Photon→Energy→Mass→Gravity?

[swansont]

Earth has a magnetic field. The evidence is my compass.

 

The earth precesses. The evidence is the Foucalt pendulum.

 

So the sun is emitting particles' date=' we feel its warmth.

 

If they interact with the earth's magnetic field, somehow, then umm

 

well then umm

 

they can rock the earth.

 

Make it wobble.

 

Make it precess, just like ummm

in an hydrogen atom...

 

The Zeeman effect.

 

How is that for evidence?[/quote']

 

I am a man.

 

Elvis Presley was a man.

 

Therefore, I am Elvis.

 

 

 

The Foucalt pendulum shows that the earth rotates. I don't think anyone has used it to show precession.

[swansont]

So the two dates to remember are:

 

June 21st' date=' and December 21st.

 

Count the months between them

July 21st

August 21st

September 21st

October 21st

November 21st

December 21st

 

Exactly six.[/quote']

 

What's your point?

[J.C.MacSwell]

Let the theory be that magnetic monopoles exist.

 

Therefore' date=' it is not the case that:

 

[math'] \nabla \bullet \vec B = 0 [/math]

 

Where B denotes magnetic field.

 

That is exactly what I was thinking of doing. Writing gravity as electromagnetic force. Change the constants. Something like that.

 

I think this because of the Van Allen belt, and the precession of

this planet.

 

Regards

 

 

I will come up with something more mathematical in a moment.

 

The earth is already tilted. Here is the angle:

 

Earth is tilted in the following RANGE:

 

[math] 22^{\circ} \ \ \text{to} \ \ 24.5^{\circ} [/math]

 

Here is my source.

 

Notice the following statement:

 

 

 

 

This requires a lot of thought to understand, a starchart will help to understand it.

 

 

Here is an article on the tropic of cancer

 

Paraphrased slightly from wikipedia:

 

The tropic of cancer (latin for crab), is one of five circles of latitude that mark maps of the earth. The exact positition of this line of latitude that runs parallel to the earth's equator, is: 23 degrees, 26 minutes, and 22 seconds. What is special about this line of latitude is this:

 

It is the farthest northern latitude at which the sun can appear directly overhead.

 

Regions of this earth, which lie above the tropic of cancer, are in what is called the "Northern temperate zone." This zone runs from the tropic of cancer up to the arctic circle, located at 66.5 degrees north latitude.

 

The southern temperate zone, runs from the tropic of capricorn (located at 23 degrees, 26 minutes, 22 seconds south latitude of this planet, all the way to the Antarctic circle.

 

So, now here is the thing:

 

In order to understand this, it helps to imagine yourself in one of the countries that the line of caner runs through.

 

I know some geography. Consider Africa.

 

Along the cusp, there is Ivory Coast, there is Ghana, Nigeria, I think in that order.

 

And from memory, the point (0,0) is just below Nigeria, i think six degress south or something like that, its just off the coast of Africa, in the water. It might be 6 degrees below Ghana actually.

 

So we need one of the countries further north, from a map...

 

There is a mountain range lying along the tropic of cancer, called the Ahaggar mountains. This mountain range lies right along the border of three different African countries, Niger, Algeria, and Mali.''

 

So suppose we are situatued way high up in those mountains, on June 21st. here is what will happen. At 12:00 noon, the sun will be directly over our heads. All we have to do, is look straight up into the air, and we will see the sun.

 

Afterwards, in order to have the same effect happen, we have to begin walking directly towards the south pole.

 

Now, after some period of time passes, the same effect will occur at the tropic of capricorn. I will have the date in a moment.

 

Ok, here are the facts:

 

 

Definition: The summer solstice is defined to be the day at which the sun reaches its highest point above the equator, as the earth wobbles in its slightly elliptical orbit about the sun. The exact line of latititude is 23 degrees, 26 minutes, 22 seconds north latitude, and the exact day of this is June 21st (though this varies slightly).

 

 

Definition: The winter solstice is defined to be the day at which the sun reaches its lowest point below the equator, as the earth wobbles in its slightly elliptical orbit about the sun. The exact line of latidude is 23 degrees, 26 minutes, 22 seconds south latitude, and the exact day of this is December 21st. (though this varies slightly).

