New definition for Magnetism is simple TOE

[truedream]

Magnetic Atom
Advancement in science and technology have given us crystal clear view of an Atom. Number of experiments directly control and exams the atom and its particle with the help of Magnetism. It proves the fact that the atom are controlled by the laboratory magnet and it shows themselves as a tiny Magnet and can be controlled by Magnetism.
Some of experiments and technology are: stern-Gerlach experiment, shows beam of silver / hydrogen atom is split into two beam by Magnetic field, Because the electron from the atom behaves as a tiny magnet, Magnetic trapping, Tunneling, Nuclear magnetization in NMRI, particle accelerator, micro oven, tokamak reactor, etc. Its all proves atom as magnetic atom.
Charge
Charge is the one of most common word used by science ,without 'charge' science have no meaning and charge is the fundamental property of fundamental particle. Charge is a type of complicated magnetic force in quantum level of atom but we see this magnetism in the name of electrical charge.
Once atom is magnet, then it is made of two opposite magnetic particle (nucleus and electron),so charge is the measuring unit of magnetic energy of particle.
Atom
Atom is made of two magnetic particle, It is the source of internal magnetic potential energy. In quantum scale we see this magnetic potential energy in the name of positive charge nucleus and negative charge electron.
This magnetic potential energy can never be created or destroyed because it is a part of an atom , interesting thing is even cannot be converted form to other, but this magnetic potential energy can group together and create a new resultant energy.
Eg:The potential energy of dam water and kinetic energy of falling dam water are two energy ,this energy's are created by interaction between magnetic potential energy of dam water and magnetic potential energy (gravity)of an earth.

Charge and Gravity both are magnetic

The structure of atom is created by electrostatic interaction in between two different charges of magnetic particle; likewise the structure of solar system is created by electrostatic interaction in between two different nucleus magnetic mass (greatest puzzles of science gravity and anti gravity).
Both are almost same forces but not exactly same because of there source. In an atom interaction between nucleus (99% of mass) and electrons. In solar system interaction between sun (99% of mass) and planets. Ok anyway both are equal and obey 1/r2 force rule. When both force act like same then atom gives the clue that there can be two different magnetic masses.
As we saw the charge is the measuring unit of magnetic particle, then what is the measuring unit for magnetic mass?
Gravity
“ Things which are under control or don't have freedom to move from its origin – is gravity or it have gravity energy”.
The attraction force between two masses is Gravity, now we know it is magnetic gravity,so
“The attraction force due to magnetic potential energy of two masses is magnetic gravity”
How Gravity Works
The force between Earth and Apple & Sun and Earth both are same ? They look like same force, but it works totally two different manner. The force in between apple and Earth are attracted by perpendicular interaction , but the Sun and Earth are attracted by parallel interaction.


“Basically gravity works in two different ways. One is parallel and other is perpendicular interaction depends upon the nature of masses(density), time and distance.” If the sources have equal magnetic energy then they work in parallel manner likewise if the sources have unequal magnetic energy then they work in perpendicular manner.
If the Sun and Earth are attracted by perpendicular direction then the one side of an Earth must always facing the Sun ,that is we can't have day and night .But we have day and night right now, So the reason is Sun and Earth attracted by parallel interaction.
Anti Gravity
“ Things which have freedom to move or work against from its origin - is anti gravity or it have anti gravity energy”.electron have freedom and electromagnetic wave (light) have freedom to move from its origin so these are very good examples for anti gravity.

Anti Gravity in Mass View

If there is “High Density , High Gravity”
If there is “Low Density , Low Gravity”
If there is “No Density , No Gravity” let us find “Anti Density, Anti Gravity ”
Gravity is directly proportional to density, Density is the only way to measure gravity energy of different stars which have same volume. So use density as measuring unit of gravity in Macro scale. But we had never consider the importance of it as measuring unit of gravity .
To understand elements and its gravity energy we need mean density scale of elements , So now let us create approximate mean density scale with respect to solar system, It help to measures gravity energy of an individual atom. This can achieved by most common abundance element and mean temperature of the solar system. Most common element in solar system are Hydrogen, Helium, Oxygen,Carbon,Nitrogen,Neon,Magnesium, Silicon,and Iron.

