Mountain Man's UseNet Archive

Do Gravity and Magnetism
have a Common Cause?

a post from Ralph Sansbury

Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia in the Southern Spring of 1996

What is Gravity and Magnetism ?

Date: 11 Oct 1996 22:08:10 GMT
From: rsansbury
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: The Common Cause of Gravity and Magnetism

The basic idea here is that gravity may be due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the negative pole, with some multiple of the electron's charge, is the inner pole and the outer pole has enought positive charge so that the total charge is that of a proton; the distance between oppositely charged poles is between 10^-12 and 10^-18meters inside the earth's atomic nuclei; the value of each dipole increases with the distance between it and all other dipoles so the force between any two dipoles is proportional to the distance between the dipoles squared taking into account their relative orientation; this means that the instantaneous dipole-dipole force which varies inversely as the fourth power between colinear dipoles reduces to an inverse square force; the different sizes of dipoles determined by different pairwise interactions and their different forces when summed together over all pairwise interactions yields a single force and implies a single unique dipole in each nucleus intermediate to the pairwise extremes given above and closer to the the measured values of nuclear radii in different contexts, about 10^-15 meters.

From this premise it is possible to derive all of the substantiated predictions of General Relativity, most of which have to do with the explicit interaction of gravity with electrical and magnetic forces, without recourse to the assumption that the force of gravity is a functon not only of properties of the force source like its size, density, location but also of its velocity and acceleration. The dependence in GR of the gravitational field on the velocity and acceleration of the force source leads to counter intuitive and subjectivist space time distortions beyond Einstein's fantasies eg. those of Hawking, Penrose, Whitten etc..

To make the same predictions as GR we must also correct a similar mistaken assumption in Maxwell's theory of electromagnetic forces. Maxwell had to withdraw his claims of a crowded if not distorted ether filled with invisible cams that propagated not only characteristics of the source like its volume, density,and location but also of its motion; the mathematics gave accurate predictions so perhaps one could ignore the cams or isomorphic mechanisms. It was like the grin of the cheshire cat in Lewis Carroll's Wonderland also of the 1860s. But one can't accept Maxwell's mathematics and ignore its absurd implications. The mathematics predicted the observed radiation but it also implied a mechanism for transmitting the effects for which there was no independent evidence, which was thus invisible but had the rigidity of iron. Such absurd implications were swept under the rug and not until Feynman's QED theory of Einstein's photons and probabilistic theory of light and its interactions with matter was the problem resolved -by substituting photons for waves at all frequencies. In Maxwell's theory, the fact that the source of a radiated force, a moving charge, was oscillating in a repetitive pattern helped; just like the regular pattern of planets orbiting the sun and the solar system orbiting the center of the galaxy etc helped Einstein's use of a similar assumption in GR.

Maxwell's absurd implications can be avoided without Feynman's circumlocutions that permit some general description of the interaction of light with matter but prevent one from knowing the specific interactions of specific photons or their source with the receiver. If one acknowledges that light is not a moving thing but the result of instantaneous forces at a distance on charged matter whose inertia etc., delays the appearance of received radiation, then the interaction of light with matter can be described in terms of what actually happens and not merely probabalistically. Is such a theory of light consistent with measurements of the speed of light? Yes in all but one case the observed values can be so interpreted; the exception is Roemer's crude measurement which is far enough from the other values to be regarded as a non coincidence. Roemer's measurement is also an inconsistent one when moons of Jupiter besides Io eg Europa are taken into account.

Similarly the absurd or probabilistic implications of GR can be avoided by finding an alternative to the assumption that the gravitational field is a function of the velocity and acceleration of the source of the field. This alternative is the assumption of instantaneous electrical interactions that account for the delay in the appearance of received electromagnetic radiation, for the apparent bending of light and frequency shifts of radar due to the sun, of gamma rays due to the earth, etc..

