Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: EM-gravity versus Newton-gravity #1235 New Physics #1355 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Replies: 1   Last Post: Feb 17, 2013 5:45 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com

Posts: 9,924
Registered: 3/31/08
EM-gravity versus Newton-gravity #1235 New Physics #1355 ATOM
TOTALITY 5th ed

Posted: Feb 17, 2013 1:34 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

EM-gravity versus Newton-gravity

Earlier in this book I called it EM-gravity and will retain that name.
Even though much of gravity is due to the magnetic charge of magnetic
monopoles.

When the Maxwell Equations are taken to be the axioms over all of
physics, then gravity is the smallest EM attraction possible and the
reason we see gravity on cosmic bodies is because they hold so much
mass and this mass is proportional to the magnetic monopoles it
contains. So, the old Newton-gravity is just the Maxwell Equations
attraction of one magnetic monopole for another magnetic monopole. The
force law is the same as Coulomb force law, only the relative strength
is 10^40 weaker.
Magnetic monopoles come in two types, a north and a south monopole and
all four possible combinations are an attractive force, whether north
to north, north to south, south to north, and south to south. It maybe
the case that unlike magnetic monopole charges have a tiny bit more
attraction force than the like charges, but it is the Maxwell
Equations that will determine that.

Now in the Universe at large, we see more than just the plain old
Newton Gravity, for we see solid-body-rotation. Here are a few
examples of solid-body-rotation:

(1) barred spiral galaxies
(2) many spiral galaxies
(3) Saturn's Rings
(4) Jupiter's Red-Spot
(5) resonance of satellites with parent body such as the Jovian moons
or Mercury with Sun

Now the theory of General Relativity by Einstein is crackpot nonsense
and is fake physics. Einstein never made the Maxwell Equations the
axioms of physics and he pays a dreadful price for that omission
because General Relativity is nothing but science fiction and utter
nonsense. The planet Mercury precession of perihelion is not explained
by
General Relativity but is explained by the solar radiation pressure.
If GR were viable, then there would be a Venus precession and a Earth
precession but those two planets are far enough away from the direct
solar radiation pressure that there is no precession to speak of.

An easy experimental proof that GR is physics fakery is this
experiment:
Bubble Chamber tracks of the neutron versus proton, of the chemical
elements and an ionized chemical element. If GR were true then no
particle, even photons of high energy would have a straight line track
in the bubble chamber. The only tracks in a bubble chamber that are
curved are those particles with a magnetic or electric charge
imbalance.

GR is reduced to the statement: "Mass bends Space and Matter follows
the Curvature of bent Space." When we put that statement into the
Maxwell Equations we see that it does not hold up, and Einstein should
have sought to inject GR into the Maxwell Equations, but Einstein was
never really a bright enough physicist. If you put GR into the Maxwell
Equations, you have to alter the statement of GR to be this: "Charge
bends Space and Matter follows the Curvature of that bent Space." The
charge could be either electric charge, or dipole magnetic charge or
monopole charge. Einstein is the typical physicist of the 20th century
that comes up with theories of physics to please his own idiosyncratic
wishes of whatever he falls in love with such as a elevator in space
that imitates the force of gravity. And sadly enough, almost all the
other physicists of the 20th century followed Einstein in how they put
together a new theory-- idiosyncratic pet loves, rather than taking a
axiom system as the heart of physics and having everything new put to
the test of whether the axioms allow it or disallow the new proposed
theory.

You see, for me and future physicists, we no longer have to be clever
in dreaming up a new theory. We only have to be super cognizant of the
Maxwell Equations and how they work. And if we run into some new
physics phenomenon such as superconductivity or superfluidity or BEC,
we do not do what Einstein or Bardeen Cooper Schrieffer, or Higgs, or
Hawking, did, by dreaming up new mechanisms that were their own pet
loves at the time. No, we do not do that crank crackpot nonsense. What
we do as real physicists is simply pull out the Symmetrical Maxwell
Equations as axioms and see if they permit and allow the new
phenomenon and how they permit and allow that phenomenon.

Back to gravity.

Now it is a awful shame that we recently sent a flyby satellite
mission to Saturn and have not proven to what percentage the Rings are
solid body rotation. Is it 90% solid body? Is it 50% solid body
rotation? Who knows. And did the satellite take enough photos that we
can find out the percentage of solid body rotation of those ice
crystal Rings. If not, then we wasted a mission to Saturn, because the
most important question of Saturn is how much solid body rotation of
its Rings.

Now previously I did not list the Red Spot of Jupiter as a solid body
rotation phenomenon, but I should have. The literature says the Red
Spot is a weather phenomenon. I can believe it is a weather aspect but
a magnetic aspect of loosely held particles, much like the ice of
Saturn's Rings and those magnetic particles are displaying solid body
rotation.

Now some moons and the planet Mercury display orbital resonance. And
Newton-gravity is really ill-equiped to explain resonance. Resonance
is part of the Maxwell Equations theory, as a feature just before you
reach solid-body-rotation. The planets around the Sun are in Newtonian
gravity, not in solid body rotation, but if we moved closer to that of
solid body rotation, we would first have the planets in a harmonic
resonance to the Sun. The Rings of Saturn are in solid body rotation
and at one stage earlier in their orbit those rings were in a
resonance mode, and as the rotation went on further, the resonance
turned into solid body.

Now it is a shame the Rings of Saturn have no bar to them, as in
barred spiral galaxies that we can watch and see that the bars are
solid body rotation. So that barred spiral galaxies are 100% solid
body and others less than 100%. So why would stars have magnetic and
electric charges to cause solid body rotation? They are not ice
crystals like Saturn's ring, so what are stars in barred spiral
galaxies? I can only guess that in older galaxies that there is a huge
supply of iron present and in 14 billion years of evolving those stars
that they reached a evenness or uniformity of magnetism and
electricity that like the Coulomb force itself is a rotation of a
vinyl phonograph record of the 1960s.

--

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



Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.