Gravity relation to Magnetic Field?

Does gravity of an object have any relationship to the magnetic field surrounding the object?
It struck me that Mass creates gravity and Energy creates a magnetic field, both “attractive” forces, generated by the fundamental laws of nature.
Are these forces “cousins” or are they “unrelated”?

Does gravity of an object have any relationship to the magnetic field surrounding the object?
No. Magnetic fields arise where there are changing electric fields. Every mass or energy has gravity, independent of what physical processes are going on. The more mass-energy, the stronger the gravity.
It struck me that Mass creates gravity and Energy creates a magnetic field, both "attractive" forces, generated by the fundamental laws of nature.
I wouldn't say that gravity has a cause. In my opinion, events cause other events. But 'being-there' is hardly an event. And the magnetic field is not simply attractive: in the first place it can also repulse. In the second place, when it attracts or repulses, then only for other magnetic fields. Even a electro-statical charged object is not attracted or repulsed by a magnet. And in the third place, magnetic fields always have a north and southpole. For gravity there is no such thing: everything is attracted to the centre of mass.
Are these forces "cousins" or are they "unrelated"?
So, at the present state of knowledge, they are not. Until a Grand Unified Theory shows differently.

At the risk of getting into a discussion that is over my head, wasn’t the Big Bang an event? and didn’t gravity emerge from that?

At the risk of getting into a discussion that is over my head, wasn't the Big Bang an event? and didn't gravity emerge from that?
Now you are in highly speculative areas. I don't know what a cosmologist would say. But I would guess that nobody knows if at the moment of the big bang the complete mass-energy of the universe originated. However, there are theories that in fact the total energy content of the universe is zero]. Anyway, a magnetic field is always associated with currents or changing electrical fields. Gravity is 'caused' by mass-energy just being there: it doesn't matter what it does. If it moves, turns, vibrates, it doesn't matter: gravity will be there.
Does gravity of an object have any relationship to the magnetic field surrounding the object? It struck me that Mass creates gravity and Energy creates a magnetic field, both "attractive" forces, generated by the fundamental laws of nature. Are these forces "cousins" or are they "unrelated"?
Generated by, or are they in fact part of the fundamental laws? :P The electromagnetic force is billions of times stronger than gravity, too. And, no gravity doesn't directly have a relationship to the magnetic field of an object. A piece of quartz has virtually zero magnetic field and a piece of iron magnet of the same weight definitely can. That's not to say that there is no influence from magnetism in the quartz, but the molecules handle it differently so that we don't see a "field" related to quartz. Without magnetism, we wouldn't have chemistry as we know it, which gives quartz it's physical structure.

Oh, and FYI, if you want to dive into the details, start with Maxwell’s equations, which I believe were a big inspiration to Einstein as he was developing his Theories of Relativity.

In my OP post I was not sure exactly what brought the question to mind. But now I think I have found a relationship. A more fundamental relationship.
After doing just a little research on Maxwell I ran across a 3D model of the reciprocal electro/magnetic wave function. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Electromagneticwave3D.gif
but I also looked up the gravitational wave function
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/GravitationalWave_PlusPolarization.gif/225px-GravitationalWave_PlusPolarization.gif .
The effect of a plus-polarized gravitational wave on a ring of particles.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/GravitationalWave_CrossPolarization.gif/225px-GravitationalWave_CrossPolarization.gif
The effect of a cross-polarized gravitational wave on a ring of particles.
And in all illustrations I saw a self-similar 3D fractal unfolding. This made me think of CDT (causal dynamical triangulation). According to Renate Loll (phycisist), dynamic spacetime itself is a fractal function and is background independent. It permits both QM and GR precisely because of this fractal function. It has near infinite ability to permit the expression of all things in the universe, even entanglement.
To me, the fractal function seems to have one limitation, it does not support physical reproduction @ FTL, but perhaps this is a natural limit on the quantum function itself.
I am still not real clear on what I am trying to say, but IMHO, this CDT (theory) is getting pretty close to a TOE.

