>Hi Hilmar,
>
>Ok, I seem to have it backwards. Inverse variation: ... A number expressed using an exponent. The number 5 3 is read five
>to the third power or five cubed.
>
>I have recently seen something to the effect that electromagnetic fields and gravity are not the same thing; that electromagnetic field uses inverse variation cubed rather than squared, so I assume electromagnetic field force was much weaker than gravity, but my current understanding is now that gravity is much weaker than electromagnetic fields.

The inverse-square law is for electrostatic attraction or repulsion. I am not sure if it is the same for magnetism, for instance - although electricity and magnetism are closely related. But magnetism does work differently.

Gravity is much weaker than electrostatic attraction, for any two particles. For instance, the repulsion between two electrons is so strong, that gravitation can safely be ignored. However, gravitation is cumulative, since it is always attractive. (There are, however, some recent theories that there is some sort of repulsive force at great distances. In fact, recent observations show that, apparently, the Universe is expanding faster and faster! This fact seems to be generally accepted by scientists, but I think they don't yet agree over the explanations.)

>I don't know whether the basic formula for force in both electromagnetic field and gravity are otherwise the same, except for the square used in gravity and the cubed used in electromagnetic field.

I am not sure about the "electromagnetic field". An object can have an electric field - in this case, the attraction or repulsion is an inverse-square law.

Or it can have a magnetic field. In this case, I can't find something quickly in my physics book, but I seem to remember that the strenght of the field would decrease more or less with an inverse-cube law. But this is due to the fact that the north pole and the south pole always go together - it has not yet been possible to isolate a "monopole".

The term "electromagnetic field", I suspect, might be wrong. There is electromagnetic radiation, or waves. But when talking about static fields, the electric and magnetic fields are usually considered separately.

>I also do not understand what exactly is going on when an object is suspended in midair using superconduction. Is superconduction creating a bubble around the two objects using electromagnetic field, or is the shielding being provided by something else blocking both electromagnetic field force and gravity? Also, how is it that the two object can seem to become connected by invisible strings, so that moving one would cause a corresponding movement in the other?

While I don't know all the details, the basic idea is that any current will produce a magnetic field.

In the superconductor experiment, a current is made to move in a circle (in a loop). Since there is no electrical resistance, the current will continue flowing in a circle for a long time.

This magnetic field can keep another magnet in the air. I am not sure whether the magnet that is lifted into the air is a superconducting loop, too.

>Superconduction is a hot field in physics, and I hope it yields some secrets as to the fundamental nature of gravity. Who know, a perpetuals propulsion system may be discovered which would make space travel over large distances and time possible. Of course, this would break the engineering principle of conservancy of energy, right?

I strongly suspect that breaking the law of conservation of energy will never be possible.