Getting back to the basics of the proposed alternative theory. The proposed electrostatic dipoles also exist in current carrying wires, transverse to and proportional to the driving force of the current, inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons of current carrying wires formerly characterized as their spin.These dipoles which also increase with the distance between interacting wires and decrease with the currents in other wires as explained below produce the magnetic field of a current carrying wire. (Experiments suggesting that electrons and atomic nuclei do not have electrostatic dipoles do so only after the effects of spin have been taken into account) These dipoles are superimposed on the dipoles associated with gravity. Electrostatic dipoles in the atomic nuclei of ferromagnetic materials can also explain the magnetic field of these materials; unlike materials composed of any of the other elements, the atoms in these materials are bound together by their electrons in configurations that prevent to some extent the nuclear dipoles from changing direction so as to line up with the gravitational field of the earth of which they are a part; that is they prefer to line up with the nuclear dipoles around them in the same domain or in the entire bulk material of which they are a part. To make the nuclear dipoles in such materials line up completely with the gravitational field of the earth it is necessary that the bulk material containing the nuclear dipoles also changes orientation - as in a compass needle.

Now a magnetized piece of iron or steel held below a piece of paper with iron filings on it can cause the iron filings to line up in a certain way giving rise to Faraday's notion of invisible lines of force; a piece of copper, silicon or what have you will not be able to produce the same effect on the iron filings; the reason for this is that the electrostatic dipoles in the nuclei of silicon and of these other materials change direction constantly so as to line up with the earth's radius from these atoms toward the center of the earth etc; The force of gravity can be shown to be nothing more than the collective force of an enormous number of such electrostatic dipoles.

The Argument:

Regarding the magnetic effects of current carrying wires: Electrostatic dipoles inside atomic nuclei and free electrons can produce the magnetic force observed between parallel (or however oriented) current carrying wire segments r meters apart where the currents are nevA and nev'A' say. The Amperian force per unit length between the two parallel current segments then is 10^-7 times (nevA)(nev'A) divided by r^2. which could also be written as (9 times 10^9 divided by ((3)(10^9))^2) times (r)(v/v')(nevA)(r)(v'/v)(nev'A') divided by r^4 which is the force per unit length between nA and nA' electrostatic dipoles which are larger the greater r is and the greater v is compared to v' etc.. That is the electrostatic dipoles are in part due to the emf causing the speed, v, of the electron and in part due to the lack of interference from other dipoles. When the current in one wire is much larger than the current in another wire, the interference effect on the smaller current is greater and so the increase in its dipoles is less than the increase in the dipoles in the wire carrying the larger current. The expansion of the dipoles inside the atomic nuclei and free electrons can be represented as K(S)res and k(s)reS where K(S) is the ratio of one dipole before consideration of the other eg S over s+S or over s; k(s), similarly. The mechanism for the expansion of the dipole can be described in terms of the elliptization of an orbital system ie of an initially circularlly orbiting particle made to move in a transverse ellipse perpendicular to an applied tangential electrostatic force at some point on the orbit. The assumption that there is only one orbiting charge and that the the magnitude of the charge being polarized is that of a single electron or positron can be modified; perhaps the simplest assumption is that the proton consists of a negative charge of -e and a positive charge of +2e so that the net charge is as observed.

One might object to this theory on the grounds that electrostatic shielding is not effective in shielding against magnetic fields; the answer is that a large number of similarly oriented small electrostatic dipoes inside the nuclei and free electrons of a piece of metal produce entirely different fields than an excess of free electrons on one side of the piece of metal and a deficiency on the other; this can be shown mathematically as well as by the experiments cited below.

One might also object that each pairwise force between one wire segment carrying current i(1) and many other sements would imply different dipoles associated with the same segment; Now it is true that a dipole inside one wire segment cannot at the same time be the product r(1,2)s(1) and also r(1,3)s(1) where s(1)=i(1)/c and the distance between segments 1 and 2 denoted r(1,2) is not equal to r(1,3), the distance between segments 1 and 3. But the actual dipole involved here, r(1)s(1), where r(1) is yet to be determined is equivalent in its effects to the sum of dipole-dipole forces involving different dipoles for the same wire segment The mathematical procedure for determining r(1) etc and the unique dipole r(1)(s(1) etc is as follows:

The force on the first of three current carrying wire segment due to the other two wire segments is [ks(1)s(2)r(1,2)^2]/r(1,2)^4 +[ks(1)s(3)r(1,3)^2]/r(1.3)^4
where k denotes a constant of proportionality and the other terms are as defined above. We set this expression for the force equal to another expression, in terms of unknowns to be determined, for the same force, namely [ks(1)s(2)r(1)r(2)]/r(1,2)^4 + [ks(1)s(3)r(1)r(3)]/r(1,3)^4. Note this equivalence will only be valid if r(1)r(2)=r(1,2)^2 and r(1)r(3)=r(1,3)^2; that is if r(1)=r(1,2)^2/r(2) and r(2)=[r(1,3)^2/r(1,2)^2]r(3). The force on the second wire segment due to the first and third gives a similar equation which will hold under similar conditions. Now we have enough to solve r(2)^2=[(r(1,3)^2)/(r(1,2)^2)][r(2,3)^2] and r(1)=[r(1,2)^2]/r(2). Proceeding in this way we obtain r(3) and thus unique dipoles for each segment. The procedure generalizes for many however oriented current segments even if the currents are of different magnitudes.

