I need to know Everything you know about Gravity & Magnetism .

I want to know if anyone has ever read about Coral Castle in Florida I believe the I have found the answer to it but I need help with my theories. Please e-mail if you have any input on this subject.

Originally posted by MadGreenwood
I need to know Everything you know about Gravity & Magnetism .
Electromagnetism:

Del . <B>E</B> = <font face="symbol">r</font> / <font face="symbol">e</font>₀
Del x <B>E</B> = -<i>d</i><B>B</B>/<i>d</i>t
Del . <B>B</B> = 0
c² Del x <B>B</B> = -<i>d</i><B>E</B>/<i>d</i>t + <b>j</B>/<font face="symbol">e</font>₀

Gravity:

G_{<font face="symbol">mn</font>} = 8<font face="symbol">p</font>GT_{<font face="symbol">mn</font>}
I want to know if anyone has ever read about Coral Castle in Florida I believe the I have found the answer to it but I need help with my theories. Please e-mail if you have any input on this subject. [/B]
I don't know.

- Warren

you forget lorentz, without which maxwells equations are (almost) meaningless:

F=q(E+v x B)

Originally posted by lethe
you forget lorentz, without which maxwells equations are (almost) meaningless:

F=q(E+v x B)
Sorry lethe, but that's incorrect. The work done in moving a unit charge in an electric field, for instance, is just the integral of the field over all path elements, and the field is entirely specified by its curl and divergence. The magnitude of E is fixed by the constant <font face=symbol>e</font>₀ so that this is so. :)

- Warren

Originally posted by chroot
Sorry lethe, but that's incorrect. The work done in moving a unit charge in an electric field, for instance, is just the integral of the field over all path elements, and the field is entirely specified by its curl and divergence. The magnitude of E is fixed by the constant <font face=symbol>e</font>₀ so that this is so. :)

- Warren


ummm... are you claiming the the lorentz force law is extraneous? i really think that electric and magnetic fields are just little bookmarks to keep track of the force a hypothetical "test charge" feels.

and you say that the electric field totally determines the work done by moving a unit charge. this is true. but what about moving a charge in a magnetic field? the work due to a magnetic field is zero, but still, there is a force, and it cannot be determined by just the field, you must also know the path of the particle, and this is the information in the lorentz force law...

in field theory, the e.m. lagrangian looks like: L_{free particle} + L_{interaction} + L_{em field}. each term in the lagrangian gives rise to a seperate equation of motion. the particle term gives the Klein gordan equation of motion, the interaction term gives the lorentz force law, and the field term yields maxwells equations..

i was under the impression that each term was physically independent, and all terms were required for a complete physical picture.

Originally posted by lethe
but what about moving a charge in a magnetic field? the work due to a magnetic field is zero
An excellent point -- you always make me think. :) You're right, the magnetic field only changes the direction of motion, not the magnitude of the velocity... and thus it does no work. You're right, you need to include the Lorentz force equation to complete the theory... or perhaps you can just assert the conservation of momentum as an axiom and derive the Lorentz force law from Maxwell's equations... but I have not done this myself.
in field theory, the e.m. lagrangian looks like: L_{free particle} + L_{interaction} + L_{em field}. each term in the lagrangian gives rise to a seperate equation of motion. the particle term gives the Klein gordan equation of motion, the interaction term gives the lorentz force law, and the field term yields maxwells equations..
Another excellent point -- your knowledge of physics outstrips mine in advanced mechanics...
i was under the impression that each term was physically independent, and all terms were required for a complete physical picture.
Your impression is correct. I stand corrected. :)

- Warren

well, the question: is the lorentz force law independent of maxwells equations? i have gotten into debates about that question with friends. my belief is that it is independent, and cannot be derived from maxwells equations. but i am not postive of this fact. i would not mind hearing dissenting views on this fact. but it is my belief that maxwells equations simply has nothing to say about the interaction of an em field with matter. maxwells equations govern the propogation of the field, and the lorentz force law governs the interaction of the field with matter. and without interaction with matter, the field would never be observed, and therefore the whole issue would disappear. that s what i meant when i said that without the lorentz force law, the meaning of maxwells equations would disappear.