The approx mean density scale of elements with respect to solar system
Now we have approx mean density scale of elements ,as we saw before low density belongs to low gravity atom; High density belongs to High gravity atom and Anti density belongs to Anti gravity atom. In this table it shows Hydrogen have very high anti density energy and Iron have very high density energy at same temperature and pressure. So the sun is made of high anti gravity atom and the inner planets are made of very high gravity atom.


Stars can burst because they are maximum made of high anti gravity atom .So behind gravity it has two different masses which have opposite energy in them.

Newton and Einstein view of gravity is not excalty true
Is the gravity is unidirectional or bidirectional force?
Newton and Einstein understood gravity as unidirectional force.

If there view is true then two possibility as result first one is mono pole rotation axis of the earth is possible only at present equator region and the Second,earth will spin in random direction without any rotation axis in its orbit.If Newton and Einstein view is true, then 50% of the earth always facing the sun and not possible for day & night. So they are not true we have day & night with the help of dipole rotation axis so gravity is bidirectional force.

[truedream]

Magnet
Now it is difficult to understand the word 'magnet', New definition for Magnetism is simple TOE. If everything is atomic magnet, then what is Present magnet? Present magnet is only secondary magnetism of primary magnetic force , so present magnet is not equal to atomic magnetic force (gravity).Present magnet is a small part of universal magnet, there are many type and many level in universal magnetism .
The primary magnetic energy of atom can be called as non living magnet, because this energy is permanent and have no life time for it. Present magnet can be called as living magnet, its have temporary energy and have short life time. Every magnetism have three important flux area, they are primary ,secondary and equator flux area.

Distortion of Sun
Can help to understand hidden magnetism of gravity and dont take care of geomagnetism they are useless here.
Newton view:
Gravity is a force created between two mass , when the sun disappear in solar system then the planet instantly escape from the orbit , but he can't explain the reason for it.
Einstein view:
Nothing can go faster than speed of light, then how can planet instantly react with disappearing of sun?. The planet will be in the same orbit till the light disappear and then it starts to escape from the orbit . Because mass of the sun had wrapped the fabric of space time, The disappearance of the sun will create gravity disturbance in the space, which will create a gravity wave and this gravity wave will travels exactly the speed of light.


My view:
Newtons statement is true, once the sun disappear then all the planet will instantly escape from the orbit into space, here distance between sun and planets is not a matter . Because sun and the planet are directly connected by invisible magnetic Flux, When the sun disappear this connection is broken and planet have the freedom to move instantly. The real reason is sun and planet are only connected by invisible magnetic flux not by any wrapped fabric of space time.

[galacsi]

I am not sure to even understand what you mean but you post pretty pictures !

[Nereid]

truedream, can you show - with math, numbers, equations, and so on - that your ideas are consistent with Maxwell's equations, and (separately) with General Relativity, to within their experimentally tested limits?

[cjameshuff]

Newton and Einstein understood gravity as unidirectional force, Suppose if it is unidirectional then there are only two possibility,first one is mono pole rotation axis of the earth is possible only at present equator region and the next one is earth will spin in random direction without any rotation axis in its orbit.

If Newton and Einstein view is true, then 50% of the earth always facing the sun and not possible for day & night. but actually we have day & night with the help of dipole rotation axis so gravity is bidirectional force.

I think you need to revisit classical Newtonian gravity, and classical electromagnetism. Your understanding of it and your conclusions as to what it means are, to put it simply, so incorrect as to bear no resemblance to reality. Relativistic effects are just minor corrections to these as far as the solar system is concerned.

We have day and night because Earth's rotation axis is roughly perpendicular to the plane of Earth's orbit around the sun. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravitational force. Relativistic corrections do involve rotation (frame dragging), but they are negligible for most of the solar system (the precession of Mercury being an exception, and not due to frame dragging). We can also model and measure both electromagnetic and gravitational fields. The solar system is clearly not held together by magnetism.