 

 

So the two dates to remember are:

 

June 21st, and December 21st.

 

Count the months between them

July 21st

August 21st

September 21st

October 21st

November 21st

December 21st

 

Exactly six.

 

What does wobble have to do with it? The axis orientation is very consistent.

[Johnny5]

I am a man.

 

Elvis Presley was a man.

 

Therefore' date=' I am Elvis. [/quote']

 

non-sequitur

 

Let A denote the set of x, such that |x is a man|=1.

 

So the following statement is true:

 

[math] \forall x[(x \in A) \ \ \Rightarrow (|\text{x is a man}|=1)] [/math]

 

Using temporal set theory, the number of elements of A can vary in time. It can range from zero, to whatever it has been, or will become. At moments in time for which it is zero, A is equivalent to the empty set. By direct observation, A is non empty, because I personally am a man. In other words, I currently am certain that the statement "there is at least one man" has a truth value of 1.

 

Suppose that right now, there are only three men in existence, denote them by M1,M2,M3.

 

Now, consider the following subset of {M1,M2,M3}

 

B={M1,M3}

 

investigate each statement one at a time...

 

If M1 is an element of B then M1 is a man.

If M2 is an element of B then M2 is a man.

If M3 is an element of B then M3 is a man.

 

Here is the definition of the Philonian conditional:

 

XY if X then Y

00 1

01 1

10 0

11 1

 

|M1 is an element of B|=1

|M2 is an element of B|=0

|M3 is an element of B|=1

 

We already know that:

 

|M1 is a man|=1

|M2 is a man|=1

|M3 is a man|=1

 

Now, investigate the following conditional statements

 

if |M1 is an element of B| then |M1 is a man|

Using the definition of the Philonian conditional, the statement above is true.

 

if |M2 is an element of B| then |M2 is a man|

Using the definition of the Philonian conditional, the statement above is true.

 

if |M3 is an element of B| then |M2 is a man|

Using the definition of the Philonian conditional, the statement above is true.

 

Therefore, the following statement is true:

 

For any x, if x is an element of B then x is a man.

 

But there is a man who isn't an element of set B, namely the individual M2.

 

In order to say that set A contains all men we have to say this:

 

[math] \forall x [ (|\text{x is a man}|=1) \ \ \Rightarrow (x \in A) ] [/math]

 

Now, there are things in existence which are not men.

 

Let [math] \Xi [/math] denote the set of things that exist that aren't men.

 

To say that A contains only men, we have to say...

 

[math] \forall x [ (x \in A) \ \ \Rightarrow (|\text{x is a man}|=1)] [/math]

 

Thus, to define the set of all men, and only men, we need to use the double arrow, as follows:

 

[math] \forall x [ (x \in A) \Leftrightarrow (|\text{x is a man}|=1)] [/math]

 

The domain of discourse, is the union of A with set Chi. That is:

 

[math] \mathcal{U} \equiv A \cup \Xi [/math]

 

And since temporal set theory is being used, u is an element of U if and only if u exists.

 

Moving on...

 

Now, analysis of the following argument...

 

[math] \text{Premise 1: I am a man} [/math]

[math] \text{Premise 2: Elvis Presley was a man} [/math]

[math] \therefore \text{I am Elvis} [/math]

 

In order to prove this argument is invalid, it suffices to find one counterexample.

 

Counterexample: I am a man and Elvis Presely was a man and I am not Elvis.

 

 

The Foucalt pendulum shows that the earth rotates. I don't think anyone has used it to show precession.

 

The pendulum itself precesses' date=' here is a video I was looking at recently of it:

 

Precession of a Foucalt Pendulum

 

Follow the explanation sequentially. The explanation begins by saying that the pendulum has just been released from rest. Now, the camera is attached rigidly to the earth, and offset slightly from the unique plane which the pendulum first swings through.

 

Let us begin to define some frames. First, since the pendulum is released from rest, there is an angle between the wire, and the pivot point, and this angle lies in the original plane which the pendulum swings in.

