A few years ago, I suggested on sciforums that the gravitational field has a sister field, just like the electric field has the magnetic field. At the time, I called the gravitational field's sister field the Z field since I didn't have a name for it.

Recently, I found that this field was predicted by Einstein, and is currently called the gravitomagnetic field. For those of you familiar with electromagnetics, you know that a moving electric field generates a magnetic field at right angles to both the electric field and the motion of the electric field. Also, a moving magnetic field will generate an electric field at right angles to both the magnetic field and the motion of the magnetic field.

If this very same principle applies to gravitation, then a moving gravitational field will generate a gravitomagnetic field at right angles to the gravitational field and its motion, and a moving gravitomagnetic field will generate a gravitational field at right angles to the gravitomagnetic field and its motion.

The reason I started this thread is to try to show that when looking at the orbits of the planets in our solar system, we must take into consideration the effects of the gravitational-gravitomagnetic interaction on those orbits. When a planet rotates, it creates a gravitomagnetic field along the axis of the planet's rotation. As the planet orbits the Sun, that gravitomagnetic field generates a gravitational field either towards the Sun, or away from the Sun, depending on the direction of the rotation of the planet. This additional gravitational field generated by a planets spin and orbit must be added, or subtracted, to a planet's gravitational field to fully explain a planet's orbit.

For those of you more mathematically inclined than I, if you assume that there is a gravitational->gravitomagnetic->gravitational conversion taking place on the planets as a result of their complex motion, how much would this phenomenon effect a planet's orbit? What part would it play in the advancement of Mercury's perihelion?

Gravitomagnetism is the subject of a satelite experiment, Gravity B, which is scheduled to be reported in a few months. Until then, like everything else in the Relativities, it would be best to avoid claiming that it is the gospel just because Relativity says so.

If it is proved to be true, it will contribute an almost negligibly small fraction to the previously accepted value of gravity strength.

If you are interested in actually working on the subject yourself, you may find its description and its mathematics in the book "Gravitatation". Bring about a c-note to the bookstore.

PS: If the author of the Relativities thought that it explained Mercury perihelion, why didn't he already say so?

CANGAS,

PS: If the author of the Relativities thought that it explained Mercury perihelion, why didn't he already say so?

Einstein didn't use gravitomagnetics to explain the variation in the advancement of Mercury's perihelion, he developed his own theory of gravity to explain it. I'm wondering whether Newtonian gravity along with gravitomagnetics can explain it without the need for General Relativity.

GRAVITOMAGNETICS IS A PART OF general relativity.

General Relativity is based on, among other related concepts, the idea that the universe contains multiple non-preferred frames of reference, and that gravity is the result of mass bending space, and that gravity travels no faster than the speed of light.

So, as a body rotates, its change upon its bent space travels at a finite speed, creating swirls in the bent space around it. This swirl is "gravitomagnetism".

We cannot have "gravitomagnetism" unless we have gravity according to General Relativity's bent space.

So, we cannot have Newton gravity, based on "spooky action at a distance" PLUS General Relativity bent space gravity unless life, the universe and everything is a LOT more complicated than we think it is, or, than we want it to be.

PS I too have serious doubts about the relativities, though I believe the case is not conclusively proved one way or the other yet.

CANGAS,

So, as a body rotates, its change upon its bent space travels at a finite speed, creating swirls in the bent space around it. This swirl is "gravitomagnetism".

We cannot have "gravitomagnetism" unless we have gravity according to General Relativity's bent space.

Just like the explanation of magnetism doesn't require bent space neither does the explanation for gravitomagnetism.

Gravitomagnetism is the subject of a satelite experiment, Gravity B, which is scheduled to be reported in a few months.

Where did you learn about Gravity B?

Do you know about Gravity A?

Do you believe that Gravity B is an residual effect of Gravity A?

Where did you learn about Gravity B?


The experiment that was carried out in the Gravity probe B has been all over the news during the last year.