In 1984 I was invited to MIT to repeat some experiments carried out several years before at the Polytechnic University of New York. The experiments involved measurements of small attractive forces about 10^(-7to-5)Newtons, between uncharged current carrying wires(900Amps to 25Amps) and a charged cm^2 foil(2kV) and two oppositely charged foils separated by a thi, eg 1mm dielectric(.42kV). The attraction appeared to increase with increasing currents contrary to the accpeted theory that the magnetic force of current carrying wires was independent of the electrostatic force of charged conductors(Note that induced oppositely directed currents cause repulsion). The first experiment was published in the Rev Sci. Instr.(3/85), a brief discussion appeared in the Electrical Engineering TImes(12/28/87). A related patent was accepted by the US patent office(4,355,195) and a paper purporting to be a duplication of one of the first experiments using completely different apparatus and orders of magnitude of currents presented results which did not confirm my original findings(RSI, kD.F.Bartlett 10/90). And why should it. Because it was not as advertised an honest duplication of the original experiment cited.

Regarding the electrostatic force that produced the residual electrostatic dipoles in atoms that accounts for gravity: A primordial electrostatic force, perhaps as part of a big bang explosion, produced the motion of the superclusters, the galaxies, the present 200km/sec orbiting of the sun around our galaxy's center, the 29.9km/sec earth around the sun the .465km/sec spin of the earth about its center. Note the throwing, batting or cueing of a ball is ultimately an electrostatic force between the outer electrons in the hand, bat or tip and the surface of the ball. Such forces may have produced the initial linear motion of atoms and the elliptization of circularly orbiting particles inside atomic nuclei and free electrons. This produced a separation of centers of positive charge and negative charge inside atomic nuclei etc.. Such dipoles produced in the big bang perhaps in galactic clumps of atoms interacting with the primordial linear force gave rise to a torque accounting for the spin of galaxies etc. and the spinning off of planets from the stars and satellites from the planets. It may be that the radially and longitudinally oriented dipoles once produced by a latitudinally directed force are capable by their mutual interactions of sustaining themselves as in the dipole chain model of ferroelectrics(see Feynman v2p5-5). It may also be that the force producing the Hubble accelerative expansion or other motion of galaxies, the orbit of the solar system and the orbit of planets about the sun etc is an ever present force which is needed to sustain the dipoles inside atomic nuclei as well as the accerlerative and component motions of the galaxies.

Regarding the size of the electrostatic dipoles: According to Cavendish even as interpreted above the gravitational constant for a small lead ball horizontally pulled toward a larger fixed lead ball was about 6.67 times 10^-11; and according to Eratosthenes (from the different shadows of sticks at noon on the solstice day at Alexandria and at Syene 948km south, the curvature of the assumed spherical earth) the earth's radius was nearly today's value R=6,371km.; and according to Galileo and Newton the earth pulls objects down such that the downward acceleration is, whatever the object, GM/R^2=9.8 meters per sec^2; from these three observations, Cavendish inferred the density of the earth to be nearly 5.5kg/cubic meter, the accepted value now based on improvements in Cavendish's method; Hence the force of the earth whose mass then is 5.98 times 10^24kg on a proton of mass 1.67 times 10^-27kg on the earth's surface R=6.37(10^6) meters away from the earth's mass concentrated at the center is .24 times 6.67 times 10^-11+24-27-12 = 1.6(10^-26) Newtons. Compare this to the gravitational force between two protons one meter apart which is (6.67)(10^-11) times [(1.67)(10^-27)]^2 which if set equal to the force between electrostatic dipoles of unknown length s , (9)(10^9)(es)^2 implies s=(.9)(10^-18). We are assuming that the charge displaced is 'e' when in fact it might be some multiple of 'e' greater than one. The mass of protons are known from their deflection when propelled by an electric field through a magnetic field in mass spectrometers; that is from the degree of charge polarization inside the nuclei due to the electric field propelling them and the strength of the magnetic field relative to the degree of charge polarization in the nuclei due to gravity and the gravitational strength of the earth.