 

Let us define this angle to be theta.

 

Now, we will define at least two reference frames, during this analysis.

 

One will be attached to the pendulum, the other to the earth.

 

Now, the amplitude of the pendulum decreases in time, and thus the intial theta is greater than later theta values. Let us use the subscript i, to denote the initial theta value. So we have...

 

[math] \text{initial sweep angle} = \Theta_i [/math]

 

Now, they don't specify this angle, but we can make a rough approximation.

 

It looks to me like the diameter of that circle, above which the pendulum is swinging, is about three meters long.

 

Now, the length of the wire is constant in time, and they don't specify that either, but... we can approximate the time of one swing, from the video.

 

Now, the center of inertia of that ball traces out a curved path, in the rest frame of the earth. But, the swing is only a tiny fraction of a full circle, so lets approximate this tiny arc, using a straight line, to keep the math simple. So after one swing of the pendulum, we can analyse an isosceles triangle.

 

The base of this triangle is 3 meters.

The sides of this triangle are the unknown string length L.

And the apex angle of this isosceles triangle is:

 

[math] 2 \Theta_i [/math]

 

Let there be an axis of one of the frames containing the center of inertia of the earth, and the pivot point. Thus, these two points are at rest in this frame, let us call this frame, frame S. So frame S is an earth frame, a frame of reference permanently attached to the earth.

 

Now, this experiment is taking place in Sydney Australia, this says.

 

Now, Sydney is in the southern hemisphere, that means that it lies below the earth's equator. I'm no cartographer, but I have used maps to set up communications links, so I have looked at a map of the earth more than once.

 

I would venture to guess that the coordinates of Sydney Australia are...

 

Well I know where 0 degrees latitude, 0 longitude is, Its right off the coast of Nigeria, about six degrees southerly, in the Atlantic.

 

Actually, is south of Ghana, I just looked, and I eyeballed it from the map as about six degrees of latitude. So, the African country Ghana, lies six degrees north latitude above the point (0,0). In other words, the coordinates of Accra Ghana are (6,0). The line of 0 degrees longitude is called the prime meridian, and actually passes through Greenwich England. Which is about 54 degrees north latitude, something like that

 

The capital of Ghana is Map with Accra Ghana on it by the way.

 

Now the Antarctic circle runs east/west, at 66.5 degrees south latitude. Since it's extremely warm in Australia, this is too low.

 

I am going to approximate Sydney at...

 

30 degrees south latitude, and 100 degrees east longitude.

 

So now, we just need a world map, to check my guess.

 

World Atlas

 

Map showing Sydney Australia bottom right

 

From the map, we see that Sydney Australia, is located at 34 degrees south latitude, and approximately 145 degrees east longitude.

 

Keep in mind that the point (0,0) zero lat, zero long, is located six degrees south of the Capital of Ghana, which is Accra, in the Atlantic ocean. Now through that point (0,0) there are two lines, one is called the equator, and the other is called the prime meridian, which meet at right angles.

 

The line that runs through the north pole, and south pole of the planet, is called the prime meridian, and this line, actually a circle really, passes through Greenwich England, and from memory, Greenwich England is as far north as New York, and New York is around 55 degrees north latitude, which means that the coordinates of England are around 54 degrees north latitude, and zero degrees east longitude.

 

To give you some perspective, the Arctic circle is located at 66.5 degrees north latitude, and the Antarctic circle is located at 66.5 degrees south latitude. There are also the tropics.

 

The tropic of Cancer is located at 23 degrees, 26 minutes, 22 seconds north latitude, and this circle runs parallel to the equator. The equator is a great circle with zero latitude, and runs along the buldge of the earth. The reason there is a buldge there, is because the earth is spinning, and the axis of rotation passes through the earth's poles.

 

Ok so...

 

There is also the tropic of Capricorn, which is a great circle which runs east/west, at 23 degrees 26 minutes 22 seconds south latitude.

 

Now, from memory, the tropic of cancer crosses the border of three countries in North Africa. I remember them using NAM, like in vietnam. The three countries are:

 

Niger

Algeria

Mali

 

There is a point where these three countries meet, and there is a mountain range there known as, the Haggar mountains.

