# Thread: Is there a proof that gravity is not electromagnetic in nature?

1. As the title says. Do we have a proof?
Thanks...

2.

3. Yes. It acts completely differently (there are many threads here showing that; (read one). And an importnt point, there is no proof that it is

4. Well, mainly the fact that they are completely different in almost every conceivable way. You might as well ask if there is proof that bananas are made of music.

• Electric and magnetic fields can be generated in the lab by moving charges; gravity can't.
• They are independent; gravity depends on mass and electromagnetism depends on charge and velocity: you can have a large mass with no charge or a small mass with a large charge.
• Magnetism only affects certain types of materials; gravity is produced by, and affects, all matter and energy.
• Gravity only attracts; magnetism/electricity attracts and repels.
• Gravity follows an inverse square law; magnetism/electricity follow an inverse cube law.
• Gravity causes gravitational lensing; magnetism/electricity don't.
• Gravity can't be shielded; magnetism/electricity can.
• EM fields are vector fields, gravity is a tensor field.
• The gravitational field is self-interacting, the EM field is not.
• Gravity is many orders of magnitude weaker then electromagnetism
• The gravitational field is described by completely different laws than EM fields, both qualitatively and quantitatively.
• Etc.
• and so on ...
• ...
• more ...
• etc.

5. How is a planet formed?
What force creates a planet?

6. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
As the title says. Do we have a proof?
Thanks...
The question is wrongly posed. It should read :
"Is there any proof that gravity is electromagnetic in nature ?"
And the answer is a clear no. The idea of EM to be the underlying reason for gravity goes against mainstream models of gravitation, therefore the onus of proof is on the proponent of such a non-standard hypothesis, and not the other way around.

Mainstream science has a clear and well developed model for gravity ( General Relativity ), and it has nothing at all to do with electromagnetism. In fact, gravitation and EM are different in almost all conceivable ways, which Strange has already pointed out to you.

7. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
How is a planet formed? What force creates a planet?
Mainly gravity. Material aggregates in a disk around the parent star, and then "clumps" together to form planets. This process is mainly driven by the force of gravity.
This is the gist of it, and a more thorough overview can be found here :

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

8. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
As the title says. Do we have a proof?
Thanks...
The question is wrongly posed. It should read :
"Is there any proof that gravity is electromagnetic in nature ?"
And the answer is a clear no. The idea of EM to be the underlying reason for gravity goes against mainstream models of gravitation, therefore the onus of proof is on the proponent of such a non-standard hypothesis, and not the other way around.

Mainstream science has a clear and well developed model for gravity ( General Relativity ), and it has nothing at all to do with electromagnetism. In fact, gravitation and EM are different in almost all conceivable ways, which Strange has already pointed out to you.
What force forms planets in the beginning?

9. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Mainly gravity. Material aggregates in a disk around the parent star, and then "clumps" together to form planets. This process is mainly driven by the force of gravity.
This is the gist of it, and a more thorough overview can be found here :

Formation and evolution of the Solar System - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Accretion from Accretion (astrophysics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In astrophysics, the term accretion is used for at least two distinct processes.
The first and most common is the growth of a massive object by gravitationally attracting more matter, typically gaseous matter in an accretion disc.[1] Accretion discs are common around smaller stars or stellar remnants in a close binary or black holes in the centers of spiral galaxies. Some dynamics in the disc are necessary to allow orbiting gas to lose angular momentum and fall onto the central massive object. Occasionally, this can result in stellar surface fusion. (See: Bondi accretion)
The second process is somewhat analogous to the one in atmospheric science. In the nebular theory, accretion refers to the collision and sticking of cooled microscopic dust and ice particles electrostatically, in protoplanetary discs and gas giant protoplanet systems, eventually leading to planetesimals which gravitationally accrete more small particles and other planetesimals.[citation needed]

Use of the term accretion disc for the protoplanetary disc thus leads to confusion over the planetary accretion process, although in many cases it may well be that both accretion processes are happening simultaneously. T Tauri is an example of this phenomenon.
The accretion mentions two processes.
The first process talks about gravity. I'd like to ask. Gravity of what? What mass?
The second process talks about microscopic dust and ice particles and their electrostatic charge/force.

It seems that the first process can not take place prior to the second one.

The next question is what happens to the electrostatic charges when they form bigger objects? Do they disappear?

10. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
The accretion mentions two processes.
The first process talks about gravity. I'd like to ask. Gravity of what? What mass?
The mass of the cloud of "stuff".

The second process talks about microscopic dust and ice particles and their electrostatic charge/force.

It seems that the first process can not take place prior to the second one.
The other way round I would have thought (I'm no expert in this). Gravity must bring the cloud of dust close enough that the particles have a chance of sticking together. Remember that gravity follows an inverse square law and electric fields an inverse cube law. Also, the net charge of the cloud is (presumably) zero and so there will no electrostatic forces at larger distances.

The next question is what happens to the electrostatic charges when they form bigger objects? Do they disappear?
I assume so: the net charge is approximately zero so they will cancel out.

Note that electromagnetic forces are important once you have a solid lump; it is what makes things solid.

11. Originally Posted by Strange
The mass of the cloud of "stuff".
That does not make sense. A small particle inside of a cloud. Where is the gravity? Which way it's pulling? There are only charges.

The other way round I would have thought (I'm no expert in this). Gravity must bring the cloud of dust close enough that the particles have a chance of sticking together. Remember that gravity follows an inverse square law and electric fields an inverse cube law.
There is a math that can explain this. It's related to force lines of attractive and repulsive forces.

Also, the net charge of the cloud is (presumably) zero and so there will no electrostatic forces at larger distances.

I assume so: the net charge is approximately zero so they will cancel out.

Note that electromagnetic forces are important once you have a solid lump; it is what makes things solid.
Let's move a border of your cloud one charge left so the cloud does not zero out.
Do you see the problem?

12. That does not make sense. A small particle inside of a cloud. Where is the gravity? Which way it's pulling? There are only charges.
It only takes a slightly denser area in the cloud to set up a gravitational instability. Any denser area will have a greater gravitational attraction, and this in turn will attract more dust, resulting in a still greater gravitational field, and so on.

13. Each particle has a gravitational field to it proportional to it's mass. This gravity acts on everything, regardless of how far apart they are. When you have a cloud, the gravity fields of the particles add up in such a way that there is a centre of gravity (addition of all the force lines). Each particle is then attracted to the highest centre of gravity. If you have a more or less even distribution of gass, the centre of gravity is in the physical centre of the cloud, so they clump together in a ball.

14. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
There is a math that can explain this. It's related to force lines of attractive and repulsive forces.
Would you like to show us this math?

Let's move a border of your cloud one charge left so the cloud does not zero out.
Do you see the problem?
No.

