Gravity and Magnetism the same?

[drwayne]

I can't explain it but its obvious

is probably equal to the dreaded

I believe

I also find it interesting when people say "no scientist" has considered something, its a very
strong statement, requiring strong facts and a TON of serious historical research.

Wayne

 

[ramparts]

I also find it interesting when people say "no scientist" has considered something, its a very
strong statement, requiring strong facts and a TON of serious historical research.

Wayne

It's also an untrue statement This is a line that a great many scientists have followed (and some continue to follow to this day). As a matter of fact, probably the most advanced such theory, 10-dimensional supergravity, has been incorporated in ways into string theory.

But, as I said in my post, such efforts have run into serious complications.

That said, I found the logic of your post (emperor_of_localgroup) very interesting. Physics isn't philosophy - at least, not anymore! Not since Newton's day does simply having an interesting idea qualify as a breakthrough, or even something worthy of sharing with the community. Eugene Wigner noted "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences," and it's true - any theory of physics worth anything has to be formulated in mathematical terms, and agree strictly with what we've observed about the universe. That's why we have math - without it, we have no firm way of comparing the explanations we dream up to the phenomena we see.

So, that's what I found interesting about your post - the idea that some interesting thoughts will explain the universe, and that if one hasn't heard scientists talk about an idea it must mean scientists have never considered it. It's a perfectly understandable impression, don't get me wrong, but there is a startling number of people who fancy themselves the next Einstein (conveniently ignoring the years Einstein spent struggling to learn differential geometry before he could finish his breakthrough in gravity ) and put out their grand theories made of nothing but loosely-gathered jargon and some high-sounding ideas.

Physics is a deep, very beautiful science. Without proper training, unfortunately, it's hard to properly understand a good deal of it (this is as true for most physicists, who have specialties and weak points, as it is for laymen). But, even if we can never understand it fully, perhaps at the very least we can come to appreciate the tremendous difficulty that goes into figuring it out.

 

[drwayne]

Excellent point.

I continue to be amazed (pointing out a certain stupidity on my part) how comfortable some people
feel about jumping into the deep end of scientific topics armed with an education of reading some
popular level books.

Wayne

 

[yevaud]

The true hallmark of physics is that at their core, all theories are actually quite elegant and very simple. Obviously E-MC^2 is one example. Another is if you apply a bit of Kaluza-Klein to Maxwell's ugly equations, they simplify into one single equation (from which they can all be derived).

 

[MeteorWayne]

And the ever useful F=ma, which is the basis for everything from rocket ships to weather forecasting

 

[drwayne]

If you are going to use a rocket as an example, I think you may want to write that:

F = dp/dt



Wayne

 

[ramparts]

The true hallmark of physics is that at their core, all theories are actually quite elegant and very simple. Obviously E-MC^2 is one example. Another is if you apply a bit of Kaluza-Klein to Maxwell's ugly equations, they simplify into one single equation (from which they can all be derived).

This is something Einstein believed pretty heavily, and after he discovered a theory like GR, I can see why! (this is actually one of the major reasons I dislike things like MOND and f(R) gravities). I also found Maxwell's equations rather ugly throughout high school. The first time I saw the four equations made into two just by using the electromagnetic stress-energy tensor, and then into one equation with an appropriate choice of gauge, was pretty mind-blowing.

Hmmm... a mathematician friend of mine sent me this article from a philosopher of science at Pitt: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Ei ... licity.pdf Interesting read.

But as the paper suggests (and I think I disagree with some of its remarks towards the end), the issue of elegance in physics is rather tricky. I think the Einstein field equations are probably the most beautiful in science, as would many other people, and they are very elegant and simple in that a) we have the shorthand to write them down easily (as one nice equation) and b) they're the simplest tensor equation relating energy-momentum to curvature that doesn't violate conservation of energy. But already in b) we have quite a few qualifiers that make the equations fairly non-obvious for a while. And perhaps most important, for all the pretty writing our shorthand gets us, we have to remember that this simple-looking equation is actually a set of 10 highly complicated coupled second-order partial differential equations (try saying that ten times fast!) that hardly ever actually get solved. Just food for thought re: simplicity in physics

 

[dryson]

Gravity and magnetism are the same on a certain level of understanding. This can be proven by looking at Ida and it's orbital Dactyl. Dactyl orbits Ida, but Ida does not have an active core to create an electromagnetic field. So how does Ida keep Dactyl in an orbit? The basic attractive values of how each objects material composition reacts to one another or magnetism. So the basics of gravity can be stated as an objects magnetic attractiveness to another object of equal or greater magnetic properties where each object will create a gravity between each other and depending on other certain values, the smaller object of lesser material composition will always orbit the larger object of greater magnetic material composition.