 

 

What is significant about this location is the following:

 

On June 21st of every year, at 12:00 noon, if you look straight up into the air, then you will see the sun.

 

Six months later, if you do the same thing, anywhere on the great circle called the tropic of Capricorn, located at 23 degrees 26 minutes 22 seconds south latitude, you will likewise see the sun directly overhead, at 12:00 in the afternoon.

 

Ok so...

 

Back to the Foucalt pendulum.

 

We now know where Sydney Australia is located. Its coordinates are:

 

34 degrees south of the equator

144 degrees east of the prime meridian

 

So this is where the experiment on Foucalt's pendulum is taking place.

 

Now, in the video, you can see that the pendulum swings roughly 3 meters, and it does so in approximately 3 seconds. So a good guess for its initial speed is one meter per second.

 

Now, I have no idea how much the pendulum bob weighs.

 

But ok, so there are two frames to focus on, one which is fixed to the earth, and a second one which is fixed to the pendulum bob. We can switch back and forth between reference frames if necessary.

 

The origin of frame S, is the center of inertia of the earth.

The origin of frame S`, is the center of inertia of the pendulum bob.

 

So lets continue to follow the explanation given along with the video.

 

Ok, let me define the XY plane of frame S, as follows:

 

The first swing of the pendulum lies in the XY plane of frame S.

 

Now the camera is fixed in frame S, and you can see the handrail on the stairs in the background, at the same location in S, exactly one hour after the pendulum was released.

 

Now, the camera isn't actually lying in the XY plane of frame S, it is slightly offset. That is why you can see the pendulum swing at a slight angle in the first video, the moment the pendulum is released, but this angle is practically zero, relative to the XY plane. If the camera were moved over just a few inches, then the pendulum wire would be seen to go directly away from the camera, and come directly back. This is not exactly the case, because the camera is slightly outside of the XY plane of frame S.

 

But the important phenomenon to be noticed in this experiment, is that exactly one hour later, the center of inertia of the pendulum bob can now be clearly seen swinging outside of the XY plane. On the first swing of the pendulum, the center of inertia of the pendulum bob was in the XY plane.

 

The bob goes back and forth every six seconds, which means that after one hour has passed, that the pendulum swung back and forth 3600/6 = 600 times.

 

To understand this calculation, it helps to understand units.

 

There are sixty seconds per minute, and there are sixty minutes per hour, so the number of seconds in one hour is given by:

 

[math] \frac{60s}{m} \cdot \frac{60m}{h} = \frac{3600s}{h} [/math]

 

Units of minutes cancel out, and so you are just left with units of seconds per hour.

 

Now, the period of the pendulum T, is the time taken for the pendulum to go all the way back and forth. And by analysis of the video, it takes the pendulum 3 seconds to move away, and 3 seconds to come back, so the period T of the pendulum is 6 seconds.

 

So there are six seconds per swing.

 

Let n denote the number of swings per hour, n is what we want to solve for.

 

n swings per hour = x swings per second*3600 seconds per hour.

 

[math] n = \frac{1 swing}{6 seconds} \cdot \frac{3600s}{h} = \frac{3600}{6} = 600 \frac{\text{swings}}{\text{hour}} [/math]

 

Now, the second video shows the state of the universe one hour after the pendulum was released. You can clearly see from the video, that the pendulum is swinging outside the original plane it swung through. And this is the phenomenon under study.

 

The question to be answered is,"Why didn't the pendulum stay in the XY plane of reference frame S?"

 

Now, in the explanation given at the site, it says that one hour after the pendulum was released, the plane precessed about 9 degrees.

 

Now, one guess as to why this happens, comes from Galileo's law of inertia.

 

Galileo's law of inertia, says that an object at rest will remain at rest, or move in a straight line at a constant speed, unless acted upon by an external force.

 

So let us focus on the pendulum bob.

 

It is hung from a very long wire, which i will just guess is 10 meters long, thats about 30 feet. So the ceiling at the University of New South Wales, has been assumed to be approximately 30 feet high, in the room the camera is in. It's just a guess.