15. Originally Posted by AlexG
That does not make sense. A small particle inside of a cloud. Where is the gravity? Which way it's pulling? There are only charges.
It only takes a slightly denser area in the cloud to set up a gravitational instability. Any denser area will have a greater gravitational attraction, and this in turn will attract more dust, resulting in a still greater gravitational field, and so on.
Well, remember that gravity is very weak compare to electrostatic forces. They rule in this scenario.

16. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Well, remember that gravity is very weak compare to electrostatic forces. They rule in this scenario.
Can you provide some evidence to support that? It sounds counter-intuitive to me.

17. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Each particle has a gravitational field to it proportional to it's mass. This gravity acts on everything, regardless of how far apart they are. When you have a cloud, the gravity fields of the particles add up in such a way that there is a centre of gravity (addition of all the force lines). Each particle is then attracted to the highest centre of gravity. If you have a more or less even distribution of gass, the centre of gravity is in the physical centre of the cloud, so they clump together in a ball.
Again, as my prev post. The gravity is nothing compare to electrostatic forces inside of the cloud. There is no center of gravity. Where it's going to be?

18. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Well, remember that gravity is very weak compare to electrostatic forces. They rule in this scenario.
Can you provide some evidence to support that? It sounds counter-intuitive to me.
Remember, we are talking about a cloud of microscopic particles, atoms, ... They have charges and what gravity? It's 10^36 weaker.
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

19. Atoms do not have charge, they are electrically neutral. Why do you think that the dust cloud has any charge?

20. Originally Posted by AlexG
Atoms do not have charge, they are electrically neutral. Why do you think that the dust cloud has any charge?
Really?
Atomic number - Number of electrons present = overall electrical charge of atom
... and then you have isotopes
...

molecules have charges ...

21. The number of electrons present = the number of protons present = neutral charge.

22. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Originally Posted by KALSTER
Each particle has a gravitational field to it proportional to it's mass. This gravity acts on everything, regardless of how far apart they are. When you have a cloud, the gravity fields of the particles add up in such a way that there is a centre of gravity (addition of all the force lines). Each particle is then attracted to the highest centre of gravity. If you have a more or less even distribution of gass, the centre of gravity is in the physical centre of the cloud, so they clump together in a ball.
Again, as my prev post. The gravity is nothing compare to electrostatic forces inside of the cloud. There is no center of gravity. Where it's going to be?
In the centre. Remember, gravity decreases with the inverse square of distance, while electrostatic forces deminishes with the inverse cubed of distance, hence, at larger distances, gravity will be much stronger.

Look at our atmosphere. If not for the gravity of earth keeping it under pressure, it would be much thinner. Like Alex says though, atoms are neutral. There are weak van der Waal forces, but they are not significant at larger scales. Remember, a gas cloud in interstellar space is nowhere near the densities in our atmosphere. At those densities, gravity is dominant. Believe me, when you work it out, that is what you find.

23. Originally Posted by KALSTER
In the centre. Remember, gravity decreases with the inverse square of distance, while electrostatic forces deminishes with the inverse cubed of distance, hence, at larger distances, gravity will be much stronger.

Look at our atmosphere. If not for the gravity of earth keeping it under pressure, it would be much thinner. Like Alex says though, atoms are neutral. There are weak van der Waal forces, but they are not significant at larger scales. Remember, a gas cloud in interstellar space is nowhere near the densities in our atmosphere. At those densities, gravity is dominant. Believe me, when you work it out, that is what you find.
There is no magical center of gravity in a huge large cloud where everything is pulled.
When a planet is formed the cloud is a disc around a star. Where is the center of gravity?

24. Local vortexes also form, like water running out of the bath. The centres of gravity are local. Minute differences add up as momentum builds.

Think of the earth. The gravity acting on you from the earth is much more than that from the sun because of it's proximity, just as the gravity acting on you from the solar system is much larger than that from the rest of the galaxy. Did you follow that wiki link on the formation of the solar system?

25. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Local vortexes also form, like water running out of the bath. The centres of gravity are local. Minute differences add up as momentum builds.

Think of the earth. The gravity acting on you from the earth is much more than that from the sun because of it's proximity, just as the gravity acting on you from the solar system is much larger than that from the rest of the galaxy. Did you follow that wiki link on the formation of the solar system?
??
How many local centers of gravity? Where are they in a disc cloud?
In order to have some gravity you need to start from single particles, atoms, crystals, ... and their interaction.
At that scale the electrostatic force rules.

26. Did you read the link on the formation and evolution of the solar system?

27. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Remember, we are talking about a cloud of microscopic particles, atoms, ... They have charges and what gravity? It's 10^36 weaker.
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really wanted evidence that the electrostatic charges on these particles are sufficiently large to be more significant than the gravitational force.

You said you had some math to prove this earlier. So far we have had no dat, no math, no evidence. Just assertions that appear to based on a poor understanding of physics.

I hope we are not heading down the "electric universe" road; if so I will recommend that this thread goes straight to Trash, not stopping at Pseudoscience...

28. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Did you read the link on the formation and evolution of the solar system?
Did you see my post #8?

29. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Remember, we are talking about a cloud of microscopic particles, atoms, ... They have charges and what gravity? It's 10^36 weaker.
Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I really wanted evidence that the electrostatic charges on these particles are sufficiently large to be more significant than the gravitational force.

You said you had some math to prove this earlier. So far we have had no dat, no math, no evidence. Just assertions that appear to based on a poor understanding of physics.

I hope we are not heading down the "electric universe" road; if so I will recommend that this thread goes straight to Trash, not stopping at Pseudoscience...
What is a ratio between charge and gravity of electron?

30. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
What does that have to do with the topic?

Apart from the fact that yahoo Answers is nearly as poor a source of information as YooToob.

31. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
What does that have to do with the topic?

Apart from the fact that yahoo Answers is nearly as poor a source of information as YooToob.
I wanted to ask what is the ratio between gravity generated by electron and its charge.

32. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I wanted to ask what is the ratio between gravity generated by electron and its charge.
Again, barely relevant to your original question as we aren't talking about clouds of electrons.

Are you going to produce any data, math, theory, evidence to support your bizarre claims? Or should this just be moved to Trash and save us all a lot of grief?

33. Jaaanosik, I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood something. Your questions give the impression that you already have some definite notions of the relative importance of gravity and elctromagnetism in the formation of planets. If you do, please state what your view is, otherwise the approach is dishonest.

34. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I wanted to ask what is the ratio between gravity generated by electron and its charge.
Again, barely relevant to your original question as we aren't talking about clouds of electrons.

Are you going to produce any data, math, theory, evidence to support your bizarre claims? Or should this just be moved to Trash and save us all a lot of grief?
My point is simple, gravity does not rule in a huge cloud of particles, atoms, ...
The simple electrostatic interaction between charges is the driving force in the beginning.

