• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

M theory.

BrettNortje

BrettNortje

Banned
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
793
Reaction score
22
Location
Cape Town
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
It seems the only problem with this theory is the inclusion of gravity into the forces of 'the theory.' as i have already found, gravity is actually magnetism provided by protons, as, electromagnetism is provided by electrons and protons, the other side of the force should be protons.

Unifying all the forces together would see them all be 'particle relations compatible.' this means, if we study physics, being the crux or base to work from for the physical world, we will find that they all work off of particles.

So, if we were to observe that the base of operations are particles, then the next step up is atoms, which relate differently to each collection of particles, where the collections are actually different mixtures of particles, yes?

Now, to truly understand m theory, you need to study chemistry too! this will show that different balances of particle densities will lead to different balances and reactions, leading to different forces from those reactions.
 
BrettNortje said:
It seems the only problem with this theory is the inclusion of gravity into the forces of 'the theory.' as i have already found, gravity is actually magnetism provided by protons, as, electromagnetism is provided by electrons and protons, the other side of the force should be protons.

Unifying all the forces together would see them all be 'particle relations compatible.' this means, if we study physics, being the crux or base to work from for the physical world, we will find that they all work off of particles.

So, if we were to observe that the base of operations are particles, then the next step up is atoms, which relate differently to each collection of particles, where the collections are actually different mixtures of particles, yes?

Now, to truly understand m theory, you need to study chemistry too! this will show that different balances of particle densities will lead to different balances and reactions, leading to different forces from those reactions.
Click to expand...

Does any of this relate to the new, no conducter needed, quantum particle interaction.
 
BrettNortje said:
It seems the only problem with this theory is the inclusion of gravity into the forces of 'the theory.' as i have already found, gravity is actually magnetism provided by protons, as, electromagnetism is provided by electrons and protons, the other side of the force should be protons.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Why don't electrons provide anti-gravity?
 
BrettNortje said:
What is anti-gravity? 'heat,' provides for things going upwards or so, and all heat comes from friction of electrons, like electricity.
Click to expand...

Heat makes matter less dense. Why don't electrons provide a repelling force that acts on the same level as the attractive force of gravity? If gravity is electromagnetism, why don't compasses point straight down?
 
BrettNortje said:
...as i have already found, gravity is actually magnetism provided by protons...
Click to expand...

This is something that you actually found, or this is something that you conjecture?
 
spud_meister said:
Heat makes matter less dense. Why don't electrons provide a repelling force that acts on the same level as the attractive force of gravity? If gravity is electromagnetism, why don't compasses point straight down?
Click to expand...

I find the attractive forces are between electrons and protons, and they repel 'like charges' too.

Maybe the compasses are pointing towards the north because there are two sides to them, this balances them out, as they have been weighed down on each side, and then there is more land mass to the north, but that is not why. i think it is because the north is charged, due to the way the earth spins, with north and south changing very slowly - seasons mind you. if you were to look at a compass as if it were finding a certain 'charge' there must be a north and south pole, as if with a magnet that has north and south sides.
 
BrettNortje said:
I find the attractive forces are between electrons and protons, and they repel 'like charges' too.

Maybe the compasses are pointing towards the north because there are two sides to them, this balances them out, as they have been weighed down on each side, and then there is more land mass to the north, but that is not why. i think it is because the north is charged, due to the way the earth spins, with north and south changing very slowly - seasons mind you. if you were to look at a compass as if it were finding a certain 'charge' there must be a north and south pole, as if with a magnet that has north and south sides.
Click to expand...

Compasses don't point toward "true" North (i.e. "The North Pole").

They point toward the North "Magnetic" Pole which is located (roughly) off the coast of Greenland.

But beyond that, they align themselves with the local geomagnetic field, which varies all over the Earth's surface, changes over time, and is influenced by magmatic flow and deposits of Iron ore and Magnetite.

In order to find "true" North with a compass you need to know how many degrees of "declination" the location you're shooting a bearing from deviates from "true".
 
Last edited:
Gravity isn't caused by electromagnetism. Stronger magnetic fields do not correlate to stronger gravitational attractions.
 
BrettNortje said:
Why do you say that? is gravity hocus pocus?
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying gravitational attraction does not correlate to electromagnetic activity.