Do you know about Gravity A?

Gravity probe A was a satellite that was launched many years ago, also with the purpose of investigating GR

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/Gravity_Probe_A.html


Do you believe that Gravity B is an residual effect of Gravity A?

How can a satellite be a residual effect of other satellite? :confused:

The experiment that was carried out in the Gravity probe B has been all over the news during the last year.


Gravity probe A was a satellite that was launched many years ago, also with the purpose of investigating GR

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/Gravity_Probe_A.html



How can a satellite be a residual effect of other satellite? :confused:

Ok well I have a total different concept of the definition’s, I have obtained my knowledge form a source whom I tend to believe because everything he has told me has later become scientific fact.

I will relay this information about Gravity as it was relayed to me.

Gravity is a wave.
Gravity is not a particle or Graviton.

Two types of Gravity exist.

Gravity A works on a micro scale
Gravity B works on a macro scale

Gravity A is the main contributory force that exist within the atom also known as the Strong nuclear force.

Gravity B is the week force that holds the planets in orbit and so on.

Gravity A is so powerful it has the ability to curve space if amplified.
The only other thing as powerful as the Gravity A wave would be a black whole.

The Gravity A wave can be phase shifted to create the Gravity B wave.

Gravity is a wave in the electromagnetic spectrum like all other energy.

Ok well I have a total different concept of the definition’s, I have obtained my knowledge form a source whom I tend to believe because everything he has told me has later become scientific fact.

I will relay this information about Gravity as it was relayed to me.

Gravity is a wave.
Gravity is not a particle or Graviton.

Two types of Gravity exist.

Gravity A works on a micro scale
Gravity B works on a macro scale

Gravity A is the main contributory force that exist within the atom also known as the Strong nuclear force.

Gravity B is the week force that holds the planets in orbit and so on.

Gravity A is so powerful it has the ability to curve space if amplified.
The only other thing as powerful as the Gravity A wave would be a black whole.

The Gravity A wave can be phase shifted to create the Gravity B wave.

Gravity is a wave in the electromagnetic spectrum like all other energy.
There are several serious holes in that idea - terrible flaws, in fact - but I'll only address two of them .

Gravity cannot be an electromagnetic wave because an EM wave propagates energy. Gravity does not transfer energy because then the object creating gravity would have to be loosing energy. So that thought is perfectly absurd.

And phase-shifting of any EM wave has NO effect whatsoever on it's intensity (strength). That thought is nonsense also.

There are several serious holes in that idea - terrible flaws, in fact - but I'll only address two of them .

Gravity cannot be an electromagnetic wave because an EM wave propagates energy. Gravity does not transfer energy because then the object creating gravity would have to be loosing energy. So that thought is perfectly absurd.

And phase-shifting of any EM wave has NO effect whatsoever on it's intensity (strength). That thought is nonsense also.

Light

Will it not require energy to assert a force?

When the electron changes orbit, is the photon not a release of energy from the system?

When two bodies in orbit collide and orbital energies change is there not energy released?

Just trying to learn here? What are your thoughts?

And phase-shifting of any EM wave has NO effect whatsoever on it's intensity (strength). That thought is nonsense also.

Phase-shifting of an EM wave creates a different wave, When two similar waves collide there is a canceling effect.

So in theory is it not possible that if an Identical wave were generated to that of gravity you could sustain lift?

Assuming that gravity is a wave.

Light

Will it not require energy to assert a force?[\QUOTE]

No. Force and energy are two quite different things. Here's two classical examples: a magnet exhibits a force but expends no energy doing so. You could place two magnets so that their like poles are millimeters apart and the force between them is obvious. However, if you fix them in that position so that they cannot move, they could remain like that for eternity. You can also "stick" a magnet to a piece of steel and unless disturbed, they will remain like that forever with no expenditure of energy.

The other classic example is even simpler. Lay a brick on a table. Gravity is pulling the brick against the surface of the table. The table is also exerting an equal force in the opposite direction in order to support the brick. And the brick will stay in that position - with the table applying the upward force on it - without using any energy.