[north]

I think you need to revisit classical Newtonian gravity, and classical electromagnetism. Your understanding of it and your conclusions as to what it means are, to put it simply, so incorrect as to bear no resemblance to reality. Relativistic effects are just minor corrections to these as far as the solar system is concerned.

We have day and night because Earth's rotation axis is roughly perpendicular to the plane of Earth's orbit around the sun. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravitational force. Relativistic corrections do involve rotation (frame dragging), but they are negligible for most of the solar system (the precession of Mercury being an exception, and not due to frame dragging). We can also model and measure both electromagnetic and gravitational fields. The solar system is clearly not held together by magnetism.

curious

how do you measure gravitational fields ? what parameters are used

[cjameshuff]

how do you measure gravitational fields ? what parameters are used

http://www.google.com/search?q=Cavendish+experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1966021148.pdf

More significant is how easy it is to measure electromagnetic fields...motion in a magnetic field produces electrical currents in conductors, and hall effect sensors detect static magnetic fields. Moving conductors on Earth's surface do not develop currents consistent a magnetic field strong enough to mimic gravity even on strongly magnetic objects. Also, compasses work, and gravitation affects objects equally regardless of bulk magnetic properties. Even diamagnetic materials, which are repelled from magnetic fields, fall as fast as iron objects.

There's also the tiny little problem in that dipole fields fall off as 1/r^3, not 1/r^2 as monopole fields do, and in bulk matter tend to cancel out rather than adding together as monopole gravitational fields do.

A fair amount of work evidently went into those diagrams, but they unfortunately bear no resemblance to reality.

[north]

http://www.google.com/search?q=Cavendish+experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_..._Mass_Detector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravimeter
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/ca...1966021148.pdf

More significant is how easy it is to measure electromagnetic fields...motion in a magnetic field produces electrical currents in conductors, and hall effect sensors detect static magnetic fields. Moving conductors on Earth's surface do not develop currents consistent a magnetic field strong enough to mimic gravity even on strongly magnetic objects. Also, compasses work, and gravitation affects objects equally regardless of bulk magnetic properties. Even diamagnetic materials, which are repelled from magnetic fields, fall as fast as iron objects.

There's also the tiny little problem in that dipole fields fall off as 1/r^3, not 1/r^2 as monopole fields do, and in bulk matter tend to cancel out rather than adding together as monopole gravitational fields do.

A fair amount of work evidently went into those diagrams, but they unfortunately bear no resemblance to reality.

so you are saying that gravity is equivalent to electromagnetic fields ?

hmm...

yet with particles , with electromagnetics eleminated from the experiment , the particles still attracted one-another

[truedream]

I think you need to revisit classical Newtonian gravity, and classical electromagnetism.

We have day and night because Earth's rotation axis is roughly perpendicular to the plane of Earth's orbit around the sun. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the gravitational force.
We can also model and measure both electromagnetic and gravitational fields. The solar system is clearly not held together by magnetism.

if every thing is magnet , then what is present magnet?
Dont take care of present magnetism, because it is secondary
even newtons gravity is primary magnetic gravity.

what is rotation axis and what is link between gravity?
Earth's rotation axis- whole gravity of earth is controlled only by Earth's rotation axis, this axis is created by gravity(atomic nucleus magnetic)
even orbit of earth is created by this rotation axis.

[Celestial Mechanic]

So you are saying that gravity is equivalent to electromagnetic fields? [Snip!]

cjameshuff has said no such thing. I do not know how you can infer that from what cjameshuff has written. Perhaps thou shouldst take a remedial reading course before getting thee to a library.

[Fortis]

truedream, please provide some of the mathematical structure of your model.

[tusenfem]

if every thing is magnet , then what is present magnet?
Dont take care of present magnetism, because it is secondary
even newtons gravity is primary magnetic gravity.

