To add comments or start new threads please go to the full version of: Gravity & Magnetism - Related Or Not?
PhysForum Science, Physics and Technology Discussion Forums > Physics > Physics General

Bryn Richards
Greetings,

I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

Please state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream.

ty in advance cool.gif
IAMoraes
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 12 2007, 12:27 PM)
state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream.

I only do regurgitation, sorry. I just discover the same 5 ot 6 things over and over again.

QUOTE
currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets.

Gravity and magnetism are one and the same. One is at a 90 degree angle from the other. Gravity is single attraction, magnetism, double attraction. Triple attraction is something else but it is the same concept except it's a 90 degree turn followed by another... in another direction.

QUOTE (->
QUOTE
currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets.

Gravity and magnetism are one and the same. One is at a 90 degree angle from the other. Gravity is single attraction, magnetism, double attraction. Triple attraction is something else but it is the same concept except it's a 90 degree turn followed by another... in another direction.

Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

You are trying to discover the geometry of those turns and not necessarily "particles" and much less "waves". If you were, then those two theories would prove to be insufficient.

I told you I was gonna regurgitate, didn't I? DIDN"T I? laugh.gif
rethinker
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 12 2007, 04:27 PM)
Greetings,

I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

Hey Bryn Richards
Good question.
The relation between gravity and magnetism is what I have been researching for about 6 years.
Yes I believe gravity and magnetism are related.
I hope to put my theory out for peer review sometime soon.

The H Theory is what I have named it, and it deals with the wonderful connection of gravity/magnetism and how it relates to our sun.
wink.gif Right now it is still in development, so I am not able to offer a solid debate.
I am trying to learn more about what I have discovered, and that is why I read topics like yours.
Thanks
Nexxus6
My first post here, are you implying that with gravity and magnetism that one causes the other or that they are 2 forms of the same force? Or something different. I find this topic facinating on where it could go.
rethinker

Nexxus6
Welcome
I believe Bryn Richards is trying to address the connection of the two forces.



Bryn Richards
rethinker,

QUOTE

Yes I believe gravity and magnetism are related. I hope to put my theory out for peer review sometime soon. The H Theory is what I have named it, and it deals with the wonderful connection of gravity/magnetism and how it relates to our sun.  wink.gif  Right now it is still in development, so I am not able to offer a solid debate.
I am trying to learn more about what I have discovered, and that is why I read topics like yours.


Pity you don't have it now, but I shall look forward to reading it. It does sound intriguing, especially in regards to how they relate to the Sun.


Nexxus6,

QUOTE (->
QUOTE

Yes I believe gravity and magnetism are related. I hope to put my theory out for peer review sometime soon. The H Theory is what I have named it, and it deals with the wonderful connection of gravity/magnetism and how it relates to our sun.  wink.gif  Right now it is still in development, so I am not able to offer a solid debate.
I am trying to learn more about what I have discovered, and that is why I read topics like yours.


Pity you don't have it now, but I shall look forward to reading it. It does sound intriguing, especially in regards to how they relate to the Sun.


Nexxus6,


My first post here, are you implying that with gravity and magnetism that one causes the other or that they are 2 forms of the same force? Or something different. I find this topic facinating on where it could go.


As I argued, magnetism and gravity are very similar. It raises interesting questions concerning (As rethinker stated) their 'connection'. I cannot be sure whether gravity and magnetism are simply different expressions of the same thing, or if they are totally separate effects, which just happen to be similar.

What I myself am personally looking at, is magnetism and gravity, as being the individual connections between all matter in the universe, which has an inherent 'desire' (so to speak) for all this matter, to return together again, as it once was, at the beginning of the universe. I envision the connections between pieces of matter, as being a sort of rope which is tied at both ends, which pulls stronger the closer the two pieces of matter are (Sort of like the opposite of an elastic band). I theorise that both effects are instantaneous, and that it could be compared with having two space craft 1 light year from eachother, tied together by a really strong rope that won't snap, or break from the space craft. Then for this rope to be pulled at one end (It cannot stretch). Now, would the other space craft one light year away, be pulled instantly by the pulling of this rope at the other end, or would it take 1 year for it to be pulled? wink.gif
It is through such an analogy, why I disbelieve in the limitation of the speed of light, and why I consistently hold the position that gravity and magnetism can be instantaneous effects, because just like the rope between those two space craft, all pieces of matter, are also held together by such ropes between them, such that there is always a pulling effect, instantaneously across any distance.

That's a brief run-down of my theory concerning the two forces. As you can see, it's incomplete, because there's alot of ambiguity and un-answered questions, but you can get the basic premise from the above.
rethinker
QUOTE
What I myself am personally looking at, is magnetism and gravity, as being the individual connections between all matter in the universe, which has an inherent 'desire' (so to speak) for all this matter, to return together again, as it once was, at the beginning of the universe. I envision the connections between pieces of matter, as being a sort of rope which is tied at both ends


Bryn
How can individual connections be like one?
Sorry but this seems contradictory.

If they are individual, and all rope can be cut or broken, stretched, compressed, or left in different places, it seems unlikely any such mass put together like that would not be able to have any instantaneous reaction.

I must of missed your theory presentation.

Bryn Richards
QUOTE

How can individual connections be like one?
Sorry but this seems contradictory.

If they are individual, and all rope can be cut or broken, stretched, compressed, or left in different places, it seems unlikely any such mass put together like that would not be able to have any instantaneous reaction.


What I said, was that matter was once 'One' with itself, at the moment of the big bang. That much big bang theorists will agree on.

The connections between all matter, merely serve as a way of representing gravitational attraction, between all matter. Gravitational attraction, I argue, may merely be the desire for all matter to return to it's original state of oneness, by means of these connections, which act in an opposite manner to an elastic band, such that the longer you stretch it, the less it pulls you, whilst the less you stretch it, the more it pulls you.

I argue that these connections are a form of energy, of fixed amount, per connection. That this energy is locked up in the connections, and that this energy increases the closer the two pieces of matter get. By this, I don't mean that it gains energy from nowhere, as I stated, the energy is fixed, but it may, for instance, increase in terms of energy per light year.

In order to help understand this point, I draw the analogy of the connection being a pipe between matter A and matter B, and this pipe is filled with energy, which acts like water in a pipe. It has a fixed amount of water/energy in this pipe/connection, and the longer you make the pipe, the less concentrated the water/energy will be. But as you make the pipe/connection shorter, the water/energy concentration will increase, and thus this increase in concentration, is the gravity we know.

It's a very strange and confusing theory, which even I myself am not 100% on, which is why I made this thread to try and learn about other peoples theories.
rethinker
QUOTE
It's a very strange and confusing theory, which even I myself am not 100% on, which is why I made this thread to try and learn about other peoples theories.


Bryn Richards
Thanks that make total sense to me now, and I understand and agree with the idea.
It doesn't seem that strange or confusing to me.

rethinker

I found this link while trying to find more reasons for my theory seeming to be correct.

Solar research

mostly I am interested in the magnetic interactions around the sun spots. I am not a mathematician and I do not claim to be a scientist. However I can follow most ideas in the math. I used the process of elimination during testing. It is a math formula that is always correct because if you can eliminate an experiment, the experiment proves it is not part of what you are looking for.

I know this sounds like you could never know if you were correct or not and I agree it seems like you could get lost or not cover some of your tests. However for some reason that I still do not know why, I was able to keep track of processes that forwarded the next test. I hope to put it all together with help from others.
Nick
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 12 2007, 04:27 PM)
Greetings,

I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

Please state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream.

ty in advance cool.gif

THE GRAVITY MODEL IS CURVED SPACE BUT I HAVE NOT SEEN AN EINSTEINIAN MODEL OF MAGNETISM. IF WE LOOK AT THE EXTREME OF GRAVITY BOTH THESE FORCES SEEM TO BE WORKING KICKING MATTER OUT OF THE MAGNETIC POLES. WHAT IS UP WITH THAT?

IS THAT MATTER CREATING NEW STARS AT THE CENTER OF THE GALAXY?

I ASK THIS BECAUSE FOR CIVILIZATIONS TO CONTINUE THEY MUST HAVE NEW STARS. I BELIEVE IF WE CAN FIND MANY STARS BEING BORN FROM THIS MAGNETIC JET MATTER WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE AN ETERNAL SOURCE FOR LIFE.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
rethinker
QUOTE
MATTER OUT OF THE MAGNETIC POLES


What do you mean matter out of the magnetic poles?

Where is this at?
Nick you always make me shake my head like my dog when I make a whistle that he can't quite understand where it came from.
Nick
I BELIEVE THEY ARE CALLED BLACK HOLE JETS RT. YOU CAN FIND PICTURES OF THEM ON GOOGLE IMAGES. THEY RUN COUNTER TO THE IDEA THAT NOTHING CAN COME OUT OF THE EXTREME OF GRAVITY. EVIDENTLY IT CAN. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --
magpies
My Single Mass Generator theory pretty much suggests that everything is actually magnetic flux IE magnetism and that gravity is just caused by a lot of magnetic flux grouping together to form what looks like a dense object with mass and a gravitational pull but when its actually just magnetism.