[QUOTE]When the electron changes orbit, is the photon not a release of energy from the system? That's correct, but it's not a simple change of orbit, it's a change (drop) in the electron's energy level.

When two bodies in orbit collide and orbital energies change is there not energy released? Yes. It's called heat. But note that all the energy is not released, some is merely transfered from one body to the other. Just as in billiard balls.

Just trying to learn here? What are your thoughts?
And there you have them. ;)

[QUOTE=Starman]And there you have them. ;)

Thank You

One last question.

Could it be possible that the Strong Nuclear force is a wave?

Because Magnets emmit electromagnetic waves don't they?

BTW, I found some cool magnets if you are interested.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/magnets.htm

Bob Lazar has claimed that he worked in Dreamland back-engineering crashed flying saucers and that he discovered that alien gravity technology is based on EM and comes in two flavors, gravity A and gravity B.

Mainstream physics first thinks of the satelite gravity experiments when Gravity B or Gravity Probe B is mentioned.

Gravitomagnetism is a slightly misleading terminology because it is not magnetism like refrigerator magnets and such like. It is an activity of familiar gravity which works in an unusual way in connection with rotating gravitating bodies.

Generally speaking, anybody is absolutely free to invent any new gravity they like, based on waves, bent space, seamless continuums, bombarding corpuscles, or anything else they can dream up. However, the theory must be logically flawless, be thoroughly mathematically defineable, and predict things such as planet orbits accurately. A gravity theory based on waves must be as accurate in every way as currently believed gravity theory.

Permanent magnets which are not in motion have an associated magnetic field. An electromagnet energized by alternating current would produce an EM wave. In between, there are specific cases of specific kinds of motion a permanent magnet could have which could induce EM. It is important to recognize that such EM is a result of MOTION but not an intrinsic property of the magnet.

[QUOTE=Light]

Thank You

One last question.

Could it be possible that the Strong Nuclear force is a wave?

Because Magnets emmit electromagnetic waves don't they?

BTW, I found some cool magnets if you are interested.

http://www.unitednuclear.com/magnets.htm

No, because the strong nuclear force is just that - a force. It's much like the force in the brick experiment I described.

And a wave is energy in motion. And if energy were being removed from any atom (we're not talking about radioactive substances here) what would happen to the atom eventually?

No, magnets don't emit EM waves, though that IS a pretty common misconception - meaning a lot of people seem to think that. A magnet produces only a magnetic field, not an electromagnetic field or wave. If it did, it would be just like our atom in the paragraph above - it would eventually "run down." A magnetic field has only one component - physicists call it an "H" field. And electromagnetic field has two components - an "H" field and a "E" (electric) field and they propagate at right angles to each other. (You can picture that looking like the vertical tail on a plane and it's wings.)

I hope you can tell that I'm not trying to "talk down to you" because I'm not. It's also very common for people to misunderstand the difference between a force and energy. They tend to think of them being the same but they aren't.

And yes, I've visited that site before - it's interesting! :) They've got some pretty powerful magnets and I like the levitation trick with the two pieces of bismuth. That involves paramagnetism which is another interesting subject. ;)

Bob Lazar has claimed that he worked in Dreamland back-engineering crashed flying saucers and that he discovered that alien gravity technology is based on EM and comes in two flavors, gravity A and gravity B.

Mainstream physics first thinks of the satelite gravity experiments when Gravity B or Gravity Probe B is mentioned.

Gravitomagnetism is a slightly misleading terminology because it is not magnetism like refrigerator magnets and such like. It is an activity of familiar gravity which works in an unusual way in connection with rotating gravitating bodies.

Generally speaking, anybody is absolutely free to invent any new gravity they like, based on waves, bent space, seamless continuums, bombarding corpuscles, or anything else they can dream up. However, the theory must be logically flawless, be thoroughly mathematically defineable, and predict things such as planet orbits accurately. A gravity theory based on waves must be as accurate in every way as currently believed gravity theory.