First of all, that is not what cjameshuff wrote, YOU are the one who says that everything is magnetism. (Reminds me of Dame Edna Average: "The change is electric.")

what is rotation axis and what is link between gravity?
Earth's rotation axis- whole gravity of earth is controlled only by Earth's rotation axis, this axis is created by gravity(atomic nucleus magnetic)
even orbit of earth is created by this rotation axis.

truedream! I sincerely hope that these questions are meant as a joke. If now, how on Earth can you think about presenting a "new TOE" if you don't even know these basic things that every kid knows after highschool?

[truedream]

truedream, please provide some of the mathematical structure of your model.

i dont have any mathematical structure, what structure is need to say charge is a type of magnet. lot of experiment had proved as magnetic atom.

in my model: charge is equal to gravity both belongs to a type of magnetism and both belongs to 1/r2 rule.

if then i have to find the missing opposite mass (like opposite charge) with
the help of density scale. i have updated this density scale in thread.

[truedream]

First of all, that is not what cjameshuff wrote, YOU are the one who says that everything is magnetism. (Reminds me of Dame Edna Average: "The change is electric.")

First Galileo only one who said planets orbit sun.
Ok what you know about charge ? charge only a name given to basic force of particle,the two diffrent particle have electrostatic interaction , what is electrostatic interaction ? it is 100% magnetism.

truedream! I sincerely hope that these questions are meant as a joke. If now, how on Earth can you think about presenting a "new TOE" if you don't even know these basic things that every kid knows after highschool?

I cannot belive how you pepole compare new things with existing school book ?? which shows your level of understanding.

[tusenfem]

i dont have any mathematical structure, what structure is need to say charge is a type of magnet. lot of experiment had proved as magnetic atom.

This is totally BUNK! First of all, how do you want to support your theory, make predictions, etc. if you do not have the tools to describe all the effects.

Secondly, of course you can "say" that charge is a magnet, but that goes against all we know about physics. A moving electric charge will create a magnetic field (because that constitutes a current). However, an electrical charge at rest is just an electrical charge. Note that I have put in the word "electrical" but it might well be that you propose mangetic charge, like the (as yet undiscovered) magnetic monopoles.

An atom is "magnetic" (to put it in simple words that I hope you will understand) because of the electrons running around in their Bohr orbits. (the very simplified and actually incorrect Bohr atomic model where the electrons are in "planetary orbits" around the nucleus).

in my model: charge is equal to gravity both belongs to a type of magnetism and both belongs to 1/r2 rule.

Again, read up on physics. Because there are no magnetic monopoles, the magnetic field does not fall of as r^-2 but as r^-3, totally different from the gravitational or electric field.

Also "charge is equal to gravity" is a completely wrong "sentence" because you are comparing apples and oranges.

if then i have to find the missing opposite mass (like opposite charge) with
the help of density scale. i have updated this density scale in thread.

Well, why not firsrt read a physics book that you get at least the basics right?

[Fortis]

truedream, in your theory of gravity, how do you explain the motion of the perihelion of Mercury? Quantitatively?

[truedream]

This is totally BUNK! First of all, how do you want to support your theory, make predictions, etc. if you do not have the tools to describe all the effects.

this shows how much you know and how much you understand science.

Secondly, but that goes against all we know about physics. A moving electric charge will create a magnetic field (because that constitutes a current). However, an electrical charge at rest is just an electrical charge. .

I dont know what you think about physics, nothing should go againts it? really funny , First what is charge ? charge is only a name given to basic force of particle,the two diffrent particle have electrostatic interaction , what is electrostatic interaction ? it is 100% magnetism. I say this basic force is a type of magnetic force and magnetic interaction is resultant of it.
ok anyway charge and magnet in my view
A moving primary magnetic energy will create a secondory magnetic field . However, an primary magnetic energy at rest is just an primary magnetic energy.

An atom is "magnetic" (to put it in simple words that I hope you will understand) because of the electrons running around in their Bohr orbits. (the very simplified and actually incorrect Bohr atomic model where the electrons are in "planetary orbits" around the nucleus)magnetic field does not fall of as r^-2 but as r^-3, totally different from the gravitational or electric field.

