Magnetism vs. Gravity

I have heard many people refer to the fact that gravity is a weak for
compared to the electromagnetic force. Can someone expand on this? I have
heard the example of a magnet lifting a nail off the earth's surface,
therefore it is stronger then gravity, but is this a legitimate example?
What if we were far out into space, where the effect of gravity from nearby
bodies was at a minimum, would the magnet be "stronger" not having to fight
against gravity?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

In article , BenignVanilla
wrote:

I have heard many people refer to the fact that gravity is a weak for
compared to the electromagnetic force. Can someone expand on this? I have
heard the example of a magnet lifting a nail off the earth's surface,
therefore it is stronger then gravity, but is this a legitimate example?

The electromagnetic force is not just magnets. It also explains the
repulsion of electron shells surrounding atoms (and the forces holding
atoms together). A better example of the EMF being stronger than
gravity is how the pull of the entire earth is insignificant compared
to the force of the atoms in concrete pushing against the atoms in the
your shoes. If gravity was stronger, you would be pulled toward the
center of the earth.

What if we were far out into space, where the effect of gravity from nearby
bodies was at a minimum, would the magnet be "stronger" not having to fight
against gravity?

Not really. The forces only 'fight' in your mind. You have two
forces, add them together to get the net force. It's just math. If
the two forces are in opposition, and one gets weaker, then the you can
think of the NET force as "stronger".

BV Glad you read my posts(I hope so) Just posted that earlier. It was
just posted(he did not leave a name) that gravity can't pull us though
Earth's surface to its center. Did that person ever hear of the Pauli
Exclusion Principle? Gravity created the other 3 forces. Gravity is the
strongest force that nature has. Nature can balance the EM force. It
does not balance the force of gravity. Not many electrons,or protons
traveling through space. Gravitons have no such problem. That is why the
Earth orbits the sun,and not by an EM force but the force of gravity.
Gravity can hold galaxies together,and its force also created opposite
charge to particles to hold the structure of atoms together. There is
a samneness to EM attraction and gravity,but gravity is the
creater(father) and that means there has to be a sameness. Bert

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

In article , G=EMC^2
Glazier wrote:

Did that person ever hear of the Pauli Exclusion Principle?

Yes, what point are you trying to make? Something about the band
theory of solids? Electron and neutron degeneracy in the collapse of
stars? Those are my guesses, but you'll have to give more info.

Gravity created the other 3 forces.

No.

Gravity is the strongest force that nature has.

No, it is the weakest. Giving the strong nuclear force a value of 1,
the force of gravity is 6 x 10^-39
(EMF is 1/137, and the weak nuclear force is 10^-5)

Nature can balance the EM force.

I cannot figure out what you mean by this. What is balance? What
motivation are you attributing to nature?

Gravitons have no such problem.

Gravitons are only theoretical and have yet to be observed in particle
collisions. There is no clear proof they exist.

the Earth orbits the sun,and not by an EM force but the force of gravity.

Yes. Although gravity is VERY weak, it's range is infinite and it's
summative effect on large masses can be significant.

Gravity...[]... force also created opposite
charge to particles to hold the structure of atoms together.

No.

There is a samneness to EM attraction and gravity,but gravity is the
creater(father) and that means there has to be a sameness.

I don't understand what you mean by sameness. Gravity has yet to be
unified with the other 3 forces.

"I.G." wrote:

Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.

In article , G=EMC^2
Glazier wrote:

[snip]

the Earth orbits the sun,and not by an EM force but the force of gravity.

Yes. Although gravity is VERY weak, it's range is infinite and it's
summative effect on large masses can be significant.

Taken on the whole both the Earth and the Sun are so close to being
neutral in charge that there's no appreciable electrical interaction
between them to start with.

--
Odysseus

I G If you were a reader of my posts you would not need to ask these
questions. Since this post is about magnetism and gravity and you don't
understand that magnetism has a positive and negative charge,and like EM
its charges can cancel each other out. Gravity has only attraction and
that is why gravity becomes the strongest force in the universe. That is
why it was able to create the BB and all that is. Bert PS I G this
gives me a great thought for my "What if" post

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
I G If you were a reader of my posts you would not need to ask these
questions. Since this post is about magnetism and gravity and you don't
understand that magnetism has a positive and negative charge,and like EM
its charges can cancel each other out. Gravity has only attraction and
that is why gravity becomes the strongest force in the universe. That is
why it was able to create the BB and all that is. Bert PS I G this
gives me a great thought for my "What if" post

Bert...do you equate gravity's effect at a distance as evidence of it's
strength?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com

BV I don't equate gravities force because of distance. Like EM force
it weakens at the rate of the inverse square of the distance. Gravity
gets stronger with the increase of particles. EM force gets stronger
with the increase flow of electrons. BV Since this seems to
interest you read my today's "what if" Let me add this I think even a
bar magnetisim field can go to infinity.. I say this by looking at its
lines of force not all of its lines of force curled back to its opposite
pole. Some go straight out into space. Interesting if gravity compressed
the Earth down to the size of a ping pong ball its gravity would not
increase(did not gain particles,and that means the moon would stay in
its same orbit and circle this blackhole like almost nothing happened.
Bert

BV I think what I posted about the mass of the Earth taking up the
space of a ping pong ball ,and the moon staying in its same orbit like
nothing happened to the Earth shows why gravity has to be measured from
the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon. Measurements from
horizon to horizon can throw measurements off. Sounds like what NASA
would do. After all they did screw up meters with yards. A 9 year old
would have more brains Bert

"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message
...
BV I think what I posted about the mass of the Earth taking up the
space of a ping pong ball ,and the moon staying in its same orbit like
nothing happened to the Earth shows why gravity has to be measured from
the center of the Earth to the center of the Moon. Measurements from
horizon to horizon can throw measurements off. Sounds like what NASA
would do. After all they did screw up meters with yards. A 9 year old
would have more brains Bert

Interesting thought, Bert. I wonder...are there any examples in the books of
a larger object orbiting a much denser, yet physically smaller object?

BV.
www.iheartmypond.com