What is so bizarre about what I said?

Can you show me how two atoms can interact based on gravity?

35. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
My point is simple, gravity does not rule in a huge cloud of particles, atoms, ...
The simple electrostatic interaction between charges is the driving force in the beginning.
So you keep saying. This assertion is, so far, totally unsupported by any data, evidence, theory, math or references.

Why should anyone take this nonsense seriously; just because you say so?

36. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
My point is simple, gravity does not rule in a huge cloud of particles, atoms, ...
The simple electrostatic interaction between charges is the driving force in the beginning.
So you keep saying. This assertion is, so far, totally unsupported by any data, evidence, theory, math or references.

Why should anyone take this nonsense seriously; just because you say so?
From the gravity point of view the disc cloud is quite homogenous. Where is the center of gravity? How the gravity works in the disc cloud.
Please, explain. Can you show me the math how a disc cloud changes into a planet?

In my case you follow electrostatic force and you build crystals out of atoms and these crystals will attract more atoms and particles based on the electrostatic force.
These charges move and spin. They will create dipoles and magnetism will come into play as well. Bigger rocks will be created.
The charges are cumulative. Yes, there are + and - charges in any given rock ... all the way ... to a planet.
The fun part is that attraction prevails over repulsion. That's why gravity is always attractive.

37. Originally Posted by John Galt
Jaaanosik, I apologise in advance if I have misunderstood something. Your questions give the impression that you already have some definite notions of the relative importance of gravity and elctromagnetism in the formation of planets. If you do, please state what your view is, otherwise the approach is dishonest.
I guess the post #35 sums up my view.

38. Until you provide some evidence or other support, I think I will just assume this is nonsense made up by a bored schoolboy. Bye.

39. Originally Posted by Strange
Until you provide some evidence or other support, I think I will just assume this is nonsense made up by a bored schoolboy. Bye.
You know, you don't have any math or prove how a cloud disc changes into a planet as well.

40. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
You know, you don't have any math or prove how a cloud disc changes into a planet as well.
This was just the first thing I found: http://astro.sunysb.edu/metchev/PHY6..._accretion.pdf There are hundreds, probably thousands mre. Just because you are ignorant of the science involved, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

People have been studying this area for hundreds of years. They don't just make stuff up. They use evidence, math and theory.

So you can find someone else who believes equally idiotic things. So what?

41. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
You know, you don't have any math or prove how a cloud disc changes into a planet as well.
This was just the first thing I found: http://astro.sunysb.edu/metchev/PHY6..._accretion.pdf There are hundreds, probably thousands mre. Just because you are ignorant of the science involved, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

People have been studying this area for hundreds of years. They don't just make stuff up. They use evidence, math and theory.

So you can find someone else who believes equally idiotic things. So what?
New numerical simulations of the formation of the giant planets are presented, in which for the first time both the gas and planetesimal accretion rates are calculated in a self-consistent, interactive fashion. The simulations combine three elements: (1) three-body accretion cross sections of solids onto an isolated planetary embryo, (2) a stellar evolution code for the planet’s gaseous envelope, and (3) a planetesimal dissolution code within the envelope, used to evaluate the planet’s effective capture radius and the energy deposition profile of accreted material. Major assumptions include: The planet is embedded in a disk of gas and small planetesimals with locally uniform initial surface mass density, and planetesimals are not allowed to migrate into or out of the planet’s feeding zone.
Nice assumptions. How the planetesimals came to be? How they were created?
You know that this does not contradicts what I said, do you?
I am talking about time prior to existence of planetesimals in the cloud.

Thanks, I didn't know that I believe in idiotic things. Nice to know.

42. Strange, thank you very much for your time. I am sorry you got irritated by my posting and I understand it.

Let's do a quick recap:
- this is a new hypotheses and ideas section of the science forum
- I posted a question and I expected an answer stating that the Coulomb's law is a major reason why gravity can not be electromagnetic
- Coulomb's law (img from Wikipedia)
3f67479eda67aa1df0b2b44ca10a116d.png
where attractive and repulsive forces are equal
- the things change if the Coulomb's law is not completely valid
- Mr. Kopernicky (see the linked pdf) made many experiments (magnets, Brooks coils,...) and he discovered that there is a delta between attractive and repulsive forces, the attraction being slightly bigger than repulsion
- he submitted a paper to Galilean Electrodynamics
- the paper got peer reviewed by Wm. L. Hughes, Ph.D, P.E. who was skeptical as well in the beginning
- Professor Hughes spent years validating the discovery and he could not believe what he saw
- at the end professor wrote a book about it - The Electromagnetic Nature of Things (ISBN 0-9673910-6-7)

What we have here:
- experiments that question Coulomb's law
- a new gravity hypothesis based on this discovery

... and believe me, the book is an interesting read. Once you consider the Kopernicky's delta between the attraction and the repulsion the ball gets rolling.
For example an explanation of crystalline structures.

To all, let the discussion begin.

43. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Mr. Kopernicky (see the linked pdf) made many experiments (magnets, Brooks coils,...) and he discovered that there is a delta between attractive and repulsive forces, the attraction being slightly bigger than repulsion
As he says, isn't it odd that no one else has noticed this... If the effect is real, why didn't he submit the paper to a proper peer-reviewed journal (and start making space for his Nobel prize)? Instead he published it on a crank website.

44. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Mr. Kopernicky (see the linked pdf) made many experiments (magnets, Brooks coils,...) and he discovered that there is a delta between attractive and repulsive forces, the attraction being slightly bigger than repulsion
As he says, isn't it odd that no one else has noticed this... If the effect is real, why didn't he submit the paper to a proper peer-reviewed journal (and start making space for his Nobel prize)? Instead he published it on a crank website.
Well, if this is proved right it will eventually happen. I guess.
Some of the brightest minds in the world are checking the book now.

He submitted a paper to the magazine and it got reviewed. The above mentioned book came out of it.
Your reactions are a proof that it's not easy to achieve what you proposed.
There is no way to invalidate over 200 years old physics law over night.
It takes time.

45. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
In my case you follow electrostatic force and you build crystals out of atoms and these crystals will attract more atoms and particles based on the electrostatic force.
Atoms form chemical bonds with one another, which is due to electromagnetic forces, thereby forming molecules. These can also combine, again due to EM forces. On the scale of elementary particles, atoms and molecules, the EM force prevales along with the strong and weak force. On a macroscopic level, however, gravity becomes more and more important - all forms of energy ( including the EM field ) are a source of gravity, as can be seen by the definition of the Energy-Stress-Momentum tensor :

As I am sure you already know, this tensor then forms the source term of the gravitational potentials in the field equations of gravity.