Types of magnetic force is not equal to present view of magnet.

Also "charge is equal to gravity" is a completely wrong "sentence" because you are comparing apples and oranges.

I only say both belongs only to fruit family.
New way to expline, present science call charge as apple,gravity as orange and magnet as fruit. now if i say all belongs to fruit family, then you reply me,
we have seen lot of apple,fruit and orange in my life they are not same.

Well, why not firsrt read a physics book that you get at least the basics right?

thanks yes i have read lot of books to speak with pepole who only know books.

[Celestial Mechanic]

First Galileo only one who said planets orbit sun.

That will be 10 points off for self-comparison with Galileo, Newton, and/or Einstein.

Ok, what [do] you know about charge? Charge [is] only a name given to basic force of particle, the two diffrent particle have electrostatic interaction, what is electrostatic interaction? It is 100% magnetism.

If it is 100 percent magnetism, why is it called an electrostatic interaction?

I cannot believe how you people compare new things with existing school book[s], which shows your level of understanding.

You know, truedream, there is now almost a century and a half of experience with Maxwellian electromagnetism. Theory and engineering are sufficiently advanced to make the computer that you've been typing all this twaddle into, so I think that the various books ranging in level from "school books" up to the most advanced treatises on the topic actually have something of value in them. That you choose to ignore them and belittle us for referring to these works and suggesting that you read them shows the level of your understanding.

By the way, what is your definition of the magnetic field and how does it differ from the standard "school book" definition?

[Nereid]

Bump ...

truedream, can you show - with math, numbers, equations, and so on - that your ideas are consistent with Maxwell's equations, and (separately) with General Relativity, to within their experimentally tested limits?

truedream, can you show - with math, numbers, equations, and so on - that your ideas are consistent with Maxwell's equations, and (separately) with General Relativity, to within their experimentally tested limits? - Nereid

When may readers expect an answer from you, truedream, to this direct, pertinent question about the ATM idea you have presented?

[cjameshuff]

I've noticed before that North has an impressive ability to interpret posts in ways that are impossible to anticipate or understand.

A few other questions, in addition to those others already given:

You claim there is a difference in the nature of the gravitational force between objects on Earth and Earth itself, and in the gravitational force between the Earth and the sun. What is your evidence of this difference? (And why do you keep claiming that dipole fields like magnetism fall off as 1/r^2? They fall off as 1/r^3.)

You have repeatedly claimed Newtonian gravity depends on rotation, including a claim that Newtonian gravity implies that one of Earth's rotational poles would always face the sun. Can you give any source that backs up this claim? Can you give any equations that describe these rotation-dependent gravitational forces?

Individual atoms and molecules typically do have electromagnetic asymmetries, but the bulk properties of matter result from the arrangement of trillions of separate atoms and molecules. Why is it that, for instance, two lead objects attract each other extremely weakly, but are attracted to the ground just as strongly as iron objects of equal mass? Why does the magnetization of iron objects not significantly affect their attraction toward the Earth? Why is gravitational force on an object always proportional to its mass, regardless of its measured magnetic properties, the number of electrons bound to each atom, etc?

[captain swoop]

Earth's rotation axis- whole gravity of earth is controlled only by Earth's rotation axis, this axis is created by gravity(atomic nucleus magnetic)

Can you explain this? Are you saying that if the earth didn't rotate about its axis there would be no gravity?

[truedream]

truedream, in your theory of gravity, how do you explain the motion of the perihelion of Mercury? Quantitatively?

Theory about reason for gravity , not about relativity or gravity.

truedream, can you show - with math, numbers, equations, and so on - that your ideas are consistent with Maxwell's equations, and (separately) with General Relativity, to within their experimentally tested limits?