If you said "I think gravity is caused by yogurt," I'd point out that Jupiter has far stronger gravity than Earth, and yet there is no yogurt on Jupiter. Furthermore, Earth's production of yogurt has been increasing, yet earth's gravitational pull is not increasing in response. Therefore yogurt can't be the cause of gravity.

Same with electromagnetism. The electromagnetic strength of various planets and moons does not correlate to their gravitational pull. Humanity can power electromagnets that are stronger than the earth's natural magnetic field, and yet when we do so we don't disrupt our orbit, or that of the moon.

Gravitational pull does correlate directly to mass.
 
Deuce said:
No, I'm saying gravitational attraction does not correlate to electromagnetic activity.

If you said "I think gravity is caused by yogurt," I'd point out that Jupiter has far stronger gravity than Earth, and yet there is no yogurt on Jupiter. Furthermore, Earth's production of yogurt has been increasing, yet earth's gravitational pull is not increasing in response. Therefore yogurt can't be the cause of gravity.

Same with electromagnetism. The electromagnetic strength of various planets and moons does not correlate to their gravitational pull. Humanity can power electromagnets that are stronger than the earth's natural magnetic field, and yet when we do so we don't disrupt our orbit, or that of the moon.

Gravitational pull does correlate directly to mass.
Click to expand...

Well, i am saying that the only source of energy in the universe at base is heat caused by friction. this means that only due to friction, it is possible to have any sort of energy. without heat, there will be no planets nor asteroids, yes? this is because the big bang of our solar system, like every other solar system, from the exploding black hole, sends matter spewing out that it has 'ingested.' the sun slowly pulls the planets towards it, then consumes them, then they are all in, the star becomes a black hole, and then eventually it stops sucking gases it secreted while it was a star back in, and then spews forth matter and stuff, like planets.

Can you show how there are other forces at work other than electromagnetism? the electro side of it is friction, the magnetism side of it is mass, as you said. at this macro scale, is there another force that displays as much, if any, 'parental' or 'original' force? i mean, sure, there are forces coming from these forces, but to find another one that is as base is impossible.
 
BrettNortje said:
Well, i am saying that the only source of energy in the universe at base is heat caused by friction. this means that only due to friction, it is possible to have any sort of energy. without heat, there will be no planets nor asteroids, yes? this is because the big bang of our solar system, like every other solar system, from the exploding black hole, sends matter spewing out that it has 'ingested.' the sun slowly pulls the planets towards it, then consumes them, then they are all in, the star becomes a black hole, and then eventually it stops sucking gases it secreted while it was a star back in, and then spews forth matter and stuff, like planets.

Can you show how there are other forces at work other than electromagnetism? the electro side of it is friction, the magnetism side of it is mass, as you said. at this macro scale, is there another force that displays as much, if any, 'parental' or 'original' force? i mean, sure, there are forces coming from these forces, but to find another one that is as base is impossible.
Click to expand...

Friction is not the source of all heat, no. Electro doesn't mean friction, and magnetism isn't mass. You're writing nonsense.

Go to a store and buy one of those super strong magnets. It'll be small, and light.

Then get a big rock from outside. No magnetic field, doesn't make metal stick to it. But it's much heavier than the magnet, isn't it?
 
Deuce said:
Friction is not the source of all heat, no. Electro doesn't mean friction, and magnetism isn't mass. You're writing nonsense.

Go to a store and buy one of those super strong magnets. It'll be small, and light.

Then get a big rock from outside. No magnetic field, doesn't make metal stick to it. But it's much heavier than the magnet, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That is because the rock carries a very slight charge, not enough to see it attracted to the magnet.
 
BrettNortje said:
That is because the rock carries a very slight charge, not enough to see it attracted to the magnet.
Click to expand...

But it's heavier. More gravitational pull.
 
Deuce said:
But it's heavier. More gravitational pull.
Click to expand...

It is not as dense, less magnetism.

If you were to drop the rock, it would fall at the same speed as the magnet, yes?

The effort to lift the rock is greater, as the mass of the rock is more. taking a cubic ton of helium will also cause more effort than the rock, yes?

This means that due to 'bonds,' or as i call it, density, the objects will carry less charge, as the magnet is charged the same way radiation gets absorbed.
 