These charges move and spin. They will create dipoles and magnetism will come into play as well. Bigger rocks will be created.
Two pieces of rock do not attract each other via EM forces, because the pieces are not electrically charged. And if there is an electromagnetic attraction due to magnetic inclusions etc, these are in addition to the gravitational field between the two, and in fact contribute to that gravitational field. However, EM and gravitation are not the same forces.

The fun part is that attraction prevails over repulsion.
And why, in your humble opinion, would that be the case since in any given piece of material you will have a roughly equal number of protons and electrons ?
And why is it that no EM field is detected around a piece of uncharged material ?
Take for example the Jupiter system with all its moons - the moons are attracted by Jupiter, by they also attract each other - how is that possible if this is based on EM forces ? The moons would have to have opposite charge then Jupiter, and thus would repel each other like electrons within an atom do - obviously that is not the case.

46. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
You know, you don't have any math or prove how a cloud disc changes into a planet as well.
Actually, we do - it is called the Raychaudhuri Equation, and describes how a system of pieces of matter behaves over time.
Start with the Einstein Field Equations which form the basis of calculating the gravitational field ( I will omit the cosmological constant ) :

The tensor T takes into account all relevant energy contributions like EM fields, matter density, stress and momentum within the disc. This equation is then solved for the metric tensor g, which then determines the various tensor quantities in the Raychaudhuri equation :

The solution to this equation in terms of the so-called expansion scalar determines how such a system of masses behaves over time; as it turns out the prediction is that nearby bits of matter will gravitate towards each other purely based on their gravitational fields, so long as their momentum doesn't prevent them from doing so. If you have many such pieces of mass they will gravitate towards each other, thus forming a spherical object.

47. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
This entire paper basically hinges on one assumption :

It is well known that electrical, magnetic and gravitational forces vary with distance in exactly the same manner.
This statement is fundamentally incorrect. Gravity and EM only have similar force laws in their classical approximations; in its full general relativistic treatment within the Einstein equations the gravitational potentials become highly non-linear functions and are in no way similar to the mathematical form of EM forces. The simplest demonstration of this is the Deflection of Light experiments, as done here for example :

Tests of general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The deflection of light rays is not explainable in terms of EM, since photons have neither mass nor electric charge. The gravitational treatment however gives us the correct deflection value to a very high accuracy, even though it is based on geodesic equations which are in no way similar to EM force laws.

We have as an illustration (Fig. 1) the graph of results of attraction and repulsion measured in 1-mm increments at the distance from 1 to 25 mm:
Also quoted from the paper. It predicts a difference between attraction of repulsion of roughly 1N at a distance of 5mm. That is a huge effect, which would be very easily detectable by anyone at home, with a similar setup. I would ask all readers to try that themselves, and form their own opinions.
My opinion based on the material presented in the paper is that it is complete hogwash. The author has not even presented a mathematical model for his alleged difference between attraction and repulsion, and has completely ignored the full treatment of the EM field, which is not the Coulomb Law but the basic relativistic Maxwell equation :

It is of course immediately obvious that these are invariant under directional reversals, i.e. attraction and repulsion act with the exact same force.

48. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
There is no way to invalidate over 200 years old physics law over night.
It takes time.
As it should. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am slightly baffled by the fact that you consider one person's (poorly described) measurements to automatically overthrow the repeated measurements (and application of theory) by many thousands of people over, as you say, 200 years. He doesn't describe what he has done well enough to suggest where the errors come from, and (typically) he does no error analysis at all. However, I can think of some fairly obvious sources of error just from imagining how I might attempt to reproduce this.

Also, Faraday's original work (where he noticed no such discrepancy, despite being an excellent experimentalist) and Maxwell's formalization of that, led fairly directly to relativity and QED - two of the most accurately tested theories ever.

If these are based on such an obvious error, how come they work so well?

Also, people designing high performance electric motors, for example, and their controllers (which, in case you don't know, are very sophisticated and have to model the constantly changing electric and magnetic fields) use traditional theory quite successfully. If this theory were as grossly wrong as that self-deluding idiot thinks, then modern electric cars just would not work.

Finally, if he were right then it would be possible to build a perpetual motion machine. Ergo, he must be wrong.

If a scientist gets an odd result in an experiment the first thing they will think is, "what did I do wrong". If, after repeating the experiment, talking to colleagues, changing the experiment to eliminate possible sources of error, doing a literature search, changing the experiment to eliminate possible sources of error, etc. they still get the same result, then they might consider writing it up to be reviewed and checked by other scientists. Someone will then point out the source of the error. (Or, just maybe but almost certainly not, they will be in line for a Nobel prize.)

The first thing a crank will think is, "I am a genius who has just overthrown everything those closed-minded, unimaginative scientists think they know". They will then set up a web site (with garish colours and random fonts) and, if they are dedicated enough, write a self-published book explaining how they have single-handedly solved all the problems of science. And how the "establishment" won't accept their work because they didn't go to university. And there is a conspiracy to hide the truth. And ...

And weirdly, some gullible fools will fall for it...

49.

50. Do you have permission to copy that material? Are you Kopernicky?

And why not read some real science text books?

51.

52. I'll post a page where it's stated that the book does not have a copyright.
I am his friend.

53. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I am his friend.
Do you seriously think that anyone other than his friends are interested in this ignorant drivel?

And why don't you suggest your friend makes the PDF of the text available on-line? (I assume he is clever enough to work out how to do that if he can overthrow all of modern physics.)

And how about addressing some of the objections to this idiotic theory?

If you use the relativistic Maxwell equations and compare them to the results obtained from the Einstein field equations, it is immediately obvious that they do not match - see posts 44,45 and 46. Experimentally and observationally we confirm the results predicted by GR. Even in the weak field approximation, you have not addressed any of the points I have raised.

Gravity is not electromagnetic in nature, as I have clearly shown. Perhaps if this gentleman is your friend you might ask him to calculate the aforementioned light ray deflection, and post the calculation here.

55. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
If you use the relativistic Maxwell equations and compare them to the results obtained from the Einstein field equations, it is immediately obvious that they do not match - see posts 44,45 and 46. Experimentally and observationally we confirm the results predicted by GR. Even in the weak field approximation, you have not addressed any of the points I have raised.

Gravity is not electromagnetic in nature, as I have clearly shown. Perhaps if this gentleman is your friend you might ask him to calculate the aforementioned light ray deflection, and post the calculation here.

Just to let you know, there are other parts of the book.
Please, check the math and let me know if it allows for the attractive and repulsive forces to be slightly different.
Thanks.

56. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Just to let you know, there are other parts of the book.
Please, check the math and let me know if it allows for the attractive and repulsive forces to be slightly different.
Thanks.
This "prove me wrong" strategy is typical of crackpots who do not understand science.