 

Correction: I just checked, and New York is at 47 degrees north latitude, and Greenwich England is at 51 degrees north latitude.

 

Back to the Foucalt's Pendulum.

 

At the site, they say that the pendulum is swinging north/south.

 

So let us focus upon this for a moment.

 

The coordinates of Sydney are (-34,144); that is 34 degrees south latitude, 144 degrees east longitude.

 

So let there be a meridian running through the University of New South Wales, a great circle, containing the earth's poles.

 

Now, here is diagram which relates the S frame to the rest of the universe.

 

Celestial Sphere

 

Here is an interesting article on the north star (labelled Polaris in the previous link).

 

Here is a sky chart, containing Ursa Major

 

Here is a picture which shows how to find polaris (the pole star, the north star) given that you were able to locate Ursa Major (The big dipper):

 

Polaris and Ursa Major

 

Suppose you go outside of your house, on a starry night . I just included a link to that famous painting by Van Gogh, because I have much appreciation for the arts, as well as the sciences.

 

But back to business, understanding the Foucalt pendulum.

 

Suppose you go outside your house, on a starry night, with a telescope, and a magnetic compass. The magnetic compass will tell you which direction the north pole is in. And that knowledge will come in handy, since you are trying to locate the North star in the night sky.

 

Now, in a moment i will discuss the physics of how a compass works, but right now, I want to focus on how you can locate the north star in the night sky.

 

Since you have a compass needle which points magnetic north no matter how you turn your body, you can imagine a great circle, a meridian, running through whatever location you are at on the surface of earth, all the way around the earth, and this imaginary great circle, will contain both the North pole, and the south pole. Very cold at both places.

 

Oh, and by the way, the first human being to set foot upon the North pole was: I believe Amundsen.

 

Yes, it was Amundsen, Roald Amundsen, a Norwegian explorer of both poles.

 

Amundsen had actually already been to the south pole, before he journeyed to the North pole. An earlier navy explorer tried to reach the north pole, but he missed it by 20 nautical miles.

 

Here is a link to a wikipedia article on Roald Amundsen

 

Ok so, once you know the direction north is, just begin lookin upwards, tilting your neck back along the imaginary great circle, so that the back of your head is moving towards the south pole... and look for the big dipper. Once you find it, you can spot the north star from the following diagram:

 

Polaris relative to Ursa Major

 

As you can see, the north star is part of the little dipper, seen here.

 

And if you click on the interactive star chart, you can see the location of a few other constellations, relative to the north star.

[CPL.Luke]

how is this relevant?

[Daecon]

Was it something I said about a moving pendulum having more mass?

[5614]

Johnny5 is trying to link gravity to magnetism... something which many great physicists have failed at doing.

[swansont]

non-sequitur

 

No, sarcasm.

 

The logic you used is the same:

 

Gravity is a force

 

Magnetism is a force

 

Therefore, gravity is magnetism

[swansont]

The pendulum precesses.

 

Because the earth rotates.

 

But this does not show precession of the earth, just rotation.

[swansont]

Now' date=' in the explanation given at the site, it says that one hour after the pendulum was released, the plane precessed about 9 degrees.

 

Now, one guess as to why this happens, comes from Galileo's law of inertia.

 

Galileo's law of inertia, says that an object at rest will remain at rest, or move in a straight line at a constant speed, unless acted upon by an external force.

[/quote']

 

aka Newton's first law.

 

The earth rotates under the pendulum, taking 24h/sin(latitude) to go 360 degrees (actually it's a sidereal day, so 23h56m)

[Johnny5]

aka Newton's first law.

 

The earth rotates under the pendulum' date=' taking 24h/sin(latitude) to go 360 degrees (actually it's a sidereal day, so 23h56m)[/quote']

 

Yes, I remember using the sidereal day, in the formula to calculate the distance from an earth station to a satellite. Can you tell me again, what a sidereal day is?

 

Thank you Dr Swanson

[swansont]

Yes' date=' I remember using the sidereal day, in the formula to calculate the distance from an earth station to a satellite. Can you tell me again, what a sidereal day is?