The theory basically revolves around the concept of a single mass coming into existence and being pulled by the void yet crushed by its own weight to make a type of electrical generator that creates flux inside itself.
Nexxus6
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 18 2007, 03:43 AM)
I BELIEVE THEY ARE CALLED BLACK HOLE JETS RT. YOU CAN FIND PICTURES OF THEM ON GOOGLE IMAGES. THEY RUN COUNTER TO THE IDEA THAT NOTHING CAN COME OUT OF THE EXTREME OF GRAVITY. EVIDENTLY IT CAN. tongue.gif

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FALL --

However, black holes can be detectable if they interact with matter, e.g. by sucking in gas from an orbiting star. The gas spirals inward, heating up to very high temperatures and emitting large amounts of light, X-rays and Gamma rays in the process while still outside of the event horizon.

Nothing comes out of the black hole itself.

Nexxus6
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 15 2007, 01:13 PM)







It is through such an analogy, why I disbelieve in the limitation of the speed of light, and why I consistently hold the position that gravity and magnetism can be instantaneous effects, because just like the rope between those two space craft, all pieces of matter, are also held together by such ropes between them, such that there is always a pulling effect, instantaneously across any distance.


Then maybe this is part of or a result of "dark energy". Or "dark energy" coupled with "dark matter".
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 18 2007, 04:43 AM)
I BELIEVE THEY ARE CALLED BLACK HOLE JETS RT. YOU CAN FIND PICTURES OF THEM ON GOOGLE IMAGES. THEY RUN COUNTER TO THE IDEA THAT NOTHING CAN COME OUT OF THE EXTREME OF GRAVITY. EVIDENTLY IT CAN. tongue.gif

You've had that explained to you before. It's not that the matter falls into the event horizon, is churned up by the black hole and then ejected out through the event horizon, that is not what is happening. The powerful electromagnetic fields and frame dragging effects swirl part of the accretion disk of the system, which is NOT within the event horizon, into two powerful beams of ionised particles.

It is not counter to any black hole results, you just haven't bothered to learn anything about them.

As usual.
kokhaw
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2007, 05:32 AM)
My Single Mass Generator theory pretty much suggests that everything is actually magnetic flux IE magnetism and that gravity is just caused by a lot of magnetic flux grouping together to form what looks like a dense object with mass and a gravitational pull but when its actually just magnetism.

The theory basically revolves around the concept of a single mass coming into existence and being pulled by the void yet crushed by its own weight to make a type of electrical generator that creates flux inside itself.

Hi, I would like to share some thought here. For the purpose of discussion.

I believe that gravity is related to magnetism. However, before I explain further, I would like to throw a question here. So far, what is known is Gravity is only pulling force. Is there anti gravity force?

I believe the concept of 'ying' and 'yang' where if there is an attraction force, there must be a repulsive force. However, gravity force does not have repulsive force. Therefore, in my understanding, gravity force should not be categorized as independent force.

According to Newton Gravitational Law, Gravity is depends on the mass. Therefore, we shall first understand what is mass. we know that from pair production process, mass is created from photon. According to Maxwell's law, photon is electromagnetic wave which only consists of magnetic and electric (M&E) component/field. Therefore, we can make a conclusion that mass shall also consists of M&E field. If you would like to understand more about pair production, you may visit the link below which I have posted some explanation.
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm

Then, now I tried to explain what is actually gravitational force as per my understanding. Mass is made up of M&E field, therefore gravitational force shall also related to M&E field. As mentioned, Gravity is uni-direction force. similarly, another force is also uni-direction force, which is Electrostatic force on to neutral object. This is the electric portion of gravity force. On the magnetic portion of gravity force, it is something like two parallel wire conducting current at the same direction. The superposition of both magnetic field will pull each other. All free standing magnetic fields tend to pull each other to achieve lower energy. Therefore, these two uni-direction M&E forces build the uni-direction of gravitational force.

For objects at different charge density, electric force plays major role in creating the gravity force. For object at equal charge density, magnetic force plays major role in creating the gravity force.

There are still many evidences that show the relation between M&E force in creating the gravity force. I am in the progress in putting up my ideas into a website. However, still need some time. Thank you.
Montec
Hello all

Hehe for what its worth I will throw in these ideas.

Magnetic fields are the flow of energy through the T in our 3D+T universe.

Gravity is the result of a localized reduced T from the harmonic motion of particles.

Particles are the result of rotating magnetic fields in the T dimension.

Just some idle thoughts.

smile.gif

Roy
I think you are not seeing the picture as a hole, the dilation of time, contraction of matter due to acceleration and speed along with an understanding of time space gravity and acceleration should be inclusive in a theory.
Roy
I wrote a copyrighted theory that made sense but it seemed to upset a lot of people.
It was a theory about a prediction of electromagnetic decay into a monopole wave as the process of matter decaying into space itself. Time in this theory is the process of decay and space is the volume. The waves synchronize into constructive wave interference or gravitational wave synchronization is the process of gravity. So time, space and wave synchronization are three aspects of matter decay creating space. So in this sense, magnetism is a dipole and leakage from electro magnetic radiation into a monopole creates space itself. The essence of time and space are functions of this resulting wave process and the synchronization of this gravitational, non-binding wave is the force of gravity and space itself.
kokhaw
QUOTE (Roy+Jun 26 2007, 04:55 PM)
I wrote a copyrighted theory that made sense but it seemed to upset a lot of people.
It was a theory about a prediction of electromagnetic decay into a monopole wave as the process of matter decaying into space itself. Time in this theory is the process of decay and space is the volume. The waves synchronize into constructive wave interference or gravitational wave synchronization is the process of gravity. So time, space and wave synchronization are three aspects of matter decay creating space. So in this sense, magnetism is a dipole and leakage from electro magnetic radiation into a monopole creates space itself. The essence of time and space are functions of this resulting wave process and the synchronization of this gravitational, non-binding wave is the force of gravity and space itself.

Roy,
I partially agreed to you on the decaying process. However, I don't know what is your whole theory, therefore, cannot give any comment. By the way, do you believe in big bang?
adrian_brooks
QUOTE (magpies+Jun 18 2007, 05:32 AM)
My Single Mass Generator theory pretty much suggests that everything is actually magnetic flux IE magnetism and that gravity is just caused by a lot of magnetic flux grouping together to form what looks like a dense object with mass and a gravitational pull but when its actually just magnetism.

Magpie,

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your suggestion that gravity is a result of combined magnetic flux. The laws of physics & magnetism conclusively show a vital difference between the two forces. Albeit, the common mistake is that since both forces attract matter over distance that they have to somehow be the same, but let's examine a simple prospect here first.

Magnetism is the result of atomic/ionic alignment. The atomic structure of magnetic or even ferrous matter is such that the covalent electrons of each atom are all sharing their electrons in an even swap scenario, to state it more broadly.

Gravity, on the other hand is a property of mass. Every body of mass possesses a gravitational constant that is mathematically proportional to it's composition, density and volumetric size. So, if we could be in space, away from the influence of celestial bodies that are exerting gravitational and magnetic fields, we would be able to successfully create a very workable AND visibly conclusive display of these different forces.

Experiment for property of mass based force (gravity): Take a 100 kg solid lead ball and suspend it in the weightless/forceless environment of free space. Now take a solid lead BB for a BB gun, and suspend it roughly 1 cm away from the lead ball. (Keeping in mind that neither of these elements has the slightest ferrous qualities and could only be affected by magnetism of an enormous flux level.) Now, you would witness that the BB is falling to the surface of the 100 kg lead ball.

This is because the gravitational constant that a solid lead ball of that size would inherently possess in proportion to the atomic density & volume of the lead BB, in reference to the mass of the lead BB, would be roughly the equivalent of the planet mercury to the sun.
An extension of the experiement (proving magnetic/gravitational inequality) would be to set the BB into motion and roughly 1 cm/sec in any direction at the same distance away from the larger ball. The result would be a sustained orbit based on the centriptal force created by the kinetic energy of the BB in motion versus the gravitational force attempting to bring it to it's surface.

If these two items were of even the slightest of magnetic proprties, you could rest assured that putting the BB into motion in any direction not aligned to the flux equator of the magnetic field would cause it's path to be altered dramatically so that each magnetic flux axis would always strive to stay aligned in direct opposition of each other. A great real-life example of this is to just look at any solar system. Have you ever wondered why all the planets orbit on roughly the exact same plane around their sun? This is because if the planets followed any other planear path, they would start on an orbit that would result in an orbital sine wave. Each half of the orbit would be either above or below the magnetic equatorial centerline, but will eventually stabilize back on to the plane of the equator of the central magnetic field.

So, to suggest that magnetism and gravity are one in the same is outlandish as basic physics is able to prove that the two are entirely different forces with similar circumstantial effects on matter.