As you refuse to answer any questions or criticisms of this theory, I can only assume you do not understand it and are merely here to promote (spam) your friend's work. Is that an accurate conclusion?

Actually, the fact that you believe it is pretty conclusive proof you do not understand it.

57. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Just to let you know, there are other parts of the book.
Please, check the math and let me know if it allows for the attractive and repulsive forces to be slightly different.
Thanks.
Sorry, but it does not. Even in standard electrodynamics ( Maxwell equations ) it is not mathematically possible for attraction and repulsion to be of different magnitudes within the same field, while still maintaining an internally consistent theory. Remember that we have a very comprehensive theory of electromagnetism - this is probably the most tested and best understood physical theory we currently have. I can assure you that there are no such discrepancies.
You can even test this yourself at home, because a difference of 1N at a distance of 5mm is easily recreatable with standard magnets in a simple setup. You will find no differences.

Look, I understand that you are enthusiastic about this, but please understand that we have very good theories for both electromagnetism and gravitation, and it is a fact that they are distinct phenomena. Electromagnetism is not gravity, they are governed by different laws, both macroscopically as well as on a quantum level.

58. Not to mention that their field strengths drop off at different rates, both measured and predicted by theory. That alone should be enough to discount electromagnetism as a source for gravity. There is no way to get around that.

59. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I am his friend.
Do you seriously think that anyone other than his friends are interested in this ignorant drivel?

And why don't you suggest your friend makes the PDF of the text available on-line? (I assume he is clever enough to work out how to do that if he can overthrow all of modern physics.)

And how about addressing some of the objections to this idiotic theory?
Look, if you check the linked PDF the paper was written in 1999.
Mr. Kopernicky was trying and it took 2 years when Galilean Electrodynamics took it and did something with it in 2001. (pg.35 of the book)
Professor Hughes was skeptical (I don't think he called it idiotic though). It took him a couple of years to do the research, to run simulations, ...
Then he wrote the book. There was a website with more experiments data but professor died a couple of years ago and the site is gone.
Mr. Kopernicky is 73 years old. I am planning to help him with a new web site where the experiments will be for all to see. The full book will be there as well.
I am interested in truth. I want to find out the truth - is the book content correct or not.

You asked for math, I showed you math. If you know how to prove it wrong, please, do so.
If your comments make you happy, be my guest. It's not going to change anything where the truth is.

60. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I am planning to help him with a new web site where the experiments will be for all to see.
Will you perform the experiments yourself to check they produce the claimed results?
Will you include a full analysis of the sources and magnitudes of any errors?
Will you develop alternative experiments to eliminate some of these sources of errors?

If you answer "no" to any of these then you are not "interested in truth", you are only interested in promoting your friend's ideas, even if they are wrong (which they quite obviously are).

You asked for math, I showed you math. If you know how to prove it wrong, please, do so.
Markus has done that. Repeatedly.

It's not going to change anything where the truth is.
How about addressing some of the other questions, such as the fact that all tests of the standard theories of electromagnetism, relativity and QED show these theories to be correct to a very high level of accuracy. How can that be?

Or the fact that the standard theory is used in designing everything from loudspeakers, microelectronics, electric cars and MRI scanners. All of these things work exactly as predicted by standard theory. How can that be?

On the other hand, all you have is some second-hand claims that some poorly-described experiments produced the wrong results. Not exactly compelling.

Or are you just interested in repeating the fact that Kopernicky is correct as a matter of faith? In which case, again, you are not interested in truth, you are just being closed-minded and irrational.

61. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I am interested in truth. I want to find out the truth - is the book content correct or not.
You asked for math, I showed you math. If you know how to prove it wrong, please, do so.
As I said, you can quite easily perform the experiment yourself at home.
As for the maths, you can find it in posts 44, 45 and 46. The paper itself hasn't really proved anything, because he hasn't used the correct relations, as explained.

62. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Just to let you know, there are other parts of the book.
Please, check the math and let me know if it allows for the attractive and repulsive forces to be slightly different.
Thanks.
Sorry, but it does not. Even in standard electrodynamics ( Maxwell equations ) it is not mathematically possible for attraction and repulsion to be of different magnitudes within the same field, while still maintaining an internally consistent theory. Remember that we have a very comprehensive theory of electromagnetism - this is probably the most tested and best understood physical theory we currently have. I can assure you that there are no such discrepancies.
You can even test this yourself at home, because a difference of 1N at a distance of 5mm is easily recreatable with standard magnets in a simple setup. You will find no differences.

Look, I understand that you are enthusiastic about this, but please understand that we have very good theories for both electromagnetism and gravitation, and it is a fact that they are distinct phenomena. Electromagnetism is not gravity, they are governed by different laws, both macroscopically as well as on a quantum level.
Let's take it slowly and focus on the Coulomb's law. The law says something. There were no Maxwell equations, no relativity at the time.
How did he do the experiments? Was his equipment capable to show the asymmetry? It seems natural that he could not see the small delta at the time.
Please, let's leave Maxwell and relativity for later.

The explanation is a disturbance/bad alignment in molecular magnets.
This does not make sense because molecular magnets (dipoles) don't have a space to move anywhere. These are very hard/rigid materials, there is nowhere to twist/turn.
Mr. Kopernicky did experiments with Brooks coils where molecular magnets are not present.
FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions - supermagnete
It seems this could be a reason nobody questioned the Coulomb's law because everybody was happy with bad alignment.

... and the video of the pocket experiment: Kopernicky's delta between repulsive and attractive forces - YouTube

63. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Let's take it slowly and focus on the Coulomb's law. The law says something. There were no Maxwell equations, no relativity at the time.
But Maxwell's equations and relativity still applied, even if they hadn't been formulated, so how is that relevant.

"Coulomb's law has been tested heavily and all observations are consistent with the law."
Source: Coulomb's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And, not surprisingly, the "tested heavily" is a link to the page on QED.

How did he do the experiments? Was his equipment capable to show the asymmetry? It seems natural that he could not see the small delta at the time.
Why? If the effect is so large that your friend could measure it (using unspecified means) then why couldn't Coulomb and Faraday?

There are all sorts of reasons why Coulmobs law may not be accurate in the current case. A scientific approach would have included an analysis of these sources of error, an estimate of their magnitude, the relationship between these errors and the size of the effect measured, and a redesigned experiment to eliminate these sources of errors. Has you friend done any of these?

Please, let's leave Maxwell and relativity for later.
Why? We are dealing with the real world here. (Well, I know you aren't but the rest of us are.)

Have you measured it?

Have you done an analysis of these sources of error, an estimate of their magnitude, the relationship between these errors and the size of the effect measured, and redesigned the experiment to eliminate these sources of errors?