Now consider how many atoms there are in the earth and how many protons plus neutrons in the average atom eg a total of 28 if all silicon on average. (56 if all iron , 12 if all oxygen etc..) There are 6.02 times 10^26 atoms of silicon in 28kg so if the mass of the earth has (5.98 times 10^24)/28 times 6.02 times 10^26 atoms and each of these times has 28 (= 14protons plus 14 neutrons) yields 3.6 times 10^51 dipoles. Hence the force between half these dipoles concentrated at a point R/2 meters from the surface and a single dipole at the earth's surface is (9)(10^9)(3.6/2)(10^51) times [(6.37/2)(10^6)(1.6)(10^-19)(.9)(10^-18)]^2 divided by [(6.37/2)(10^6)]^4. This reduces to (3.32)(10^60-38-36-12)=(3.32)(10^-26) Newtons compared to (1.6)(10^-26) as calculated above in the usual way.

Most of the force pulling the proton downward comes from dipoles on the same radius to the earth's center and on nearby radii whose net downward force is projected through small angles on the proton's radius. The number of such dipoles is within a few orders of magnitude of the 10^51 total. Since the concentrated dipole in the center of the earth is not a real entity we do not have to take into account the strong interference effect of it on the dipole in the surface proton compared to the weak interference effect of the single proton dipole on the hypothetical concentrated total dipole. When we compute the pairwise force between our surface proton and one about 10^6 meters away we are implicitly weighting the importance of this force relative to protons a few meters away etc by the R^-4 term for the force; that is when we sum all these pairwise forces the implicit 10^(-18+6) dipole length is given much less weight than the 10^-18 length dipoles etc.. Also the degree to which the unique intermediate dipole in the atomic nuclei, that would give the same result as these pairwise constructs, can expand due to the primordial force proposed, is limited by the electrostatic force between the core of the atomic nuclei and the proposed oppositely charged orbiting particle or particles around the core. Hence the intermediate value of the unique dipole that would give the same sum of forces as the sum over the pairwise dipoles is probably closer to 10^-18 eg 10^-16 which is in the range of measured values of various atomic nuclei in various experimental contexts; also as we mentioned the amount of charge displaced might be more then 'e' so that the distance between poles could be smaller.

Regarding the attraction of the planets to the sun: This requires an additional dipole inside the planet's nuclei oriented along lines between these nuclei and the sun roughly parallel to each other and to a line from the center of the planet to the sun. If the sun threw off such material that coalesced and formed planets and then attracted it back toward the sun and in the case of the earth, the earth's dipoles are oriented with their positive pole on the outside which explains the accumulation of free charge on the surface of the earth and the similar potential gradient of the atmosphere; if this was the case then the outer pole of the sun's dipoles is negative. Thus the outer positive pole of the earth's atomic dipoles are attracted to the negative outer pole of the sun's atomic dipoles.. At a greater distance from the planet the dipoles associated with the spin of the planet and facing the sun may be substantially weakened by oppositely directed spin dipoles on the dark side of the planet. This demands that we add a solar dipole component in the planet's atomic nuclei of a size that is similar to the spin dipole component oriented along the planet's radii and that the solar component dipole in each atomic nucleus changes orientation as the planet changes its position with respect to the sun just as the spin component dipole changes orientation as the earth's radius on which it is situated changes direction as the earth spins. The need for such an added dipole is that it would help to explain why the earth does not fall apart under the influence of the sun's attraction of one side and its repulsion of the other. That is the side of the earth nearest the sun is more attracted to the sun but also because of the added dipole in the atomic nuclei, the atoms of the earth nearest the sun are more attracted to each other when compared to atoms on the dark side of the earth. Both of these effects larglely cancel so that the net gravitational force on the sunny side of the earth is the same as that on the dark side except for the observed tidal effects. Similar considerations apply for dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the the earth, other planets and the sun tracking the center of the galaxy.

