Magnetic fields responsible for gravity

[Semjase]

Magnetic fields are responsible for gravity contrary to Einstein.

All charged particles with spin have a magnetic field around them.

If you analyze two magnetic fields closely at the same distance apart

at all possible orientations to each other you will find a net attraction

between the two, this is what is responsible for gravity not mass bending of space.

 

An experiment to confirm this you take a horizontal beam of electrons and

accelerate it to relativistic velocities in a straight line and when it

leaves the accelerator you measure its deflection angle due to gravity.

Since the spin magnetic field around the accelerated electron does not

increase, the gravitational attraction due to magnetic field does not

increase. With the increased mass of the accelerated electron the downward

accelerating speed of the electron due gravity will be proportionally decreased.

Under Einsteins relativity the increased mass would produce increased gravitational

attraction and therefore there would be greater downward acceleration from gravity than from the magnetic field

theory.

 

Further supporting evidence can be found below

 

http://www.enterprisemission.com/antigrav.html

[John Cuthber]

"If you analyze two magnetic fields closely at the same distance apart

at all possible orientations to each other you will find a net attraction"

Nope,

At best you find the magnetic equivalent to the dipole dipole interactions.

However, since that falls much more quickly than 1/r^2, we know it isn't gravity.

 

At very high energies the em force and gravitational force may be aspects of some other "unifying" force, but that's another matter.

[swansont]

Magnetic fields are responsible for gravity contrary to Einstein.

All charged particles with spin have a magnetic field around them.

Why then is gravitational force proportional to mass and not spin?

[Unity+]

Why then is gravitational force proportional to mass and not spin?

Maybe because particles spin proportional to their mass due to interaction between one mass and another?

[swansont]

Maybe because particles spin proportional to their mass due to interaction between one mass and another?

Do they? Protons, neutrons and electrons are all spin 1/2, but they don't have the same mass.

[Unity+]

Do they? Protons, neutrons and electrons are all spin 1/2, but they don't have the same mass.

Yes, but it that could account for varience in gravitational fields, for a gravitational field is not always constant, with very, very slight variance. For example, the Earth's gravitational acceleration could be at first 9.810000000000000 then it is 9.810000000000000000000000000001. Tell me if I misunderstood your point.

Edited November 20, 2012 by Unity+

[swansont]

Yes, but it that could account for varience in gravitational fields, for a gravitational field is not always constant, with very, very slight variance. For example, the Earth's gravitational acceleration could be at first 9.810000000000000 then it is 9.810000000000000000000000000001. Tell me if I misunderstood your point.

Two particles in same location (same g) feel a force proportional to their mass, not their spin. The force on a proton is 1800 times the force on an electron, because the mass is 1800 times greater. Not equal.

 

We're not talking about a small variation here, we're talking about a huge difference that should exist, but doesn't. This conjecture is DOA in a number of ways; proposing it is an immediate blow to one's credibility.

[Unity+]

Two particles in same location (same g) feel a force proportional to their mass, not their spin. The force on a proton is 1800 times the force on an electron, because the mass is 1800 times greater. Not equal.

 

We're not talking about a small variation here, we're talking about a huge difference that should exist, but doesn't. This conjecture is DOA in a number of ways; proposing it is an immediate blow to one's credibility.

You make a great point here. +1

 

But yet we are to realize why this proportionality exists between the mass and the gravitational forces of the mass. There is still room for consideration.

 

 

 

[swansont]

You make a great point here. +1

 

But yet we are to realize why this proportionality exists between the mass and the gravitational forces of the mass. There is still room for consideration.

That's completely irrelevant to the claim that gravity depends on spin. It so obviously does not that it strains credulity to find that it was proposed.

[Unity+]

That's completely irrelevant to the claim that gravity depends on spin. It so obviously does not that it strains credulity to find that it was proposed.

I just wanted to contribute to the debate.

 

But I have to give you another +1 for that.

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Meanwhile, back in reality.

We know what the average interaction between dipoles looks like and it would have the same form for magnetic dipoles as it does for electric ones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keesom_force#Dipole-dipole_interactions

Now if you actually do the maths (like Keesom did) you find that the interaction falls as the 6th power of the distance between the items.

but gravity falls as the 2nd power.

So gravity isn't a dipole-dipole interaction.

[Semjase]

Relativity was incorrect explain this.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm

 

I'd like to further add this.

 

[John Cuthber]

You don't seem to understand.

There's no need to add anything here.

You need to explain the stuff that we have already.

Gravity obeys an inverse square law.

Dipole dipole interactions don't

So gravity isn't a dipole dipole interaction.

So you were wrong to say "If you analyze two magnetic fields closely at the same distance apart at all possible orientations to each other you will find a net attraction between the two, this is what is responsible for gravity not mass bending of space."

 

 

 

The web page from 2006 says " 'If confirmed, this would be a major breakthrough,' says Tajmar, "

Has it been confirmed?

If not it's not really science.

The bloke in the video seems to have expensively and pointlessly repeated this observation.

 

Modern buildings have structural steelwork that conducts.

Edited November 20, 2012 by John Cuthber

[timo]

Actually, given that the net force between two two dipoles averaged over all orientations is zero the proposal technically does quality as an inverse square law (if you interpret "two magnetic fields" as "two magnetic dipoles"). Characterizing a zero vectorial force as a "net attractive force" seems more debatable. I'd rather call it non-repulsive and colorless. And since gravity is also non-repulsive and colorless it is obvious that gravity must come from magnetism.

[Semjase]

I think that Boyd Bushmans experiment should be repeated under controlled conditions

then we may have a conclusive result that defies known physics.