That's my thoughts tongue.gif
Nick
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jun 18 2007, 08:53 AM)
You've had that explained to you before. It's not that the matter falls into the event horizon, is churned up by the black hole and then ejected out through the event horizon, that is not what is happening. The powerful electromagnetic fields and frame dragging effects swirl part of the accretion disk of the system, which is NOT within the event horizon, into two powerful beams of ionised particles.

It is not counter to any black hole results, you just haven't bothered to learn anything about them.

As usual.

How does magnetism redirect matter out its poles if it is in the accretion disk first? How does it go from the accretion disk to the poles which are perpenduicular to it?

Maybe its the Flying Wollendas.

Mitch Raemsch
rethinker
QUOTE (adrian_brooks+Jul 27 2007, 03:34 AM)
Magpie,

I have to wholeheartedly disagree with your suggestion that gravity is a result of combined magnetic flux. The laws of physics & magnetism conclusively show a vital difference between the two forces. Albeit, the common mistake is that since both forces attract matter over distance that they have to somehow be the same, but let's examine a simple prospect here first.

Magnetism is the result of atomic/ionic alignment. The atomic structure of magnetic or even ferrous matter is such that the covalent electrons of each atom are all sharing their electrons in an even swap scenario, to state it more broadly.

Gravity, on the other hand is a property of mass. Every body of mass possesses a gravitational constant that is mathematically proportional to it's composition, density and volumetric size. So, if we could be in space, away from the influence of celestial bodies that are exerting gravitational and magnetic fields, we would be able to successfully create a very workable AND visibly conclusive display of these different forces.

Experiment for property of mass based force (gravity): Take a 100 kg solid lead ball and suspend it in the weightless/forceless environment of free space. Now take a solid lead BB for a BB gun, and suspend it roughly 1 cm away from the lead ball. (Keeping in mind that neither of these elements has the slightest ferrous qualities and could only be affected by magnetism of an enormous flux level.) Now, you would witness that the BB is falling to the surface of the 100 kg lead ball.

This is because the gravitational constant that a solid lead ball of that size would inherently possess in proportion to the atomic density & volume of the lead BB, in reference to the mass of the lead BB, would be roughly the equivalent of the planet mercury to the sun.
An extension of the experiement (proving magnetic/gravitational inequality) would be to set the BB into motion and roughly 1 cm/sec in any direction at the same distance away from the larger ball. The result would be a sustained orbit based on the centriptal force created by the kinetic energy of the BB in motion versus the gravitational force attempting to bring it to it's surface.

If these two items were of even the slightest of magnetic proprties, you could rest assured that putting the BB into motion in any direction not aligned to the flux equator of the magnetic field would cause it's path to be altered dramatically so that each magnetic flux axis would always strive to stay aligned in direct opposition of each other. A great real-life example of this is to just look at any solar system. Have you ever wondered why all the planets orbit on roughly the exact same plane around their sun? This is because if the planets followed any other planear path, they would start on an orbit that would result in an orbital sine wave. Each half of the orbit would be either above or below the magnetic equatorial centerline, but will eventually stabilize back on to the plane of the equator of the central magnetic field.

So, to suggest that magnetism and gravity are one in the same is outlandish as basic physics is able to prove that the two are entirely different forces with similar circumstantial effects on matter.

That's my thoughts tongue.gif

Welcome adrian_brooks
You have a good point here.
The experiment --------------- it is theory correct?

wink.gif
Aireal
Wrong Question.

Gravity & Charge - Related or Not?

Charles
yor_on
Ok so I lubricated my braincells some what! That doesn't mean you have to bend over helplessly in laugh does it? Well, if there's any chicks reading this i just want you to know that l will just find it charming ::)) Also it gets me a better overview ;) Any way. If i get this right? A permanent magnet, however much you use it, doesn't lose its properties? Is that right?? If so, how can that be :) Everything else extending a force on anything else change its energy level??? Permanent Magnets does not?? Why?
fizzeksman
The following excerpt on gravity is from a paper I authored titled "The Three Elements, A Theory of Unification".

QUOTE

Empirically it can be concluded that electromagnetic radiation exists throughout the observable universe. We can make this conclusion because light from distant stars, a form of electromagnetic radiation, can be viewed from Earth and also from space. It can also be concluded that gravity existed as far back in time as the universe is observable as well as locally in our solar system and galaxy.

Inertia, that property of a massive body to resist acceleration in proportion to the collective mass of the body, and gravitation as experienced near Earth's surface, are roughly equivalent. Gravity, a gradient acceleration field, is thought to be dependent upon the sum of the masses of the accelerated bodies and appears inversely proportionate to the distance between them. It is observed to be an effect local to the vicinity of massive bodies while inertia is experienced as a universal effect, anytime massive particles or bodies, experience acceleration.

An equivalence of gravitation and inertia is accepted as undeniable empirically. An acceptance of this equivalence leads to a conclusion that one is an effect of the mechanism of the other. Gravity then must be an effect of inertia  (in this model proposed to be the result of radiation pressure) because gravity is a local effect while inertia as confirmed by observation is universal.
Radiation producing the effect of inertia can be concluded to be existent in space anywhere there is space/distance to allow acceleration.

Any massive body accelerating from a relative “state of rest”, or steady state motion in this sea of radiation, will experience more radiation from the direction toward which it is being accelerated, because of the Doppler effect.  Combined, with less radiation from the direction from which it is being accelerated, the total effect of inertia (the resistance to acceleration) is created. Once acceleration ceases a new state of rest occurs. 
The following conclusion can account for this observation if radiation is indeed the underlying cause of inertia. Any given volume of space before relative acceleration, when compared to an identical volume of space after acceleration, must contain approximately identical quantities of radiation in number, frequency, and wavelength. This allows for resistance to acceleration from a relative state of rest and for non-impeded steady state relative motion before and after acceleration via doppler shift of all contributing radiation.
Any radiation, capable of accelerating encountered massive objects, would create an effect of inertia/gravitation. Acceleration of one massive body toward another would be the result of a shading effect of inertial radiation. According to this model: Gravity is a gradient acceleration field precipitated by blocking of inertial radiation by massive bodies. Gravity, is detectable whenever the gradient acceleration field, inherent to two or more massive bodies, coincide.



Anyone desiring the full paper via e-mail should contact me via forum e-mail.
Thanks
Jack
Aireal
Yor on

So that must mean that the charge found in matter must be replenished somehow for the permanent magnet to be permanent? huh.gif

Now how can gravity replenish the charge? blink.gif

Hint: It should have something to do with the spin of particles. Have fun! unsure.gif

Second Hint: Einstein wrote a letter to Mach about this effect. Enjoy!!! ph34r.gif

Charles
yor_on
So you got it worked out then?
Cool ::))

" In QED, forces between particles of matter are mediated by the collision of photons with electrons and the accompanying momentum transfer. So streams of photons must leave each of the two magnets of figure 1.2, ( Two horse shoe magnets placed against each other S/N and N/South, with a copperplate placed in the middle, separating their 'ends' from each other ) spontaneously and forever, and then pass through a copper plate, finally colliding with electrons at the surface and deep inside the opposite horseshoe magnets. A simple collision between two articles produces repulsion, therefore in order to generate attraction between the magnets, the photons must navigate around the magnets, turn and strike them in the back.

This mechanism is so ludicrous that it will not be found discussed in textbooks. Nor will most professors mention it to a class of students. An exception was Guy Burniston-Brown [1.5], a reader of physics at the University of London. On one occasion he challenged an audience of students at Oxford University to explain the attraction and repulsion between two magnets without employing action at a distance. He was met with silence. Later he described this incident in his book on retarded action at a distance and wrote:

“Why should we not admit that, sometimes, what appears to be happening is happening? The refusal to accept action at a distance has led to all the difficulties and tortuous explanations connected with ether-vortices, waves, twisted space-time and many others, together with abortive experimental efforts to detect the ether. The time now has surely come to cut the Gordian Knot by abolishing all the ethers, abandoning the attribution of physical properties to “nothing”, and rejecting purely mathematical constructions like space-time.”

Now take this with some salt :) But the Question remains.
rethinker
QUOTE (Aireal+Jul 27 2007, 03:19 PM)
Yor on

So that must mean that the charge found in matter must be replenished somehow for the permanent magnet to be permanent? huh.gif

Now how can gravity replenish the charge? blink.gif

Hint: It should have something to do with the spin of particles. Have fun! unsure.gif

Second Hint: Einstein wrote a letter to Mach about this effect. Enjoy!!! ph34r.gif

Charles

Aireal
Can you give up some of the secrets in your post.
Seems to make some sense, but I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Unless you wish not to of course. ph34r.gif
yor_on
Now Aireal, your idea wouldn't have anything to do with entanglement would it? :)
kokhaw
Every mass has spin, the spin is the results of magnetic field and moment. Besides magnetic field and moment, mass also possess electric force. When the atom is filled with electrons on its orbit, the magnetic moment and force of atom is neutralised by the moving electron circulating surrounding it. The positive charge of atom is neutralised by the charge of electron. This is very interesting. I had posted some of the explanations on the link below.
www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm
Have fun and enjoy.