The explanation is a disturbance/bad alignment in molecular magnets.
Asymmetry in the magnets is one possible source of errors. I can think of others. Can you? What have you done about it?

This does not make sense because molecular magnets (dipoles) don't have a space to move anywhere.
What evidence or analysis have you done to support his claim? Or is just another of your baseless assertions?

Mr. Kopernicky did experiments with Brooks coils where molecular magnets are not present.
And I can think of yet more sources of error here. can you? What have you done about it?

Well, that would certainly account for a large part of the errors in your friends experiment in some cases.

I note that he restricts the range of his experiments to distances where this effect is greatest. Why do you think that is? Deliberately dishonest or just fooling himself?

It seems this could be a reason nobody questioned the Coulomb's law because everybody was happy with bad alignment.
Nonsense. As noted above, it has been thoroughly tested. To an accuracy far greater than anything your friend could do (and without relying on the characteristics of particular magnetic materials).

p.s. I find your approach of pretending to just ask questions and hiding your true motivation for this thread pretty dishonest. But, given the typical level of honesty of cranks, not too surprising. Is there anything else you haven't told us yet. Is Kopernicky your father, for example?

64. This reminds me of the guy we had here that was adamant that the calculated value for pi was incorrect, as he had done experiments to measure it and found a slightly different number. Nothing could convince him otherwise either.

66. The worst one I came across insisted that the Doppler effect depended on distance not speed. You only have to stand by the side of the road to prove this wrong. Some people are beyond help.

67. Strange, if your intentions were honest you would be addressing the content of the shown pages.
Especially equations (3-4), (3-5), (3-6), (3-7) and if upper limit of (3-7) can be an infinity in real life.

68. Originally Posted by Strange
Please, show me an objection of something in the presented pages.

69. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Please, show me an objection of something in the presented pages.

How about the fact that precision engineered (and simulated) devices using standard theory work?

And don't try and avoid the issue by saying "but none of those things are in these pages" because if Mr Cackpotinsky was correct none of these things would work.

Or are you just going down the typical crackpot route of assuming that any evidence that supports your faith must be correct and all other evidence must "somehow" be wrong? If you are that irrational then there is little point in this dialogue.

70. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Strange, if your intentions were honest
My intentions were honest when I answered your original question in good faith, despite the fact it was worded in a rather suspicious way.

Your deception, dishonesty and refusal to answer questions means I am no longer interested in how you feel about it.

I posted the second set of pages at 8:36AM
... at 8:46AM you posted this:
Do you seriously think that anyone other than his friends are interested in this ignorant drivel?

And why don't you suggest your friend makes the PDF of the text available on-line? (I assume he is clever enough to work out how to do that if he can overthrow all of modern physics.)

And how about addressing some of the objections to this idiotic theory?
I am sure you haven't read it, analyzed it in 10 minutes so you can call it: ignorant drivel, idiotic theory.
Where is the honest intention?

72. At one point Jaaanosik, you posted this:
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
From the gravity point of view the disc cloud is quite homogenous. Where is the center of gravity? How the gravity works in the disc cloud.
Please, explain. Can you show me the math how a disc cloud changes into a planet?
When Strange provided a link to a paper that dealt with this you said this:
Nice assumptions. How the planetesimals came to be? How they were created?
You know that this does not contradicts what I said, do you?
I am talking about time prior to existence of planetesimals in the cloud.

One moment you are talking about planet formation, then you are denying your interest in planet formation. For me this typifies your approach throughout this thread: deceit.

You came here with an agenda and intention to lure people in, while you attempted to manipulate the argument in a covert way. You could have come here and said: "Hi, I have a rather unorthodox view of planetary formation specifically and the relationship between gravitation and electromagnetism in general that I'd like to share with you and get your ideas on."

That would have been an honest and open approach. Members would likely have disagreed with you but, I hope, they would have respected the approach and your integrity. You have made that very difficult to do now.

73. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I am sure you haven't read it
Of course I haven't read it. Why would I? What's wrong with you?

You have provided absolutely no reason to consider this idea as even vaguely plausible. It contradicts all of modern physics (which has been verified to a few parts in a billion). While all you have is some claims of some unverified and vaguely described experiments with an unknown level of accuracy.

The incorrect results obtained can probably be explained very simply. But you aren't interested in that, are you. You have a completely dogmatic, closed-minded and unscientific attitude. There are three more reasons not to take this "theory" seriously.

74. Originally Posted by John Galt
At one point Jaaanosik, you posted this:
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
From the gravity point of view the disc cloud is quite homogenous. Where is the center of gravity? How the gravity works in the disc cloud.
Please, explain. Can you show me the math how a disc cloud changes into a planet?
When Strange provided a link to a paper that dealt with this you said this:
Nice assumptions. How the planetesimals came to be? How they were created?
You know that this does not contradicts what I said, do you?
I am talking about time prior to existence of planetesimals in the cloud.

One moment you are talking about planet formation, then you are denying your interest in planet formation. For me this typifies your approach throughout this thread: deceit.

You came here with an agenda and intention to lure people in, while you attempted to manipulate the argument in a covert way. You could have come here and said: "Hi, I have a rather unorthodox view of planetary formation specifically and the relationship between gravitation and electromagnetism in general that I'd like to share with you and get your ideas on."

That would have been an honest and open approach. Members would likely have disagreed with you but, I hope, they would have respected the approach and your integrity. You have made that very difficult to do now.
We were talking about the accretion. There are two processes mentioned, see the post #8.
All I was saying is that it seems the second process happens prior to the first one and it enables it. The second process was mentioned in the link provided by Strange. It starts with an assumption that planetesimals already exist. I am asking where do they come from?
My suggestion is that they were created from the dust.

The reason why I talked about it is in the post #35. That could support the hypothesis.

I have no intentions to deceive anybody. You are smart people. How would I achieve that?

75. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Let's take it slowly and focus on the Coulomb's law. The law says something.
Yes, the law says exactly this :

Attraction and repulsion simply happen due to the sign of the charges q. The magnitude of the force is always the same ( strength of attraction = strength of repulsion ). This is Coulomb's Law. There is no difference between the forces.
Now compare this to your friend's formula. He has additional terms in there, which I don't know where they are coming from - his formula does not correspond to real life measurements, it is a fancy invention, and a bad one at that because he does not even give proper vector relations.

In your mind ? Yeah, maybe.
In reality ? Err, no.
Or you care to give any experimental evidence other than Kopernicky's ?
Have you replicated the experiment like I asked you to ?

I invite all readers of this forum to get two stick magnets, hold them at some distance, then measure the force. Turn one of them around, measure again. Do you see any difference in force ?