Hmmm. There are all kinds of wave phenomena in the world. I do not see a special relationship between electromagnetic waves and gravity waves. Electromagnetic waves move in spacetime, gravity waves is movement of spacetime itself.
For the rest I don’t know what you are talking about. And I assume you don’t know either…
See here a great wave phenomenon, inaptly called ‘gravity waves’. One should call them airwaves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXnkzeCU3bE

Hmmm. There are all kinds of wave phenomena in the world. I do not see a special relationship between electromagnetic waves and gravity waves. Electromagnetic waves move in spacetime, gravity waves is movement of spacetime itself. For the rest I don't know what you are talking about. And I assume you don't know either... See here a great wave phenomenon, inaptly called 'gravity waves'. One should call them airwaves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXnkzeCU3bE
Excellent video. I know what I have read about CDT, currently cutting edge theoretical physics. And as I understand it all wave functions are fractal in nature, regardless of causaiity or medium. The fundamental conclusion of CDT is that spacetime itself unfolds by a fractal function. from Wiki:
Causal dynamical triangulation (abbreviated as CDT) invented by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent. This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation This knowledgeable explanation says it in informal but scientific narrative and illustrations. It also has some links to other scientific articles on CDT. http://www.thephysicsmill.com/2013/10/13/causal-dynamical-triangulations/ Perhaps what I have been trying to say is that the fractal function is a common denominator of all things, including the universe itself. To me, if true, this might have some profound philosophical implications as well. p.s. I am ereally intrigued by the "Implicit function" http://thesciencedictionary.org/implicit-function/

I worked as a volunteer docent at the Rubin H. Fleet science room. Mainly to help the kids and because I have always been really amazed by gravity, light and electricity. Let me explain to you the big bang and what makes it all work in the simple form, “magic"! :lol:
I guess my question to you would be. If Hadron accomplishes its task. Do you think we will really have figured out the God Particle? Or at least the mass gravity process. Or discover another level of yet even smaller (particles, strings or whatever the terms are today)?

I have a musical and computer programming background, so I tend to like to be precise about what I know and don’t know. Of course, regarding modern theoretical physics, I don’t know an awful lot. As I get older, I am kinda getting interested more in how physicists talk about their subject matter with each other, because that’s how we get into the details of these phenomena that are outside normal human experience in a quasi-understandable way. Or, at least how physicists would talk to sharp students of theirs.
I think that modern physics has had a pretty good idea already of how the Higgs Boson works in relation to gravity, because of how they were able to predict it’s existence and detection via the LHC. How that works, I’m don’t know, except that it the Higgs Boson generates a Higgs field that interacts with some types of particles more strongly than others via a greater resistance to change in velocity, ultimately resulting in what we see as “mass”.

I worked as a volunteer docent at the Rubin H. Fleet science room. Mainly to help the kids and because I have always been really amazed by gravity, light and electricity. Let me explain to you the big bang and what makes it all work in the simple form, “magic"! :lol: I guess my question to you would be. If Hadron accomplishes its task. Do you think we will really have figured out the God Particle? Or at least the mass gravity process. Or discover another level of yet even smaller (particles, strings or whatever the terms are today)?
Yes, that is my intuitive feeling. At some point we do no longer deal with physical matter but with metaphysical conditions, abstract potentials. Bohm calls it the Implicate of that which is to become Explicate in reality. In that regard I have no quarrel with an abstract notion of God (Alpha/Omega). The problem of "understanding" starts with the assumption of sentience at that level. At best I can visualize a hologram which functions in a pseudo-intelligent manner. How that actually works we may never be able to test (its metaphysical), but we see evidence of this in the fractal nature of the universe. CDT (causal dynamical triangulation). IMO, that's where it ends. No sentient intelligence, no motive, no intent, no love, no hate. Only an Implaccable function, at least for this Universe.
I have a musical and computer programming background, so I tend to like to be precise about what I know and don't know. Of course, regarding modern theoretical physics, I don't know an awful lot. As I get older, I am kinda getting interested more in how physicists talk about their subject matter with each other, because that's how we get into the details of these phenomena that are outside normal human experience in a quasi-understandable way. Or, at least how physicists would talk to sharp students of theirs. I think that modern physics has had a pretty good idea already of how the Higgs Boson works in relation to gravity, because of how they were able to predict it's existence and detection via the LHC. How that works, I'm don't know, except that it the Higgs Boson generates a Higgs field that interacts with some types of particles more strongly than others via a greater resistance to change in velocity, ultimately resulting in what we see as "mass".
I have a musical and accounting background myself and I can identify with what you are saying. I just try to go a little deeper still, into a pure abstraction (Bohm's Pure Potential) which provides a permittive condition which allowed the formation of a geometric field (based on CDT), which was causal to Energy (the wave function), which we know does have expression in physical reality. As I understand it, the Higgs boson gives mass to otherwise massless (virtual) particles. Mass is reality made from virtual reality. The Implicate. Functions are abstractions of how things work. The word Music is an abstraction, until you create a controlled dynamic flow of air trough your trombone. (I was a bass player.) But when you stop the wave function, you stop the music, nowhere to be found again, unless it was causal to secondary effects, the next hierarchy of causalities, such as the exponential function in fractals, . As I understand it, we use Mathematics to translate these hierarchies of natural functions into a comprehensive universal language. A TOE. An "uncounfounding of language", if you will.