Regarding the gravitational force in the solar system. As I mentioned earlier. Gravitation does not exist. Gravitational force is the effect of electric and magnetic forces. In the solar system, the planets orbit around the sun is due to strong electrostatic force. The sun is a very densed and high positive charged object. The hydrogen burns violently within the core of the sun, the positive charges are trapped within the strong magnetic field of the sun, the highly excited electrons are thrown away from the sun. The dark hole on the surface of the sun are the escape evidence of electrons. Therefore, when the sun is burning more violently and more electrons are throwed away, the sun is getting more positively charge.

The planets surrouding the sun is pulled by strong electrostatic force. The pulling force between positive charge to neutral object. Therefore, in the universe, planets (neutral objects) are always circulating around stars (Positively charged objects). Due to the strong positive charge of the sun, the earth is induced by the sun and also become slight positive charged object. That's why the earth is always on the thirst of electrons and why the lightning always stricts on and is attacted by earth.

All the objects on the earth are slight positive charged, but relatively neutral to each other. The moon circulating the earth is because the moon is electrostatically pulled by the positively charge of earth.

Gravity force is governed by two forces, electric and magnetic forces. If two objects are very different in charge, electric force plays major role in pulling each other. If both object relatively has same charge, magnetic force plays major role in pulling each other. If you equate up the gravity force and electric force, you can find that mass is a function of electric force. Similarily, if you equate up the gravity force and electric force, you can find that mass is a function of magnetic force.

So, the conclusion on this topic is yes, they are related. And there is no such thing as gravity force, they are the resultants of electric and magnetic force.

Comments are very welcome. Thank you.
rethinker
kokhaw

Quote(So, the conclusion on this topic is yes, they are related. And there is no such thing as gravity force, they are the resultants of electric and magnetic force.

Comments are very welcome. Thank you.)

You make it hard to comment on such precise detailed conclusion.
I found your post most interesting and informative. wink.gif

I agree with your theory
QUOTE
As I mentioned earlier. Gravitation does not exist.
Siau
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 12 2007, 04:27 PM)
Greetings,

I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

Please state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream.

ty in advance cool.gif

Well since you asked.. smile.gif

I'm going to try to explain this in a logical form although without pictures, it is difficult to communicate this type of thing.

Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether".

Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.

Hypothesis 3: Variations in the density of the ether causes what we observe and call "electric charge".

Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, ether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density.

Hypothesis 5: As density variations take place, they form a traveling wave of density variation.

Hypothesis 6: The speed of the travel is limited due to the reluctance of the density to be altered. This reluctance to alteration is the result of the mathematical situation of every point in space as it is affected by all other points. This is what causes time.

Hypothesis 7: The wave front ramp speed or acceleration rate of density change determines the inertia of the wave. The sharper or faster ramping the change in density, the more difficult it is to change it any faster. It is by this effect, that all things feel the encounter any other thing.

Hypothesis 8: Electric charge waves, known as "electro-magnetic waves" are formed as the either density rises and lowers sequentially traveling across a space. The rise rate is slow enough that very little inertia is apparent.

Hypothesis 9: Matter particles are created as waves of "ether charge" fall back into their own back wave creating a much faster density change rate. This is evident by their "spin" and increased inertia (inability to be affected). Light photons are just within the boundary of being stable particles and thus display both particle and wave attributes.

Hypothesis 10: These spinning waves have specific distances required from wave front to wave tail for them to form a stable spin. Each harmonic of this distance forms another stable particle size. These are what creates the "quantum" effect of size constraints on stable particles.

Hypothesis 11: The internal motion of the variations in density (often neutral in total density and charge) travel at the speed of light as they form a racing 3 dimensional envelope in pursuit of their own density back waves.

Hypothesis 12: The spinning of the wave fronts within each particle creates a charge wave radiation effect extending outward from the particle epicenter. Due to the circling nature of the spin, this radiation is in the form of a 45 degree spiraling wave front of effect on all space surrounding the particle. No energy is lost from the particle because the spiral wave is not encountering opposition or doing work.

Hypothesis 13: When a spiraling ether wave encounters a spinning ether object (all particles), the internal spin speed of the particle is affected such as to cause one side of the spin to necessarily be slower than the other. But due to the cycling of both the particle spin as well as the wave being encountered, the particle is impeded first in one direction such as to pull the particle at a 45 degree angle but then reversed such as to pull it at the opposite 45 degree angle. The result is that the particle moves directly toward the source of the radiant wave - gravity.

Magnetism is formed by a similar means;

Hypothesis 14: When the ether density variations form an overall increase or decrease in ether density, an electric charge is apparent. The electric effect is substantially greater than the ether density effect alone because it represents a total ether density change in space over a much larger area and strongly affects any other great density variation. The much smaller density variations creating the particles are confined to a very small area as they are filling their own back waves leaving a neutral overall density change as felt outside the particle. A particle with an overall variation in density has nothing to confine its density change effect.

Hypothesis 15: When an electric charge races by another charge, it has a different affect as it approaches than as it leaves. This is similar to the Doppler effect of sound. The approaching charge affects the space of a second charge in an increasing rate of overall density change. This gives a stronger push or pull on the second charge particle than when it is leaving the second particle.

Hypothesis 16: A series of charged particles racing by a target charged particle will continuously push the target particle - magnetism.

Additional notes;

Hypothesis 17: An increase in density can be more easily arranged than a decrease due to the fact that any decrease must be formed by the inherent willingness of the ether substance to disperse. It cannot be "pulled", but it can be "pushed".

Hypothesis 18: A heavy or high inertia positive particle can be naturally formed more easily than a negative high inertial particle. As the wave front of the inner particle waves increases, the inertia of the particle increases due to the reluctance of density change. An increase in density change rate can be forced through compression of additional efforts to increase the density. But a decrease in density change by adding additional efforts to remove the substance is dependent on the speed at which the substance travels out of an area. This is why we find heavy positive particles (protons) occurring naturally and not heavy negative particles (negatons).

Hypothesis 19: A negative charge, low ether density, particle occupies a different size of space. Although a heavy negative particle can be formed, it cannot be made stable due to the requirements of proximity of the leading and trailing wave ramps.

Hypothesis 20: An electron is a different size and density dispersion than a positron. And protons have a much higher wave ramp dispermitting the electrons to merge with them. This is what yields "atoms - a single particle made by a negative charge field attempting to collapse into a heavier (more dense) positive charge wave. The Bohr atomic model has never been correct.

Hypothesis 21: A nucleus of an atom is a single particle fixed at inertial states that are a harmonic of a single neutron particle. Protons combine into a single enveloping wave required to be stable at specific harmonic sizes. A nucleus is not "held together" but is a single wave formed by combining the waves of other particles into one - there is no "strong force".

I could go on for more bits of interesting physics, but 21 concepts should be enough for now. You can simulate all of this with merely a PC and a large spreadsheet like Excel if you are very careful in choosing the exact right formula for "ether repelling force" or the reluctance for the density of the fabric of space to be altered. The resultant programming will allow you to see waves and particles forming along with their naturally occurring magnetic and gravitation effects even though you had not programmed those effects in.

Enjoy smile.gif
rethinker
Siau
I hope Bryn will respond to your post.
I just wonder how you can put your thoughts and knowledge together in such a way that I am just simply impressed.
It is slightly overwhelming for me to comprehend all of it right now, but I will be rereading your post.
I have spent a lot of time studying how general contracting works. Most of my life has not been studying physics as I now wish to do. My time from the age of 8 was how to work physically with my hands. I now have mastered most construction skills. It was not waisted time. However I wish I would of also known that my real joy is in physics etc.

If you get time, could you post your thought about what kokhaw wrote?
Thanks for posting, you offer many insights.
Siau
QUOTE (rethinker+Aug 3 2007, 01:46 AM)
Siau
I hope Bryn will respond to your post.
I just wonder how you can put your thoughts and knowledge together in such a way that I am just simply impressed.
It is slightly overwhelming for me to comprehend all of it right now, but I will be rereading your post.
I have spent a lot of time studying how general contracting works. Most of my life has not been studying physics as I now wish to do. My time from the age of 8 was how to work physically with my hands. I now have mastered  most construction skills. It was not waisted time. However I wish I would of also known that my real joy is in physics etc.

If you get time, could you post your thought about what kokhaw wrote?
Thanks for posting, you offer many insights.

Well thank you rethinker for your kind words. smile.gif

But I have to say that if you think you understand what I wrote without having gone through a great deal more detailed explanations for each hypothesis, then you probably don't. dry.gif

Each of the hypothesies can be debated and requires more explanation and verification before full acceptence. I had to skirt over a great deal so I could get up to the relevant question of how magnetism and gravity are related. You pretty much need to understand where each came from to begin with.