[/quote']

 

A sidereal day is the length of time it takes for the earth to rotate 360 degrees.

[fuhrerkeebs]

But what about MY idea that gravity is magnetism?

 

The particle that carries that magnetic force has spin 0, while the particle that carries gravity is conjectured to have spin 2. Magnetism works off of charge, gravity works off of energy-momentum. Charge can be both positive and negative, while only positive amounts of mass have been observed. There is no magnetic field unless you have moving charge, whereas there is a gravitational field whether the mass is moving or not. They don't seem to be similar at all, except for the fact that gravity is attractive and magnetism can be attractive.

[Johnny5]

The particle that carries that magnetic force has spin 0' date=' while the particle that carries gravity is conjectured to have spin 2.

[/quote']

 

What is the difference between a particle with spin 0, and a particle with spin 2? I suppose the difference has to do with angular momentum?

 

Magnetism works off of charge

 

 

Yes' date=' I know, that's straight out of classical Maxwellian electrodynamics.

 

An electric current generates a magnetic field.

 

 

 

gravity works off of energy-momentum

 

Can this be related to the energy-momentum tensor of Professor Einstein's theory of General Relativity?

 

 

 

Charge can be both positive and negative' date=' while only positive amounts of mass have been observed. [/quote']

 

Yes.

 

Electrons are negatively charged particles.

Protons are positively charged particles.

Hydrogen atom as a whole is electrically neutral.

 

In the earth, the number of electrons is equal to the number of protons, and so the total electric charge of the earth is zero. At least thats the text book answer. But the inertial mass of the earth is enormous, compared to the mass of a man. And always treated as a strictly positive quantity. The other side of the coin would be anti-gravity.

 

There is no magnetic field unless you have moving charge' date=' whereas there is a gravitational field whether the mass is moving or not. They don't seem to be similar at all, except for the fact that gravity is attractive and magnetism can be attractive.[/quote']

 

See my previous response, anti-gravity is the flip side of the coin. A theoretical situation where two bodies of inertial mass M repel each other, as first theorized by Ernst Mach.

 

There was some evidence that superconductivity effects gravity. The so called Podkletnov effect, where Podkletnov supposedly reduced the weight of something by suspending it above a superconductor.

 

A superconductor blocks magnetic fields.

 

All possibly related.

 

As for there being no magnetic field, unless you have moving charge, I am not convinced of this.

 

This has always struck me as a bit strange.

 

What if there are such things as magnetic monopoles?

 

Wouldn't that falsify your statement?

 

Regards

[Johnny5]

The pendulum precesses.

 

Because the earth rotates.

 

But this does not show precession of the earth' date=' just rotation.[/quote']

 

Can you prove this?

 

What if the pendulum precesses because the earth is a magnetic dipole in an external magnetic field?

[CPL.Luke]

magnetic monopoles don't exist (to all experimental evidence)

 

now according to special relativity neither does magnetism. it is charge in motion or electrodynamics. to pieces of wire with a current running through them attract because either wire sees the other as being positively charged (lorentz contraction of protons)

[swansont]

Can you prove this?

 

What if the pendulum precesses because the earth is a magnetic dipole in an external magnetic field?

 

Why do I need to? The laws of physics predict and explain the behavior quite adequately. If you have an alternate explanation, the burden of proof is upon you to provide the supporting evidence.

 

How would your model affect the pendulum in any way? I can make the pendulum out of various materials that react differently in the presence of magnetic fields, and test their behavior. But all Foucalt pendula behave the same way. I'm pretty sure they are not of identical construction.

 

What would the predicted behavior be under your model?

[BlackHole]

Johnny your idea is interesting but there are some problems with gravity being a magnetic phenomena. For example, the moon doesn't have a magnetic field (or a very weak one) but still has gravity.

 

Despite this, i also think gravity may be related to planet's cores, where nuclear fusion takes place. Gravity and magnetism are still different though. In fact, if my theory is correct then gravity should be generated by heavy particles which decay very quickly.

 

Another question is: Why do moving electric charges generate magnetism? Special relativity doesn't seem to provide a satisfactory answer.

