Gravity = Magnetic Attraction

but how would this emergent gravity from photons work with black holes?

Gravity is only the consequence of the twisting of space-time. Magnetism is different even if there are a lot of similarity. But Magnetism and gravity are different kinds of things that are carried by different particells and that interact with different types of field. According to relativity Magnetism is a real force, but gravity is only a conseguence and not a real force.

I understand what you are saying (Einstein docet) but you know that that is a stretch of his theory and not really the true. Gravity exist but it is not a force. Gravity is a consequence of the twisting of the space-time due to massive body. It's a geometric concept.

I suggest you to read and try to understand the general relativity theory of Albert Einstein.

> gravity is caused by a rare interaction between photons, and all particles are flavours of photons,

im done with reading about the forces of nature.
gravity is just gravity, science is a meme invented by schizophrenic jews.

i think i have a viable counter argument
would sun spots and filament eruptions happen if the 2 forces were the same? its more like the magnetic forces overcome the gravity of it

Such a retarded question..have you ever read a physical book?

I'm assuming you meant physics book.
also you didn't answer the question, nor have you contributed constructively in any way.

Really in this thread 5 comments are mine!

> 8671447
> 8671435
> 8671456
> 8671462
> 8671524

Electromagnetic gravitational theory supposes a form of monopolar magnetic field, which do indeed exist.

Not possible, sorry.

>Proof me Wrong
>Proof

Well, there is no "gravity" and there is no "magnetic attraction", but you're right in saying that these two phenomenon are very much related, as is electricity and dielectricity.

>fallacy fallacy
Pointing out a mistake in OP's spelling is not in anyway proof against his argument.

The one Einstein stole from several other people who actually discovered it?

The one Tesla called "a beggar wrapped in purple robes", after calling Einstein a fool?

Your worship of Einstein as a genius has no evidence to support it.

Gravity is an acceleration.

checkmate OP

Look up Eric Dollard for that.

Sun's hollow, doesn't burn anything, doesn't emit anything; it's a converter from counterspace. The only fusion reactions are from those very same eruptions.

So you would agree gravity is a fictitious force, akin to centripetal force?

One problem. Photons do not exist.

The man who invented the term "photon" had a degree in parapsychology and worked very hard on developing a telekinetic hat.

In other words, he was a nutter.

Not a force, an acceleration.

Look up Ken Wheeler's book on magnetism, or his hundreds of Youtubes as Theoria Apophasis.

>Look up Ken Wheeler's book on magnetism, or his hundreds of Youtubes as Theoria Apophasis.

You're saying the same thing I'm saying anyway. Centripetal force isn't a force, it's also an acceleration (a rotating one). I've been saying for years that gravity is similar to this, we measure the acceleration rate of gravity on earth, but it is not a classical force since nothing is acting on the object, it is rather moving on/through spacetime to it's lowest resting point

>it is not a classical force since nothing is acting on the object, it is rather moving on/through spacetime to it's lowest resting point
do you have any evidence of this?

Then how come you can go blind from staring at the sun through telescope if it doesn't emit anything?

Electromagnitism is a [math] U(1) [/math] gauge group. That's not enough to describe gravity.

And Tesla spoke to birds.
Elaborate pls

>I was talking to my gun, Lana, not with it.
>Pretty important distinction.

It will blind you in space, too, if you looked at it with your naked eye. But you would see nothing. The yellow ball you see is the light going through the earth's envelope, the sun is not a yellow ball of light hanging out in space.

It will burn your eyes out the same way lightning would strike you.

Aye, but Ken says it far better than I can, and he actually understands what he's saying. I have to look up the meanings of some of the words he uses, and he strings together sentences that are, well, rather unwieldy.

He talks a lot about the centripetal and centrifugal fields set up by big magnets, and uses big magnets to display those fields on like old CRT tubes, old TVs, etc.

So, let's say I'm a 100kg man, and I jump up 2 feet and get slammed down to the earth. Gravity, right?

This huge force that causes planets to circle the sun?

But lets butterflies fly?

Hmmm......

Wait. So you way when I look at the sun it's some kind of discharge shocking my eye? Then why do lenses amplify it? Why does covering my eyes with a sheet of paper works when it should do almost nothing to increase the resistance between my eye and the sun?