all the physics of gravity and EM can be written down in one or two lines. i like that

Originally posted by lethe
well, the question: is the lorentz force law independent of maxwells equations?
I'd say they're interdependent. If you assume that momentum is conserved, you can derive Lorentz from Maxwell's... but that's a big assumption to make physically. You're absolutely right that Maxwell's eqs describe the behavior of the field, but don't (directly) describe its mechanics. If you'd like me to try to do the derivation without so much hand-waving, I can give it a shot. :)
all the physics of gravity and EM can be written down in one or two lines. i like that
I like it, too. :)

- Warren

My solution to the Coral Castle is a few friends and some heavy moving equipment.

What's yours?

I think you lot have frightened MadGreenwood away.:D

Thanks for the Mathematics but that is not my problem. The answer is simple not a complicated equation if you read about the man who built Coral Castle you would know it is a simple answer and I believe I have it figured out It is an ancient technique that was used by Egyptians and the ancient peoples of England and possibly Mayans and Aztecs as well, It's a matter of Gravity being overcome with the help of electricity and magnets basically anti-gravity. The man who built Coral Castle was no mathematician but a simple man with a knowledge of something that is so simple brilliant minds cannot figure it out. I guess that's why I almost have. Please Visit the website and read for yourself. http://www.coralcastle.com/home.asp

After you have read about it please give me input on what you think he might have used I would very much like another opinion on it other than mine.

Thanks for all of your replies. :)

Let's see here. You would have me believe that my ancient ancestors had an advanced knowledge of Electricity and Magnetism. So far advanced they could produce anti-gravity. An effect not currently accepted by modern science. Plus of course there is no evidence of Bronze Age electricity generators. The lack of hydroelectric dams and electricity generators dating to 4,000 BCE is a bit of a giveaway.

James R would have me believe that, last century, some one built a large structure using modern heavy lifting gear. Equipment readily available to any one.

That is so hard to differentiate between! Who to believe? Are you sure Greys had nothing to with it. Maybe it was the Annunaki instead.

<i>James R would have me believe that, last century, some one built a large structure using modern heavy lifting gear.</i>

Who said anything about "modern"?

Plus of course there is no evidence of Bronze Age electricity generators. The lack of hydroelectric dams and electricity generators dating to 4,000 BCE is a bit of a giveaway.

http://www.geocities.com/tasosmit2001/electricity.htm
http://art-design.smsu.edu/yarberry/Courses/ART330-S2002/submissions/Cox/Exhibit.html

I would also point out that IF anyone had any metal-based technology way back when, it most likely just eroded away. Notice that we have very few swords from even a thousand years ago; the only surviving ones have been maintained in great collections or were preserved in rather particular conditions such as pete bogs. Generally metal even from only one thousand years ago just decays. Most things do.

http://art-design.smsu.edu/yarberry/Courses/ART330-S2002/submissions/Assign1CRIT.htm#COX

This is a critique of your second link Adam.

http://www.smith.edu/hsc/museum/ancient_inventions/battery2.html
http://tlc.discovery.com/convergence/ark/articles/battery.html
http://www.voltaicpower.com/Batteries/historyold.htm


The British Museum says:

Is the Baghdad Battery really an electric battery?
The 'Baghdad Battery' is an earthenware jar preserved in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. It dates to about the 5th or 6th century AD and consists of an earthenware shell with a cylinder of copper set in asphalt and an iron rod in the centre. The jar was first described by the German archaeologist Wilhelm Konig who thought that it looked like an electric battery. When a reproduction was filled with an electrolyte it produced about two volts. If this theory is correct, the batteries could have been used for electroplating. However, most scientists and archaeologists today do not accept the electric battery theory as there is no evidence that this technique was used in antiquity. It is more likely that the jar and its contents were used in a magical ritual.

http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/ane/anecofaq.html

Allow me to elucidate. The original claim by Madgreenwood was,

It's a matter of Gravity being overcome with the help of electricity and magnets basically anti-gravity.

