The Relationship of Gravity and Magnetism and the Physics of Particle Spin

Using the conservation of energy principle, gravity and magnetism are related by the energy required for particle spin. Properties of the electron, including its magnetic moment, its gravitational coupling constant and the gravitational constant (G) are all derived in this video from this principle. Gravity may be described as a shading effect of lost electrical energy, between two or more particles, as they spin and gain magnetic energy.

Paper referenced in this video:
The Relationship of Gravity and Magnetism

[Claire.SageGreenCreative]

Ah the things you think to research at 3:30 am as a sci-fi writer 🤔 thanks so much for this great video!!

[A.Dajlida]

Regarding Your 'shadowing effect' visualisation: Aciukovsky (a prominent Russian Etherist) explained gravity in the same way, but in terms of temperature and pressure gradients. In the centre of an ether whirl there is a rapid decrease of pressure, and hence - of temperature, due to a great whirl velocity (Aciukovsky conceived of ether as of finest gas) - and this creates strong pressure/temperature gradients nearby which 'attracts' other whirls in proximity, pressure/temperature gradients acting like 'forces' 'pushing' objects. In visible nature, the same mechanism is working in cyclones.

[seonggkim]

I had a rudimentary understanding and theory of this when I was 18. But coming back to it now at age 31. Thank you for your work. I am sure it will help someone out there to continue to develop the “all-inclusive” theory and equation.

[kdaustin]

I love that I found this. I need to watch it like 8 more times though 🧐😄

[chrise]

Problem with teaching is using specialized terms which are unknown to the wider public. For example at 2:16 you mentioned about "magnetic moment". Like what do you exactly mean by "moment"? Is it related to time? Ok lets search the definition: "the magnetic moment is the magnetic strength and orientation of a magnet". What do you mean by orientation? Orientation in relation to what? Is it relative?

[nicholascobb]

Are you excited that the G-2 and recent CERN B-Quark experments with heavy muons seem to also suggest a link between the mass difference of muons and electrons to explain the difference in the Magnetic moment of the muon? You really could be onto something here. I'm excited at least.

[LemarFrench]

If mass causes "gravity"...why does mass cause gravity...why can't "gravity" just be a by-product of specifically...nothing in known science can explain the origin of "Lode Stones"...(natural magnets)...and the electro-magnetic force is some hundreds to thousands times stronger than "gravity"...the reason all matter doesn't collapse in on itself is because of electro-magnetism...if all matter has an electro-magnetic charge...what exactly is gravity...now you don't require atmospheric pressure for "drop"...your mass is charged by the magnetosphere of this planet...this force can explain the pull and the push of matter...gravity is almost just what we are observing...the effect of this electro-magnetic process...

[jaques]

An electric wave incoming to an electron and there is a standing wave that creates the electron
What did the electric wave reflect off in the first place?

[Vshsv]

Thank you for your dedication to this theory. Question about the transverse waves from spin. Some of the drawings show the transverse waves up and down at right angles along the longitudinal wave. Others show a spiral up and down from the wave center. But the putative aether medium only has granules springing against each other. Are you saying there is a sheering wave vibrating at right angle to the longitudinal wave, but traveling with it longitudinally? Not sure how it could drag adjacent granules to cause a sideways force vs. the longitudinal push/pull of a springy granule. Or do you mean that the spiral wave depiction is showing back and forth motion of granules at right angles to the longitudinal wave, originating at the effective wave center of the particle? If the latter, it wouldn't propagate along the longitudinal wave. It would shoot out with back-and-forth granule spring longitudinal wave in a 90 degree direction.

[smokey]

Thanks you just killed my dreams. I came up with this theory 10 months too late.

[nategoodwin]

“Gravity is not a pull force, but a push force.” Pardon me while I try to reassemble my paradigm... I always learn, but always feel more ignorant the deeper I go...

[onetruekeeper]

Why does gravity affect matter the same even inside the strongest of Faraday cages if magnetism or electrical fields are involved ? Perhaps gravity is something or nothing else.

