The Instigator
Abeceda
Pro (for)
The Contender
SafeWalk12
Con (against)

Gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
SafeWalk12 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/29/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 341 times Debate No: 95071
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (8)
Votes (0)

 

Abeceda

Pro

Gravity is merely a lower level of dielectric field coherence, it's a counter-space field which can be polarized by changing force and motion vectors. Gravitational attraction is basically nothing but an erasure of force and motion extrapolated as they move towards counter-space, similar to bringing two magnets together: bringing two polarities together. And to clarify, there is in actuality no north and south in magnetism, we are talking about extrapolation of polarity, the inverse to counter-space. And the only thing we're talking about in polarity is inverse spin, which is relative. Both sides of the magnetic field (geometrical torus) are spinning in the exact same direction in what people would call north and south poles (as shown in a ferrocell), the only separator is that it's either cancellation or addition.

What I am stating is that gravity and magnetism are one in the same, the same way steam and ice are both hydrogen monoxide, only the coherence is different. If you would, you could also say that electricity, gravity and magnetism are one in the same, now we've added electricity to the mix and unified all three as one field. And electricity does not terminate into magnetism, by dumping that charge and creating a large electromagnet, it loses it's dielectric component. So electricity terminates not into magnetism, but as magnetism by losing it's dielectric component. Electricity by definition is a combination of two things, dielectricity and magnetism - lose that component and you have the other. If you would like to defend the common idea that gravity is an acceleration independent from magnetism, and electricity is it's own component then I'll be delighted to have a good talk with you and hopefully let you change my mind or should I say, let me change yours.
SafeWalk12

Con

I accept this challenge and wish my opponent good luck.

Your argument is quite interesting but the fact you lack sources to prove your claim makes it unreliable.

Gravity, at its simplest, is the force between any two masses, pulling each other. Yes that is magnetism, but the fact that separates them is that Gravitational Force does not depend upon the medium in which the masses are. In any medium the gravity force between two masses are the same. In Electromagnetic Force, the force depends on the medium

To further explain my cause, gravitational fields are determined only by the mass-energy of a body. Whether or not the massive particles are charged or un-charged, they produce the same gravitational field. (Of course the electromagnetic energy does have its own mass but it is a tiny difference). On the other hand, magnetic fields are produced by charged particles in motion, and depend on the charge and velocity of these particles, but not on their mass.
You can only detect magnetic fields by using charged particles to measure their deflection, but Gravitational fields can be detected by using anything to measure a change in velocity

Could you explain further in your argument? What do you mean the extrapolation in polarity. North and South are just another way to positive to negative, are they not? Also you "Inverse Spin in Polarity" does not exist, I could not locate a source about it on the internet. Also even with research on you piece about the sides of the magnetic field, I don't know what you mean. A magnetic field doesn't look like a torus, if I understood you properly/
Debate Round No. 1
Abeceda

Pro

(1) A magnetic field does not look like a torus
(1A) The way I know that a magnetic field has the shape of a torus, is that when viewed through a ferrocell (which is a new invention that very few are aware of) then you can see an apparent clockwise and counter clockwise motion such as in this picture: https://i.ytimg.com... but the fact that one direction is brighter than the other direction indicates depth, and thus, an inverse spin: basically, both sides spin in the exact same direction, it's only an inversion. This in turn reveals to us that the magnetic field has the shape of a torus: https://i.ytimg.com... a zero point in the middle, the failure to realize this is what corrupts our gauss measurements (they measure the same in the middle of the magnet and on the sides) yet it's obviously not the same as demonstrated by spinning a metallic gyroscope on the top as opposed to the sides of the magnet - it will stop spinning significantly faster on the sides than the middle.

(2) Inverse spin in polarity does not exist
(2A) It certainly does exist, it's as real as the air you breathe. The inverse spin in polarity is easily observed using an old television with a target cross on the center of the screen. Position one side of the magnet close to the screen, and the target sign will turn to the left. Position the other side of the magnet close to the screen, and the target sign will turn to the right. It's exactly what I mentioned in 1A, the inverse spin of the torus -- this is confirmation that the view of 1A is indeed correct, and something anyone can perform at home for a cheap price. The simplest test, other than using a ferrocell, to confirm the torus shape of the magnet and the inverse spin of the magnetic field.

(3) You have no sources therefore not reliable
(3A) This is a misunderstanding on your side: what I have done is provided a model that can explain the world and unify gravity, magnetism and electricity into one field (and fields can not be quantized), what the contender is supposed to do, is use data and observations to disprove the model.

