Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: cyberphlak on 04/09/2009 00:29:03
-
The New Theory of Gravity
and Force Unification
Occam’s Razor states "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.".
With that in mind, I propose that the simpler and more correct formula should be:
F=mr* rather than F=Mm/r2
The reasons are as follows:
The big question in science today is why gravity has not been unified with the other forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear. These forces also fall along the electromagnetic or “light” spectrum – except gravity. I do not believe that gravity is so different than the other forces at all and may, possibly, be one in the same. The current way of explaining gravity is like a bowling ball on a bed sheet. The idea is that a body bends space creating a "dent". Objects within this dent are drawn to the object creating the dent while their motion keeps them from colliding. This is largely based on Einstein theory and observations of a light bending affect.(GR/SR) While the observations match my theory and provide accurate predictions, the why, is different.
Inductance and magnetism are a means by which to electrically interact with another object without a wire. In this submission, we will think of the planets and stars as large coils or magnets. These coils have different properties. The properties differentiate based on the material make up of the individual coils, the size, as well as their location to one another.
It stands to reason that since the most basic of particles interact based on charge, so does everything else. And, while we can observe the effects of many things, observing them themselves is often elusive. This is true of the interaction between two coils. They are connected by nothing more than the space around them and the magnetic field they induce. It seems obvious to me that the same is true of the rest of the universe. Einstein's theory and those that followed are based, partly, on the bending of light. Visible light, ultraviolet, radio and so on, all fall along different positions in the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe the gravitational forces do as well because they are not a separate force at all. This can provide for an alternative explanation of these bending effects.
As of this date, no planets without suns have been discovered. This fact may support this theory. Specific gravity has no fixed unit of measure. It is tied to the units of interest in the formula. Gravity is directly related to density. A higher density of electrons and protons will have a greater reaction with the magnetic field of a star. It is possible, although unlikely, that extra solar planets remain elusive not only due to darkness but the absence of a magnetic field and therefore gravity. A system’s entire gravitational force may be wholly dependent upon a star. Evidence for this may lie in routine pole reversal of planets. A field source, oscillating a field will not only induce magnetic energy in an object but will also reverse the pole with each pulse. This is also demonstrable. If the body is located or shielded by another object or body, this effect can be reduced. This could explain varying historical strengths from geological samples. This pulsing is also evident in the “noise” of the universe.
It is also interesting to note that by observing particles being attracted to a magnet, a sudden and rapid shrinkage of the magnet while not changing its field strength, ends with particles being ejected at great force. This is quite similar to the observed effects of a black hole ejecting gamma ray bursts. Imagine that you have a magnetic plate 12” wide and you are able to observe all the little particles that interact with it. As you increase or decrease the field strength, particles will be attracted faster or slower respectively. When you reduce that plate to ¼ its size, you notice greater particle density as there is less real estate to spread out over. If you then rapidly reduce the plate to a much smaller size, the particles will begin to collide with one another and fly off away from the plate. This same series of events applies to massive stars. They have a strong magnetic field. As the density of particles increases, the forces pull the particles more tightly together. This is likened to shrinking the plate. Simultaneously, the increased density draws more particles and this continues to increase the field density while packing the star into an ever tighter physical density. In the extreme cases, where sufficient particle fuel has existed, these stars reach the point of super density or black holes.
Early on in this theory, there was the Mars problem was: Why is there gravity on Mars when there is no magnetism? The answer came in two parts. The first is that there is magnetism on Mars. The argument was that there was no magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is assumed not to exist because of distanced and non-detailed measurements. However, solar wind bending has been observed. Since Mars has no real atmosphere, the bending must be a result of a magnetosphere. The scale shows that it is inline with what would be expected. In short, there is no Mars problem, just a lack of science and some assumptions. This argument has received enough attention to warrant further studies in upcoming Mars missions.
If we apply Occam's Razor, we realize that our problem is not complex but rather simple. If all other known forces fall within the electromagnetic spectrum, except gravity and if all forces are relative in terms of strength, the logical conclusion is that gravity as a separate force must not exist.