Shouldn't astronauts be able to see that the sun isn't a yellow ball too?

I talk to my guinea pig, so I wouldn't judge Tesla based on something I do. I doubt either of us would tell you they speak back. But perhaps they do.

Tesla, and Maxwell, and all of the real scientists who provided for all of our real electric lives, spoke of "churning up the ether", and spoke of light not as packets or quanta of anything, but as pulse perturbations through a medium.

Say a man is standing tits deep in a small still pond, and he starts flapping his arms and hitting the water. What happens? Well, he's perturbed the medium, and his actions cause waves to go to the shore.

Waves of what, though? Because waves are not things; waves are what things do. In this case, waves of water. Once the waving action ceases, the water is still there. It just isn't waving anymore.

Let's say you step into the pond while this man flaps his arms and hits the water. Are the ripples hitting you? Yes, they are.

But is the man emitting anything? No, of course not. He's just causing a perterbance in the medium that's propagating while it can until it loses its energy and goes back to a resting state.

If light is not a particle, if photons do not exist, and they do not, what is light when it is not "waving"?

If light ceases to be a perterbance in the medium, in what sense does it still exist?

So with retrograde logic, we can see that light, indeed, does not exist and that the phenomenon that we call light is merely a coaxial longitudinal perterbance of the aether.

Not without a face plate, no.

You don't see light. You only see the manifestation of the perterbance in the medium.

*retroductive

That's only true if gravity belongs to a different order gauge group. But if gravity is based off of electromagnetism then there is nothing to say it would be.

Then why has everyone failed to detect ether and our movement relative to it?

We haven't. It's everywhere. We're moving through it all the time. We're using it to generate electricity.

What's the speed of us relative to the ether then?

I don't know if this can be calculated. You'd be looking at so many things. How fast the world was spinning. How fast the world was circling the sun. How fast the solar system was moving in the galaxy. How fast the galaxy was moving through the universe.

It's all that movement that creates all of these things.

Counterspace, which is where the aether is, overlaps our heavens and our earth at all points. So when you're walking down the street, look at all of the movement you're doing locally, plus all of the above movements that are also displacing you from where you were to where you are now.

It's truly mind boggling.

You would be able to measure your speed to the aether from some point regardless through experiment. In fact experiments always return our speed as 0 regardless of where and with what speed they are performed.

Because they don't take into consideration all of the celestial movement. They redefine the frame of reference. How can you redefine the frame of reference when that frame is for all intents and purposes infinite?

But they don't need to. If you at some point x moving at speed y detect no movement and then at point z with speed g detect also no movement then you must be trying to measure something that doesn't exist. There is no aether.

There are actually people in this thread who are saying light aether exists?

Am I on Veeky Forums or /b/?

Einstein probably is the most genial human being of the last 2 century..he discovered the particells nature of the light (given effective birth with plank at the subatomic physic) and then he understood that energy and matery are basically the same thing, such as space and time (invented the space-time concept)..and then he changed completely the ancient concept of absolute space and absolute time..moreover he wrote the low of gravity and relativity that is probably the beautiful theory every discovered..this is just a summary of what he effective has done, you should learn to wash your mouth when you talk about Albert Einstein.

> gravity is an acceleration
Probably the concept of gravity in 1300.

Acceleration is the first conseguences of a force..but is an effect of the force not the force itself..gravity is not a 'normal' force..gravity almost do not exist effectively, it is the conseguences of.the interaction of the space-time and the matter.

Judging by your English (not saying it's bad, I understand you, but I can tell it is your second language) I can tell you are also the author of this post

Einstein himself considered the effect of gravity as acceleration through space-time, not as a natural force.

No, I m not the OP, but you are right English is not my mother language. I'm agree with you about the concept of gravity but Einstein really considered gravity not just like a normal acceleration caused by some force..gravity is caused by the twisting to the space-time so it is not an acceleration. It is similar to an acceleration but even now it is an obscure concept..gravity is an acceleration is too much reductive.
Ps sorry for my imperfect English.

Look and stare deeply at the equations

F = (m1*m2*G)/r^2
and
F=ma
tell me what you make of it

>gravity is caused by the twisting to the space-time

yes, I agree with you there

>so it is not an acceleration

wat. How do you figure? The "force" of gravity is objects moving ALONG this twisting of spacetime. That movement is acceleration.

