How Gravity Works

[newbie123]

Gravity is caused by the EM-field of every atom/molecule in a mass interacting with the combined EM-field of another mass.

\

Wrong.. Gravity is not caused or mediated by EM fields..     Gravity is just curved space-time,  and in general relativity it's considered a pseudo fborce.  The specifics  on gravity are currently being explored w/ Quantum Gravity,   but EM field interactions are pretty much out of the question at this point.

"anti-gravity" is simply a parallel opposing vector of opposite charge. Whos magnitude is equal to, or greater than that of the mass you are trying to lift. 

Anti gravity is science fiction at this point both experimentally and theoretically.....

But,  if you want to learn about the closest REAL phenomena  to "anti gravity", check this out..   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect#Repulsive_forces

[sm0ky2]

\

Wrong.. Gravity is not caused or mediated by EM fields..     Gravity is just curved space-time,  and in general relativity it's considered a pseudforce (not a  real force like electric and magnetic fields).  The specifics  on gravity are currently being explored w/ Quantum Gravity,   but EM field interactions are pretty much out of the question at this point.

There is no "space-time", for time, does not exist as a transversible entity. Einstein's major flaw in his theory of relativity, was using LIGHT as the medium of time-measurement. Thus resulting in a time-based anomoly AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.  replace his clock with a crystal, or a sound-clock and the same anomoly will appear in an identicle experiment, at the speed of the medium used to measure time. (wether it be the speed of sound, or the speed of propegation of crystal oscillations, or whatever you use to measure "time") 

His second flaw, was that being unable to interact with the aether, he assumed it did not exist.

science does not consider the nuclear force to be "EM" in nature, and this is because the field differs from the EM fields we can create.
but the forces at play are one and the same.

The gravitational vector is always a straight-line between the two center of mass'es. Think of the atomic-EM field as being a concentricaly magnetized sphere (if we could create such a thing).
The cummulative field of a mass takes on a similar orientation, and will pulsate slightly, at the dominant frequency - that being the natural oscillation frequency of the combination of dominant field emmiting atoms in the mass. This is simplified when there is only one type of atoms in the mass, the mass will oscillate at the frequency of that atom, and all the atoms in the mass will tend to transition into phase with one another amplifying this effect. The particular frequency of an atom is called it's Atomic Ressonance, and can be used much like mass-spectronomy to identify atomic structures.
(atomic ressonance is very useful in stabalyzing small, yet powerful EM fields in the labratory)

The magnitude of the EM field of any atom IS IT'S Gravitational magnitude, and is directly proportional to its atomic mass.
The more mass -> the more charged the nucleus, the more electrons it takes on, the greater its gravitational field.

current "EM theory" cannot describe this nature, because we cannot yet create an EM field with a single vector.
in all outward appearance, such a field would be called "a magnetic monopole", but in actuality its other pole is inside the sphere.
The result is an attraction force inwards, and the rate is constant rather than squared, or more correctly it is the square-root of the square, because the field is only half-looped in the center, and open on the outer end. which consequently makes it unidirectional as well.

[newbie123]

There is no "space-time", for time, does not exist as a transversible entity. Einstein's major flaw in his theory of relativity, was using LIGHT as the medium of time-measurement.

Doood!!!   You're full of misinformation too!!  The medium is "space" (or ether) which is a metric which has physical properties...  Not light!

Read this:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aether_theories#Aether_and_general_relativity

Thus resulting in a time-based anomoly AT THE SPEED OF LIGHT.  replace his clock with a crystal, or a sound-clock and the same anomoly will appear in an identicle experiment, at the speed of the medium used to measure time. (wether it be the speed of sound, or the speed of propegation of crystal oscillations, or whatever you use to measure "time") 

What experiment are you referring to exactly?

His second flaw, was that being unable to interact with the aether, he assumed it did not exist.

His theories work with and without "Ether" ...   Btw, there is no proof to this day that "ether" exists..  Though some interesting theories in QG are coming out that describe an  "ether"   ... Not by the same name, of course, since so many crank idiots have given "ether" a bad name...

science does not consider the nuclear force to be "EM" in nature, and this is because the field differs from the EM fields we can create.
but the forces at play are one and the same.

Have a reference?  If anything, the EM force "evolved" from the strong force...  Not the other way around.

The magnitude of the EM field of any atom IS IT'S Gravitational magnitude, and is directly proportional to its atomic mass.

Have a reference?

current "EM theory" cannot describe this nature, because we cannot yet create an EM field with a single vector.
in all outward appearance, such a field would be called "a magnetic monopole", but in actuality its other pole is inside the sphere.
The result is an attraction force inwards, and the rate is constant rather than squared, or more correctly it is the square-root of the square, because the field is only half-looped in the center, and open on the outer end. which consequently makes it unidirectional as well.

Have a reference?

[sm0ky2]

  The medium is "space" (or ether) which is a metric which has physical properties...  Not light!

when einstein (mathematically) conducted his thought experiments, as the basis of his theory, he used LIGHT (lightclock) to measure time. This beam of light was assumed to travel at a constant rate, regardless of the velocity/direction of its source. - which is true, but only from the relative perspectiveof the light being viewed FROM the moving source.
He went on to prove this by reflecting two beams of light in opposite directions, across several miles of the rotating earth. his hope was that there would be a measureable difference in the time it takes for light to travel in the rotational direction. He was unable to measure this distance and thus assumed that light always travels at a constant speed (adjusted by reflection/diffraction when applicable).

from a perspective outside of the earth, say the outer reaches of our solar system, this difference IS measureable, and affects the direction the light-beam travels. this is only observable at great distances (outside perspective), much like gravity's affect on light.

light "curves" around the earths gravity, but we cannot see this from here. to us it appears perfectly straight in both directions as far as we can see.  far out in space it becomes apparent.

Voyager 1 and 2 demonstrated this from a few billion miles away.

a shift in a beam of light a few hundred thousanths of a degree, or a few hundred thousandths of a mile-per-hour is virtually undetectable to us here at the source of the light.

view from outside, and look down the beam billions of even trillions of miles and the effects are staggering. 

strong force/weak force are the same thing, weak being at a much greater distance.  a ^2, with the great distance the electron has to travel to actually reach the nucleus, it reaches terminal velocity long before it ever can contact the center of the atom. 

the charge that is attracting it (strong force) determines the distance at which this occurs, and thus the electrons orbit.

at the atomic level the acceleration force is along the normal magnetic vectors, and thus is squared.  from a macro level, the EM field of an atom or several atoms is the concentric-sphere,
(+) completely enclosed inside the (-) sphere.
which by itself is a virtual point-charge.  but when in the presence of another similar field, the two interact in a linear fashion, attracting the two center of masses ( the + side which is 2x as strong) towards the (-) outer shell of the other mass.

regardless of how you position the two masses, draw a straight-line from the center of each mass, and that is the linear vector that the gravitational force will be present on.

you can demonstrate this by simultaneously dropping two items on different parts of the earth and measuring the angle of force.

when you think of an "EM field"
you litterally have a jumble of +/-/+/-/+/-
this is nothing like the EM field presented by an atomic structure.
its more like this:
                           -
                        - + - 
                           -

[sm0ky2]

here is a demonstration of EM-field antigravity.
this is the same technology used in the flying scooter i mentioned before,


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP5JgG1-0jg


if this coil is wound in reverse it generates 'gravity' and is used as a solid-state solenoid for bouyancy control.