Permanent magnets which are not in motion have an associated magnetic field. An electromagnet energized by alternating current would produce an EM wave. In between, there are specific cases of specific kinds of motion a permanent magnet could have which could induce EM. It is important to recognize that such EM is a result of MOTION but not an intrinsic property of the magnet.

Gangus

I met with Bob Lazar about three weeks ago in New Mexico. I went with him to prospect for Uranium and had a great time. I got to ride with Bob to the site in his hydrogen powered car and it was so cool. Now I have about 15 pounds of Uranium ore that I hope to do some energy experiments with.

I have an email request in to Bob for him to send some math on the Gravity A and B wave situation. I will let you know when I get a response.

Everything he has talked about has come true like element 115 and so on.

I just can not think that he is not creditable after all I have seen, specially after meeting him in person :) .

I trust that it was noticed that I neither put down or put up Bob Lazar or his statements.

As a man of science, I just try to go where the truth pulls me.

I do, however, have some difficulty in trying to get EM to work like gravity, although I know that there are subtle nuances about waves that are very often overlooked, and that I will not elaborate upon.

I trust that it was noticed that I neither put down or put up Bob Lazar or his statements.

As a man of science, I just try to go where the truth pulls me.

I do, however, have some difficulty in trying to get EM to work like gravity, although I know that there are subtle nuances about waves that are very often overlooked, and that I will not elaborate upon.

Gangus

You are very inspiring in a world of complancy.

I bought my first computer in 1986 and as I look back, I realize that I had witnessed a monumental time in human evolutional history, and it happened during my lifetime. I see the advent of the computer as more important that that of the Automobile. Knowledge, combined knowledge of mankind is the key to the future and this will all be achieved by effective means of communication.

I am an inventor by trade and my imagination inspires me to the point of no end. I know that we all are able to create great things, we just have to stick with the problem long enough to solve it.

Albert Einstein was noticed to have the tenacity of a bulldog. He once said "I am not really so smart. I just have the ability to stay on a problem as long as it takes to get to the bottom of it.".

And a wave is energy in motion. And if energy were being removed from any atom (we're not talking about radioactive substances here) what would happen to the atom eventually?

Do not all atoms eventualy decay? Even stable or unstable elements in the conversion of mass to energy and the cycle of energy to mass processes.


No, magnets don't emit EM waves, though that IS a pretty common misconception - meaning a lot of people seem to think that. A magnet produces only a magnetic field, not an electromagnetic field or wave. If it did, it would be just like our atom in the paragraph above - it would eventually "run down." A magnetic field has only one component - physicists call it an "H" field. And electromagnetic field has two components - an "H" field and a "E" (electric) field and they propagate at right angles to each other. (You can picture that looking like the vertical tail on a plane and it's wings.)

I hope you can tell that I'm not trying to "talk down to you" because I'm not. It's also very common for people to misunderstand the difference between a force and energy. They tend to think of them being the same but they aren't.


I know you are not talking down to me and I cant tell you enough what it means to me for you to share your knowledge. I am truly greatfull thank you.

I am trying to learn so much and I ask alot of questions.

A force and energy seem inter related, like how can you have one without the other. If what you say is true then free energy must be a reality.

Do not all atoms eventualy decay? Even stable or unstable elements in the conversion of mass to energy and the cycle of energy to mass processes.

No, they don't. Unless stable atoms, carbon for instance, happens to get caught up in some nuclear reaction like a thermonuclear bomb going off, or happen to fall into a star, they will be around forever. A single atom of carbon, unless what I just said happens, will undergo perhaps a limitless number of chemical conversions - like CO2, or part of a protein, etc. - but otherwise it will still be the same old carbon atom forever.

I know you are not talking down to me and I cant tell you enough what it means to me for you to share your knowledge. I am truly grateful thank you.