*What I propose is that, rather than the force of gravity being calculated based on the entire mass of a body, it should be calculated based on the magnetic mass and properties of a body. In the aforementioned formula, only the radius is considered and not squared. A simpler solution is using the mass of the core rather than the entire planet or star. In the case of Earth, the core is ~ 1.7% of the total mass. This general figure is used due to the concentration of highly magnetic iron typically found at a planet’s core. When the 1.7% is used in the simpler formula I propose, the force of gravity is now 700,000 times greater but a 200 pound person still weighs 200 pounds. In other words, a simpler formula that yields the same result. The original formula seemed to predict this result by proxy rather than by correctness. The larger the body, the larger the core, the greater density of responsive particles.
We have proven that minerals and gases are both responsive to magnetism, although on varying degrees. Such observations can be related to their “weight” if gravity is indeed a form of magnetism. This electromagnetic force for gravity will apply at both the large and small scale – something traditional gravity theory fails to do. To understand the vast differences in force strengths, refer to figure 1. (too bad figures cant be displayed here)
It is clear to see that the scale is far from uniform with gravity involved. Notice that gravitons, the unit of measure for gravity, has not been discovered. The simple reason for this is that science is looking for an explanation for what gravity is and why it doesn’t work. Also take note that both gravity and electromagnetic force have the same infinite range. To go even further, Einstein stated that gravity travels at the speed of light. This is, at least, some small evidence that gravity must fall on the spectrum.
More detailed work must be completed to define the specifics of the r in even this new formula. We can predict when we will be completely accurate when the force of gravity is equivalent to the other known forces.
Robert Dean Matson
August, 2009
-
Q1: So you hope that the LHC experiments will disprove the existence of a graviton or Higgs particle right?
Q2: If your interpretation of gravity depends on the "insulation" between the earth's core and the earth's surface, then why is gravity the same in the middle of the ocean and somewhere on land at sea level? The difference in dielectric constant of water vs. land must have an impact on the insulating properties, no?
Q3: In the same thought: If a gas planet and a rock planet have the same radius, they should still have different gravitational forces at it's surfaces due to differences in insulating or conducting capacities of rock vs gas. This would be a nice experiment to test your theory, since conductivity and mass of most materials is known.
-
As of this date, no extrasolar planets have been discovered.
I think that several extra solar planets have been discovered over the last few decades and are being confirmed by observations with the new telescopes in space. I'll check for some references and edit them in below.
Edit: A quick Google turned up this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extrasolar_planet)
An extrasolar planet, or exoplanet, is a planet beyond our Solar System, orbiting a star other than our Sun. As of August 2009[update], 373 exoplanets are listed in the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia.[1] The vast majority have been detected through radial velocity observations and other indirect methods rather than actual imaging.[1] Most announced exoplanets are massive gas giant planets thought to resemble Jupiter, but this is a selection effect (bias) due to limitations in detection technology. Projections based on recent detections of much smaller worlds suggest that lightweight, rocky planets will eventually be found to outnumber extrasolar gas giants.
-
In this example, extra-solar refers to planets without stars not just planets outside of our solar system. Those have yet to be found.
The insulating material may be irrelevant altogether. The key point is that the effect is a function, primarily, of the core. Gas giants, stars and planets all have cores. Yes, there are lots of experiments to be done to confirm this theory.
I have not considered disproving gravitons as they are pure fantasy and theory at this point. Higgs has yet to be found either and experiments have been going on for some time now. Gravitons are a theoretical way of making gravity, as traditionally known, make more sense. If it is assumed that the current gravity formula is correct, something must be "out there" to make it make as much sense on the small scale as it does the large scale. It is like putting a square peg in a round hole. It doesn't work. In my opinion, the graviton and other such theory are the hammer to try and beat the peg into the hole.
Thank you all for your comments and questions. Keep them coming.
-
I suspected that you meant planets without stars. They are probably rare because if they are formed as we suspect, they form from the same stuff that their stars are made of. So lets look at your premise. If I have it right, you're saying that gravity may come from the centre of stars and planets and not from the rocky masses outside the centre. This probably can't hold up within experiments already conducted. We know that rocky masses attract each other. We have scales that can measure it.