I am speaking about static magnetism of nucleus which can come under Coulombs law of source charge. Eg: H nucleus have negative static magnetic force ( - mono pole) and Fe have positive static magnetic force (+ mono pole). Sun the group of negative static magnetic force interact with planets made of positive static magnetic force.
The equal amount of H and the equal amount of Fe will not combine together because they have opposite magnetic force.

Secondly, of course you can "say" that charge is a magnet, but that goes against all we know about physics. A moving electric charge will create a magnetic field (because that constitutes a current). However, an electrical charge at rest is just an electrical charge.

Can you explain this? Are you saying that if the earth didn't rotate about its axis there would be no gravity?

Greatest mistake of science is magnetism can ONLY created by motion or spin.
But truly ONLYmagnetism can create motion or spin.

If atom is natural magnet, I am speaking about static magnetism of nucleus and we can see static magnetism in atom of ultra cooling by magnetic trapping.

So static magnetism of planet interact with static magnetism of sun and create rotation axis of earth and next is orbit.

[tusenfem]

this shows how much you know and how much you understand science.

Well at least I know the differnce between charge and force, I even might know how the two hang together.

I dont know what you think about physics, nothing should go againts it? really funny , First what is charge ? charge is only a name given to basic force of particle,the two diffrent particle have electrostatic interaction , what is electrostatic interaction ? it is 100% magnetism. I say this basic force is a type of magnetic force and magnetic interaction is resultant of it.
ok anyway charge and magnet in my view
A moving primary magnetic energy will create a secondory magnetic field . However, an primary magnetic energy at rest is just an primary magnetic energy.

On the contrary, I would love for something new to come up and shake mainstream physics. Do I think this will happen? Not any time soon, and definitely not by your "unfounded and lack-of-physical-knowledge redefinition" of gravity as a magnetic force, and saying that charge is magnetism etc.

Charge is NOT a force! I don't know how you got to this idea, but it just does not make sense. Charge is something a particle can have. Two charges apply a force on each other, a charge in a magnetic field has a Lorentz force working on it. etc. etc.

And what the heck is a: A moving primary magnetic energy???

And what kind of sentence is this: Types of magnetic force is not equal to present view of magnet.
Don't forget that your idea (I refrain from using the word "theory") will need to explain the observations that we have.

But I doubt we will get a straight answer from you.

[worldcruiser]

truedream, please provide some of the mathematical structure of your model.

You must be joking; truedreams word salad smells like a cow pie and now you would like his mathematic dressing? I think i can't stomach that.

[Nereid]

[snip]

truedream, can you show - with math, numbers, equations, and so on - that your ideas are consistent with Maxwell's equations, and (separately) with General Relativity, to within their experimentally tested limits?

I am speaking about static magnetism of nucleus which can come under Coulombs law of source charge. Eg: H nucleus have negative static magnetic force ( - mono pole) and Fe have positive static magnetic force (+ mono pole). Sun the group of negative static magnetic force interact with planets made of positive static magnetic force.
The equal amount of H and the equal amount of Fe will not combine together because they have opposite magnetic force.

[snip]

Thank you for your answer.

However, it seems not an answer to the question I asked.

Perhaps you did not understand the question? Allow me to clarify.

Maxwell's equations are a concise description, in mathematical form, of electromagnetism. An enormous number of experiments and observations have been made, and within the domain of applicability of the equations, no significant difference between theory and experimental/observational results has been reported*.

From the OP of this thread, and subsequent posts, it seems quite clear that your ATM idea claims applicability for electromagnetic phenomena.

Given the great success of Maxwell's equations in succinctly, and accurately, describing such phenomena*, I am asking you to show - with math - that your idea is consistent with Maxwell's equations, at least to the limits of the reported experimental/observational results.

Similarly, the General theory of Relativity (GR) is a concise description, in mathematical form, of gravity, and an enormous number of experiments and observations have been made, and within the domain of applicability of the equations, no significant difference between theory and experimental/observational results has been reported*.

From the OP of this thread, and subsequent posts, it seems quite clear that your ATM idea claims applicability for gravitational phenomena.