As far a kokhaw's theory, I find it interesting but I'm affraid I have to disagree for a variety of reasons. In an earlier post he mentioned the possibility of anti-gravity. Anti-gravity is not possible simply due to the fact that gravity comes from a geometric situation that fields find themselves in but that has no possible geometric opposite. If you had a small circle expanding to a larger circle then back again repeatedly and this produced some effect that you wanted to reverse, how could you reverse the cycle without ending up with the same thing? Again that assertion would take a lot more explanation as would all of the others I posted.

There are key questions that anyone should be asking if they understand most of what I posted. I would expect those issues to be cleared up before anyone could really buy all that I said. I will gladly support to the hilt everything needing such support, but all of it is a very long story because Science has basically always just assumed the 3 forces of electric, magnetic, and gravitation to be fundamental and created quite a mess trying to enforce that concept. Thus there is much to Un-understand. blink.gif

I don't really know why anyone here would need to understand any of these things, but hey, if it keeps you off the streets. biggrin.gif
wbraxtonwilson
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 12 2007, 04:27 PM)
Greetings,

I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

Please state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream.

ty in advance cool.gif


Bryn: An interesting question. One hypothsis is that magnitism, caused by the spin of electrons, producing a short magnetic field with rapid decay in distance, involves POLARIZED photons. Alternately, gravity is a weak field with inverse square law decline, It may also emanate from photons, as I have postulated, but with the absence of polarization in its field. In the coldness of space it is essetially a cold, isotropic, glacial, gravitational field. If one assumes that the photon is the ultimate particle building of all matter, it could follow that it would include Newton's Law between photonic particulate masses, with photons also conveying gravity between these masses. That is, to suggest the photon is like the postulated graviton. Gravity is thus dominated by the main masses and also acts as an omnipresent transmitting media between masses as the gravity field. wbw
Siau
QUOTE (wbraxtonwilson+Aug 3 2007, 02:24 PM)

Bryn: An interesting question. One hypothsis is that magnitism, caused by the spin of electrons, producing a short magnetic field with rapid decay in distance, involves POLARIZED photons. Alternately, gravity is a weak field with inverse square law decline, It may also emanate from photons, as I have postulated, but with the absence of polarization in its field. In the coldness of space it is essetially a cold, isotropic, glacial, gravitational field. If one assumes that the photon is the ultimate particle building of all matter, it could follow that it would include Newton's Law between photonic particulate masses, with photons also conveying gravity between these masses. That is, to suggest the photon is like the postulated graviton. Gravity is thus dominated by the main masses and also acts as an omnipresent transmitting media between masses as the gravity field. wbw

If you were to break a gram of matter down into pure radiant energy, no photons either, but held all of that radiant energy within a sphere, the weight or gravity of the sphere and its contents would not have changed.

How do you acount for this in your theory?
kokhaw
Rethicker and Siau, Thanks for your interest and comments. This is a great discussion.

Siau, I agree on your hypothesis. Seems like we have some common understanding. But I can only give comments on some hypothesis which I know. Please find below.

I am trying to put everything into a complete explanation so that you can have an overall picture instead of piece by piece as described here. Once you can see the overall picture, you will find that everything are inter-related and can be explained and understand easily.

Very happy to share some toughts here.


QUOTE (Siau+Aug 2 2007, 04:45 PM)
I'm going to try to explain this in a logical form although without pictures, it is difficult to communicate this type of thing.

Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether".

[kokhaw] Agree. I am doing preparing a short write up on this issue which will be posted on my website later.

Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.

[kokhaw] totally agree, this is the main find out of my theory.

Hypothesis 3: Variations in the density of the ether causes what we observe and call "electric charge".

[kokhaw] as above.

Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, ether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density.

[kokhaw] My hypothesis is the 'ether' is originally negative charge. This is the original 'build-in' energy that causes the big bang and become the universe. The positive charge are created during the process of big bang. Long story.

Hypothesis 5: As density variations take place, they form a traveling wave of density variation.

Hypothesis 6: The speed of the travel is limited due to the reluctance of the density to be altered. This reluctance to alteration is the result of the mathematical situation of every point in space as it is affected by all other points. This is what causes time.

[kokhaw] The speed of light is the limit and ultimate speed. My hypothesis is the reason of this speed is due to the expansion rate of big bang at time zero.

[kokhaw] The nett amount of time in this universe is nil. Time is created during big bang. Two type of time are create. One is the running time which is the current time everybody refer to (I named it as kinetic time). The second time is the potential time where the time is stored as mass/matter. The net summation of these two times are zero. The universe ends when potential time reaching zero.

[kokhaw] During big bang, the expansion of universe had set some rules, one is the speed of light, another one is the right-hand rule for M&E characteristic.

Hypothesis 7: The wave front ramp speed or acceleration rate of density change determines the inertia of the wave. The sharper or faster ramping the change in density, the more difficult it is to change it any faster. It is by this effect, that all things feel the encounter any other thing.

[kokhaw] My hypothesis is EM waves/light rerequire a vitual medium to travel. The virtual medium is the magnetic and electrin (M&E) field that exist in the universe. Light is a kind of energy (I named it as kinetic energy at time zero) which cannot be destroyed. The light travels within the boundary of the universe. Light is reflected when reaches the boundary of the universe.

Hypothesis 8: Electric charge waves, known as "electro-magnetic waves" are formed as the either density rises and lowers sequentially traveling across a space. The rise rate is slow enough that very little inertia is apparent.

Hypothesis 9: Matter particles are created as waves of "ether charge" fall back into their own back wave creating a much faster density change rate. This is evident by their "spin" and increased inertia (inability to be affected). Light photons are just within the boundary of being stable particles and thus display both particle and wave attributes.

[kokhaw] agree. please refer to my link www.greatians.com/physics/mass/pair%20production.htm electron is the smallest mass because it spins at the speed of light.

[kokhaw] photon is quantized EM wave, it possess fixed M&E 'amplitude'. The ratio of magnetic to electric field is the speed of light.

[kokhaw] The particles and EM wave reacts similarily due the energy level and the same cause the effect. There is a reason for the EM wave to undergo refraction, diffraction, interference and reflection. This is the effect deu to the M&E field of EM wave.

Hypothesis 10: These spinning waves have specific distances required from wave front to wave tail for them to form a stable spin. Each harmonic of this distance forms another stable particle size. These are what creates the "quantum" effect of size constraints on stable particles.

[kokhaw] stable particles possess quantized spin. For unstable particles, they possess un-quantized spin.

Hypothesis 11: The internal motion of the variations in density (often neutral in total density and charge) travel at the speed of light as they form a racing 3 dimensional envelope in pursuit of their own density back waves.

Hypothesis 12: The spinning of the wave fronts within each particle creates a charge wave radiation effect extending outward from the particle epicenter. Due to the circling nature of the spin, this radiation is in the form of a 45 degree spiraling wave front of effect on all space surrounding the particle. No energy is lost from the particle because the spiral wave is not encountering opposition or doing work.

[kokhaw] this is something what I mean by interference between photon. But for monochromatic photons, the dispersion of wavefront does not happen.

Hypothesis 13: When a spiraling ether wave encounters a spinning ether object (all particles), the internal spin speed of the particle is affected such as to cause one side of the spin to necessarily be slower than the other. But due to the cycling of both the particle spin as well as the wave being encountered, the particle is impeded first in one direction such as to pull the particle at a 45 degree angle but then reversed such as to pull it at the opposite 45 degree angle. The result is that the particle moves directly toward the source of the radiant wave - gravity.

Magnetism is formed by a similar means;

[kokhaw] The electric charge is caused by the transformation of electric field of EM wave. The photon is brought from speed of light to rest condition. The electric field of photon is deformed into a point charge and the magnetic field is deformed into the inner-merged toroidal pattern. When electron moves from one point to another point, the magnetic field moves together and creates the magnetic field of moving electron.

Hypothesis 14: When the ether density variations form an overall increase or decrease in ether density, an electric charge is apparent. The electric effect is substantially greater than the ether density effect alone because it represents a total ether density change in space over a much larger area and strongly affects any other great density variation. The much smaller density variations creating the particles are confined to a very small area as they are filling their own back waves leaving a neutral overall density change as felt outside the particle. A particle with an overall variation in density has nothing to confine its density change effect.

Hypothesis 15: When an electric charge races by another charge, it has a different affect as it approaches than as it leaves. This is similar to the Doppler effect of sound. The approaching charge affects the space of a second charge in an increasing rate of overall density change. This gives a stronger push or pull on the second charge particle than when it is leaving the second particle.

[kokhaw] The resulting magnetic field of moving electrons is the superposition of many many tiny magnetic field of moving electron.

Hypothesis 16: A series of charged particles racing by a target charged particle will continuously push the target particle - magnetism.

Additional notes;

Hypothesis 17: An increase in density can be more easily arranged than a decrease due to the fact that any decrease must be formed by the inherent willingness of the ether substance to disperse. It cannot be "pulled", but it can be "pushed".

Hypothesis 18: A heavy or high inertia positive particle can be naturally formed more easily than a negative high inertial particle. As the wave front of the inner particle waves increases, the inertia of the particle increases due to the reluctance of density change. An increase in density change rate can be forced through compression of additional efforts to increase the density. But a decrease in density change by adding additional efforts to remove the substance is dependent on the speed at which the substance travels out of an area. This is why we find heavy positive particles (protons) occurring naturally and not heavy negative particles (negatons).

Hypothesis 19: A negative charge, low ether density, particle occupies a different size of space. Although a heavy negative particle can be formed, it cannot be made stable due to the requirements of proximity of the leading and trailing wave ramps.

Hypothesis 20: An electron is a different size and density dispersion than a positron. And protons have a much higher wave ramp dispermitting the electrons to merge with them. This is what yields "atoms - a single particle made by a negative charge field attempting to collapse into a heavier (more dense) positive charge wave. The Bohr atomic model has never been correct.

[kokhaw] Agree, Bohr atomic model has weakness. I had put another atom model. refer to the link www.greatians.com/physics/mass/atom%20model.htm

Hypothesis 21: A nucleus of an atom is a single particle fixed at inertial states that are a harmonic of a single neutron particle. Protons combine into a single enveloping wave required to be stable at specific harmonic sizes. A nucleus is not "held together" but is a single wave formed by combining the waves of other particles into one - there is no "strong force".

[kokhaw] There is no strong force within nuclues. In fact, to my understanding, there is not nuclues within an atom (long story). Just look at electron, there is no nuclues for electron, but electron is matter. the 'nuclues' is created during big bang and due to the rapid change of M&E field during big bang with reference to time.

I could go on for more bits of interesting physics, but 21 concepts should be enough for now. You can simulate all of this with merely a PC and a large spreadsheet like Excel if you are very careful in choosing the exact right formula for "ether repelling force" or the reluctance for the density of the fabric of space to be altered. The resultant programming will allow you to see waves and particles forming along with their naturally occurring magnetic and gravitation effects even though you had not programmed those effects in.

Enjoy  smile.gif

Siau
QUOTE (kokhaw+Aug 4 2007, 05:18 AM)
Rethicker and Siau, Thanks for your interest and comments. This is a great discussion.

Siau, I agree on your hypothesis. Seems like we have some common understanding. But I can only give comments on some hypothesis which I know. Please find below.

I am trying to put everything into a complete explanation so that you can have an overall picture instead of piece by piece as described here. Once you can see the overall picture, you will find that everything are inter-related and can be explained and understand easily.

Very happy to share some toughts here.



hi kokhaw smile.gif

I am detecting that we might be having a little of a language barrier, so please keep that in mind. huh.gif

If we are going to disuss the whole picture, which I believe is required to see the real answer to the OP, I think we must go a little at a time until all segments are clarified.

So to start with the first possible confusion;

QUOTE
Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, aether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density.

[kokhaw] My hypothesis is the 'eather' is originally negative charge. This is the original 'build-in' energy that causes the big bang and become the universe. The positive charge are created during the process of big bang. Long story.

"Positive" and "negative" are merely comparitive measurements to each other. Without one, you cannot have the other. So anything labeled "negative" is merely saying that it is more negative than some accepted standard for "zero".

What I have proposed is that the aether and electric charge are basically the same thing. One is a variation in density of the other. Without variations in the aether density, there can be no positive or negative. Nothing can be "originally negative" unless there is something that is also "originally positive". My proposal is that originally, there is no positive or negative until variations occur.

We can detect an electric charge when there is a variation in the density of the aether substance. This means that electric charge is really a "variation" of aether density. What we call "negative" is the thinning or more desperse aether and what we call "positive" is the more concentrated or compressed aether.

Without such compressions or despersing, we have to call the aether at a neutral or zero charge state. At such a state, nothing can be observed because there is no contrast. Without contrast, there can be no stimulation of anything nor detection of any kind.

Aether cannot be observed, only variations in it.
Siau
QUOTE (Siau+Aug 2 2007, 04:45 PM)
Hypothesis 1: Our universe is made entirely of a single substance currently called the "fabric of space" once called "ether".

Hypothesis 2: This fabric or ether has the property of mutual repelling of every point within much like a huge cloud of electrons. But it is also 100% homogeneous having no particles within.

Backing up just a bit to explain why I started with the concept of aether...

If you are going to try to explain where EVERYTHING came from, then you have to begin with some simple concepts that do not depend on anything else. But some artificial visuals help.

Imagine you had a balloon filled with tiny spherical grains of sand.

One tiny grain of sand is very easy to move. But for any one of them to move in that balloon, all others must also move.

If you were to very quickly tap on the side of the balloon, the force that you applied to the grain that you hit would push that one grain. But for it to move, it would have to push the next grain and that grain would have to push the next and so on. Eventually the impulse that you gave that one grain, would be felt by all others throughout the balloon. They would each have to compensate for the movement of that one grain.

What this means is that for you to move even that one tiny grain, you would have to impart enough force to move every grain in the balloon. This is why there is a reluctance to the alteration in density of aether.

Each point in space must apply force to any adjacent point surrounding it for it to change.

But what changes can there be if we have not established electric charge, magnetism, gravity, mass, or inertia?

The simplest (usually the correct) is merely how much of whatever the stuff is – its density.

It will turn out that it doesn’t matter what the substance is, as long as it has none of the mentioned forces already (much like the sand except not even having mass). It can be merely “stuff of space” – aether. And it need merely have the property of not liking to occupy the same position as more of its own kind (again, much like the sand, water, or much like a cloud of electrons).

So the question then becomes, “If all we have to work with is the density of the ‘stuff of space’, aether, how can we end up with the entire universe of diverse particles, waves, and motions that we see out there?”

If we assume that the substance is truly 100% homogeneous, having no particles within to provide distance between contrasting effects, we rid ourselves of the common effect of resistive dispersion of energy when anything moves, as found in water or air. This explains how a wave can travel billions of miles and not show the slightest sign of lost energy.

So why can’t we see this aether stuff?


The detection or sight of anything requires that something be different than something around it. If anything is truly 100% homogeneous, nothing can be seen within. All other things, including us, are made of merely the density variations of that same stuff. That means that light would not bounce off of the stuff because light is a part of the stuff, but merely a variation in the density of it. Thus there is nothing to reflect light and nothing to see even if light could reflect off of it.

It is us and everywhere around us and looks like empty space if there is no disturbance in its density. Objects that we can detect are merely disturbances in its density. Without those variations in density, we see nothingness – “empty” space, filled with what all things are made of.

The only error in what Aristotle explained about the universe was that he said that aether is what things travel IN. He was right, but what he should have said to be more correct, is that aether is what all things travel through as a part of it.
Siau
QUOTE (Siau+Aug 2 2007, 04:45 PM)
Hypothesis 3: Variations in the density of the ether causes what we observe and call "electric charge".

Hypothesis 4: Positive electric charge is created by an increase in density of the substance of space, ether. Negative electric charge is created by the relative decrease in density.

Hypothesis 5: As density variations take place, they form a traveling wave of density variation.

Hypothesis 6: The speed of the travel is limited due to the reluctance of the density to be altered. This reluctance to alteration is the result of the mathematical situation of every point in space as it is affected by all other points. This is what causes time.

So now, what happens when we remove a little of the aether stuff? Well, what happens when you remove a little water from the middle of a water balloon or some of the sand from that sand balloon? The rest collapses into the void.

If you were to thin or remove some of the aether, the entire rest of the universe would be compelled to fill the void backup. A force would be evident because every point in space is already a bit compressed by all other points pushing on them.

If you were to create an electric field out in space but then just left it, removing any sustaining source, what happens to the field? I vanishes dispersed out into all space. The void is refilled.

But such a thing takes time. The void is not instantaneously refilled. There is a force acting over time shifting the state of the universe at the speed of light back to its original homogeneous uniformity. So what would be seen during that time?

Imagine that instead of using sand or water in the balloon, you were to use a more compressible substance like tiny rubber balls.

When you removed some of the tiny balls from the center of the balloon, the others would rush in to fill the hole. But at what force? Well it just o happens to be none other than;

F = q/r

Where F is the force applied to each tiny ball. “q” is the original compression “charge” or “pressure” of all of the balls upon each other relative to the empty hole having no pressure. And “r” is the distance from the center of the hole you created.

But in case you don’t recognize it, that is the exact formula for an electric charge field.

The balls closest to the hole have the greatest differential pressure being applied because they have no pressure from one side, and all of the other balls pushing from the other side. As those inner balls move slightly toward the empty hole, they relieve the pressure from one side of the balls immediately adjacent to them and those balls being to move. A wave of dispersed “hole” travels throughout the balloon until the hole is filled again and all is settled.

Now thus far, all this says is that an aether like substance could be used to create an electric type of charge field. It doesn’t prove that such is actually the truth of an electric field. But then, we are just getting started.

We have explained thus far;

1) How mere substance density is all we need to begin creation of all things.
2) How traveling waves can travel without energy loss.
3) Why empty space looks so empty.
4) Why forces take time to travel.
5) How an electric type of force field can become evident with mere density concerns of an otherwise mundane substance.


