Gravity is very similar to magnetism, a "magically" attracting force of distinct objects. The explanation is very easy via fields. Just trying to explain it via particles will get you into trouble, e.g. the flawed standard model, or the Higgs.
Einstein was pretty close in his spacetime bending explanation, but this still doesn't explain dark matter or the recent gravity experiments with fast rotating magnets in strong supra conductors.
There are better gravity field theories out there, but they are lacking experimental verification. Some experiments are cheap, but most are cosmic scale, beyond simple galaxies.
This army guy came up with nice and cheap experiments, similar to Tajmar's experiments. We will see what will come out of it. Tajmar is also holding an old patent of an Anti-Gravity device, which nobody built so far. The army device with two rotating fields seems to be much better.
The analogy doesn’t help, even ignoring that what we experience day-to-day is more like an electric field and there is a different gravitational analogy for magnetism, AKA gravitomagetism. It’s harder to notice than gravitational time dilation.
> easy via fields
Only for people who find non-Euclidian geometry that mixes time and space and is defined by a bunch of 4x4 tensors to be “easy”.
> [particles bad fields good]
“Particle” is a convenient human-scale name for things, but everything’s fields these days anyway. Even the Higgs.
In fact, GR is field-only — it’s QM which says “by the way, those things you call particles are a certain type of excitation in a field” and “if the gravity field has a particle it must be a massless spin-2 boson, also every massless spin-2 field is indistinguishable from gravity”.
> doesn’t explain dark matter
Doesn’t need to. It says there’s something to look for. GR is “stuff does X”, the observation is “X”, so there must be stuff. We’re can’t see stuff, but GR doesn’t say we have to be able to see it.
> fast rotating magnets
I don’t know what you’re referring to, the closest pattern I am matching your words to is Podkletnov whose work was never reproducible by third parties, and you can bet SpaceX will have tried.
> better gravity field theories out there, but they are lacking experimental verification
Science doesn’t use verification, it uses falsification. When an hypothesis can’t be falsified even in principle it isn’t science; when it can but only in principle, it’s a hypothesis; when it has been tested and the attempt to falsify it results in evidence that persistently doesn’t falsify it to a standard of statistical significance, then it gets published and perhaps elevated to the level of “theory”.
They don't understand the dirac see and how field lines work, nor how a CL node operates when it's in magnetic mode. In fact, they even think that you can describe EM with vector math, which is half bollocks. Maxwell tried to formulate Vector equations from his Quaternion equations and failed, because it's not possible without loosing certain effects.
Certain Atoms or combinations cause their sourounding CL nodes to be in paramagnetic mode. (They are dislocated from groundstate to the left part of the diagram). If you heat the material under external magnetic field, the atoms and grains order to the external field. Once the matter is cold enough, the external Electron bindings hold the atoms in place that one large magnetic field is created. Everything is basically a phase looked loop oscillator and stabilizes its frequency to neighboring nodes.
Since you most likely only had contact with the standard model, giving enough explanation for you to understand the mechanics behind it would definitely be to long.
Dr. Stoyan Sargs - Basic Structures of Matter Supergravitation unified Theory, Chapter 2, 3, 6 and partially 12 (Planet magnetic field) should answer your question :)
When I was at uni my mother had a job as a nursery school teacher. One of the projects they did was to look at forces (quite good really!) So, they pulled ropes, and dropped apples, and sailed boats and used magnets. She asked me to think of a simple explanation of how the magnets worked so that the children could understand them. It is painful to me that I could not do that, and I can't do it now and I believe that no one can!
Einstein was pretty close in his spacetime bending explanation, but this still doesn't explain dark matter or the recent gravity experiments with fast rotating magnets in strong supra conductors. There are better gravity field theories out there, but they are lacking experimental verification. Some experiments are cheap, but most are cosmic scale, beyond simple galaxies.
This army guy came up with nice and cheap experiments, similar to Tajmar's experiments. We will see what will come out of it. Tajmar is also holding an old patent of an Anti-Gravity device, which nobody built so far. The army device with two rotating fields seems to be much better.