Nowadays we can routinely generate 10 G magnetic fields, Megavolt electric fields, analyse the entire EM spectrum and smash atoms apart to see what they are made of. In all of these no antigravity of the form postulated is seen. if there was any validity to the claim you would need something generating much stronger electric and magnetic fields. Using modern technology this requires entire electricity generating stations. If some sort of highly advanced techology was used you could conceivably fit that into a handheld device. But that would require some fantastic technology way beyond what we know of.

A clay pot possibly generating a few volts DC does not fit into any of the above. If generating anti-gravity was easily done with a standard AA battery I think we would have found it by know, somehow.

Before anyone jumps up and says something daft like electromagnets holding cars, we are talking about negating gravity in non-magnetic materials like limestone or whatever the Egyptian pyramids are made of. You would need massive magnetic fields to force these to be magnetic or a technology so close to magic as to be indistguishable.

Oh yes, I know that's all whacko stuff. The pyramids weren't built with antigravity crystals. They used crazy glue.

See what asking a Crazy Question will get you. :)

Originally posted by Adam
Oh yes, I know that's all whacko stuff. The pyramids weren't built with antigravity crystals. They used crazy glue.

Please, please, please don't tell my middle daughter. She'll be doing 1:1 scale replicas in the garden asap. Give the kid a pot a glue, scissors, sticky tape, some paper and half an hour and anything could happen. She's got the makings of a fine engineer or architect.

my thoughts and theorys,,please give me feedback......

1.all matter is magnetically charged
2.earth is a big magnet north and south poles,positive/negative
3.however lightning is a buildup and release of electrons(negative) and follows its path to the earth ground, which means earth is (positive) right?
4.so if you can (through an electro-magnetic frequency) allign the pos/ negative particles of any givin substance therefore magnetising with the magnetic poles in different directions would be able to counter the positively charged earth ground. right?
(see diagram)
5. ok this is off the subject but was thinkin about,
question 1.?,...when an object leaves earths atmosphere(ex.space shuttle) at what point does it escape the earths gravity?

question 2. since earth is a presure and space a vacuum, does this mean if you (hypothetically speaking)held a tube in space and into th earth wont it suck all the atmospere out of earth?

Originally posted by quantumdaveGMX
1.all matter is magnetically charged
There is no such thing as a magnetic charge.
2.earth is a big magnet north and south poles,positive/negative
A very weak one, yes.
3.however lightning is a buildup and release of electrons(negative) and follows its path to the earth ground, which means earth is (positive) right?
Depends on the kind of lightning, actually. In general, though, yes.
4.so if you can (through an electro-magnetic frequency) allign the pos/ negative particles of any givin substance therefore magnetising with the magnetic poles in different directions would be able to counter the positively charged earth ground. right?
(see diagram)
A "frequency" is not a physical thing. A "frequency" cannot do anything. You can polarize any object (pull its charged bits apart slightly) by just putting it in an electric field.
5. ok this is off the subject but was thinkin about,
question 1.?,...when an object leaves earths atmosphere(ex.space shuttle) at what point does it escape the earths gravity?
Theoretically, never. The field is only zero at infinite distance. On the other hand, the strength of the force varies with the inverse square of the distance, so it rapidly becomes negligible at larger distances.
question 2. since earth is a presure and space a vacuum, does this mean if you (hypothetically speaking)held a tube in space and into th earth wont it suck all the atmospere out of earth?
The earth's mass (including its atmosphere) is held in place due to gravity. Sticking an enormous tube half inside the atmosphere and half in outer space (the boundary thereof is not precise) will not do anything to gravity, and therefore will not do anything to the atmosphere.

- Warren

1.what makes gravity? if not magnetism , is it mass? (what ive been told)if so ,..the mere displacement of an object in space will attract other objects?



2.a.what keeps the planets in there orbit? if the sun gives off energy ,.b.wouldnt that push us away? c.when the astroid struck the grand canyon millions of years ago ,did that outside force push earth into a further orbit from the sun?