Use Einstein's space-elevator as an example. The elevator accelerating through space causes the exact effect of gravity to the point that you couldn't tell whether you were in space or on Earth experiencing Earth gravity. Given this, we can account that our feeling of the "force" of gravity is simply just the feeling of acceleration through spacetime.

Also, your English is no issue, I understand you just fine :)

Gravity......is an acceleration. Not a force.

Why do you think you know more than people did in 1300? AD or BC?

How does your theory explain Fermi-Dirac statistics of fermions?
(More than one fermion-particle can't occupy the same quantum state simultaneously)
(With current knowledge photon is a boson, not fermion)

No, you would be trying to measure something that you cannot measure.

You know more than Tesla? You sure?

Tesla in The New York Sun (July 10, 1935):
He found time while surveying his own past to express his sharp disagreement with the theories of Prof. Albert Einstein. He announced that the theory of relativity is "a mass of error and deceptive ideas and opposed to common sense," and that "not a single one of the relativity propositions has been proved."

"Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth"...

--Nikola Tesla

Einstein was a fool and a fraud and a thief and a plagiarist. This is known.

People with actual knowledge say that photons do not exist.

People with actual reasoning abilities know that Mother Nature is not a crack whore with a magic bag of special particles that all bump together to make up the universe.

If photons don't exist, what mediates electromagnetic force?

>You know more than Tesla? You sure?

I was almost gonna type out a reply to why this is such a poor logical fallacy and why you're retarded, but then I read

>Einstein was a fool and a fraud and a thief and a plagiarist. This is known.

And now I just realize everyone knows you're a tard, probably even you, so why bother.

1/10 troll post, got me to reply

>You know more than Tesla? You sure?

Newton believed in Alchemy. You know more than Newton? You sure? (Or do you actually think we can create gold from lead?)

But we can theoretically create gold from lead. We already know the possibility but just don't know how.

Just remove 3 protons from each lead atom/ion core.

Resistance, capacitance, permeability and permitivitty.

That's Tesla's opinion of the man. Maybe you think a guy who flunked out of school, couldn't pass an entrance exam, worked as a 3rd class patent clerk and climbed all the way up to a 2nd class patent clerk, who couldn't tie his own shoes, is a genius.

And it's just a coincidence that he had access to real scientist's work, that he then claimed for his own. Every single time.

And could only explain things in "dreams", like "horses running on sunbeams".

Einstein discovered nothing, invented nothing, and did not advance science one scintilla.

We have made gold out of lead. It's just expensive.

Hey, protip for you Veeky Forumsfags. When you think you're smarter than Nikola Tesla, go home, sober up, and get a good night's sleep. Or 5150 yourself.

>Mother Nature is not a crack whore with a magic bag of special particles that all bump together to make up the universe.
kekt

So if I move my hand (changes surrounding electromagnetic field) the information is instantly delivered to the whole universe?

I understand your concept of gravity and it's right..but in my opinion it is only a part of a bigger true..gravity can interact with light, with time, with space, with matter, with dark matter and it is one of the so called fondamental forces in quantum mechanic. If you see the universe from a mechanical point of view you are right, gravity is an acceleration..but universe and physic are not just mechanical..you can even consider gravity as a measure of the curvature of a surface (space-time) and that is a geometric point of view..I'm taking about gravity from a general, realistic point of view.

I'm glad to discuss about gravity in this way, it's so stimolantig :)

>I'm glad to discuss about gravity in this way, it's so stimolantig

I agree. Much more useful than say...this post

or

>Gravity is acceleration

Universe is expanding. Why would all objects be accelerating towards opposite direction? Gravity is curved spacetime, just listen to Einstein.

Electric universe theory dictates that comets are actually balls of charged plasma, rather than solid masses of matter.

...and yet...

Try to expand your horizon..gravity is an acceleration but not only an acceleration.

We don't know why the universe is expanding. We believe dark energy is the reason behind it.

Then I suspect we'll believe anything.

Can't be. Acceleration means force acting on mass. Photons hitting Earth from the Sun on one face would eject Earth from orbit. There must be potential well that keeps Earth in place, also known as curvature of spacetime.

Read Moshe Carmeli's works; he doesn't need the fudge factors of dark energy and dark matter to make his equations work. He just takes them up one dimension to account for the acceleration of the universe expanding.