BrettNortje said:
It is not as dense, less magnetism.

If you were to drop the rock, it would fall at the same speed as the magnet, yes?

The effort to lift the rock is greater, as the mass of the rock is more. taking a cubic ton of helium will also cause more effort than the rock, yes?

This means that due to 'bonds,' or as i call it, density, the objects will carry less charge, as the magnet is charged the same way radiation gets absorbed.
Click to expand...

Your post here proves that electromagnetism isn't the cause of gravity. the object with less charge can have stronger gravitational pull, as you've just said here. It's harder to lift the rock, despite its lower charge.

If electromagnetic charge were the cause of gravity, the low-charge rock would be easy to lift, yes?
 
Deuce said:
Your post here proves that electromagnetism isn't the cause of gravity. the object with less charge can have stronger gravitational pull, as you've just said here. It's harder to lift the rock, despite its lower charge.

If electromagnetic charge were the cause of gravity, the low-charge rock would be easy to lift, yes?
Click to expand...

If there is no electromagnetism, why would the magnet pull metal things towards it?

Very good points.

Without electromagnetism, you see those images of electrons clouding up the orbit of the materials? they would not hold the materials together, and there would be no 'mass.'

Okay, what is drawing the planets closer to the sun, so slowly?

If we were to observe that two like charges repel each other, then we would find that there can be lesser charges and in between charges, as well as opposing charges? this would mean that the rock simply is not charged, of course.

Now, if we were to try to describe gravity, we would find that it attracts matter. this means it has a charge, so, the earth has a charge, keeping all matter as close to it as possible, of course. this means that there is no such thing as independent gravity, unless you can prove there is, and how?
 
BrettNortje said:
If there is no electromagnetism, why would the magnet pull metal things towards it?
Click to expand...
I didn't say there is no electromagnetism. I said electromagnetism doesn't correlate to gravitational pull.
Very good points.

Without electromagnetism, you see those images of electrons clouding up the orbit of the materials? they would not hold the materials together, and there would be no 'mass.'

Okay, what is drawing the planets closer to the sun, so slowly?

If we were to observe that two like charges repel each other, then we would find that there can be lesser charges and in between charges, as well as opposing charges? this would mean that the rock simply is not charged, of course.

Now, if we were to try to describe gravity, we would find that it attracts matter. this means it has a charge, so, the earth has a charge, keeping all matter as close to it as possible, of course. this means that there is no such thing as independent gravity, unless you can prove there is, and how?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't mean that. You're assuming the conclusion, it's invalid. Electromagnetic charge is one possible source of attraction, but you are assuming it's the only possible source of attraction.

But we've already disproven that. The uncharged rock is heavier than the charged magnet.

The mass itself attracts other mass, not electromagnetism.
 
Deuce said:
I didn't say there is no electromagnetism. I said electromagnetism doesn't correlate to gravitational pull.


No, it doesn't mean that. You're assuming the conclusion, it's invalid. Electromagnetic charge is one possible source of attraction, but you are assuming it's the only possible source of attraction.

But we've already disproven that. The uncharged rock is heavier than the charged magnet.

The mass itself attracts other mass, not electromagnetism.
Click to expand...

The force generated by the mass is electromagnetism.

google said:
electromagnetism/ɪˌlɛktrəʊˈmaɡnɪtɪz(ə)m/noun
the phenomenon of the interaction of electric currents or fields and magnetic fields.
Click to expand...
 
BrettNortje said:
The force generated by the mass is electromagnetism.
Click to expand...

You just posted a quote from google that disagrees with your statement.

You agree the rock has a stronger gravitational pull than the small magnet, yes?
 
Deuce said:
You just posted a quote from google that disagrees with your statement.

You agree the rock has a stronger gravitational pull than the small magnet, yes?
Click to expand...

At this point i am just confused. please explain it properly, i will listen?
 
BrettNortje said:
At this point i am just confused. please explain it properly, i will listen?
Click to expand...

You said mass generates electromagnetism. The quote says interaction of electric fields does that.

If gravity is electromagnetism, the high charge magnet should have more gravity than the low charge rock. However, he reverse is true: the low charge rock has more gravity than the high charge magnet,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom