun to the earth. It is always flowing in from outside the solar system, flowing past the earth to where the sun's center of gravity is now. It is only because gravity was considered to be radiation that it appeared to propagate at infinite speed. If you reverse the direction of gravity, it no longer needs to propagate at an infinite speed to be instantaneous, it is instantaneous (at any speed) because it is always passing the earth now, flowing to where the sun's center of gravity is now.

 

3)… If gravity flows in towards the sun's center of gravity, gravity must be an ordinary simple electromagnetic force of attraction of "classical physics", with "finite speed" (speed of light) in accordance with Einstein's Relativity. And note that Sir Isaac Newton's gravity equation (inverse square law) is only measuring the "strength" of gravity, not the"direction" or the "speed" of gravity. So the mathematics remain exactly the same even if you reverse the direction that gravity propagates. This is why Sir Isaac Newton's gravity equation has given us an accurate answer, even if he wrongly assumed that the sun's gravity was a form of "radiation" that propagated instantaneously at "infinite speed" to the earth... It has been the "accepted assumption that gravity radiates out from the sun", that has corrupted our logic, and has blocked our understanding of gravity, since Sir Isaac Newton published his "Principia" in 1687… Sir Isaac Newton's gravity equation gives the same correct answer for the strength of gravity, no matter how much you change its direction and speed. Once you understand this, gravity can be described as an electromagnetic force of attraction that propagates at the speed of light, so that Sir Isaac Newton's gravity equation becomes compatible with Einstein's relativity… while the mathematics remain exactly thesame… So the next question is, " how is gravity an electromagnetic force of attraction, where is the causality ?"

 

4)… If gravity is an electromagnetic force of attraction, the sun which radiates (repels) negative electromagnetic energy, must have a negative charge (in proportion to the size of its mass) that acts through its center of gravity, so that its center of gravity is a negative mono-pole . And gravitons must have a positive charge so that they are attracted to it, and flow to the sun's center of gravity. And because gravity can pass through all matter, gravitons must be tiny enough to pass through molecules and atoms, so gravitons must be positively charged quanta.

 

5)… Note that two masses are not attracting one another directly… That the negative mono- poles at the center of gravity of each mass, are attracting the same positively charged gravitons that are between them (the two masses). And as each mass pulls the same gravitons in towards its center of gravity, they are pulling themselves together. It is a 3 way attraction. The center of gravity of one mass (negative charge), is pulling in gravitons (positive charge), that are being pulled in by the other center of gravity (negative charge). The attraction between two masses is, "negative charge"- "positive charge"-"negative charge".

 

6)… Sir Isaac Newton's inverse square law of gravity is essentially identical to Charles Coulomb's inverse square law of electromagnetic attraction… The only difference is that Newton is using the sum of the masses and the distance between them squared, while Coulomb is using the sum of the charges and the distance between them squared; but both are measuring electromagnetic attraction. Newton is indirectly measuring the charge (of the masses which is in proportion to the size of the masses), while Coulomb is directly measuring the charge. Newton's inverse square law is a specialized equation to only measure the attraction of two masses, while Coulomb"s inverse square law is a universal equation to measure all kinds of electromagnetic attraction. So in this way gravity can be considered to be a force of electromagnetic attraction.

 

7)… Anti-gravity and electromagnetic Flight… The attraction between two masses is, "negative charge"- "positive charge"-"negative charge". It is by manipulating this three way attraction that we can create "anti-gravity". It is not possible to"neutralize" (change) the negatively charged mono-pole that is the earth's center of gravity. It is not possible to "neutralize" (change) the positively charged gravitons that connect the two masses. But it is possible to "neutralize" (change) the "electriccharge" of the mass of an "Electromagnetic Flying Ship"."Anti-gravity" can be created by manipulating the charge of the mass of a flying ship. The flying ship, like all other masses, normally has a negative charge so it is pulled to earth by gravitons. And if the electromagnetic flying ship has a positive charge, it will be pulled to earth directly by the negative mono-pole at the center of the earth. But if the electromagnetic flying ship has a neutral charge (by giving it a positivecharge equal to its negative charge, so that its charge is neutral), neither the gravitons nor the negative mono-pole at the center of the earth could attach to it and pull it to earth. The flying ship would be weightless, and as a result it would be lighter than air, and rise up through the atmosphere like a bubble of air rising up through a sea of water. And by manipulating thecharge of the ship, the ship could be made to rise, fall, or hover. Inaddition, the ship could be powered by electromagnetic motors consisting of a single super conducting strand (a loop), wound into a do-nut shape, so that it creates a whirlpool shaped negative electric field that sucks up positively charged protons, focuses them into a spinning beam, and shoots them out the other side.

 

8)… Millikan's oil drop experiment... In1897, the British physicist J.J.Thomson established that electricity consisted of negatively charged particles (electrons). In 1909, an American, Robert Millikan measured their charge. Using a perfume atomizer, he sprayed tiny drops of oil into a transparent chamber. At the top and bottom were metal plates hooked to a battery, making the top plate positive and the bottom plate negative. Since each droplet picked up a slight charge of static electricity as it traveled through the air, their speed of descent could be controlled by altering the voltage on the plates. When this electrical force matched the force of gravity; a droplet would hover in midair, "like a brilliant star on a black background". Millikan observed one drop after another, varying the voltage and noting the effect. After many repetitions he concluded that the charge could only assume certain fixed values. The smallest difference between these fixed values was the charge of a single electron.

 

Note that, "when this electrical force matched the force of gravity,a droplet would hover in midair"… Millikan was neutralizing the force of gravity (creating anti-gravity), by using a battery and two metal plates to create an electrical force that was equal and opposite to the gravity force. If Millikan could neutralize the force of gravity by opposing it with a simple electrical force, this can be considered evidence that gravity is a simple electrical force of classical physics… Millikan's oil drop experiment shows that it is possible to create artificial gravity in space, and that it is possible to create zero gravity on earth.

 

9)… How the gravity fields of binary black holes can communicate... Because gravity is now an electromagnetic force that flows in from outside of the "event horizon" of a "black hole", to its "center of gravity"; its gravity field is not "trapped inside". The gravity field of each binary black hole is in continuous communication with the orbiting gravity field of the other blackhole, because their gravity fields are always outside, even though their masses are "hidden" inside behind their event horizons. Reversing the directionof gravity solves the mystery of how the gravity fields of "binary blackholes" can communicate from behind their event horizons.

 

10)… What is a galactic black hole...? A galaxy is rotating as a single unit, and orbiting in its galaxy cluster as a single unit, so we can consider a "galaxy" as a "single unit of mass". So as a "single-body",it is the "collective mass of all the stars and other matter in a galaxy", that determines the "gravity of the galaxy" as a "single-body". Each star in a galaxy has its own gravity acting from its own center of gravity, and in addition a "galaxy" is a "larger unity" with its own separate gravity acting through its "galactic center of gravity". Like any other mass, it is the size of this "collective galactic-mass", and its charge in proportion to the size of its mass, acting through the negative mono-pole at its center ofgravity, that determines the strength of the "gravity pull" of the galaxy's center of gravity..

 

Quote from the International Herald Tribune, Thursday, September 19, 2002, page 3…"Van der Marel and a team of astronomers used the Hubble telescope tofind a black hole in the center of globular cluster M15, a star swarm 32,000 light-years away in the constellation Pegasus. By measuring how fast stars near the core of the cluster were moving, Van der Marel and Joris Gerssen, also at the Hubble Institute, determined that a black hole 4,000 times as massive asthe Earth's sun must be lurking at the cluster's heart... R. Michael Rich and another team used Hubble to find a 20,000 solar-mass black hole in a muchlarger globular cluster, known as G1, in the Andromeda galaxy 2.2 millionlight-years from Earth. In both cases, the central black hole represents about 0.5 percent of the mass of the host cluster. That same ratio holds true for galaxies and their super-massive black holes".

 

Note that the "mass of the galactic black holes" is consistently 0.5 percent of the "mass of its host galaxy". This strongly suggests that it is the collective galactic-mass of the host galaxy alone that is "generating" or"inducing" the "electromagnetic gravity attraction" that is the galactic black hole. A "galactic black hole" may not be a separate "massive body" or even an "object". The "gravity-pull of a galactic black hole" may be simply the "electromagnetic gravity-pull of the entire galaxy-mass" itself,acting through the host galaxies "center of gravity" which is a massive negative mono-pole.

 

11)… Is there a gravity spectrum…? Once gravity is unified with electromagnetism as a force of electromagnetic"attraction"; and we compare it to the "electromagnetic energy spectrum" which is the force of "repulsion" (radiation), we are faced with the question, "Is there an electromagnetic gravity spectrum ?" Symmetry" and the "conservation of energy" (static and kinetic) require it.

 

12)… A gravity lens and Einstein's gravity…? Something in 3-dimensional space must be "moving" or "changing" in the space of time to be considered 4-dimensional space-time. Gravitons moving in a 3-dimensional space, are 4-dimensional space-time. A "gravity lens" is an effect caused by the electromagnetic "drag" of moving flowing (positively charged) gravitons converging in from every direction towards a star's center of gravity; creating a curved gravity field with a continuously shrinking sphere shaped geometry, that is pulling the light (negatively charged photons) and bending its direction in towards the "center of gravity", focusing it like a lens. This is the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time that is the gravity ofEinstein.

 

13)… Conclusion... Gravity is a force of finite speed (speedof light) that is propagated by gravitons that are "positive quanta"; that flow in towards a center of gravity because it is a negative "mono-pole" and they are attracted to it. Note that two masses are not attracting one another directly. That the negative mono-poles at the center of gravity of each mass are attracting the same positively charged gravitons that are between them (the two masses). And as each mass pulls the same gravitons in towards its center of gravity, they are pulling themselves together. It is a 3 way attraction. The center of gravity of one mass (negative charge), is pulling in gravitons (positive charge), that are being pulled in by the other center of gravity (negative charge). The attraction between two masses is, "negative charge"-"positive charge"- "negative charge". And thus gravity can be described as a simple electromagnetic force of attraction of classical physics.

 

Gravity as a force of electromagnetic attraction of classical physics , in no way contradicts Einstein's Relativity, but supports it by showing that gravity propagates at the speed of light; and more importantly by providing"credible causality" for the "curvature of the 4-dimensionalspace-time", that is the gravity of Einstein. Explaining how it is created and continuously updated. Einstein admitted that he did not "fully understand" gravity, and although he was able to describe the "curvature of his 4-dimensional space-time gravity" mathematically, he was never able to describe any credible "causality" that created or continuously updated the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time, as a heavenly body moved through space... Einstein was correct when he said that gravity could not be a force that propagated at infinite speed. But because he accepted the scientific wisdom of his day that said that gravity was radiation,he based his logic on a false assumption. So he was mistaken when he said that gravity could not be a force. His description of gravity as the curvature of 4-dimensional space-time was unnecessary, but correct in as far as he himself described it. In any case, it is necessary to understand that gravity can be described as a simple electromagnetic force of classical physics, in order to understand anti-gravity. So that one day we may fly at electromagneticspeeds; quickly and effortlessly moving around the solar system, and perhaps sending expeditions aboard star ships to explore our galaxy.

Edited September 13, 2012 by seeger carbajal

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

seeger carbajal,

We like to try and keep our mainstream science forums streamlined so as to avoid the confusion of our newer members and because organisation is cool. Since your post does not, to my view, represent general scientific consensus at this point in time, I've moved your thread to the Speculations forum.

Please be aware that in addition to our regular forum rules, the Speculations forum has an additional set of rules that we ask you to observe while posting here.

If you have any queries about this action, please feel free to use the report feature (little yellow triangle on the bottom of this and every other post) or to PM staff directly. do not respond to this mod note within the thread.

