[CliffordK (OP)]

Electricity is to Magnetism as ____________   is to Gravity?

We know that the movement of electrical particles, (protons, electrons, ions, positrons, and anti-protons) create a magnetic field.  And, visa versa, a magnetic field can alter the movement of electrons, ions, and other charged particles.

So, is there a corresponding particle or something that we haven't discovered yet related to gravity?

[bizerl]

Gravity is tied in with mass, so maybe something Higgs-ish may qualify?

Do the nuclear forces have similar qualities? Because I always thought the it was "electro-magnetism" that was put in the same category as strong and weak nuclear and gravity.

Can electricity and magnetism really be separate phenomena?

[Ethos_]

Electricity is to Magnetism as ____________   is to Gravity?

We know that the movement of electrical particles, (protons, electrons, ions, positrons, and anti-protons) create a magnetic field.  And, visa versa, a magnetic field can alter the movement of electrons, ions, and other charged particles.

So, is there a corresponding particle or something that we haven't discovered yet related to gravity?

It might be reasonable to assume that mass, or even the Higgs boson that is thought to be responsible for the mass we observe in other particles as fulfilling this role. Personally, I believe that the geometry of the space/time fabric is a likely candidate. The problem is, we just don't know how to accurately define this so-called fabric as yet. One must realize that the gravity we observe is an induced change in the geometry of space/time and this warping is thought to be related to the presence of mass. But right now, we are struggling to really  understand the what and why of mass. Until we do, correctly understanding gravity may have to wait.

[illusion]

Electricity is to Magnetism as ____________   is to Gravity?

Answer.. mass and rotation.
 
Rotation based G eliminates need for constant G.

[CliffordK (OP)]

Ok,
So mass is what planets have (and all matter) that causes pull to the center of the body.

With magnets, of course, you have permanent magnets and electromagnets.  They are somewhat related, but perhaps not quite the same.

So, is there a particle that could be the gravitational equivalent to an electromagnet. 

I suppose one difference between gravity and magnetism is that gravity is a monopole, while magnetism is a dipole.

[illusion]

Ok,
So mass is what planets have (and all matter) that causes pull to the center of the body.

Nucleus has mass also. Lets hypothesize that EM and gravitational interactions are based on same mechanism. Lets hypothesize also that gravitational constant G can be calculated G = 0.5 * n^2, where n is rotation frequency (1/s) of object (Earth, proton). Proton rotation frequency is 7.02e16 1/s (http://shaping.ru/download/pdffile/Proton%20Structure.pdf [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]) and Earth rotation frequency is 1.16042e-5 1/s.

With these hypothesis you are able to calculate gravitational and EM interaction forces. Both of these forces are distributed through the same field.

[CliffordK (OP)]

As far as rotation frequency, in some cases, the larger the object, the slower it rotates.  However, there are many notable exceptions.

The Moon has a rotation period of 1 per month, but has gravity proven less than the Earth.
Mercury has a rotation period of about 1 per 2 months, and also has lower gravity than Earth.
Venus has a rotation of about 1 per year, but has gravity similar to Earth.
Mars has a rotation period of about the same as Earth, but about 1/3 the gravity of Earth.

[illusion]

Rotation frequency is only a part of the equation. Acceleration a = 0.5 * n^2 * M / r^2, where n is rotation frequency, M is object's mass and r is distance from the mass point.

[CliffordK (OP)]

Rotation frequency is only a part of the equation. Acceleration a = 0.5 * n^2 * M / r^2, where n is rotation frequency, M is object's mass and r is distance from the mass point.

Still, consider Venus's gravity.

Venus rotates once every 225 days, or 1/225th the speed of Earth.

plug that into your formula, and the gravity on Venus should be about = the gravity on Earth.  Somehow that just doesn't seem to fit the data.

[illusion]

Actually I have done calculations on Venus mass and its gravity -> http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=46507.0


Based on those calculations you can explain conditions on the surface of Venus.

[CliffordK (OP)]

There have been enough probes sent to Venus, as well as put into the orbit of Venus that we would know if there was some bizarre gravity anomaly. 

So, let's go with the established value of 8.87 m/s², or 0.9g.

Your formula can't account for the established gravitational values on Venus.  You calculated the gravitation pull in the links provided as "1.2e-2 m/s^2...." which is clearly far less than the established values.

It would also seem from your formula that a spinning wheel would also increase its gravitational pull or weight, which clearly isn't the case.

[illusion]

Well, with spinning wheel you must consider also where that spinning is occuring. Large mass (like Earth) buffers that rotation induced force quite effectively. It's all in that theory of mine -> http://www.vixra.org/abs/1211.0027 [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register] (Third Law of ToEbi). However, it is totally calculable and measurable effect which is one proof for my theory.


Back to Venus... pressure on surface of Venus is roughly 100 times bigger than pressure on Earth. High pressure is because of Venus atmosphere contains mostly CO2 which is much heavier than oxygen, nitrogen or hydrogen. Explanation for the content of Venus atmosphere is very low gravity, caused by low rotation frequency. Low gravity enables heavier gases dominate atmosphere.

[CliffordK (OP)]

I think we got off track a bit.

The question is whether there is a particle related to gravity analogous to the charged particles, electrons/ions, which induce a magnetic field.

With magnets, we can have electromagnets, as well as having naturally occurring magnetite, as well as various ceramic magnets. 

The monopole/dipole issues may answer my question somewhat. 
With magnets, one always creates a dipole.  Can't have North without South, or + without -.  An electromagnet can increase or decrease a magnetic field, but always as a dipole.

Gravity, however, is a monopole.  So, one wouldn't necessarily expect to make an artificial positive gravity offset by a negative gravity somewhere else, or visa-versa.

At least without either linear or circular acceleration.

[bizerl]

Is it possible that anti-matter could contribute to a gravitational field without increasing mass? (provided it didn't annhilate of course  [xx(])

[illusion]

I think we got off track a bit.

The question is whether there is a particle related to gravity analogous to the charged particles, electrons/ions, which induce a magnetic field.

Yep, that was my bad! Sorry 


Answer to your question is no, there is not particle related to gravity analogous to the charged particles.

[Ethos_]

I think we got off track a bit.

The question is whether there is a particle related to gravity analogous to the charged particles, electrons/ions, which induce a magnetic field.

Yep, that was my bad! Sorry 


Answer to your question is no, there is not particle related to gravity analogous to the charged particles.

Actually, the outdated theory of "The Luminescence Ether" tried to establish these particles as a Space/Time fluid of sorts. Science now suggests that such a fluid does not exist. My own personal view is that, there exists something surrounding geometry behind all this. Whether the four dimensions we now understand or the eleven that string theory suggests, may cause the gravitational effect.

I suspect that as time passes, we will some day find what might be called: "The geometric law of gravity" This term, is of course, just an invention of my own and will undoubtedly be called something else when we finally understand all the very confusing stuff about hidden dimensions that are supposed to exist within string theory.

 

[Pincho]

Gravity to Electricity to Magnetism to Gravity to Electricity to Magnetism

[Ethos_]

Gravity to Electricity to Magnetism to Gravity to Electricity to Magnetism

Would you care to elaborate a little about that comment?

[Pincho]

Gravity to Electricity to Magnetism to Gravity to Electricity to Magnetism

Would you care to elaborate a little about that comment?

This is just my own opinion, and must not be confused with the Standard Model....
If the Electron were a hole, and magnetism were an increase of that hole size from spin speed, then gravity would be the material that flows through that hole. So imagine a spin dryer, you spin the clothes, that moves them to the outside of the wheel, and gravity flows through the middle. Now you may think that there are many flaws in that thinking. Changes in Gravity for example. But there is an outflow that cancels the changes out. If the in flow increases, then outflow increases, which results in no net change. But there is a scalar change, and a spin change (the spin speed increases hole scale, and gravity is reduced in scale, and a spiral is produced), and that scalar change works with iron filings that take on the spin increase from the spiral, gain gravity flow, and take on the magnetism which is a form of internal propulsion. A bit like a conveyor, along a spiral. Thus magnetism is produced by all push forces, and the pull force is an optical illusion.

[Soul Surfer]

this is not a new theory but well known physics

The correct statement is Eletricity is to Magnetism  as Gravity is to Gravitoelectromagnetism. (look this up in Wiki)

Electricity is a static force and field  magnetism is a dynamic force and field that exists as a result in changes in an electric field or the motion of charged particles.

The same is true for gravity which is the static force and field.  The motion and rotation of gravitating bodies produces the Gravitoelectromagnetiic fields 

They are very small effects and difficult to measure but have been observed using gravity probe b orbiting the earth and in extreme binary neutron stars.  They are the other art of the equations which produce gravitational waves which have been observed as an energy loss in systems that radiate significant amounts of them but not been observed directly yet but it is hoped that detectors will be made sensitive enough soon. these could reveal very interesting things about our universe.

[gyro5d]

I've thought the Universe to be a gas/liquid crystalline structure. Matter/planets/stars are its dislocates. Gravity being the crystalline structures lines trying to straighten out. Space/waves trying to take back the area occupied by matter/particals.
            Electricity~magnetism - disentropy~gravity.