 

[ramparts]

Gravity and magnetism are the same on a certain level of understanding. This can be proven by looking at Ida and it's orbital Dactyl. Dactyl orbits Ida, but Ida does not have an active core to create an electromagnetic field. So how does Ida keep Dactyl in an orbit? The basic attractive values of how each objects material composition reacts to one another or magnetism. So the basics of gravity can be stated as an objects magnetic attractiveness to another object of equal or greater magnetic properties where each object will create a gravity between each other and depending on other certain values, the smaller object of lesser material composition will always orbit the larger object of greater magnetic material composition.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but despite the confusing wording I'm pretty sure what you're saying is mistaken. Gravity has nothing to do (so far as we know, at least) with an object's magnetic composition. It has to do with mass. Ida keeps Dactyl in orbit because it's massive. Simple as that.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Gravity and magnetism are the same on a certain level of understanding. This can be proven by looking at Ida and it's orbital Dactyl. Dactyl orbits Ida, but Ida does not have an active core to create an electromagnetic field. So how does Ida keep Dactyl in an orbit? .

Uhhh, Gravity. Pretty simple answer, really.

 

[dryson]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but despite the confusing wording I'm pretty sure what you're saying is mistaken. Gravity has nothing to do (so far as we know, at least) with an object's magnetic composition. It has to do with mass. Ida keeps Dactyl in orbit because it's massive. Simple as that.

Gravity is a generated energy. Ida does not have an active core that would cause an electromagnetic charge that would increase it's generated fields of gravity. So in order for Ida to keep Dactyl in an orbit the material composition of both objects would need to be magnetic and exert a force of attractiveness towards one another.

It has to do with mass. Ida keeps Dactyl in orbit because it's massive. Simple as that.

Mass is the amount of material that is in an object. The density of the object's core is what will define a gravitational field and that fields relative strength. If you have two planets that are the same size from the surface to the core, but one had a more dense core then other which planet do you think would be apt to produce more gravity? The planet whose core is more dense then the other planets core.

Why keep it simple? Only those who are lazy thinkers try to keep it simple.

 

[ramparts]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, but despite the confusing wording I'm pretty sure what you're saying is mistaken. Gravity has nothing to do (so far as we know, at least) with an object's magnetic composition. It has to do with mass. Ida keeps Dactyl in orbit because it's massive. Simple as that.

Gravity is a generated energy. Ida does not have an active core that would cause an electromagnetic charge that would increase it's generated fields of gravity. So in order for Ida to keep Dactyl in an orbit the material composition of both objects would need to be magnetic and exert a force of attractiveness towards one another.

It has to do with mass. Ida keeps Dactyl in orbit because it's massive. Simple as that.

Mass is the amount of material that is in an object. The density of the object's core is what will define a gravitational field and that fields relative strength. If you have two planets that are the same size from the surface to the core, but one had a more dense core then other which planet do you think would be apt to produce more gravity? The planet whose core is more dense then the other planets core.

Why keep it simple? Only those who are lazy thinkers try to keep it simple.

Only those who are lazy thinkers make up their own physics rather than put the effort into actually studying it

Where are you getting this stuff from? "Gravity is a generated energy"? What does that even mean? Here's the issue - you're confusing two separate attractive forces - the magnetic force, which is an attractive (or repulsive) force between two magnetic objects, and gravity, which is an attractive force caused just by having mass. Something can have mass, and thus be influenced by gravity, without having any magnetism. This is pretty easy to show - take your favorite non-magnetic object, like a book, and put it near a magnet. Nothing happens. Now release it in the air. It falls. Quite clearly, gravity is at work even on things that are not magnetic

Also, if two planets are spherical and you're not inside either of them, then it doesn't matter how the mass is distributed. If one has a dense core and one doesn't, as long as both have the same total mass, they'll exert the same gravitational force outside of the planet's surface. Surely if you're not a lazy thinker, then you can do the math and check it for yourself. We've known how to since Newton

 

[yevaud]

Gravity is a generated energy. Ida does not have an active core that would cause an electromagnetic charge that would increase it's generated fields of gravity.

There is no relationship between the E/M force and the Gravitational Force (until you achieve the Planck Temperature, where all forces unify, which does not apply here).

Why keep it simple? Only those who are lazy thinkers try to keep it simple.

This is oft-misunderstood. To the layman, many theories appear hugely complex, but at their core, it's literally always a single, elegant concept. Simple, in other words.

 

[dryson]

Mass is nothing more then the amount of material in an object, which because of the magnetic forces in this mass there is a certain amount of gravity generated.