You can create an electric type of force field simply out of compressed clay.

smile.gif

________

Btw, if you choose to do the Excel simulation of the creation of the universe, you must fill every cell with the exact same formula representing the reluctance of aether to allow its density to change. That formula for electric field charge is where you begin. smile.gif
rjw524
Hello,

I'm not a scientist by any stretch of the imagination, but i have ALWAYS been fascinated by the physics that represent the "laws" of our universe. I completely respect the intelligence of people such as everyone here, who work to understand these things, even if they later turn out to be wrong. I personally don't feel "smart" enough or knowledgeable enough to challenge anyone on topics such as these, lol.

But I have ALWAYS believed that there is a strict, proveable, and definite connection between gravity and magnetism.

This may be naive, but I think everything is magnetic, to some degree. I believe that if you throw anything into an electric enough environment that it will display magnetic properties (has this theory been tested before? If so, I'd like to read up on it.)

Really, I think gravity and magnetism are either different expressions of the same force or at the very least, sister parts of a similar, more basic force.

Questions:

If G & M are the same:

A) Is it possible that magnetism, in the conventional sense, is really a special situation where gravity is simply functioning at its most pure?

For instance, we say that two pieces of wood are NOT magnetic. Or, is it just that the magnetism between the two is so weak that it's not really noticeable? Why do we accept that gravity exists between the two pieces of wood (an effect just as unnoticable to the naked eye) but we say there is no magnetism between them?


If G & M are different:

cool.gif Is it possible that when all matter existed as a whole at one point, magnetism was the force holding certain qualities of matter together, while gravity was holding other qualities of that same matter together?

c) Also, does the following make sense?

When both of these forces existed in orginal matter, as it became more dense, that density exerted a gravitational force so strong, while simultaneously generating an electromagnetic force so strong, that the two in such large amounts, could not maintain a stable co-existence? In such a situation is it possible that the heat generated by the opposing forces in such close quarters superheated the matter so much that it caused the original matter to explode?

(Also, wouldn't that (in very basic armchair theory, of course) be consistent with Newton's 3 Laws, particularly that every force exerts an equal opposing force?)

As I said, I am NO physicist or mathematician of any kind. I just like to think about this kind of stuff. So, if I'm WAY off based, feel free to point me in the right direction.

Thanks!

rjw524
Guest_Mike
I would caution against the statement "nothing comes out of black holes". I've never been convinced this is true. Now the statement 'nothing we can currently see or measure' can come out of black holes would be correct but you can't close the door completely. One universal law is for every action there is a reaction. If the action is a black hole pulling things into it, then it's reaction must exist but may not yet be perceived.
KIENNE
MAGNETISM IS GRAVITY [PERIOD]



yor_on
aaaah ha?
Rabbit
I reckon Nick's back in town, angling for a mangling.

laugh.gif
WAH
All of the models I see of gravity show time space as criss cross pattern with a round ball in the center signifying mass. The round ball makes an indentation in space time such as a lead ball would on a trampoline. So if this shows gravity then
the orbits of planets around a star should be a circle. but there not a circle they are all ellipses. So I don't get it. It would make sense to me if they would say magnetism holds the solar systems together. The planet comes at the star and is whipped around from inertia. then as it goes off it slows and is then drawn back to the star by magnetism. but that must not be right because the sun doesn't seem to have a big magnetic field it has a whole bunch of little magnetic fields going in all directions as the nasa pictures have shown.
Montec
Hello all

Here is a pdf that I came across that discusses the ongoing search to link gravity and electromagnetic fields.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0001/0001010v2.pdf

smile.gif



Guest_Kienne
Here: This new law can be checked by observing the spectra of stars, especially the dense "white dwarfs," which ought to have intense magnetic fields around their close-packed matter. It might even be proved in earthly laboratories, by spinning large masses of nonmagnetic material, such as bronze, and seeing whether they generate their own magnetic fields. Here was a fascinating assignment for a skillful (and well-financed) lab man.

*P=ß (G½/2c) U, where P is the strength of the magnetic field; ß is a constant near unity; G is the gravitational constant (6.670 X 10^-8); c is the speed of light; U is the angular momentum (spin) of a revolving body.


I just wish people would figure it out already. Magnetism is Gravity. Not like , not connected to, not similar to. IS.... Has anyone actually ever seen a graviton? Do your research before you answer..... No! No it hasn't been.

Let's break it down as simply as possible for all the wanna be intelligents.

1. Big Ball Rotating in Space.
2. This ball is Highly Magnetic. Hence the magnetosphere, Ozone (liquid oxygen another highly magnetic element), As well as magnetic North and South.
3. All magnets have magnetic North and South. Except Monopoles.
4. Big Ball Rotating in space has Copper core. (copper is an attractant to Magnetism)
5. Everything inside the magnetosphere pushes towards the center of the earth( the copper core)
6. The Big Ball because of its Magnetic field resists the magnetic pull of the sun. Which by the way is a monopole.
7. Thus causing rotation.




KIENNE
lulu.com/content/3655495 Read it. Absorb it, research it.
AlexG
The lunar magnetic field is practically non-existent. So the moon has no gravity? rolleyes.gif
jsaldea12


About whether gravity and magnetism are related or not?Fundamentally, the same. please permit me to refer to posted, "Why is gravity all attraction toward earth?", and know more about the two kinds of gravities responsible why gravity is all attraction toward earth..For your comments/criticism.


jsaldea12
5.18.09
kokhaw
Hi,

For my understanding, gravity is not an independent force, it is related to electromagnetic forces.

For the mass dependent gravitational force, the acting parameters are related to mass and distance.

From many processes such as pair production, annihilation, radioactive decay, high energy particle collisions and etcetera, we can see that mass and wave are interchangable. Therefore, the ingredients for mass is similar to wave/photon.

From maxwell law, we defined or put it in such away that wave/photon is related to electric and magnetic fields. Therefore, we can conclude that these two ingredients (electric and magnetic fields) are also the ingredients for mass/matter.

Back to the mass dependent gravitational force, which depends on mass. By knowing the ingredients of mass, we can further dissect the mass gravitational force into electromagnetic forces.

All these detail derivations are presented in this link.
Kong Gravitational Force

Through the observation from the Universe, we can observed that electromagetic force is the actual force that governing the Universe. For example, a galaxy. Objects and planets are tending to circulate at the equator of the center of galaxy, this is because of the effect of magnetic force.

If mass dependent gravitational force is acting on those objects, the objects shall arrange in spherical pattern, as spherical as possible because mass dependent gravitational force has no preference in direction, in fact lower energy level in spherical. But this is not the case.

Picture below shows a galaxy where the objects/planets tend to orbit at the equator of the center of galaxy. Due to the effect of magnetic force, the objects are orbiting at the equator, which at lower energy level.

User posted image: User posted image
Guest_lee
i think gravity could be an electromagnet, experiments carried out by NASA show that magnetism play a big part in gravity, i am swayed to gravity being an electromagnet due to the fact of space having no atmosphere therefore no gravity yet planets staying in orbit, the bigger the mass of the planet the more magnetism it creates
with the planets being spherical the magnetism would be neutral having no physical poles therefore no attraction ar repelling to each other,

im not sure but does evrythin on earth contain iron?
if so that could be the reason for weight, the more iron an object contains the hevier the objet.

i am no scientist infact a mechanical engineer with an idea

sorry if this theory offends anyone dry.gif
AlexG
QUOTE
i am swayed to gravity being an electromagnet due to the fact of space having no atmosphere therefore no gravity yet planets staying in orbit,


How does someone this stupid keep breathing?
Guest_lee
what have i missed????? when did being stupid affct your breathing?
greenjohn
Pursuing a graphical approach to dimensional analysis and
thus mapping any given quantity as the endpoint of all possible
factoral combinations that produce it, it has become clear that
the CODATA 2006 values for Planck mass, Planck length, and
Planck time cannot all be correct: their differing combinations
to produce any single quantity can produce differing numerical
results.

While there are many sets of Planck mass, Planck length,
and Planck time values that produce a value for the
gravitational constant [G] that is within the range of modern
experimental results and satisfy the demands of dimensional
analysis, one set yields a value very close to the results of
Fixler and his associates that are ignored in CODATA 2006.

If the numerical value of [G] is the same as the numerical
value of the product of the magnetic constant and the square
of the fine structure constant, which has different units, an
entire, consistent pattern of such numerical coincidences
between dissimilar constants is projected in the mappings.

The conclusion is that some impropriety in the definition or
use of the system of units is responsible for the inability to
relate gravity to the other forces.

The outlaw map of physics is in the public domain.

