Gravity and Magnetism the same?

Page 6 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

darkmatter4brains

Guest
Going on my last post, maybe the subject of this thread isn't too far off. The current ideas in physics do say that very early in the Universe all the fields/forces were united during a (very short) era of much higher denisty, temperature, and therefore energy. As time went on they "seperated" out into the four forces we know today. But, you could say that what we view today as two completely different forces (gravity and magnetism) really are one and the same thing, and still would be if the high energy conditions of the early universe existed. They just appear different since they have since seperated due to the conditions of today's Universe.

Maybe somebody mentioned this already too. I didn't read through the entire thread, so I apologize, if so.
 
D

darkmatter4brains

Guest
MeteorWayne":3c58uglz said:
Well, really, not really. Electromagnetism does effect relativistic interpretations a bit, but most of it has to do with mass, acceleration, and velocity.
The one example I am thinking of is definitely relativistic. I forget the layout of the whole thing. But, it does involve the distance between charges being lorentz contracted for one observer, if I remember correctly. It's in Chapter 10 of David Griffiths classic EM book. The chapter that talks about relatvity and EM.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
OK, thanx for the heads up on where to look. I'll try and find it.
 
M

Mars_Unit

Guest
The only things Gravity and Magnetism have in common is they are both attractive and repulsive forces.

Gravity is weak in the short range and magnetism is for holding objects together.

Gravity can slow down an Atomic Clock. Powerful Magnetic fields will NOT slow down such a clock.

Last night my Dad was watching The Science Channel HD and he asked me where all of the matter came from!

I told him do you believe in other dimensions? He said yes.

I told him that 200 Billion Years ago that this Universe in this dimension did not exist.

I told him that two different dimensions Membranes or Branes collided and exploded creating the Big Bang!

I told Dad that there was one dimension with empty space and three dimensions which collided with another dimension called Time or Perpetual Change.

I told Dad this permitted 3D objects to be created out of atoms, experience a phenomena called a lifetime, and then the objects are destroyed, but the atoms are almost indestructible.

These are the mysteries of our existence.

I told him all of the matter seems to be half of all of the Virtual Particles that seems to come from another dimension!

I have been thinking about Dr Ning Li's theory and it now seems plausible. I think she is attempting to speed up the electron flow inside the Superconductor while it spins.

I was also thinking many years ago that a Canadian Telescope that uses a Liquid Mercury Mirror might also be able to generate Gravity around it's Circumference. The flowing of Atoms Nucleus in a Liquid might generate Gravity at the circumference Perimeter or edge of the torus or disc.

This was to be my Thesis at the U of A.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Zenith_Telescope
 
V

vividasday

Guest
Have been away for awhile...though today just caught up with the new news...rather awards...Hawkings...gotta lov 'em! Theory and Physics.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
vividasday":1yke15fz said:
Have been away for awhile...though today just caught up with the new news...rather awards...Hawkings...gotta lov 'em! Theory and Physics.
It's Hawking, not Hawkings!!!!!


AURGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
S

Skibo1219

Guest
MeteorWayne":2qjvikri said:
vividasday":2qjvikri said:
Have been away for awhile...though today just caught up with the new news...rather awards...Hawkings...gotta lov 'em! Theory and Physics.
It's Hawking, not Hawkings!!!!!


AURGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hawking lover!


LOL
One thing I noticed about this post and the other one about gravitation is that no one discussed anything about gravitons being out of sync, out of phase, dimensional phase or even another dimension period. Maybe this is just too out there to consider but then so were many other things at one time or another in the past. Random thoughts are weird, they just make no sense. LOL!
 
V

vividasday

Guest
Thanks....for steppin Up and remembering. :D There are so many questions and so many different ways to share.
 
M

Mars_Unit

Guest
I am beginning to think that if one squeezes a Quark hard enough, it just might emit more Gravity and mass.

Being that Quarks cannot be divided, then Black Holes must be made of Quarks, unless they turn into pure Gravity force.
 
R

ramparts

Guest
There are, however, elementary particles that aren't made of quarks. Think of photons, for example. Not made of quarks. Also, it's pretty disingenuous to use our current knowledge of particle physics to say what black holes must be made up, as our current models of particles break down in strong gravitational fields. We honestly don't know what happens to particles in those kinds of conditions.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
IIRC, electrons (and positron) are not made of quarks either.


Gimme a "U"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts