Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: easiest solution of gravity as magnetic monopoles #1233 New Physics
#1353 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 2   Last Post: Feb 17, 2013 1:53 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com Posts: 17,813 Registered: 3/31/08
do the Maxwell Equations prove that monopoles are only attractive
force? #1234 New Physics #1354 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 17, 2013 1:53 AM

On Feb 16, 3:55 pm, Archimedes Plutonium
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an easiest gravity solution and we must always consider it
> seriously.
>
> Previously I gave the solution for gravity as that of (a) uneven
> electromagnetic charge distribution coupled with enormous EM power of
> 10^40 stronger than gravity. Trouble with that solution is that we
> still have to account for repulsion. For why would gravity always be
> attraction.
>
> So in the case of attraction or repulsion, I proposed the Atom
> Totality solution (b) where the Atom Totality is a electron in our
> region of Space and so all the magnetic monopoles are of one charge
> only, attraction.
>
> However, last night I came upon the easiest solution of all. It may be
> the true solution or it may just be an easier solution than (b). There
> are still many facts of the Cosmos that need to be considered, such as
> whether far away distant galaxies do in fact show antigravity of a
> repulsion and acceleration away from one another. And our local
> galaxies showing only attraction. But let me list the easiest and
> third solution.
>
> Solution (c) is the easiest of all, and it takes into account that we
> know little to nothing about magnetic monopoles. Solution (c) says
> that a magnetic monopole M- is attractive to both M- and M+, and ditto
> for M+. Now maybe M- is more attractive to M+ rather than M-, but
> still, their is no repulsion force in magnetic monopoles. There is a
> repulsion in magnetic dipoles, but not magnetic monopoles.
>
> Now, we easily solve gravity because monopoles exist where mass exists
> and their abundance and distribution follows the abundance and
> distribution of mass. So we eliminated repulsion out of EM force and
> gravity is thus the smallest of the Coulomb forces for it is just the
> attraction of magnetic monopoles.
>
> Now, perhaps I can combine solutions (c) with (b) in that the Maxwell
> Equations do not support (c) in a elimination of repulsion. But if we
> include (b) of the Cosmos being a single atom of 231Pu and our local
> galaxies showing only attraction force because our local galaxies are
> part of the last electron Space of 231Pu, that masks the repulsion and
> allows only a residual attraction.
>
> We have to keep in mind also, of patches of stronger forces of gravity
> as EM, for instance the Rings of Saturn as solid-body-rotation is a
> stronger gravity field than the planets around the Sun, and the solid-
> body-rotation of many spiral galaxies is stronger gravity than the
> gravity of the planets around the Sun. So in those cases of stronger
> gravity than the usual gravity, we have to adjust the abundance or
> power of the magnetic monopoles in play.
>

Let me list the advantages of (a), (b), and (c) and see if some
logical conclusions can follow.

In (a) called the uneven distribution of charges in a body has the
(1) allowing for a spectrum of revolution from non solid body to that
of solid body
(1') makes no provision for why all gravity is attraction rather than
some having repulsion

In (b) called the 231Pu Atom Totality stipulation that the Space in
the region of the local galaxies is electron space and thus only
allowing one type of charge -- attraction.
(1) gets rid of bodies repelling or antigravity
(1') does not tell me much about why Saturn's Ring and faraway
galaxies display solid body rotation.

In (c) called the "getting familiar with the properties of magnetic
monopoles" in that they all attract whether they are north or south
pole monopoles.
(1) it is an easy and quick fix in that the force of gravity is
proportional to mass which is proportional to magnetic monopoles
contained therein.
(2) can be proven true or false from the Symmetrical Maxwell Equations
in some deciding experiment and that we need not wait for astronomers
to find data from celestial bodies.

(1') does not say much about why some bodies have solid-body-rotation
other than to imply that other uneven charge distribution plays a
factor in revolving.
(2') would not allow for any data of bodies thought to be antigravity
of faraway galaxies repelling and accelerating away from one another.

Of particular concern to me about these three candidates is that (c)
is able to be proven from the Maxwell Equations, the Symmetrical
Maxwell Equations, and we do not have to rummage around in Space for
data to confirm one way or the other.

So, let us inspect the Maxwell theory with magnetic monopoles. Would
not a south monopole be attractive to another south monopole
considering that a dipole magnet is composed of numerous south
magnetic monopoles? So that if you had one south magnetic monopole
near another south magnetic monopole they must attract and not repel,
because in the dipole magnet the south pole is composed of many
monopoles. That is an intuitive argument.

But in the Faraday law with its extra term of magnetic current
density, is that density composed of like poles which are not
repelling one another but
in a current that is in a attractive flow of monopoles, be they north
or south poles.

So I suspect that the Maxwell Equations themselves will prove to us
that magnetic monopoles have only a attractive force between
themselves and regardless of whether they are north or south poles.

--

Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-
bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple and
fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here:

http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986

Archimedes Plutonium
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Date Subject Author
2/16/13 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
2/17/13 bacle
2/17/13 plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com