Daily Archives: March 29, 2016

The “G” in Gravity… Constant?

Newton’s law of universal gravitation assumes that the force of planetary gravity is the same for every planet and body of mass in the universe.

It’s wrong.  The force of gravity is not the same for all bodies of mass.  Here’s why we know this  is a fact:

Newton developed his formula (wherein two bodies are attracted to one another proportionately to the product of their masses and inversely to the square of their distance)  based on the attraction between the Earth and the Moon.  What that means is he is producing a mathematical number to define a force known as “G.”

What most of us don’t realize is that we can perform another coincidentally reliable formula by swapping our mother’s waist line for the squared distance.  No, the numbers won’t be the same as Newton’s.  But it would be a reliable scale because what-ever planet we could have studied during Newton’s lifetime would correspond to the waist formula exactly.  So Newton’s scale in correlation to our mother’s waist scale would be like the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.  Neither of the two are wrong and they are both precisely coordinated.  Just different numbers.  I like to throw that little piece of interesting tidbit  in just to take the dead-genius stigma away from something like Newton’s law.  It’s amazing how complicated things get the more likely people tend to believe them, perhaps thinking “Hey, that guy’s pretty smart.  He probably knows what he’s talking about.”  Thusly, this is most likely why no one in 350 years has questioned Newton’s base principles.  Well…..  I am.  It’s obvious something is amiss because gravity is the one science failing to prove itself, and which is the same magical mystery today that it was in Newton’s lifetime.

Today we have telescopes that go far beyond the capability of Newton’s day and we can clearly see that “G” is not a definite constant.  Using these telescopes we can see farther out into the expanding universe than ever before.  And we can see that the universe is currently expanding and also see that that the moving bodies in that expansion are not behaving as they should according to Newton’s constant.  In other words because they are moving in a particular direction we could expect their direction to be slightly altered by Newton’s constant of gravity.  But their directions are being altered far beyond what our known constant of gravity could affect them.  So gravity in these distant galaxies is not the same as ours.  “G” is not a constant across the universe.  Point blank.  Fact.  Newton is wrong.

And that correlation of expanding galaxies is an observed fact.  Not a theory.  A theory only comes into play when we try to figure out why gravity is not constant across the universe.  And below is my theory:

Gravity is magnetism.  Simple.

And magnetism fails at certain high temperatures.  Very hot bodies, like perhaps those covered in a molten material, will not have the same gravitational attraction as cooler planets.  Magnetism also increases with cooler temperatures, like when the temps get close to absolute zero.  Super-magnetic fields which use liquid nitrogen to cool magnets to extraordinary temperatures are like those used for suspending a train above a rail.  These are known facts.

Another possible catalyst for the marked difference in gravity could be due to planetary composition.  If a planet is abundant with a lot of metals that are attracted to magnetism than it will have a slightly higher “G” than those planets which might have less, thereby leaving each planet with it’s own distinct “G”.

The problem with our stride in the science of gravity is due completely to these falsely held beliefs.  The Earth’s magnetic field – which I prefer now to call the Earth’s electrical field – is not the same thing as any magnet’s field. The two are simply not the same thing.  The only thing allowing modern science to cling onto these false beliefs is the notion that they can not measure the magnetism of the earth, or at least believe it is a much smaller force than a magnet.  If they open their eyes they could plainly see that we have already measured the Earth’s magnetic field for every known atom.  Simple weight is a measurement of magnetism.  Every atom of carbon in the universe is attracted to some degree to planetary magnetic (electrical) fields.

A falling leaf is indeed not attracted to a man made magnet.  Assuming the Earth’s field has the exact same properties of that magnet generates the false conclusion that the Earth’s field does not attract the leaf either.  But wait..  Yes, the leaf is indeed attracted by the Earth’s magnetic field.  That tells me the earth’s magnetic field is thousands if not millions of times stronger than the magnet.  Which leads to only one conclusion: the testing apparatus used to measure the Earth’s magnetic field is not valid.