You might could even make one yourself. Just suspend a rocky mass on a thin thread and let it swing like a pendulum. Notice how it swings with a boulder in close proximity (fractions of an inch away) and how it swings absent the boulder. Any anomaly would indicate gravitational attraction between the masses.
-
In this example, extra-solar refers to planets without stars not just planets outside of our solar system. Those have yet to be found.
i can't say i know lots about planet detection, but isn't the way astronomers find them by looking at regular disturbances in the light we receive from stars, and if there is concluding by that there is a planet there? if so, then absence of proof is not proof of absence. [:-\]
-
Wow! Please don't beat me in the head but I have consigned
gravity and time to the grey box. To me gravity is a result not a force.
Time is a tool to measure motion and nothing more.
By discarding those abstracts, time and gravity, my view of the
universe has become much clearer.
-
gloves - that's right. I said nothing to the contrary.
gasparri - why would anyone beat you over the head? I have the opposite view as to what you expressed. Time is entirely man made. It is not a thing at all other than a convenient method for us to organize and understand other things. Gravity, in what ever final form we may decide it is, is a real thing.
-
gloves - that's right. I said nothing to the contrary.
of course [:)] however, if that is the method, then it would be unable to find the planets you describe, so we would have no idea if they did exist. or am i mistaken?
-
Based on today's science and methods, that is correct. I wouldn't go so far as to include never, though. It would stand to reason that IF my hypothesis is correct, it will breed new methods and technology for that and other related endeavors and understanding.
-
alright. that's the only part of the post i could challenge, i don't have a thorough enough knowledge about the rest of it.
-
I somehow missed your post earlier Vern. As I mentioned, the proof for induced magnetic fields is entirely possible and demonstrable. It is the only explanation, in my opinion, why Mars has a magnetoshpere and is thought to be magnetic. It also provides a logical explanation for why the earth's magnetic poles reverse. You can find (or I can provide) applets and other tools to demonstrate this effect.
Additionally, as far as we know, not all matter has magnetic potential. In fact, only 4 known materials do. To conduct an experiment with a rock or rocks on an earth that is already subject to this activity is self defeating. All of this, of course, is in my opinion, observation and understanding.
-
Yes; we know induced magnetic fields happen; we don't find that induced magnetic fields affect gravity. We do see, however, that rocky masses attract each other gravitationally. If your theory needs rocky masses not to attract each other gravitationally, I think the theory is in trouble right there.
I'm not sure that is what you're saying. But I still think it can't stand up to current observations that insulating masses do attract each other gravitationally. Even photons, the most elemental of the elemental entities attract each other gravitationally.
-
gasparri - why would anyone beat you over the head? I have the opposite view as to what you expressed. Time is entirely man made. It is not a thing at all other than a convenient method for us to organize and understand other things. Gravity, in what ever final form we may decide it is, is a real thing.
No, actually I think we agree on time.
Yes! Gravity is a real thing. So is television but
what you see is a virtual representation. Same
with gravity. I have an older view that needs to be
amended as there is an EM flaw that has been resolved
to include sub atomic particles and photons. But, it
states the case for a field driven mechanical result.
Anyway it's a cranky old theory that needs a hot patch.
http://parrinello.net/~top/gravity/
-
My point was that many experiments have been conducted already; they were and still are searching for any anomaly in gravitational attraction between massive objects. These experiments have been going on for over two hundred years now. None, so far, contradict the predictions of the General Theory of Relativity. So we have to assume, so for, that GR predictions are correct.
But GR like QM theory does not even attempt to reconcile causality. "Why" questions can't be answered by either theory.
-
There are gravitational anomalies all over the place just on earth. Also, as stated in the writing, for anything to be a LAW it must apply everywhere and gravity does not. Using your logic that the numbers for the gravity of the planets keeps adding up correctly, I would also restate that with this new idea, your "weight" doesn't change and the consistency of applicability remains. The difference is that the force of "gravity" is greatly increased and this makes sense.
Currently, if gravity is 1 then the other forces are a power of 10 to the 25th to 10 to the 38th greater. That doesn't make sense.
-
Currently, if gravity is 1 then the other forces are a power of 10 to the 25th to 10 to the 38th greater. That doesn't make sense.
Whether it makes sense depends upon how you think of gravity. We know, for example, that photons attract other photons gravitationally. This does not fit your version of gravity, however there are many reasons that it must be so.[:)]
-
really? ok, explain that theory to me.
-
Photons attract other photons gravitationally. This is not something I just made up. It is true in the Lorentz relativity predictions; it is true in the theory of special theory of relativity; it is true in the General Theory of Relativity; it is true in Quantum Theory, and it is true in Quantum Electrodynamics theory.
So it is part of classical theories and it is a part of modern theories. Things would be very troubling if this were not so. We know, for example, that photons trapped in a mirrored box add massiveness to the box. The extra mass must have a corresponding increase in gravity. If it did not, the maths would be broken.
We can take it even further. Space debris must absorb light. When it does, it becomes more massive according to all currently accepted theories. This additional mass carries with it additional gravitational attraction.
-
Okay, so your contention is that I must be wrong because matter is attracted to matter? I really am failing to see your point.
-
Photons attract other photons gravitationally. This is not something I just made up. It is true in the Lorentz relativity predictions; it is true in the theory of special theory of relativity; it is true in the General Theory of Relativity; it is true in Quantum Theory, and it is true in Quantum Electrodynamics theory.
So it is part of classical theories and it is a part of modern theories. Things would be very troubling if this were not so. We know, for example, that photons trapped in a mirrored box add massiveness to the box. The extra mass must have a corresponding increase in gravity. If it did not, the maths would be broken.
We can take it even further. Space debris must absorb light. When it does, it becomes more massive according to all currently accepted theories. This additional mass carries with it additional gravitational attraction.
Do photons have mass? And what's the mass of one photon? Please, support your possible argument wiht serious references. Thank you.
-
Photons attract other photons gravitationally.
And sometimes they wear eye shadow. Yes, they do and what
they do too is the same thing every other thing do too also.
Can you say gravity is a function of matter and that matter
is that which energy isn't? What's the difference? Fields.
Fields is what everything has one or more of. They come in
many flavors and sizes and fortunately they are apolitical.
Fields have a formidable behavior spectrum and so they can
impose themselves upon matter in many various ways. Fields
can give rise to many illusions and optical tricks that
can befuddle the unwary and make them forget to feed the
parakeet. Fields are the servants that pack the load
when energy decides to move to a new location. A farmer
is a person who is outstanding in his field. One day
two hydrogen atoms were walking along and one said to
the other; "I have lost an electron." The other hydrogen
atom queried; "Are you sure?". "I'm positive." said
the first.
Hey... It's the full moon.
-
Do photons have mass? And what's the mass of one photon? Please, support your possible argument wiht serious references.
Photons have mass when they are considered as part of a closed system as in the mirrored box analogy above. The mass of one photon so enclosed is equivalent to energy in accord with E = mc2.
Hey... It's the full moon.
[;D] [;D]
I have trouble with the concept that only a small portion of a planet contributes to its gravity. Observations of gravity between asteroids would seem to contradict the idea.
-
Gasparri, I read your theory. I think you have something to work with there and thinking in a simplistic manner is, in my opinion, always the best answer. (Occam's Law would agree). What you need to quantify the notion is a formula that works.
-
I took the time to clean up the original post just a bit. It would be really helpful to be able to post the images and other supporting figures.
-
@Vern
You said:
"Photons have mass when they are considered as part of a closed system as in the mirrored box analogy above. The mass of one photon so enclosed is equivalent to energy in accord with E = mc2."
Well... Those are virtual photons. Could we attribute mass to a wave?
-
Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.
Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass.
-
Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.
Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass.
I said they are virtual photons considering that we have not an external operator neither a source of energy. Those photons into the closed system would need to gain energy. If the energy of one photon is obtained by cooperative interactions, one of the photons would undergo a decrease of its energy density and the other would experience the increase of its energy density. Through obtaining energy, the gravitational energy of the photon would invariably get higher in proportion to the increase of its energy density, so we would need an external operator or a source of energy into the box to make all photons into the cage have the same energy density so they can be considered having like mass. On the other hand, if gravitational energy increases, the photon would become crazy and would be jumping on the top of the field until finally it starts sliding slowly down to the vacuum band, where it would remain oscillating as any real photon. Remember that the laws of thermodynamics are homogeneous and symmetric.
-
Nevertheless, why you don't use the correct terminology? Instead the term "mass", why not using momentum (E = pc)?
-
Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.
Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass.
I said they are virtual photons considering that we have not an external operator neither a source of energy. Those photons into the closed system would need to gain energy. If the energy of one photon is obtained by cooperative interactions, one of the photons would undergo a decrease of its energy density and the other would experience the increase of its energy density. Through obtaining energy, the gravitational energy of the photon would invariably get higher in proportion to the increase of its energy density, so we would need an external operator or a source of energy into the box to make all photons into the cage have the same energy density so they can be considered having like mass. On the other hand, if gravitational energy increases, the photon would become crazy and would be jumping on the top of the field until finally it starts sliding slowly down to the vacuum band, where it would remain oscillating as any real photon. Remember that the laws of thermodynamics are homogeneous and symmetric.
Maybe there is a language barrier or something, but I can find no logic in your reasoning. Photons in a mirrored box would not need outside help and would not need to be virtual photons. A virtual particle is one that exists for less time than it takes to detect it.
-
Why do you say photons trapped in a mirrored box are virtual photons. Photons are real changes in electric and magnetic potential. It is when a photon's potential is realized that QM theory brings in a virtual photon to affect the change.
Real electromagnetic waves trapped in a local area by any method are mass. Notice that I didn't say they have mass.
I said they are virtual photons considering that we have not an external operator neither a source of energy. Those photons into the closed system would need to gain energy. If the energy of one photon is obtained by cooperative interactions, one of the photons would undergo a decrease of its energy density and the other would experience the increase of its energy density. Through obtaining energy, the gravitational energy of the photon would invariably get higher in proportion to the increase of its energy density, so we would need an external operator or a source of energy into the box to make all photons into the cage have the same energy density so they can be considered having like mass. On the other hand, if gravitational energy increases, the photon would become crazy and would be jumping on the top of the field until finally it starts sliding slowly down to the vacuum band, where it would remain oscillating as any real photon. Remember that the laws of thermodynamics are homogeneous and symmetric.
Maybe there is a language barrier or something, but I can find no logic in your reasoning. Photons in a mirrored box would not need outside help and would not need to be virtual photons. A virtual particle is one that exists for less time than it takes to detect it.
I didn't mention a need of external operators; I just was trying to imagine what you described. Are you considering Higgs' fields? That's what I am talking about.
Consider this argument from my post:
"...until finally it starts sliding slowly down to the vacuum band, where it would remain oscillating as any real photon." There would be enough time for detecting it. Conversely, in your "mirrored box" you have not a single chance of observing them.
-
No; I was not considering Higg's field. The Higgs idea is just another complication of an otherwise profoundly simple phenomena. Mass exists. The relationship between electromagnetic change and mass is well known. We have known it for over a hundred years. Any time there is a change in electric and magnetic amplitude there is either potential energy or mass. If the change is confined within an observable system, it is mass. If it is not confined, it is potential energy.
We seem to have diverged from the OP. I think we were trying to consider the nature of gravity. The core idea was that gravity was an electromagnetic phenomena happening within a small radius at the centre of planets and stars. Although we can devise maths for this, it does not work for many other reasons.
-
"We seem to have diverged from the OP. I think we were trying to consider the nature of gravity. The core idea was that gravity was an electromagnetic phenomena happening within a small radius at the centre of planets and stars. Although we can devise maths for this, it does not work for many other reasons."
Such as?
-
One of the first reasons I mentioned was that photons attract each other gravitationally. That seems to contradict your premise.
-
Gasparri, I read your theory. I think you have something to work with there and thinking in a simplistic manner is, in my opinion, always the best answer. (Occam's Law would agree). What you need to quantify the notion is a formula that works.
The quantification has already been done by Newton. What remains
is the qualification. In other words Newtons laws only need some
slight corrections to establish field entities and in so doing
will yield perfect answers across all physics.
-
Gasparri quite so :)
For me there is always a full moon.