 

PS: New physics is required to explain gravity at the quantum level. A new theory should also explain why there are 3 generations of neutrinos, the electron neutrino being the heaviest. Also in the standard model there are 3 gauge groups but there must be something which controls the generations.

[swansont]

Despite this' date=' i also think gravity may be related to planet's cores, where nuclear fusion takes place. Gravity and magnetism are still different though. In fact, if my theory is correct then gravity should be generated by heavy particles which decay very quickly.

 

Another question is: Why do moving electric charges generate magnetism? Special relativity doesn't seem to provide a satisfactory answer.

[/quote']

 

What fusion? Evidence?

 

What part of relativity is unsatisfying in explaining magnetism? The part where you can derive magnetism from electrostatics + relativity?

[Daecon]

Another question is: Why do moving electric charges generate magnetism? Special relativity doesn't seem to provide a satisfactory answer.

 

Because electricity and magnetism are almos tthe same thing? Hence, "Electromagnetics"?

[BlackHole]

What fusion? Evidence?

 

What part of relativity is unsatisfying in explaining magnetism? The part where you can derive magnetism from electrostatics + relativity?

 

Einstein believed that the physical connection between electricity and magnetism is a result of a more fundamental connection between space and time. So one might ask' date=' what is the connection? Is it empirical what Einstein said?

 

I think that we have yet to determine what a magnetic field is.

 

Because electricity and magnetism are almos tthe same thing? Hence, "Electromagnetics"?

 

Yes because magnetism is produces by moving electric currents. However, magnetism differs from electricity in one important aspect:

 

Unlike electric charges, magnetic poles always occur in North-South pairs; there are no magnetic monopoles.

[Johnny5]

Unlike electric charges' date=' magnetic poles always occur in North-South pairs; there are no magnetic monopoles.[/quote']

 

Given that there are magnetic monopoles, magnetism can be explained quite simlply. maybe explained isn't the right word, understood differently would be better.

 

Regards

[BlackHole]

Given that there are magnetic monopoles' date=' magnetism can be explained quite simlply. maybe explained isn't the right word, understood differently would be better.

 

Regards[/quote']

 

If they exist, they will contradict current observations: no black holes, no dark matter, no dark energy and probably no cosmic inflation also. Unfortunately, evidence does not support their existence. Almost surely new physics is required here.

 

Regards

[swansont]

Given that there are magnetic monopoles' date=' magnetism can be explained quite simlply. maybe explained isn't the right word, understood differently would be better.

[/quote']

 

Magnetism can be explained quite simply without monopoles, which have never been confirmed to exist.

[Johnny5]

Magnetism can be explained quite simply without monopoles, which have never been confirmed to exist.

well i happen to have a book here, umm hold on...

 

This was written by Jullius Adams Stratton, and it says...

 

 

4.9 Coulomb's Law for Magnetic Matter.- In the older literature the magnetic system of units was commonly based on a law of force between magnetic "poles." The "charge" or pole strength q* and the length of a dipole was equal to its moment m. The dimensions of q* based on (5) are then

 

[math] (15) \ \ [q*] = \mu^{-1/2} M^{1/2}L^{3/2}T^{-1} [/math]

 

While for the law of force we corresponding to Coulomb's law we obtain

 

[math] (16) \ \ F = \frac{\mu_0}{4 \pi} \frac{q*_1 q*_2}{r^2} [/math]

 

This expression differs from the one commonly assumed in that m₀ appears in the numerator rather than the denominator.¹ At the root of this puzzling result is the fact that the force on an element of current, as deduced from Maxwell's equations, Sec 2.4, is J X B, not J X H. Consequently the torque on a magnetic dipole is m X B and the force on a magnetic "charge" is F = q* B.

 

 

Taken from Electromagnetic Theory, Julius Adams Stratton, 1941 McGraw Hill.

 

As you can see, the concept of magnetic monopoles was actually worked on. I'm not quite sure where he was going with that, but what is a magnetic field anyways?

 

The tiniest bit of research shows that the sun is the source of a huge magnetic field B, so what is a B field composed of?