(4) Gravity does not depend upon the medium in which the masses are, but magnetism does
(4A) Perhaps it's time to elaborate on what you mean when you say medium, because magnetism works perfectly fine in water, air, vacuum etc., the only time the attraction values of two objects are different, is when a magnetized region exists, f.ex., clump of iron... however, the exact same applies to gravity, the only difference is that now we're talking about large clumps of mass such as planets that affect the gravity of objects (f.ex., tides / moon / earth)
SafeWalk12

Con

I applaud my opponents intuition and found his argument very interesting.

(1) Your argument here I don't understand. If something is brighter doesn't always mean depth, and how does depth equal inverse spin. Also by "inverse spin" what does that mean? If something in inversely spinning it's just spinning the other way, so therefore "inverse spin" can just be transcribed as spin. I would appreciate if you delved further into that. Your second link does not load, so it is impossibly for me to understand the explanation of it, sadly. However, I researched quite a bit about the torus, but I don't get the link between the torus and electromagnetic fields.

(2) By Inverse Spin in polarity does exist, I man that when upon researching it, there is nothing on the web about it. At all.
Because your first argument was difficult for me to understand, I didn't understand your example at all.

(3) Can you explain what you model has to do with gravity being the same as electromagnetic force?

By gravity does not depend upon the medium in which the masses are, but magnetism does, I mean gravity is gravity, and mass is mass. Gravity isn't affected by the state of the mass, but magnetism is. That's the difference, among many others in my first argument. It's not "bringing two polarities together" It is bringing two masses together.

By your logic, what if we had two massive completely neutral masses? By your logic, they wouldn't be attracted to each other. Not everything has a charge, so if gravity really is magnetism, it would not be very evident.
Debate Round No. 2
Abeceda

Pro

(1A) The two dimensional picture of a magnetic field is identical to a two dimensional picture of a torus. The only way the magnetic field can not be a torus, is for the magnetic field to only work in two dimensions, which is demonstrably false. f.ex., if you have a magnet on the table, it is not the case that only what you place on the table will be attracted, but also what is below and over the table, so the two dimensional picture: https://upload.wikimedia.org... actually encompassing three dimensions hence the reason it's a torus. I do not see how you could disagree with this, but if you do, please say so.

(2A) Of course there is nothing on the web about it... nearly no one on earth understands how magnetism works. Richard Feynman, who was one of the most respected physicists, squirmed in his chair when asked about the deep workings of magnetism, scientists as of the 21st century are still clueless about magnetism. They know how to describe what happens, but how it works? Nope. But let me elaborate a bit more on the inverse spin in polarity: if you have two wheels... both are spinning clockwise... once you invert one of them, it seems like they are spinning in the opposite direction, but they are both going clockwise. This is what happens in the following picture: https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...;

(3A) Here is how... let us move to the fundamentals, an atom for example. I am not stating that mass is not equal to gravity, what I am stating is that the mass does not express gravity due to a bending of spacetime, but rather in a magnetic fashion. Atoms would be nothing but dielectric condensates, very much like gas frozen into a solid state and what we label "empty space" in an atom would be magneto-dielectricity. So we have one field, and one release of that fields potential (i.e., the loss of that inertia) as expressed in force and motion, and we have two field modalities: one being electricity (frequency and amplitude) and the other one being gravity, which is as I said a dielectric condensate. Take for example the planet earth: it's nothing but a collection of dielectric condensates... which together create a magnetic field but not as coherent as the magnets we produce, hence the reason "gravity" has been labeled a weak force. This brings us to the title of this debate: "gravity is nothing but an incoherent magnetic field distribution" If you need anything else clarified, please let me know.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Abeceda 5 months ago
Abeceda
also the other link that does not work is https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com...
Posted by Abeceda 5 months ago
Abeceda
Safewalk, the link that does not work in my latest argument is https://upload.wikimedia.org... for some reason "is" was added to the link and excluded from the text.
Posted by Abeceda 5 months ago
Abeceda
vi_spex hence the reason I said incoherent magnetism
Posted by vi_spex 5 months ago
vi_spex
mass attracts mass, plants are not magnetic
Posted by Abeceda 6 months ago
Abeceda
SafeWalk, I apologize... so bad... I'm not a chemist
Posted by SafeWalk12 6 months ago
SafeWalk12
hydrogen monoxide isn't water....
Posted by Abeceda 6 months ago
Abeceda
vi_spex an incoherent magnetic field that we call gravity is what creates the illusion of weight, is what I am stating
Posted by vi_spex 6 months ago
vi_spex
you saying magnetism is weight?
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.