Gravity is best described for me as a 'field'. It's something existing everywhere directly connected/related to invariant mass and motion. It's like some sort of 'flux' or combination of strains of SpaceTime. That's why your rocket can have a 'inertial reaction' as we manipulate its 'energy' and strain the 'gravitational' field of SpaceTime by acceleration or course change even in deep space far away from any gravitational objects, somewhat like uniform motion contains a 'hidden momentum' which only defines itself in its 'impact' if you get my drift. It's not a 'force' in the same way we like to see f ex. electricity to be. To me a better description might be a 'SpaceTime inertia' :)
-
What if we simplify the problem by removing all but photons. Now we can see that in our soup of photons, they tend to change their direction of travel toward larger concentrations of photons. We might try and construct an anatomy for photons that would explain this tendency they have to change their direction of travel toward larger concentrations of themselves. This anatomy must explain the attractive behaviour but must still be consistent with all observations of photons.
So lets make a photon that consists of two half cycles of electric and magnetic amplitude. We set it in motion in accord with Maxwell's equations. We see from the maths that the electric and magnetic half cycles both go to electric and magnetic saturation. Now to explain why the photons tend to change direction toward larger concentrations, we consider that the radiating electric and magnetic fields of all photons contribute toward the saturation amplitude of all other photons. The points of saturation therefore tend to be offset toward increasing field strength. The result is a slight tendency to alter direction of travel toward higher concentrations of photons.
Now let us consider the real world, but inject into it this photon. We know that in the real world there is no evidence that massive particles are not composed of trapped photons. While there is much evidence that massive particles are comprised of photons alone. (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html) If we take nature at face value we see that the force of gravity is a natural part of it. It is the tendency of photons to change direction toward concentrations of photons. Since massive objects are concentrations of photons, massive objects attract each other.
-
Wow! Please don't beat me in the head but I have consigned
gravity and time to the grey box. To me gravity is a result not a force.
Time is a tool to measure motion and nothing more.
By discarding those abstracts, time and gravity, my view of the
universe has become much clearer.
I agree. Gravity is a result of mass and not a force at all :)
-
I disagree completely. In fact, I am working on refining this theory to prove that mass relating to gravity is only coincidence rather than a true factor. It is a force as it meets all requirements to be one. It is not, however, a separate force to its own.
-
I have completely rewritten the theory and now have the evidence to back it up as well as the equation. A portion of the info provided in this write up has been corrected. I appreciate all the feedback. The findings and paper have been submitted for review.
-
The New Theory of Gravity
and Force Unification
Occam’s Razor states "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.".
With that in mind, I propose that the simpler and more correct formula should be:
F=mr* rather than F=Mm/r2
The reasons are as follows:
The big question in science today is why gravity has not been unified with the other forces of electromagnetism, strong and weak nuclear. These forces also fall along the electromagnetic or “light” spectrum – except gravity. I do not believe that gravity is so different than the other forces at all and may, possibly, be one in the same. The current way of explaining gravity is like a bowling ball on a bed sheet. The idea is that a body bends space creating a "dent". Objects within this dent are drawn to the object creating the dent while their motion keeps them from colliding. This is largely based on Einstein theory and observations of a light bending affect.(GR/SR) While the observations match my theory and provide accurate predictions, the why, is different.
Inductance and magnetism are a means by which to electrically interact with another object without a wire. In this submission, we will think of the planets and stars as large coils or magnets. These coils have different properties. The properties differentiate based on the material make up of the individual coils, the size, as well as their location to one another.
It stands to reason that since the most basic of particles interact based on charge, so does everything else. And, while we can observe the effects of many things, observing them themselves is often elusive. This is true of the interaction between two coils. They are connected by nothing more than the space around them and the magnetic field they induce. It seems obvious to me that the same is true of the rest of the universe. Einstein's theory and those that followed are based, partly, on the bending of light. Visible light, ultraviolet, radio and so on, all fall along different positions in the electromagnetic spectrum. I believe the gravitational forces do as well because they are not a separate force at all. This can provide for an alternative explanation of these bending effects.
As of this date, no planets without suns have been discovered. This fact may support this theory. Specific gravity has no fixed unit of measure. It is tied to the units of interest in the formula. Gravity is directly related to density. A higher density of electrons and protons will have a greater reaction with the magnetic field of a star. It is possible, although unlikely, that extra solar planets remain elusive not only due to darkness but the absence of a magnetic field and therefore gravity. A system’s entire gravitational force may be wholly dependent upon a star. Evidence for this may lie in routine pole reversal of planets. A field source, oscillating a field will not only induce magnetic energy in an object but will also reverse the pole with each pulse. This is also demonstrable. If the body is located or shielded by another object or body, this effect can be reduced. This could explain varying historical strengths from geological samples. This pulsing is also evident in the “noise” of the universe.
It is also interesting to note that by observing particles being attracted to a magnet, a sudden and rapid shrinkage of the magnet while not changing its field strength, ends with particles being ejected at great force. This is quite similar to the observed effects of a black hole ejecting gamma ray bursts. Imagine that you have a magnetic plate 12” wide and you are able to observe all the little particles that interact with it. As you increase or decrease the field strength, particles will be attracted faster or slower respectively. When you reduce that plate to ¼ its size, you notice greater particle density as there is less real estate to spread out over. If you then rapidly reduce the plate to a much smaller size, the particles will begin to collide with one another and fly off away from the plate. This same series of events applies to massive stars. They have a strong magnetic field. As the density of particles increases, the forces pull the particles more tightly together. This is likened to shrinking the plate. Simultaneously, the increased density draws more particles and this continues to increase the field density while packing the star into an ever tighter physical density. In the extreme cases, where sufficient particle fuel has existed, these stars reach the point of super density or black holes.
Early on in this theory, there was the Mars problem was: Why is there gravity on Mars when there is no magnetism? The answer came in two parts. The first is that there is magnetism on Mars. The argument was that there was no magnetosphere. The magnetosphere is assumed not to exist because of distanced and non-detailed measurements. However, solar wind bending has been observed. Since Mars has no real atmosphere, the bending must be a result of a magnetosphere. The scale shows that it is inline with what would be expected. In short, there is no Mars problem, just a lack of science and some assumptions. This argument has received enough attention to warrant further studies in upcoming Mars missions.
If we apply Occam's Razor, we realize that our problem is not complex but rather simple. If all other known forces fall within the electromagnetic spectrum, except gravity and if all forces are relative in terms of strength, the logical conclusion is that gravity as a separate force must not exist.
*What I propose is that, rather than the force of gravity being calculated based on the entire mass of a body, it should be calculated based on the magnetic mass and properties of a body. In the aforementioned formula, only the radius is considered and not squared. A simpler solution is using the mass of the core rather than the entire planet or star. In the case of Earth, the core is ~ 1.7% of the total mass. This general figure is used due to the concentration of highly magnetic iron typically found at a planet’s core. When the 1.7% is used in the simpler formula I propose, the force of gravity is now 700,000 times greater but a 200 pound person still weighs 200 pounds. In other words, a simpler formula that yields the same result. The original formula seemed to predict this result by proxy rather than by correctness. The larger the body, the larger the core, the greater density of responsive particles.
We have proven that minerals and gases are both responsive to magnetism, although on varying degrees. Such observations can be related to their “weight” if gravity is indeed a form of magnetism. This electromagnetic force for gravity will apply at both the large and small scale – something traditional gravity theory fails to do. To understand the vast differences in force strengths, refer to figure 1. (too bad figures cant be displayed here)
It is clear to see that the scale is far from uniform with gravity involved. Notice that gravitons, the unit of measure for gravity, has not been discovered. The simple reason for this is that science is looking for an explanation for what gravity is and why it doesn’t work. Also take note that both gravity and electromagnetic force have the same infinite range. To go even further, Einstein stated that gravity travels at the speed of light. This is, at least, some small evidence that gravity must fall on the spectrum.
More detailed work must be completed to define the specifics of the r in even this new formula. We can predict when we will be completely accurate when the force of gravity is equivalent to the other known forces.
Robert Dean Matson
August, 2009
Occam’s Razor states "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.".
... The X-Files, Season 7
Agent Dogget: 'Have you ever heard of Occams Principle?'
Agent Scully: 'Yes... Mulder used to call it Occams Principle of Least Imagination.'