You are very welcome. I'll be happy to tell you anything I can. And if I can't, I'll say so. I'm glad to know you understand because far too many people don't. When someone has to say "no" or correct another person, far too many people take it personally and get upset. You have an excellent attitude and it will take you long way! I hereby consider this an announcement of a new friendship and can see that we'll get along fine. :)

I am trying to learn so much and I ask alot of questions.

And that's the way everyone should be. When you get right down to it, learning is really what life is all about. And it can be FUN, too!!

A force and energy seem inter related, like how can you have one without the other. If what you say is true then free energy must be a reality.

Yes, that's another thing that causes a lot of people some confusion. It's true that there's a relationship but it's not in the way they usually think of it.

Remember our little brick experiment? That's a force, pure and simple. So is a magnet sticking to your refrigerator. But there's no energy involved in either of those. However, when you DO take energy and apply IT as a force, then actual work gets done. Forces exist all around us. They keep walls standing and keep the roof from falling down on us.

Here's another little illustrative example: take a simple pulley, put a rope through it and hang a 50-pound weight on each end. Looking at it you can see that there are actually four forces involved and they are all in balance with their opposites. Each weight is exerting a force that balanced by the force exerted by the other. So that's two forces. The whole assembly is being attracted by the Earth's gravity, so that's the third one. But it's all being held up by a rope attached to a tree or whatever and is being counterbalanced by opposing the force of gravity and that's the fourth one.

But guess what? As if you didn't know already. (wink) There's no energy involved at all. It's said to be in a "static" state.

Now let's change the game a little. You walk over and pull down on one side. That weight goes down and the other rises. By applying a force through the use of energy, you've actually caused some work to be done. but notice that there were forces before - but no work was performed until energy came into play. So that's the relationships - and the differences.

And no, there's no free energy. None at all. I'm sorry but I'll have to come back to this part because I've got something else I need to do for a couple of hours or so and I can't put it off. But I will return - that's a promise.

Thanks for the warning. ;)

That weight goes down and the other rises. By applying a force through the use of energy, you've actually caused some work to be done. but notice that there were forces before - but no work was performed until energy came into play.

How do you reconcile this with the biological reality that even by standing motionless you are using up energy - or is the fact that you are becoming tired in your muscles have nothing to do with energy loss ... i just don't know :p

Thanks for the warning. ;)

You're welcome! :D

How do you reconcile this with the biological reality that even by standing motionless you are using up energy - or is the fact that you are becoming tired in your muscles have nothing to do with energy loss ... i just don't know :p

That's another one that gives a lot of people trouble, especially those that haven't studied basic mechanics (no, not the kind that fixes cars). ;)

It's pretty easy to understand, actually. It's because even when standing still you are having to expend energy to resist gravity. The same if you are holding a weight on an outstretched arm/hand. You aren't doing any "work" in the classical sense but you are still using energy to overcome the pull of gravity.

A force and energy seem inter related, like how can you have one without the other. If what you say is true then free energy must be a reality.

I'm not quite sure how that lead you think free energy might be a reality, but it isn't.

There are several free-energy scams running around all over the world right now. One class is the "over-unity" machines (those that require an energy input but then produce more power than they receive) and another is "Zero-point energy."

The latter seems to have some validity but I like the way one theoretical physicist put it. Something like, "It would take a very large and expensive device to capture even the smallest amount of zero-point energy. You could generate a hundred times more power by simply lifting your eyelid."

The over-unity machines don't function at all. Two of the biggest scam artists in that "business" have been a guy named Jean-Louis Naudin (who was run out of France) and another by the name of Neuman. Both are nothing but frauds trying to get money from investors. If you happen to be curious about him, I can give you a general overview of Naudin's activities.

Did you really want to discuss the free energy stuff or was that just something in passing?