Now the largest distance between atomic nuclear dipoles on the earth implicitly determining the maximal size of the dipoles is about 10^6 meters whereas the distances for planets to the sun is 5.79(10^10) for mercury, (1.49)(10^11) for earth to 5.9(10^12) meters for pluto and for the sun to the galactic center 10^4 parsecs= (3)(10^20) meters. Lets see what the atomic nuclear dipoles in the sun and earth must be to give the observed gravitational force between them and if they are small enough to be consistent with the known distances between atoms at various temperatures etc..That is we must be able to write the total dipoles as keRs and KeRS where k and K are functions of the relative influence of the total dipoles on each other etc; the totall dipoles here are proportional to the masses(note the planet masses are .22,4.87,5.97,.64,1899.7,568.8,86.9,103.0, .013 times 10^24kg vs the sun's(2)(10^30)kg.); that is to the number of protons plus neutrons, denoted, protons-neutrons, in each mass. Since the sun is .75H+.25He so that 1.75kg of sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 molcules each of which contains on average 1.75 protons-neutrons so 1kg of sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 protons-neutrons in a volume that is larger of course than that of 1 kg of a solid planet; but 1kg of any planet or the sun contains the same number of protons -neutrons. There are about 2(10^30) kg in the sun. Hence the sun contains 6.02 times 10^26 times M = 12 times 10^56 and earth contains 6.02 times 10^26 times m = 3.59times 10^51 unit dipoles in the earth.The total dipoles are: k(s)RS is 1.2(10^57)k(s)RS* and K(S)Rs is 3.59(10^51)K(S)Rs*.

Hence GmM/R^2 = 9(10^9)mM[6.02)(10^26)]^2 times kK times s*S* times (N)(2.56)10^-38 divided by R^2. If N=1,this implies kKs*S*=(.0079)10^-61-11+38 = (10^-36) approximately. Now RkS* and RKs* are the magnitudes of the dipoles associated with the sun and planet respectively where R is about 10^11 to 10^13 meters.. But we also know that the earth's dipoles cannot be larger than atomic nuclei about 10^-15 =RKs* that Ks*=10^-26 which implies kS*=10^-10 and RkS*=10^-10+11 so the dipoles on the sun are 10 meters in length.

This sounds impossible. Perhaps the charge of the dipole could be somehow larger so that instead of the sun's dipoles being eS* etc., it could be e*S* where e* is the charge on say 1000 electrons or more and S* could be that much smaller. After all at the high temperatures (T=5.77(10^3) to 1.5(10^7) degrees Kelvin of the sun the average kinetic energy is (1.5)(1.38)(10^-23)T Joules =.5mv^2 where 1.602(10^-19)Joules =1ev and 9.1(10^-31)kg times v^2 gives the speed of an electron at this temperature; that is about (10^-20)Joules /(10^-30) at the low 5770 degree value of T suggesting v=10^5 meters per second for this temperature; but below the sun's surface then with much greater temperatures, v is far in excess of the 10^6 meter/sec velocity of the electron around the hydrogen or helium nuclei. This suggests that dipoles much larger than those proposed for atomic nucle are possible within plasmas between groups of electrons and groups of ions, protons or helium nuclei separated by distances that can still be many orders of magnitude smaller than ten meters.

Similar reasoning could explain the dipole attraction between the solar system and the center of the galaxy. But what about the moon 3.84 times 10^8 meters away which suggests that if RKS* = (10^8)KS*=10-15 say that (10^8)ks* = 10^-36+15 suggesting that Rks*=10^-13 meters. Perhaps this is a problem or perhaps the tidal effects of the moon on the earth and vice versa and perhaps the amount of charge polarized inside the earth's atomic nuclei is larger than we first considered; that is, Ne , where N is greater than on.