[leonhardtkristensen]

I believe the Photon has a lot more to with what gravity is than you mention here. I earlier today made a comment to "What is gravity" from Energy Wave Theory Aug 12 2018. There I have described how I feel that the Photon could do for for gravity exactly what you describe here. I believe currently that the Photon may well be the most fundamental particle and possibly the only one created at the Big Bang.

[robingx]

So in a hydrogen atom does the rotation of the electron couple magnetically to the proton, i.e. the proton rotates in sync with the electron orbit? Is this related to the spin of the proton?

[johnbaker]

Thanks.
2:51 What in this longitudinal EM in-wave, why is it a weird planar field and what do you mean by 'longitudinal' anyway, longitudinal to what?
Why should there be spin; you show no imbalance between incoming and reflected waves?
Weirdness in = weirdness out.
What's yer point?

[georgewashington]

Nice analyses but I think the law of gravity may not be totally correct. The form we know it maybe only correct as simplification of much more sophisticate formula which we may not know because part of it cancel itself in our conditions of measurements. The only way to find out if gravity law as we know is complete it is to get capabilities to manipulate it as we want ( increase, decrease .. ) and as far we have not had these capabilities.

[xeth]

My friend keeps claiming the two are the same thing but in a different variation...
Weird how he says that.

[slickwillie]

The shading effect would cause a steel rod to weigh less in the verticle position than in the horizontal position, and that is not the case, so therefore the shading effect is erroneous.

[georgerhude]

9. I believe the abstract ball version of gravity can be disqualified because it will not be able to account for the moons orbit and our ocean tides.

10. Jeff, if I may, I really think you will be able to go further than most with your quest for a unified theory. My humble opinion suggest that you are using a list of formulas to design and build your model. I believe that is putting the cart before the horse.

You are using computer simulation to try to come up with a design using these formulas. Al is not as smart as some think, our human brain is so much more advanced and does a much better job of anticipating a result. With computers, garbage in gives garbage out, they should only be used as oversized calculators.

Sometimes by mentally elevating yourself above the forest and hovering above while observing everything gives a better answer that staying in the center of the forest examining details and the formulas for each tree.

11. Gravity, my quest, it is a reaction of attraction not from forces pushing two objects together. This is where the fabric of space comes into play, some say yes some say no, you and I say yes. We differ in the way that gravity works, for me it is attraction because all of the mechanical observations of nature and gravity point in that direction. The slingshot effect. Kepler’s laws.
All of the observations before Einstein point toward a fabric and attraction by some mechanical type means.

12. Space time by John A Macken suggests a sea of dipoles that link together is the fabric of space. He is correct partly, you are correct partly and I am correct( along with many others) partly. The very small neutrino sized energy ball, energy particles, energy dipoles (what ever we call them) work together to form the fabric. They act as one and align themselves between objects to creat an attraction between the objects. They are squeezed together very tightly within the object.

Each planetary object, and stars are the early beginnings of black holes. Eventually they could grow large enough and they could become dark because light frequency cannot escape, but other frequencies do escape. These energy balls are squeezed very tightly within black holes and I suspect that they blow out the other side (other dimension) as stars.

Nature has a habit of cycles, life starts, life ends, it starts over again and again with small changes. I cannot conceive a Big Bang in Nature unless it was the result of a big squeeze beforehand.

13. Someone needs to build the model of the fabric of space brick by brick, then they will need to test it by all the combination effects of gravity, then they will need to show witness to the universe that this is the way it works.

14. Maybe someone or others have already figured this out and they ride freely through the universe and they watch us work.

15. Stay safe. E may not equal M x the speed of light squared ...if there is no energía involved....Thank you for listening....

[lasseschmoren]

I have to admit, that i understood just a fraction here. I am a simple man trying to understand things above my paygrade.
But i love everything revolving (pun intended) around gravity.
I had an argue with a friend about gravity. He says that, when two objects in space come close to each other they "create" magnetism. IE between earth and the sun, there is a constant magnetic field, since earth is in the grav.pull of the sun!
Is what i saw here proof of what he said? I still cannot wrap my head around it, i just have a gut-feeling that it is not true.