Please, show me an objection of something in the presented pages.
1. He does not use Coulomb's Law at all, but some formula he came up with himself, in total contradiction to experiment.
2. Aforementioned formula assumes the two electric charges to be of the exact same magnitude - unlike Coulomb's Law
3. His formula is not even a proper vector relation ?

plus all the objections I have already raised in posts 44, 45 and 46, which so far you have completely ignored.

Btw, this is supposed to be about EM = gravity ! Stop distracting from the real topic of this thread.

76. I am awaiting your answers to all the points I raised in posts 44, 45 and 46.
Furthermore, I am awaiting your calculation ( and explanation ! ) as to the deflection of light experiment I asked you for.
And what about my Jovian moons ? You haven't even explained that !

Here is another one for you - get yourself a EM field meter ( available in any hardware store ). Since you claim that gravity is an electromagnetic phenomenon, your body ought to be surrounded by an EM field strong enough to hold you down on the surface of the earth. Furthermore, the same would apply to all people since we are all held down to the earth's surface. So, can you detect an EM field around your body strong enough to be doing that ? Are you being repelled by other people if you go near them, since they would need to carry equal charge then you do to be also held down to the earth's surface ?

No disrespect, but this whole idea of EM = gravity is just completely ludicrous.

77. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
In your mind ? Yeah, maybe.
In reality ? Err, no.
Or you care to give any experimental evidence other than Kopernicky's ?
Have you replicated the experiment like I asked you to ?

I invite all readers of this forum to get two stick magnets, hold them at some distance, then measure the force. Turn one of them around, measure again. Do you see any difference in force ?
Have you checked this link? FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions - supermagnete

78. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
It starts with an assumption that planetesimals already exist. I am asking where do they come from?
Pink unicorns made them. Everybody knows that. Or what did you think ?

79. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
You consider a webshop to be a reliable source of scientific data ? You cannot be serious !

The explanation : we were thus far assuming magnets which are symmetrical, with poles of the same size, shape and material. Of course you can manufacture magnets which irregular shapes, and those will have forces which differ. But then of course you cannot use Coulomb's Law, which, by the way, is only for the field between electric charges.
Here is a layman's explanation :

Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion Magnitudes

80. While we are pointing out more flaws for Jaaanosik to ignore ...

Apart from the fact that Coulomb's law applies to charges, it also assumes point sources for the charge - or at least significantly smaller than the distance between them. In the case of Copernicker's experiment, he has magnets 6 inches wide and 25mm apart (1).

And of course he should have used magnetic monopoles for the experiment. The presence of opposite poles in close proximity significantly changes the behaviour.

(1) Of course, real scientists always mix units like that: 4 NASA Mars Climate Orbiter « Mathspig Blog.

81. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
You consider a webshop to be a reliable source of scientific data ? You cannot be serious !

The explanation : we were thus far assuming magnets which are symmetrical, with poles of the same size, shape and material. Of course you can manufacture magnets which irregular shapes, and those will have forces which differ. But then of course you cannot use Coulomb's Law, which, by the way, is only for the field between electric charges.
Here is a layman's explanation :

Magnetic Attraction and Repulsion Magnitudes
So is this fiction? Not real? Kopernicky's delta between repulsive and attractive forces - YouTube

82. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
So is this fiction? Not real?
Of course.

And before you ask, no I haven't watched the video because
(b) as repeatedly pointed out both the experiment and the "theory" are fatally flawed.

Why would a video of an experiment producing the wrong results make it any more plausible?

There is another crank who claims to have invented antigravity; his "evidence" is videos of liquid falling upwards. It is a shame that it is painfully obvious that it is filmed upside down.

How about addressing some of the many objections that have been raised? Do you even understand the objections?

Or are you just going to keep posting the same inane comments?

83. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
So is this fiction? Not real?
Of course.

And before you ask, no I haven't watched the video because
(b) as repeatedly pointed out both the experiment and the "theory" are fatally flawed.

Why would a video of an experiment producing the wrong results make it any more plausible?

There is another crank who claims to have invented antigravity; his "evidence" is videos of liquid falling upwards. It is a shame that it is painfully obvious that it is filmed upside down.

How about addressing some of the many objections that have been raised? Do you even understand the objections?

Or are you just going to keep posting the same inane comments?
Were you accusing me of dogmatism? And you refuse to watch a short video?
I wonder why.

84. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
I wonder why.
I have explained why. What value is there in the same errors in yet another format?

Now about all the objections that have been raised...

Do you have any intention of addressing these? Or should we just request the thread is closed because you are unable to defend this theory?

85. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
...
Now compare this to your friend's formula. He has additional terms in there, which I don't know where they are coming from - his formula does not correspond to real life measurements, it is a fancy invention, and a bad one at that because he does not even give proper vector relations.
...
Please, be more specific. Which one?
Thanks.

86. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
...
Now compare this to your friend's formula. He has additional terms in there, which I don't know where they are coming from - his formula does not correspond to real life measurements, it is a fancy invention, and a bad one at that because he does not even give proper vector relations.
...
Please, be more specific. Which one?
Thanks.
Number (3-15). Where are the additional terms coming from ? And why does he not use the proper vector relations ?

87. Why are you not addressing my points from posts 44, 45, 46 and 75 ?
If you keep ignoring our points, then perhaps we should start ignoring yours as well.

Question : do you actually believe in this crap, or are you just having a laugh ? I understand that you may not be aware how EM, ED, SR, GR, the Standard Model, cosmology, plasma physics etc etc are all intricately linked, but somehow you must be aware that by your claims you are basically denying most of modern day physics, and the outcome of thousands upon thousands of experiments ?
Do you know how this looks to anyone who has even a basic understanding of physics, and the maths behind it ?

So how is it - are you being repelled by all members of your family, because your body is carrying the same charge as them, which you allege is holding you down on the earth ?

88. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
...
Now compare this to your friend's formula. He has additional terms in there, which I don't know where they are coming from - his formula does not correspond to real life measurements, it is a fancy invention, and a bad one at that because he does not even give proper vector relations.
...
Please, be more specific. Which one?
Thanks.
Number (3-15). Where are the additional terms coming from ? And why does he not use the proper vector relations ?
(3-15) is based on (3-13) and that one describes Fig 3-3.
'k' in (3-15) is introduced based on the assumption that repulsion is smaller.
See the bottom of the page 43.
Why do you need vector relations when the charges are on one line as in Fig 3-3?

89. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Why are you not addressing my points from posts 44, 45, 46 and 75 ?
If you keep ignoring our points, then perhaps we should start ignoring yours as well.

Question : do you actually believe in this crap, or are you just having a laugh ? I understand that you may not be aware how EM, ED, SR, GR, the Standard Model, cosmology, plasma physics etc etc are all intricately linked, but somehow you must be aware that by your claims you are basically denying most of modern day physics, and the outcome of thousands upon thousands of experiments ?
Do you know how this looks to anyone who has even a basic understanding of physics, and the maths behind it ?