You need to stop confusing mass as it relates to religion with mass that is in an object. If mass mattered then a singularity would not be possible as there would be relatively no material mass in a singularity just the left over gravitons that hold the particles together.

 

[ramparts]

Mass is nothing more then the amount of material in an object, which because of the magnetic forces in this mass there is a certain amount of gravity generated.

You need to stop confusing mass as it relates to religion with mass that is in an object. If mass mattered then a singularity would not be possible as there would be relatively no material mass in a singularity just the left over gravitons that hold the particles together.

As I've said in another thread, I'm really unsure where you're getting this. I'm honestly unsure if you just misunderstand some rather fundamental physics, or if you ignore them in a certain devotion to more unorthodox ideas. I'm hoping it's the former, but the more you post these same statements in different threads without any qualification, the more I worry it's the latter.

Mass is (for our purposes) the amount of material in an object, absolutely. But magnetic properties are completely different. It's completely possible to have mass and not exhibit any magnetism - just take a look at, say, a book, or a cup, or most anything which isn't magnetic So it's very puzzling when you make these completely unqualified claims that gravity is somehow a type of magnetism.

I'm not terribly interested in an argument here, because there isn't much to argue. I'd just like to make sure that when something plain ol' incorrect is put on these forums, there's a counterpoint on the record so that those looking at this thread now or in the future won't be misled.

 

[Jerromy]

I'm not into crunching numbers even though math and geometry are my strongest subjects... but gravity and magnetism are totally unrelated. Gravity pulls mass together at a consistent measurable rate across vast distances. Magnetism on the other hand has a easily calculatable threshold of attraction OR repulsion which relates to polarity and relies on the magnetic properties of the material.

 

[dryson]

I'm not into crunching numbers even though math and geometry are my strongest subjects... but gravity and magnetism are totally unrelated. Gravity pulls mass together at a consistent measurable rate across vast distances. Magnetism on the other hand has a easily calculated threshold of attraction OR repulsion which relates to polarity and relies on the magnetic properties of the material.

Then based on what you are saying that gravity only pulls then the Earth should have been pulled into the core along time ago. Gravity does the same thing in so much that gravity pulls the material together based on the magnetic properties of the material.

 

[leblanc82]

Gravity and magnetism are not the same thing. In fact, they are totally and completely separate forces. Gravity is a force that acts between any two objects with mass. No matter what they are made of, both objects get pulled towards each other just because they have mass. The reason it seems like gravity only pulls you towards the earth is because the earth is so big that the pull from you on it isn’t enough to do much to its motion.


source: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=225

 

[ramparts]

Gravity and magnetism are not the same thing. In fact, they are totally and completely separate forces. Gravity is a force that acts between any two objects with mass. No matter what they are made of, both objects get pulled towards each other just because they have mass. The reason it seems like gravity only pulls you towards the earth is because the earth is so big that the pull from you on it isn’t enough to do much to its motion.


source: http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=225

We try to tell him these things, but he doesn't listen Well, it could be worse. He could have some grand unified theory that he tries to shove down our throats!

This is the second thread in which I'm trying to explain some basic physics to Dryson, or motivate him to learn some himself, but he seems to have an issue with selective hearing Apparently this is not a new phenomenon, so I say, leave it be. There are far more interesting adventures in physics to be had, with those who want to have it.

 

[MeteorWayne]

He reminds me of another woo-woo who couldn't understand the difference between gravity and magnetism. He eventually got banned ....

 

[MeteorWayne]

In fact, since the premise of this topic is so patently ridiculous, It won't be long before it's new address will be the Unexplained. We've been pretty patient with such foolishness.

 

[dangineer]

I suppose this would fall under grand unified theories, but I think discussing whether there is a connection between gravity and electromagnetism is valid. Basic physics tells us they are certainly not directly related, but some (albeit mostly fringe scientists), feel there is a connection and it may be possible to someday, somehow affect gravity using EMR (electromagnetic radiation). Or maybe affect mass. I read a paper by a South American physics professor that purported he found a way to decrease the gravitational mass of electrons in a plasma using EMR. He claimed that Einstein's equivalence principle was not true - that inertial mass and gravitational mass were not the same thing.

After reading through his paper, it quickly became clear that he was using very bad science and his experiment produced no conclusive evidence. However, this brings up an interesting question. What if gravitational mass and inertial mass were different? What if they were just equivalent in most situations? Furthermore, what if certain interactions between EMR and gravity or mass can occur? To my knowledge, not theory yet has pointed to this conclusion, including string theory. But I haven't heard of anything that precludes this entirely, either.