[Tres Juicy]

Millikan's oil drop experiment shows that it is possible to create artificial gravity in space, and that it is possible to create zero gravity on earth.

 

 

No, Millikans experiment has not in any way replicated or created "anti gravity".

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment

 

Also, if gravity were an electromagnetic force moving toward the center of gravity of objects (rather than eminating from them) due to positive and negative charges this would be observable. If all objects were (-) and all gravitons (+) then objects themselves would repel each other at certain distances.

 

Not to mention that relativity already explains why gravitation is instant, in that space is curved around massive objects...

[swansont]

ElectromagneticGravity

1)… Introduction… Sunlight (the speed of light) takes approximately 8.3 minutes to reach the earth, so that when we see the sun in the sky, we are not seeing the sun where it is now, but we are seeing the sun where it was 8.3 minutes ago. Sunlight does not point back to the sun's true center of gravity, whereas gravity always points back to the sun's true center of gravity. So if gravity is radiation it is instantaneous, propagating so fast (infinite speed) that it reaches the earth instantly, before the sun moves in the sky…

This is trivially addressed in General Relativity, without resorting to a superluminal interaction.

 

7)… Anti-gravity and electromagnetic Flight… The attraction between two masses is, "negative charge"- "positive charge"-"negative charge". It is by manipulating this three way attraction that we can create "anti-gravity". It is not possible to"neutralize" (change) the negatively charged mono-pole that is the earth's center of gravity. It is not possible to "neutralize" (change) the positively charged gravitons that connect the two masses. But it is possible to "neutralize" (change) the "electriccharge" of the mass of an "Electromagnetic Flying Ship"."Anti-gravity" can be created by manipulating the charge of the mass of a flying ship. The flying ship, like all other masses, normally has a negative charge so it is pulled to earth by gravitons. And if the electromagnetic flying ship has a positive charge, it will be pulled to earth directly by the negative mono-pole at the center of the earth. But if the electromagnetic flying ship has a neutral charge (by giving it a positivecharge equal to its negative charge, so that its charge is neutral), neither the gravitons nor the negative mono-pole at the center of the earth could attach to it and pull it to earth. The flying ship would be weightless, and as a result it would be lighter than air, and rise up through the atmosphere like a bubble of air rising up through a sea of water. And by manipulating thecharge of the ship, the ship could be made to rise, fall, or hover. Inaddition, the ship could be powered by electromagnetic motors consisting of a single super conducting strand (a loop), wound into a do-nut shape, so that it creates a whirlpool shaped negative electric field that sucks up positively charged protons, focuses them into a spinning beam, and shoots them out the other side.

Well then, do this, and then your conjecture will have some weight to it.

 

8)… Millikan's oil drop experiment... In1897, the British physicist J.J.Thomson established that electricity consisted of negatively charged particles (electrons). In 1909, an American, Robert Millikan measured their charge. Using a perfume atomizer, he sprayed tiny drops of oil into a transparent chamber. At the top and bottom were metal plates hooked to a battery, making the top plate positive and the bottom plate negative. Since each droplet picked up a slight charge of static electricity as it traveled through the air, their speed of descent could be controlled by altering the voltage on the plates. When this electrical force matched the force of gravity; a droplet would hover in midair, "like a brilliant star on a black background". Millikan observed one drop after another, varying the voltage and noting the effect. After many repetitions he concluded that the charge could only assume certain fixed values. The smallest difference between these fixed values was the charge of a single electron.

 

Note that, "when this electrical force matched the force of gravity,a droplet would hover in midair"… Millikan was neutralizing the force of gravity (creating anti-gravity), by using a battery and two metal plates to create an electrical force that was equal and opposite to the gravity force. If Millikan could neutralize the force of gravity by opposing it with a simple electrical force, this can be considered evidence that gravity is a simple electrical force of classical physics… Millikan's oil drop experiment shows that it is possible to create artificial gravity in space, and that it is possible to create zero gravity on earth.

What of the drops that fell no matter what the voltage was, because they picked up no electrical charge? Your hypothesis seems to say these would not exist.

[seeger carbajal]

No, Millikans experiment has not in any way replicated or created "anti gravity".

 

http://en.wikipedia....drop_experiment

 

Also, if gravity were an electromagnetic force moving toward the center of gravity of objects (rather than eminating from them) due to positive and negative charges this would be observable. If all objects were (-) and all gravitons (+) then objects themselves would repel each other at certain distances.

 

Not to mention that relativity already explains why gravitation is instant, in that space is curved around massive objects...

 

..............................................................................................................

If Millikan can make an oil drop hover, rise or fall… that is anti-gravity, no matter what you say.

 

 

 

Two masses with a negative charge do not repel one another because the repulsion is one electromagnetic (repulsion) force. Whereas the gravity between 2 masses is a three way attraction; negative charge, positive charge, negative charge; so that gravity is stronger because it is two electromagnetic (attraction) forces.

 

 

 

The sun is a good example of negative charge repelling negative charge… why would the sun repel (radiate) the electromagnetic energy spectrum which has a negative charge, unless the sun itself had a negative charge.

 

 

 

Einstein's gravity that is the curvature of space, has no credible causality that creates or updates the curvature of space around a massive body… also consider that the gravity of a body attracts and is attracted by every other mass in the universe… how could the local curvature of space around a mass attract and be attracted by every other mass in the universe.

 

 

 

And the silly drawing with the big ball making an indentation in a rubber sheet, while the little ball rolls down; only works if you have Sir Isaac Newton's gravity under the rubber sheet to pull the balls down. Otherwise the balls would drift of into space instead. It also ignores the fact that when two masses attract one another, it can't be "down hill" in both directions.

 

 

 

I don't accept physics theories on blind faith. I want credible logic and causality.

Edited September 13, 2012 by seeger carbajal

[swansont]

..............................................................................................................

If Millikan can make an oil drop hover, rise or fall… that is anti-gravity, no matter what you say.

emphasis added

 

I don't accept physics theories on blind faith. I want credible logic and causality.

If you demand logic then you have to avoid using logical fallacies, such as argument from incredulity.

[seeger carbajal]

This is trivially addressed in General Relativity, without resorting to a superluminal interaction.

 

 

Well then, do this, and then your conjecture will have some weight to it.

 

 

What of the drops that fell no matter what the voltage was, because they picked up no electrical charge? Your hypothesis seems to say these would not exist.

 

 

 

this is the only comment worth responding to:

 

Millikan was canceling the force of gravity with a simple electrical force, implying that gravity is a simple electrical force. If gravity was the curvature of space, would a simple electrical force cancel it... No!

 

emphasis added

 

 

If you demand logic then you have to avoid using logical fallacies, such as argument from incredulity.

 

I don't argue, it is a waste of time and energy. I just state my position, and clarify it when necessary. What I believe is my business, what you believe is your business and does not concern me. If you want to tell me something, tell me logically why gravity cannot be a simple electromagnetic force of attraction. I know what relativity and quantum physics say, so you don't need to tell me what the book says.

[swansont]

this is the only comment worth responding to:

 

…

 

I don't argue, it is a waste of time and energy. I just state my position, and clarify it when necessary. What I believe is my business, what you believe is your business and does not concern me. If you want to tell me something, tell me logically why gravity cannot be a simple electromagnetic force of attraction. I know what relativity and quantum physics say, so you don't need to tell me what the book says.

I can tell you right now that this attitude isn't going to cut it, as it runs contrary to the rules you agreed to follow when you joined the site. Check for yourself.

 

 

Millikan was canceling the force of gravity with a simple electrical force, implying that gravity is a simple electrical force. If gravity was the curvature of space, would a simple electrical force cancel it... No!

I can hold a chunk of some mass out in space with my hand and "cancel" gravity. Does that imply that gravity is a huge hand? I am currently sitting in a chair, "canceling" gravity. Is gravity a huge chair? That's where your "logic" points.

[ACG52]

I've got a little desk toy which floats a ball on a stream of air. Anti-gravity? I think not.

 

Two masses with a negative charge do not repel one another because the repulsion is one electromagnetic (repulsion) force.

 

This is simply flat out wrong.

 

In fact, the entire post runs contrary to what is well known and understood about electromagnetism and how gravity operates.

 

In short, it's just another crank repetition of a long debunked idea.

[ukgazzer]

I`m sure that most people have accepted that gravity is quite likely to be electromagnetic in origin,but not in the way you describe. Anti-gravity may well be impossible. There is also no need for positively charged gravitons and negative monopoles in any theory that describes gravity in terms of EM - 'All' that is required is the formulation of the relevant equations and the acceptance that common phenomena can equally well be described in a different way- We really need a new Maxwell or Minkowski to come along!

[swansont]

I`m sure that most people have accepted that gravity is quite likely to be electromagnetic in origin

If true, very few of these people are scientists. However, popularity has no bearing on validity or veracity.

[ACG52]

I`m sure that most people have accepted that gravity is quite likely to be electromagnetic in origin

 

Not anyone who paid attention in high school science class.

[Tres Juicy]

 

 

And the silly drawing with the big ball making an indentation in a rubber sheet, while the little ball rolls down; only works if you have Sir Isaac Newton's gravity under the rubber sheet to pull the balls down. Otherwise the balls would drift of into space instead. It also ignores the fact that when two masses attract one another, it can't be "down hill" in both directions.

 

 

 

It seems you have rather missed the point of this analogy. The rubber sheet in this instance is space, with the curvature as gravity. It's not possible to "drift" off of the sheet, because the sheet is space.

 

You certainly don't need gravity acting under the sheet...

 

Also, the is no "down hill" although gravity is mutually attractive.

[ukgazzer]

Mr ACG52 and Mr swansont will you please look at the facts before making such remarks.People submitting comments to this forum generally have an interest,and some grasp of science.The most common topics that come up again and again in this and similar fora seem to be either about the nature of black holes or whether gravity comes from EM. Most proposals seem to be flawed and for good reason,while others are debated and end up in circular arguments.Some people reply civilly and some people -who evidently have more fixed beliefs- reply dismissively. I did start a topic about 'science is all about religion' and yet again we see it is.

[swansont]

Mr ACG52 and Mr swansont will you please look at the facts before making such remarks.

If you think my statement is not factual, then feel free to rebut it in some meaningful way. Actual statistics, perhaps, of people who thinks that gravity is electrical, and whether they are scientists, or physicists.

 

People submitting comments to this forum generally have an interest,and some grasp of science.The most common topics that come up again and again in this and similar fora seem to be either about the nature of black holes or whether gravity comes from EM. Most proposals seem to be flawed and for good reason,while others are debated and end up in circular arguments.Some people reply civilly and some people -who evidently have more fixed beliefs- reply dismissively. I did start a topic about 'science is all about religion' and yet again we see it is.

Your attempt to smear science as a religion matters how, exactly? Claiming some idea that has been rejected by science is evidence of religion is a colossal failure of logic — using the dismissal as evidence begs the question. To be valid, the idea in question has to be established as being true, and that is simply not the case. But this is a discussion for that thread, not this one.

[ACG52]

Mr ACG52 and Mr swansont will you please look at the facts before making such remarks.

 

The facts are that anyone who stayed awake during high school science classes would know better.

[seeger carbajal]

I can tell you right now that this attitude isn't going to cut it, as it runs contrary to the rules you agreed to follow when you joined the site. Check for yourself.

 

 

 

I can hold a chunk of some mass out in space with my hand and "cancel" gravity. Does that imply that gravity is a huge hand? I am currently sitting in a chair, "canceling" gravity. Is gravity a huge chair? That's where your "logic" points.

 

 

 

Thanks for your comments; you have reminded me of something that I forgot to say about gravity.But first let me reply to your comment.