Originally posted by quantumdaveGMX
1.what makes gravity? if not magnetism , is it mass? (what ive been told)
Gravity is an effect experienced between two masses. In that sense, I suppose, mass can be said to "make" gravity.
if so ,..the mere displacement of an object in space will attract other objects?
No. Displacement, or position, has nothing to do with mass.
2.a.what keeps the planets in there orbit?
Gravitational centripetal acceleration.
if the sun gives off energy ,.b.wouldnt that push us away?
Radiation pressure is incredibly weak, but still present. The pressure acts to decrease the centripetal acceleration, which leads to a slower linear velocity of the orbit.
c.when the astroid struck the grand canyon millions of years ago
No asteroid ever struck the Grand Canyon. Maybe you're taking about the K-T impact?
did that outside force push earth into a further orbit from the sun?
The collision was an inelastic collision, and momentum was conserved. The final change in velocity experienced by the earth depended upon the momentum of the incoming mass, which is the product of its mass and velocity. Unless the mass was enormous, it would have had little effect on the velocity of the earth; but yes, it certainly pushed it some, as indicated by the conservation of momentum. It cannot be said which direction it pushed the earth, though, since we weren't around to see it.

- Warren

Originally posted by quantumdaveGMX
my thoughts and theorys,,please give me feedback......[/quote

To add to chroots comments.

[quote]1.all matter is magnetically charged

Magnetism is related to electric charge but not the same. A moving charge creates a magnetic field and a moving magnetic field affects charged objects. Though atoms are made of two types of charged particle, they cancel so the atom is electrically neutral. Ergo the majority of matter is not electrically charged or can be magnetised. There are exceptions.

2.earth is a big magnet north and south poles,positive/negative

Yup. WEll, North/South poles but not +ve/-ve.

3.however lightning is a buildup and release of electrons(negative) and follows its path to the earth ground, which means earth is (positive) right?

Only with respect to a large negative charge. What happens is the charge density gets large enough to overcome the di-electric material that is air. This breaks down, becomes charged, forms a plasma from the ground up and charge flows down to Earth. The lightning is the release of energy from the charged material.

4.so if you can (through an electro-magnetic frequency) allign the pos/ negative particles of any givin substance therefore magnetising with the magnetic poles in different directions would be able to counter the positively charged earth ground. right?
(see diagram)

Nope.

Electro-magnetic frequencies are nothing but visible light or radio waves. Try shining a poweful light on a small bar magnet and see if it is affected? You'll have a long wait.

5. ok this is off the subject but was thinkin about,
question 1.?,...when an object leaves earths atmosphere(ex.space shuttle) at what point does it escape the earths gravity?

At least as far as the Moon. The Moon is held in by the Earths gravity.

question 2. since earth is a presure and space a vacuum, does this mean if you (hypothetically speaking)held a tube in space and into th earth wont it suck all the atmospere out of earth?

If that where true we would have lost the Atmosphere a long time ago. Gravity is a greater force than the pressure differentials.

There's also a matter of thermal velocities which is why we have lost Hydrogen and Helium from the atmosphere and the gas giants have not.

If you are searching for anti-gravity, rather go to http://www.elo.com.br/~deaquino/
It is based on decent science. According to Prof de Aquino (and other respected scientists before him), the gravitational mass and inertial mass of an object (or particle) is only the same at 0 Kelvin. If the particle(s) are experiencing any change in momentum (such as when they are absorbing or emitting photons), the two masses are not equivalent. This leads to the theory (with experimental backup from two sources), that a body could aquire negative gravitational mass (ie anti-gravity). The original equations were developed by Donoghue et al.

Gravity has nothing to do with the mass of two bodies. The acceleration experienced because of gravity by any mass is independent of it's mass (as per Newton, Einstein, etc).
As such, gravity is a measure of the effect all the mass in the universe have on the path a body will follow through 3D space. This is the path irrespective of the body's mass. In only depends on the distribution of the mass in the universe.