So how is it - are you being repelled by all members of your family, because your body is carrying the same charge as them, which you allege is holding you down on the earth ?
Please, explain what kind of 'magic' trick is used in the linked video.
You stated that attraction is equal to repulsion. Please, explain the video.
Please, do the same experiment at home and tell us what you find out.

90. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
In my case you follow electrostatic force and you build crystals out of atoms and these crystals will attract more atoms and particles based on the electrostatic force.
Atoms form chemical bonds with one another, which is due to electromagnetic forces, thereby forming molecules. These can also combine, again due to EM forces. On the scale of elementary particles, atoms and molecules, the EM force prevales along with the strong and weak force. On a macroscopic level, however, gravity becomes more and more important - all forms of energy ( including the EM field ) are a source of gravity, as can be seen by the definition of the Energy-Stress-Momentum tensor :

As I am sure you already know, this tensor then forms the source term of the gravitational potentials in the field equations of gravity.

These charges move and spin. They will create dipoles and magnetism will come into play as well. Bigger rocks will be created.
Two pieces of rock do not attract each other via EM forces, because the pieces are not electrically charged. And if there is an electromagnetic attraction due to magnetic inclusions etc, these are in addition to the gravitational field between the two, and in fact contribute to that gravitational field. However, EM and gravitation are not the same forces.

The fun part is that attraction prevails over repulsion.
And why, in your humble opinion, would that be the case since in any given piece of material you will have a roughly equal number of protons and electrons ?
And why is it that no EM field is detected around a piece of uncharged material ?
Take for example the Jupiter system with all its moons - the moons are attracted by Jupiter, by they also attract each other - how is that possible if this is based on EM forces ? The moons would have to have opposite charge then Jupiter, and thus would repel each other like electrons within an atom do - obviously that is not the case.
Pages 47 up to 50. You can see how electrically neutral structures can attract each other.

91. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
(3-15) is based on (3-13) and that one describes Fig 3-3.
'k' in (3-15) is introduced based on the assumption that repulsion is smaller.
That 'assumption' is wrong. The forces are equal, thus (3-15) is invalid.

Why do you need vector relations when the charges are on one line as in Fig 3-3?
I wasn't referring to the diagram used, I was referring to the general case. EM fields are 3-dimensional.

Please, explain what kind of 'magic' trick is used in the linked video.
You stated that attraction is equal to repulsion. Please, explain the video.
Please, do the same experiment at home and tell us what you find out.
Already explained in post 78. The magnets he is using are not of the same shape, geometry and perhaps even material.
Ok then, just for the fun of it I got my kids to do this with two small block magnets ( identical ones !!! ) inside a plastic syringe. They learned that both forces are the same. What surprise.

Pages 47 up to 50. You can see how electrically neutral structures can attract each other.
See above. The very formulas he uses are wrong, because they are based on a wrong "assumption". Neutral bodies do not attract.

92. So then, you still have not answered these :

1. Is your body being repelled by other people, or indeed by any other object ?
2. Calculation and explanation for deflection of light experiment based purely on your little 'theory'
3. Why is there no strong EM field around your body to hold you down ?
4. Evidence other than Kopernicky's ?
5. How come all pieces of electronic equipment which are based on EM fields work so well, since, as you allege, they are all based on a wrong theory ?
6. What about the Jovian moons ?
7. Still no reply to 44, 45 and 46 ? Neutral bodies do not attract each other, no matter how often you claim the contrary.

Would you please get back to the original topic of this question - you alleged that gravity is actually EM.

93. Hasn't this gone beyond ridiculous to ludicrous speed?

94. Originally Posted by AlexG
Hasn't this gone beyond ridiculous to ludicrous speed?
It sure has, and there is only one way this thread is ultimately going to go - we have seen it all before, so many times...

95. I didn't watch the video, but could this guy not simply have accidentally been measuring van der Waals forces? They would be attractive, but would still have nothing to do with gravitation of course.

96. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik
Please, explain what kind of 'magic' trick is used in the linked video.
You stated that attraction is equal to repulsion. Please, explain the video.
Please, do the same experiment at home and tell us what you find out.
Jaaanosik, please stop repeating the same unsubstantiated claims and demanding answers to your questions and answer some of the criticisms of this "theory".

The answer to every single one of your questions is the same: he is wrong (that is the polite version).

I know you have a fervent religious belief that your "friend" is infallible but hundreds of years of experiment, theory and practical application prove that he is deluded. I assume you are unable to answer any of these issues with the theory because of your own lack of education and understanding (based on some of the things you have said here). All you are able to do is quote your prophet; but I'm afraid he is a false prophet.

97. Originally Posted by KALSTER
I didn't watch the video, but could this guy not simply have accidentally been measuring van der Waals forces? They would be attractive, but would still have nothing to do with gravitation of course.
I don't think van der Waals forces are strong enough to account for the (claimed) effect. I actually think the explanation provided by the magnet vendor is highly plausible to explain a large art of it (although I appreciate Markus's scepticism about the source). I think the fact he isn't accounting for the magnets being dipoles and all sorts of other effects make up the rest.

As these clowns have failed to provide a detailed description of the experimental setup and an analysis of the error sources, it is hard to say much. Beyond the fact it is wrong.

98. Newton’s universal law of gravity doesn’t reflect reality. The universal law of attraction should state that, “bodies are attracted through the absorption of EM emission, except when the density of the impacting EM emission through repulsion exceeds the attraction through the absorption of EM emission, and with the greater the EM emission of a body the less its absorption capacity.” All of which is derived from observation and not abstractionist procedure.

typology1

99. Like flies around a rotting corpse ...

Maybe Jaaanosik and Typology should find a room where they can continue their mutual mental onanism in private.

I am appealing to your scientific curiosity.

The inside magnet in the video is double length of the outside one. That's all.
Why would double length be a reason for the delta between attraction and repulsion?
The outside magnet pushes and pulls the same weight against gravity.
In the case of pulling the outside magnet can overcome 1 mm longer distance.

Please, try it yourself with whatever shape and size of a magnet you wish.

101. Originally Posted by Jaaanosik

I am appealing to your scientific curiosity.

The inside magnet in the video is double length of the outside one. That's all.
Why would double length be a reason for the delta between attraction and repulsion?
The outside magnet pushes and pulls the same weight against gravity.
In the case of pulling the outside magnet can overcome 1 mm longer distance.

Please, try it yourself with whatever shape and size of a magnet you wish.
Please identify all sources of errors in this "experiment" and quantify them in relation to the size of the claimed effect.

Please stop resorting to the cretinous "prove me wrong" argument so beloved of crackpots. ("Magnetism is caused by invisible nano-unicorns. Prove me wrong.")