John Aikman
Terence Hale
Hi,
Gravity is something basic of which as a consequence magnetism and electricity result Gravity seems to be attracted to the magnetic field of the earth. If you fall off your bicycle on earth gravity attracts you to the center of earth where as few miles up in the atmosphere an astronaut floats. Probably magnetism and electricity are constituents of gravity. Gravity being strong at the begging of the Universe and as the universe expanded got weaker giving weight to its constituents. As many scientist have put it grammatically the center of gravity is v.
Regards Dr. Terence Hale
Guest_anonymous
What if gravity IS magnetism? It's been thought of.
ernst39
About this topic, see also the article: "Theoretical Foundation of gravito-electromagnetism" in PRESPACETIME JOURNAL - Vol 1 - Issue 7 - pp. 1085-1104.
dhcracker
QUOTE (Bryn Richards+Jun 12 2007, 11:27 AM)
Greetings,

I am currently attempting to theorise an explanation for the apparent relationship between gravity and magnetism. Both are a 'force' which acts over a distance, the strength of which declines the further from the source one gets. Typical questions one might ask: Are there particles for these forces, or is it something deeper?

Please state your ideas, because I am interested in all kinds related to this topic, albeit I'd rather original theories, than regurgitated mainstream.

ty in advance cool.gif
NinjaBoy
I believe that only one phenomenon exists (call it magnetism or gravity - but I would prefer gravity), care of the Barnett Effect. The Barnett effect, however, does use the term magnetism and is essentially states that any spinning object will create a magnetic (or gravitational) field - no matter what it's size.

After that, other effects are just special cases of this, from the sub-atomic to the macro level.

It can be attractive or replusive - which creates the 'Poles'. A pole must be created, as when you look at the spinning object from different directions, from one direction it is spinning clockwise and from the other anti-clockwise. Then you create a possible 'repulsion' effect with two similar poles.

I believe that if there is no spin present in a body (virtually impossible and only true at absolute zero), then is will exert no 'gravitational' force.

This explanation should hold true for all 'magnetic', 'gravitational', 'weak' or 'strong' forces. smile.gif
rpenner
Your beliefs don't correlate with facts.
rpenner
OK, I'm going to delete the above post for lack of scientific content, tons of false claims and failure to login.

Moderator: DONE.
rethinker
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 28 2011, 09:37 AM)
OK, I'm going to delete the above post for lack of scientific content, tons of false claims and failure to login.

I agree

He address us as if we were a machine call the WWW

likely the same poster from the top of this page called guest on Nov.3
AlexG
QUOTE
On a planets surface the magnetic field generated is mainly localized from the planets core which in-turn attracts mass and gives us gravity as we know it in our atmosphere.



How do you explain the gravitational field of objects which do not have a magnetic field?
rpenner
That indeed is the rub. Helium-4 would be a great example of something with no magnetic moment that clearly responds to gravity and by Newton's third law, has gravity.
AlexG
QUOTE (Don E. Polmateer+Mar 28 2011, 10:11 PM)
Ima make this simple since you cant wait till everything is published if correct. Cuz you pissin me off a bit cuz ...

Might as well delete that post. It's worse than the first.
rpenner
Silly nutter, Helium-4 isn't alpha particles. Alpha particles are Helium-4 nuclei.

Helium-4 is also notable as a cryogenic liquid and at very low temperatures, a superfluid. And it obeys gravity just fine.

[Moderator: As suggested, post again deleted.]
solmil
Hi there,

You may wish to check out my post in Relativity Quantum Mechanics and New Theories

In essence gravity is the stretching of Space caused by the spherical rotation of fermions.

Magnetism is the polarised stretching of Space by many fermions.

Both gravity and thus magnetism are instantaneous.

Photon transmission is at the speed of light along a gravitic vector.

Love and peace,

Sol
BobKoppany
Doctors,

We prove that gravity is magnetism. Please see our web page, animadversiones.com. There is downloadable pdfs of our two books there. There is also a Word document of the article submitted to various physics journals. You may find it interesting.

With regards,

Bob Koppany
mag
Guessing when not required, Much is known, new discoveries. What is Magnetism, how generated, radiated and how it couples to or repels, what defines N/S polarity etc. Difference between mag and gravity. How gravity "pulls" http://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=4324 Check it out. Mag
AlexG
QUOTE (BobKoppany+Dec 15 2011, 07:51 AM)
Doctors,

We prove that gravity is magnetism. Please see our web page, animadversiones.com. There is downloadable pdfs of our two books there. There is also a Word document of the article submitted to various physics journals. You may find it interesting.

With regards,

Bob Koppany

Simply more garbage.

This forum has simply gone to hell with no moderation.
Lady Elizabeth
QUOTE (mag+Dec 17 2011, 04:31 AM)
Guessing when not required, Much is known, new discoveries. What is Magnetism, how generated, radiated and how it couples to or repels, what defines N/S polarity etc. Difference between mag and gravity. How gravity "pulls" http://www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=4324 Check it out. Mag

Thanks for that;- I simply love honesty, and that link discloses abundant unshrouded proof, that you're nothing greater than a startlingly below average cretin, thanks! smile.gif
mag
UN-ladylike Elizabeth: Lets hear YOUR scholarly explanation of the subject not a childlike attack of the messenger. Is throwing rocks all you have. THINK,,, add something to the content. Counter the statements one by one and give your references.... Elizabeth, you tell us scientifically how the electromagnetic radiations fit in frequency and form? Explain the differences between N-pole and S-pole radiations. Serious student or child-like smart ***, Elizabeth. Stick your neck out Darling, the class awaits YOUR explanation. The Cretin-mag.
Lady Elizabeth
Exhibit A of the codswallop;-

".12. Spherical orbit electrons in NON-synchrony, emit all direction, spherical, ether filling, tractive only waves per Higgs, saturating the universe w/ closely spaced waves, [strength per mass and inverse to the distance], giving inertial, mass and gravity.. .They are both EM radiation but gravity is multi-freq, circular polarity and non-vectored and NOT magnetism. .Does a magnet's weight change per its orientation to the gravity of the great mass of Earth??"

Need I quote Exhibit B? laugh.gif
mag
Elizabeth, that only proves you can read with a sharp tongue, but not that you can THINK, show us your scholarship. Say something that comes from Elizabeth about the science! Debate the facts in your own words, give us YOUR opinions. I had the courage to publish assumptions that fit the dynamics. I do original research, do you? I present possible configurations for debate, do you? You now call my work codswallop but without reason, reference or alternative views. Elizabeth, darling you are a power member but act like a simple bully! You speak with arrogance, slam peoples work and call them names but you speak NO science. Do you know ANYTHING about physics? Do you answer exams by calling the questions names. Counter my arguments with science. Learning is an arena for constructive thought Elizabeth. Please answer each of my statements with why it cannot be true and give YOUR hypothesis, your assumptions that explain the phenomena. You can tear down Darling, that's easy, but can you build your own words of scientific argument? Cretin mag.
Granouille
The only non-idiots in this thread for the last two pages are Lady Elizabeth, AlexG, and myself.

Codswallop is a very mild term. I accuse you of being a fraud and a troll. Even posting here with some "grand theory" and absolutely no credentials, scientific training, or basic mathematical ability proves that you are indeed a fool.

Her Ladyship is a practicing chemist, so there are some qualifications you should put forth. Are you even into puberty? laugh.gif
Guest
QUOTE (Granouille+Dec 18 2011, 12:53 AM)
The only non-idiots in this thread for the last two pages are Lady Elizabeth, AlexG, and myself.

Codswallop is a very mild term. I accuse you of being a fraud and a troll. Even posting here with some "grand theory" and absolutely no credentials, scientific training, or basic mathematical ability proves that you are indeed a fool.

Her Ladyship is a practicing chemist, so there are some qualifications you should put forth. Are you even into puberty? laugh.gif

Tell it like it is! laugh.gif laugh.gif laugh.gif
Robittybob1
Have they found Gravitons yet?

That "particle with mass" I mentioned was not the force carrier but part of a discussion I had previously where in a thought experiment - where the universe the size of ours but had only 2 particles in it and they were billions of light years apart, would they ever attract each other gravitationally? Where would the gravitational field come from? Would the strength of gravitational field depend on the energy available? The energy being the negative gravitational potential energy between them.
Is the gravitation field just between them or all throughout the Universe

Guest_Jack
You prove yourself more a fool with every post. Do you enjoy the attention, or are you insane?
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Guest_Jack+Dec 19 2011, 09:17 PM)
You prove yourself more a fool with every post. Do you enjoy the attention, or are you insane?

Mind your own business Granouille
Guest
Fυck you, idiot child. smile.gif
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Guest+Dec 19 2011, 09:32 PM)
Fυck you, idiot child. smile.gif

Christmas is a time of peace and goodwill to all mankind. Even you Granouille!
Granouille
QUOTE
Fυck you, idiot child.  smile.gif


I'm not a Christian, and I damned sure don't care about your pitiful mental condition, so let me reiterate:

Fυck you. You are a troll and a spammer. Step in front of a bus or something, and do yourself a favor.
Robittybob1
QUOTE (Granouille+Dec 19 2011, 10:08 PM)

I'm not a Christian, and I damned sure don't care about your pitiful mental condition, so let me reiterate:

Fυck you. You are a troll and a spammer. Step in front of a bus or something, and do yourself a favor.

I am wondering how sane are you? Have you gone for a checkup lately?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.