How do you reconcile this with the biological reality that even by standing motionless you are using up energy - or is the fact that you are becoming tired in your muscles have nothing to do with energy loss ... i just don't know :pThere are many "background" biological processes that use energy. Lets look at the difference between a corpse lying on a slab and a living person also lying down. What is the difference between the two. The living person is breathing, the lung's pressure-volume cycles require energy. The living person also has a heart beat, again with pressure-volume cycles consuming energy. The living person has some neural activity, electrochemical energy being consumed. Their cells are repairing themselves, expending chemical energy to make complicated molecules like proteins. Finally, the living person has a body temperature and is constantly radiating thermal energy to the surroundings. This constant background expenditure of energy requires a constant input of energy. The lack of that input energy is starvation.

The corpse doesn't expend any of that "biological" energy. They are both lying down. They both have a force on their back that requires no energy input at all. The living person can expend energy and move but the corpse cannot move because that would require energy that it does not have.

Energy is the capacity to do work, which is a force applied over a distance. Without the movement implied in the distance there is no energy. Forces can be static, but energy is always doing something.

-Dale

Just to clarify re muscles doing work while not moving, like when holding a weight out at arm's length and growing tired. This causes a great deal of confusion. Although muscles are a reasonably efficient engine (in the thermodynamic sense) under dynamic conditions, at stall (exerting a force without moving) they suck, to put it bluntly. All the chemical energy (from atp) ends up as waste heat. So yes you expend energy, but you do no work on the weight. You just raise your body temp.

NEWMAN is a controversial inventor who calimed a device running over unity.

NEUMANN is a famous ( in some circles ) mathematician of reknown during the 1940s and thereabouts.

WORK is an exact mathematical definition of a physics concept which has existed for 3 centuries, pretty much. It is not necessarily the same definition we us in everyday language.

ZERO POINT ENERGY is a completely accepted concept in quantum physics. It would be absurd to claim it to be a scam because nobody has yet marketed a commercially successful over unity generator based on it.

LIGHT, you are wearing me out. Quit shooting from the hip.

That's another one that gives a lot of people trouble, especially those that haven't studied basic mechanics (no, not the kind that fixes cars).

It's pretty easy to understand, actually. It's because even when standing still you are having to expend energy to resist gravity. The same if you are holding a weight on an outstretched arm/hand. You aren't doing any "work" in the classical sense but you are still using energy to overcome the pull of gravity.

This is not an answer.

You agree yet you say it's a common problem.

As you say, you aren't doing work yet you expend energy. So this work supposedly requires no energy, which means that I can have work done for free: Free energy

It appears to me that the classical sense of Work is wrong ... or either you are bad at explaining this issue :p

This is not an answer.

You agree yet you say it's a common problem.

As you say, you aren't doing work yet you expend energy. So this work supposedly requires no energy, which means that I can have work done for free: Free energy
Your problem has already been answered for you, you just choose to ignore it and focus on a bad answer.

Whilst standing in your "motionless" state, your lungs among other things continue to *work* away keeping you breathing and alive. Not to mention you must expend energy to keep your body temperature at 98.6°F

Maybe you have forgotten that change in energy is Q-W where Q is heat loss and W is work done.

Your problem has already been answered for you, you just choose to ignore it and focus on a bad answer.

First of: It is not MY problem.
Second: If I thought it had been solved, I wouldn't waste my time like you insinuate.

Energy is the capacity to do work, which is a force applied over a distance. Without the movement implied in the distance there is no energy. Forces can be static, but energy is always doing something.


So we all agree that even by just standing, we are using up energy due to "background" biological processes. That's okay. Because many times I have heard that just by standing, one doesn't use energy for physics because one is not moving. I always thought that was a ridiculous claim.

But how do you compare a corpse and a magnet? As Light and everybody else will tell, the magnet is exerting a force (magnetic) when it is sticking to the frigde, yet no energy is being used (because no work is done). Yet, it has to fight against the pull of gravity every second or it will fall. So even if it is not moving, there is a constant struggle...just as my muscles must remain tightened or I will just fall to the ground: isn't that comparable to "work" (yet in a more subtle form than the classical defined one)? That's my question, in fact.