What is the relationship of gravity to the net spin of the planet, satellite, star, galaxy etc. and to the number of atoms contained in each? Clearly as in Newtonian gravity theory the gravitational attractive force of a planet etc is proportional to the number of atoms. It is then proportional to the angular momentum but if the angular velocity was increased and the mass was decreased so that the angular momentum remained the same would the attractive force remain the same? Blackett suggests such a possibility and a correlation between magnetic field and gravitational field in the May 1947 issue of Nature regarding the planets, the sun, and a few stars. An extension of this idea is that a primordial electrostatic force produced a linear momentum of galaxies or clusters of galaxies which was partitioned first into the angular momenta of the spinning galaxies and then into the spinning stars and then into the spinning planets and their satellites. That is the strength of the magnetic field is a function of the total of the angular momentum components and the linear momentum component and the number of protons-neutrons in the mass considered.The total force may also be evident in each of these objects down to the planetary satellites.If for example the total force produces charge polarization inside atomic nuclei and electrons initially in a high temperature plasma state, the effect of the assumed linear force on charge polarized nuclei and plasmas would be to cause a torque on individual nuclei but also on large clumps of electrons and nuclei. This mechanism could provide a rationale for the approximate covariation of gravity with angular momentum that Blackett, Wilson and others had observed and an explanation of why the relationship might not be more exact. Thus any accelerated object, eg a bullet, a rocket, a plane, a car, a frisbee, a skidding or spinning billiard ball etc has electrostatic dipoles produced in its atomic nuclei transverse to and proportional to the accelerating force which even if mechanical is still ultimately electrostatic; The tendency of linearly propelled atomic nuclei to then rotate may add to the aerodynamic efficiency of spinning projectiles. The resulting dipole field may or may not be self sustaining against thermal disturbances as in the dipole chain model of ferroelectrics (Feynman v2p5-5, 11-10).

In the above mentioned ferroelectric model the dipoles are assumed to be composed of poles, concentrations of charge that are fairly constant over time unlike our model of charge polarization inside atomic nucle which changes rapidly with the position of the orbiting charged particle(s) inside the nuclei but which averaged over the orbital time period represents a displacement of centers of negative and positive charge in a specific direction. In both models the dipole-dipole interaction is the same but the interaction of one dipole with a single pole of the other is different in the two models. In our model the action of one dipole on the single pole of another is to produce a transverse elliptical motion of the single pole, rather than as in the ferroelectric model to produce a motion of the pole only in the direction of the dipole field and thereby to sustain a dipole field. It is conceivable that the longitudinal and radial dipoles initially created by the primordial force acting in the latitdinal direction causing the planet to spin could also sustain the dipoles then produced; that is the longitudinal dipole field would act to produce radial dipoles after thermal collisions etc and vice versa. Perhaps this occurs more readily in spherical spinning objects. But it is also conceivable that the force producing the accelerative motions of the galaxies and so in some small component part, the spin of the earth is constantly creating the dipoles anew; that the First Mover or the force producing the accelerative Hubble expansion of the galaxies is always however far away "with" us also in the sense of sustaining the electrostatic dipoles of the gravitational force in our atoms.

For explanatory purposes suppose the primordial force acted only on a clump of atoms that became the spinning earth when dipoles produced in the atomic nuclei transverse to the initial linear force responded then to the linear primordial force by also spinning. The spinning might continue in the absence of friction by inertia. But what prevents the dipoles from disappearing due to thermal collisions of atomic nuclei with the inner shell of electrons, if there is no force to produce them? Now working backwards suppose the linear primordial force is associated with the movement of the solar system in the galaxy; then further backward with the movement of the galaxy in a cluster etc. and that the primordial force remains. The existence of this primordial force then is the cause of the movement of galaxies is the cause of the movement of stars is the cause of the sustained dipoles in the atomic nuclei of the planets of stars that have planets which otherwise would be reduced to zero after a few seconds of thermal collisions. When the moon was spun off the earth and when we launch a satellite by rocket, the satellite is accelerated to a velocity that exceeds the velocity that would bring it back to earth but at all times during this transitional state and once it is in orbit around the earth it is also being acted upon by the force which causes the spinning of the earth and the earth's orbital and galactic motions and so it responds like everything else to this force when the force that launched it is removed; that is the nuclear dipoles in its atoms are sustained, even when they have superimposed on them during the time of launching other dipoles, and its motion with the earth around the sun etc is sustained as well as its motion toward the earth constantly just enough to keep it in orbit.

Returning to the Blackett and Wilson conjecture, the reason for the relation between gravity magnetism and angular momentum may be due to the component of the ever present force that is manifest in the linear and angular velocity components of the motion of the astronomical body. The more atomic nuclei there are in the body and the greater its velocity components the greater the gravitational and magnetic fields of the body. Hence a spinning motion given to a ball by a momentary force may produce initially additional charge polarization in its atomic nuclei in radial oriented directions but without repetition of this force perhaps through the self sustaining interaction of radial and longitudinal dipole fields the charge polarization in the atomic nuclei quickly becomes zero due to thermal collisions. In the case of the planets, measurements of their magnetic fields is complicated by the fact that different parts and layers of the gaseous planets rotate at different velocities and for the planets near the sun the sun's magnetic field has an influence on the measurements. The fact that the gaseous planet Jupiter has a magnetic field ten times stronger near its equator than the earth even though it is several hundred times larger in mass and the fact that the direction of the field is opposite to its surface rotation is perhaps understandable in terms of different directions of rotation in different regions and is consistent with the Blackett and Wilson theory; Also the similarity of Neptune to Jupiter except that Neptune is about one twentieth of the mass of Jupiter and the similar ratio of their magnetic fields to the ratio of their masses can be so understood.

With repetition of the force causing linear motion or spin, the dipoles can be sustained. This would imply that an airplane traveling from Europe to the US for example is kept up not only by Bernoulli's principle but also by a small antigravitational repelling force between the atomic nuclear dipoles in the plane and those of the Earth below that should increase with the Bernoulli effect with the speed of the plane. By the same token, a plane traveling from the US to Europe would be heavier the faster it traveled but would have then also a greater degree of lift.

If in small spinning objects in particular,eg baseballs, the field of the longitudinal dipoles could sustain the radial dipoles and the field of the radial dipoles could sustain the longitudinal dipoles then the initial outside force could be removed and the objects at least until frictional forces had acted for enough time could depending on their direction of spin become heavier or lighter as the airplane described above. A related phenomenon might be Henry Wallace's patent 3 626 605 of a kinemassic machine, a pair of wheels of brass like giroscopes which are rotated at a speed of 20,000/60 rps and at the same time one is rotated about another axis the wheels appear to be propelled upward of become lighter (New Scientist 2/14/80). I haven't read the patent and do not understand exactly what occurs as described in the magazine. The rotation speed is several times greater than that suggested by Blackett for a bronze sphere 1 meter in diameter which Blackett said should produce a magnetic field of 10^-8 Gauss. DePalma, Kidd, Strachan, and Laithewaite have, I am told, reported similar gravitational anomalies of spinning objects but I don't know the details or references. Any information on this would be appreciated and could be sent to Box 492 NY NY10185 or rns@concentric.net.

Regarding the Gravitational red shifts and bending of electromagnetic radiation. Before considering the esoteric experiments conisder the commonplace observation of improvement in the reception of radio frequencies at night from reception during the day. This is attributed to greater radio activity during the day but it could also be attributed to a decrease in the distance between colliding free electrons and lattice ions, nuclei and their surrounding electron shells in the receiver antennas when the antenna is on the sunny side of the earth.

When a star is obsdrved against the background of stars at say midnight its position seems to be about 3/3600 degrees ahead of its position when its position is determined at the time of year it is visible during an eclipse near the sun at noon; that is the greater residual nuclear dipole seems to make possible a difference in the delay of reception; a longer delay as the earth truns more before light from the particular star becomes visible. That is the proposed theory explains the bending of light, by gravity without requiring a distrotion in the trhee dimensional Cartesian coordinate system representing physical space for out of the ordinary observations according to Einstein's ingenious formula A similar explanation applies to the red shift in radar reflections from venus and mercury when they are on the opposite side of the sun; that is the gravitational effect of the sun is not to change the time scale of light wave disturbances in the ether near the sun so as to increase the time between successive peaks and valleys of a sine oscillation but to influence the radar receiving antennas on the earth so that they do not respond as quickly to changes in oscillating forces on the free electrons in their antennas resulting in a lower frequency for the received oscillation of charge in the radar antenna. Similarly for other red shift experiments like Brault's on the gravitational red shift of solar lines (Bull Amer Phys Soc. 8,28 1963). The red shift of gamma rays as a function of their heighth 22.5 meters above the earth's surface and the gravitational field of the earth may have a similar explanation. That is the shift should be greater the greater the distance between the source and the receiver at least during the day; if the experiment is performed at night the results should be a lesser delay. But the cause of the delay is not the gravitational field of the Earth but the effect of the sun's gravitational field on the earth's gravitational field.

Recent variations in the gravitational constant when electostatic means are used to create stability in balance measurements may be explained more clearly in terms of these effects than of GR effects.

Ralph Sansbury

E-Mail Address: rns@concentric.net

SnailMail Address: Box 492, NY NY10185


Mountain Man's UseNet Archive

Do Gravity and Magnetism
have a Common Cause?

a post from Ralph Sansbury

Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia in the Southern Spring of 1996