Given the great success of GR in succinctly, and accurately, describing such phenomena*, I am asking you to show - with math - that your idea is consistent with GR, at least to the limits of the reported experimental/observational results.

If you cannot demonstrate consistency with either Maxwell's equations or GR - mathematically - please say so.

I look forward to your answer.

* There are, as usual, caveats to be entered (e.g. perhaps I should have used QED instead of Maxwell's equations), but the requirement that your ATM idea does at least as good a job as Maxwell's equations and GR is surely a good minimum one.

[Fortis]

truedream, you dodged my question. You say that your theory is about the "reason for gravity". In that case, please show how your theory leads to predictions that are consistent with General Relativity in the regimes within which GR has been tested.

If your theory makes no predictions, or you cannot show how the mathematical structure of our current best theory (GR) falls out of it, then I don't see why your "theory" should be considered superior to the claim that gravity is due to the action of magical invisible ferrets.

[truedream]

I would love for something new to come up and shake mainstream physics. Do I think this will happen? Not any time soon, and definitely not by your "unfounded and lack-of-physical-knowledge redefinition" of gravity as a magnetic force, and saying that charge is magnetism etc.

No doubt, my ATM idea can really shake mainstream , this is one of the reply about my idea, It shows it is possible.

magnetfreek Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 1
Post subject: I think that this be the true meaning of all true science and observable fact. It is clear that the last century was extremely misguided and ignored the crystal clear unsolved magnetic issues. the "standard model" does not even attempt to clearly explain all observable phenomena. the construction of the large hadron collider and experimental fusion reactor are entirely baseless. I highly respect your work and expertise.

Charge is NOT a force! I don't know how you got to this idea, but it just does not make sense. Charge is something a particle can have. Two charges apply a force on each other

you say “ Charge is something a particle can have” can you please give a clear definition for it ? Charge is not something, it is clearly magnetic energy. Two Magnetic energy particle can only create resultant force in between them.

anyway thanks for your interest in my ATM idea.

[Fortis]

Truedream, you now claim that "charge is energy". Does it have the units of energy? No. Is this even consistent with your previous claim that charge was force. Force and energy are different things. This is cargo cult science. You use words and terms that you do not understand, in order to give your writings the vague appearance of scientific discourse. Sadly what you present is not science.

It would also be nice if you could answer my previous post.

[truedream]

Truedream, you now claim that "charge is energy". Does it have the units of energy? No. Is this even consistent with your previous claim that charge was force. Force and energy are different things. This is cargo cult science. You use words and terms that you do not understand, in order to give your writings the vague appearance of scientific discourse. Sadly what you present is not science.

you misunderstood my point "charge is a magnetic energy "then it must have magnetic force

[tusenfem]

No doubt, my ATM idea can really shake mainstream , this is one of the reply about my idea, It shows it is possible.

Oh yeah! Shake your bootie!!!

magnetfreek Joined: 02 Dec 2006 Posts: 1
<snip>

taking out as yet undeserved praise.

you say “ Charge is something a particle can have” can you please give a clear definition for it ? Charge is not something, it is clearly magnetic energy. Two Magnetic energy particle can only create resultant force in between them.

So, now I could ask you, what is magnetic energy? Can you give a clear definition for it? You see, it just does not work that way, if we do that we keep going around in circles.

So, you claim that what I call electrical charge is actually magnetic energy showing itself as a monopole. Now, why then, when a charge flies through a detector does it not show that a magnetic monopole passed through? You see, up to now, there has been all of 1 "measurements" of a magnetic monopole from a specially designed detector, and that was most likely a fluke measurement.

Also, why would H be a -mono and Fe be a +mono? Can you explain? And then there is:

The equal amount of H and the equal amount of Fe will not combine together because they have opposite magnetic force.

But if the two are opposite then they would (according to normal physics) attract eachother, like in our "electrical charge". But it could be that you are a follower of Rhonda Byrne von Goldmann and her "Secret" then you would find that "likes attract likes."

So, please come up with a real explanation, some math and stuff, and maybe we can start to discuss the basics of your idea.