 

Anti-gravity is levitating without a physical support (and a stream of air is also a physical support). When you hold a mass in your hand, you are exerting a physical force equal to gravity… when you sit in a chair, the chair is exerting a physical force equal to gravity… Millikan was using asimple electrical force equal to gravity to hold an oil drop suspended in theair, and by increasing or decreasing the electrical force could raise or lowerthe oil drop. So I say it was anti-gravity, and that if a simple (negative) electrical force can cancel the pull of gravity, gravity must be a simple (positive) electrical force.

Now let me add what you have reminded me of.

If we hold an object, weare exerting an upward force on the object that is equal to the force of gravity pulling it down. Relative to the gravity, the object is moving up at the same speed that the gravity is flowing down. When we release the object, itis still exerting that upwards force equal to the flow of the gravity. This is why an object starts falling at about 32.174 feet per second squared no matter how high or low we drop it from, even though the strength of gravity is increasing as it converges towards the earth's center of gravity…

 

And now this is my reply to all the "curved space" comments.

 

For more than three hundred years, Sir Isaac Newton's inverse square law of gravity has given an accurate answer for the strength of gravity, because it only measures the strength of gravity, not the direction or speed of gravity. This shows that gravity can be accurately calculated by the inverse square law. Also consider that NASA has used the inverse square law for more than forty years to explore our solar system. If the strength of gravity can be accurately calculated by the inverse square law, gravity can be accurately described and calculated as an electromagnetic force of attraction that propagates at the speed of light. You can huff and puff and ridicule it all you want, but you cannot logically refute it. All you can say is that when you studied physics, that you were told that gravity was the curvature of space. I am not saying that Einstein or his mathematics are wrong, you can calculate the strength of gravity either way. But if you ever want to understand anti-gravity (or the universe), you will have to consider gravity to be an electromagnetic force of attraction.

Edited September 28, 2012 by seeger carbajal

[swansont]

Thanks for your comments; you have reminded me of something that I forgot to say about gravity.But first let me reply to your comment.

 

Anti-gravity is levitating without a physical support (and a stream of air is also a physical support). When you hold a mass in your hand, you are exerting a physical force equal to gravity… when you sit in a chair, the chair is exerting a physical force equal to gravity… Millikan was using asimple electrical force equal to gravity to hold an oil drop suspended in theair, and by increasing or decreasing the electrical force could raise or lowerthe oil drop. So I say it was anti-gravity, and that if a simple (negative) electrical force can cancel the pull of gravity, gravity must be a simple (positive) electrical force.

Now let me add what you have reminded me of.

If we hold an object, weare exerting an upward force on the object that is equal to the force of gravity pulling it down. Relative to the gravity, the object is moving up at the same speed that the gravity is flowing down. When we release the object, itis still exerting that upwards force equal to the flow of the gravity. This is why an object starts falling at about 32.174 feet per second squared no matter how high or low we drop it from, even though the strength of gravity is increasing as it converges towards the earth's center of gravity…

Utter failure of basic logic. "An electrostatic force exists" cannot be (validly) convoluted into "all forces are electrostatic".

 

In the Millikan experiment, some drops do not become charged, and yet they fall. Why? If gravity is electrostatic, uncharged objects should not be attracted to the earth. Simply attaching a grounding wire to one's self should give you the ability to float. Trivially and laughably wrong.

[Tres Juicy]

http://xkcd.com/895/

[MigL]

Hey Seeger Carbajal, maybe you should remind Swansont and ACG52 That a shair or a hand is mostly empty space and is in fact made 'solid' by electromagnetic forces between atoms, so ultimately it is still electromagnetism counteracting gravity.

 

No seriously, the reason we get so many 'gravity is just electromagnetism' posts, is that obsessive fanatical cranks keep on coming back to the same inane subject and will not take reason for an answer.

 

And incidentally the reason things always start falling at slow speed and accelerate to faster and faster speeds is due to the principle of least action, where the Lagrangian of the system ( kinetic minus potential energy ) is minimised. This follows from symmetry considerations. Massless objects such as photons, that don't obey this principle ( but rather the principle of least time ) do not 'accelerate' to c, rather they start moving at c as soon as they come into being.