>Photons hitting Earth from the Sun on one face would eject Earth from orbit.

kek

oh wait you think you're serious....

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Just as every single generation of human beings ever, we are just as sure that the prior generations are wrong as we are that we are the chosen ones who get everything right.

And so it goes.

Explain then why Earth stays in orbit.

Eric Dollard is a fucking moron who promotes pseudoscience. The Sun is not hollow, the standard solar model matches helioseismology results to sub-percent precision. Secondly fusion is occurring in the Sun, solar neutrinos prove that, the number of which matches predictions.

Explain the photoelectric effect then.

You are using argument called 'counterspace' which is not accepted (=proven) scientific theorem. Prove it.

Also explain why stars (like Sun) would remain hollow when gravity obviously pulls them together?

the Earth moves along in a "straight line" along the spacetime warped by the energy of the Sun. It is not in a centripetal force of movement, it is moving along in a line, which happens to be curved space.

A beetle walks in a straight line along a curved leaf. The beetle understands it's moving in a straight line, the most efficient path it can take. However, since the leaf itself is curved, the beetle is ALSO moving in a curved path, along the leaf.

Do you understand this 11th grade physics now?

Explain how the force that keeps the earth in orbit allows a butterfly to fly.

Explain why there are no examples on earth of spherical objects orbiting a much larger object.

>Our models give us the answers we're looking for, therefore they explain reality.

You dope. You absolute dope.

There is no fusion happening in the sun; it's not "burning" anything; and it's certainly not emitting anything called a "photon".

Because you touch yourself at night.

We've kind of reached that point in this idiot thread.

Phase shift in the pulse perterbation. Can replicate easily.

I didn't say the stars were hollow; I said the sun was hollow. It's black inside. You can actually see the nothing inside the sun under the right conditions; i.e. sun spots.

Counterspace is quite real, whether you believe in it or not.

In fact, many things are quite real, whether you were born or not.

Space has no properties, and time doesn't exist, so no, there is no "warped spacetime" to account for the effects of electricity, dielectricity, magnetism and gravity on heavenly bodies. Or here on earth.

This is perhaps the most anti-scientific post in the entire thread. Almost every single word you just said is and has been proven incorrect.

I cannot tell if troll or not but I am seriously included to believe you're doing this on purpose

bend the path of a neutron with a magnet, fgt

>Our models give us the answers we're looking for, therefore they explain reality.
Strawman. My point was that they are better than some model which has never even been mathematically defined much less scientifically tested against observation. Asserting the Sun is hollow and then making no effort to objectify test that claims is bullshit.

>There is no fusion happening in the sun
Then explain solar neutrinos.

>it's certainly not emitting anything called a "photon".
Then explain how spacecraft are solar powered.

>Phase shift in the pulse perterbation.
No. Rice pudding electro-convulsion. Random words are not an explanation.

>You can actually see the nothing inside the sun under the right conditions; i.e. sun spots.
Wrong. Sun spots are still bright. They look darker compared the the bright photosphere but they are still bright.

>Counterspace is quite real, whether you believe in it or not.
Nice religion you got there.

So you are saying gravity is a force on each point of a gravitational field, not an acceleration?

>Explain how the force that keeps the Earth in orbit allows a butterfly to fly
butterfly mass = 10 grams
Earth mass = 5,972 * 10^24 kg
Earth radius = 6371 km
Distance between Earth and butterfly = 6371 km + 1 meter
Gravitational force between butterfly and Earth F = G m1m2 r^-2 = 0,098 N
So butterfly can stay in air either by producing force of 0,098 N or by orbiting Earth
Force between Sun and Earth = 3,5 * 10^22 N
So Earth can stay "in air" either by producing that force or orbiting the Sun

>Explain why there are no examples on Earth of spherical objects orbiting a much larger object
Easy. Just find me a 1 kg object and another object with...
>6000 km radius and 6*10^24 kg mass
>1 km radius and 1,5 * 10^15 kg mass
>10 meter radius and 1,5 * 10^11 kg mass
on Earth and I'll show you

Counterspace is not accepted terminology/theory by any of the largest scientific communities. It doesn't matter to me whether it's real or not.

Source: google search gives only crackpot sites with no prestigious academies within them.