I believe, according to M theory, with high enough temperature and pressure (like shorlty after the Big Bang), all the forces converge into one force. But maybe there is a connection we havn't found yet; one that can eventually be harnessed and utilized.

I'm not sure if this topic belongs in a different category, so feel free to move it, but it might be an interesting subject.

 

[dryson]

Where are you getting this from? Admittedly I don't know much about Ida and Dactyl in particular, but it's bizarre that you only use this one example to justify some straight-up untrue conclusions. Gravity and magnetism are both forces, both can cause attraction (or repulsion, in the case of magnetism), but they're very clearly not the same thing. This is as basic as basic physics gets. I explained this in another thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=18047&p=365312
ramparts

I am quite certain that Magnetism and Gravity are the same force. This can be proven simply by looking at the interaction of the Earth's gravity and how gravity effects the iron in every single creature on this planet's circulatory system.

Magnetism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetism

Iron and the circulatory system - http://sickle.bwh.harvard.edu/iron_transport.html

If gravity wasn't the same as magnetism then how would iron which is able to be attracted and repulsed by a magnet
create a flow of circulation through a reptile or mammals circulatory system?

Since the iron in our blood is minute the magnetism or gravity circulates the blood cells around the body. When the magnetism of the Earth's core which is gravity circulates at the core of the planet the lines of magentism then affect the iron in a humans blood to flow through the veins thus delivering the oxygen to where it is needed. Although each iron particle in the human blood cell is small compared to a large piece of iron used in manufacturing, the combined mass of the iron in the human blood cell creates a weight when the magnetic fields of the Earth permiate the humans body. Now if gravity and magnetism were not the same then how does iron within the human blood cell circulate through the circulatory system as well as create a weight based on the amount of iron or mass within the humans body?

 

[ramparts]

For the purposes of posterity, the beginning of dryson's post is a direct copy of his post from this thread: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=18031 and the last paragraph is his response. A bit inefficient, so let's just continue it here

Anyway, dryson, to your credit you've laid out an argument here far more explanatory than in the posts I've seen of yours before, so I feel a bit more comfortable engaging with you, since you seem a bit more...say, open-minded.

Since the iron in our blood is minute the magnetism or gravity circulates the blood cells around the body.

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no expert in biology, but you'll have to provide a source for this claim that magnetism (much less gravity!) is responsible for circulation. That is, you'll have to provide more evidence than simply asserting something to be true. As far as I know, the heart is the pump behind the circulation of blood cells. I don't know why you keep suggesting that it's gravity or magnetism. In the same way, if you throw an object (be it a baseball or a magnet) across a field, the force behind that comes from you, not gravity or magnetism. So again, please back up this claim with evidence from someone besides yourself.

When the magnetism of the Earth's core which is gravity circulates at the core of the planet the lines of magentism then affect the iron in a humans blood to flow through the veins thus delivering the oxygen to where it is needed. Although each iron particle in the human blood cell is small compared to a large piece of iron used in manufacturing, the combined mass of the iron in the human blood cell creates a weight when the magnetic fields of the Earth permiate the humans body. Now if gravity and magnetism were not the same then how does iron within the human blood cell circulate through the circulatory system as well as create a weight based on the amount of iron or mass within the humans body?

Again, you're asserting things without providing any support for them. For example, I've never heard that blood circulates because of the Earth's magnetic field. This seems particularly strange given that exactly 40 years ago, men were walking on the moon, quite far away from the Earth's magnetic field. Given that they managed to survive the ordeal, one must assume that their circulation worked just fine, despite being away from the Earth's magnetic field.

So I have laid out some questions for you, in summary:
1) You made many claims without any backing. Can you present any sources backing you up?
2) If circulation is caused by the Earth's magnetic field, how did the guys who landed on the moon 40 years ago today survive despite being well outside the Earth's magnetosphere?
3) I asked you this a while back - if you drop an object from a tall building, it will accelerate the same regardless of its magnetic properties (if we neglect air resistance). A rubber ball and a magnetic ball fall the same way. Doesn't this mean that gravity isn't affected by magnetism?

 

[dryson]

I am only open minded to what I can read and learn for myself based on science and not what someone else wants me to believe.

It doesn't take a genius to figure that the circulatory system is controlled by the core's rotation and the gravity that is generated. If gravity was not the same as magnetism then why do astronaughts have problems in space with their muscles and other body parts? The farther that you get away from a planet the less gravity is present or magentism, why else do you think that astronaughts seem to float the farther that they get away from Earth? It is because there is less magnetic fields of force to effect the iron in the humans blood, thus allowing them to float. It's not that there is less gravity it is because there is lesser amount of magnetism generating from the Earth which is gravity.

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