Yet, [a magnet] has to fight against the pull of gravity every second or it will fall. So even if it is not moving, there is a constant struggle..

The force of gravity in that case is balanced by an equal and opposite friction force between the magnet and the fridge. The magnetism is largely irrelevant to why the magnet doesn't slide down the fridge. And while the magnet isn't sliding, neither the friction nor the gravitational nor the magnetic forces do any work.

...just as my muscles must remain tightened or I will just fall to the ground...

When you tense a muscle, the fibres are continually contracting, then loosening slightly, then contracting again, in response to a stream of nerve impulses. They don't just contract and lock in place. That is why keeping a muscle tight uses energy. It is constantly moving.

Have you ever wondered why cows or horses don't get tired standing up all day? It's because their legs can "lock" in place, so they don't need to use muscles to stay standing.

Have you ever wondered why cows or horses don't get tired standing up all day? It's because their legs can "lock" in place, so they don't need to use muscles to stay standing.

I thought that they eventually did get tired :p

About the magnet ... euhm, this friction forced is not caused by the magntism ... :bugeye: You lost me there.

Make that TWO lost souls. :bugeye: :bugeye:

When you put two magnets close, they try to unite. They use no energy. They decide by themselves. Most adults can't understand this because they don't want to unite with this. They want to remain in the complexities and masks they have chosen to defend. Just like those magnets defend themselves, if you try to unite + and +. They don't want to merge, they don't want to become something different, they want to remain what they are.

The magnetism holds the magnet against the fridge, but doesn't prevent it sliding down. Friction prevents it sliding down.

Because many times I have heard that just by standing, one doesn't use energy for physics because one is not moving. I always thought that was a ridiculous claim.

Define what you mean by "energy for physics".


But how do you compare a corpse and a magnet? As Light and everybody else will tell, the magnet is exerting a force (magnetic) when it is sticking to the frigde, yet no energy is being used (because no work is done). Yet, it has to fight against the pull of gravity every second or it will fall. So even if it is not moving, there is a constant struggle...
You are right that there is a constant stuggle, but the magnet is not a participant in this struggle. It is rather as James has said, between friction and gravity. Friction is the resistance to motion between two bodies in contact. By some of your responses, I assume you are not familiar with how friction works. In the case of solid objects (your magnet against a surface), the fiction force will be proportional to the roughness of the surface of the two bodies and the amount of area of contact between them. Imagine a magnet the shape of a rod. If you stick the magnet to the surface along it's side, then the surface area of contact will be greatest and the magnet will stick. If you place the magnet against the surface along it's base, then the magnet will most likely slide down the surface as the contact surface area is not great enough to create enough friction to resist gravity.

If you place the magnet against the surface along it's base, then the magnet will most likely slide down the surface as the contact surface area is not great enough to create enough friction to resist gravity.

I assume that you mean a measuring rod? Then it's base will be very thin indeed, and not much friction will be possible. But how are you so sure that the strenght of the magnetic force is also not reduced when the contact surface is smaller?

Define what you mean by "energy for physics".

I was too lazy to phrase that correctly. I meant spending energy as defined by physics laws.

I was too lazy to phrase that correctly. I meant spending energy as defined by physics laws.You are spending energy when holding a weight at arms length away from your body, but all of the work is internal instead of external. Actin and myosin must continually burn ATP and make microscopic "power stroke" motions in order to maintain a constant force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_contraction). Thus there is energy being used and motion happening, it is just not doing any external work.

On the other hand, a bronze statue of you could hold the same weight without spending any energy. The bronze needs no such microscopic motion in order to maintain a constant force. Again no external work is done, but this time no internal work is done either.

-Dale

Thank you for explaining this some more. Wikipedia is a good project. I'm always amazed with the amount of information that it already has.

But I'm stil left puzzled with the magnets however :bugeye: :D