Jaythree wrote:Not sure if this post is meant to be tongue-in-cheek. Whether or not Thornhill's concept is validated by experiment, it seems to me an elegant and integrated and the result of hard work, not to be dismissed cavalierly. The complaints stated are inconsistent insofar as they "cherry pick" from contradictory theories. For example, the idea of relativistic effects accounting for the apparent increase in mass is drawn from standard Einsteinian theory, which also states that gravitation is propagated at light speed, not instantaneously, as claimed in the critique. While QM indeed describes a spherical wave function on average, London forces allow for instantaneous statistical lopsidedness. I am not a physicist but I can sometimes pick out questionable assertions.
Jaythree wrote:All that math seems to neglect that electric forces between Earth and Sun are screened by sheathing, so that implying that we should be able to correctly measure potentials is misleading. I think Thornhill's point is that an electrically stabilizing feedback loop that corrects for the tendency towards three-body orbital chaos may not in fact act continually, making small adjustments, but act intermittently with significant electrical discharges breaching the shielding between bodies, resulting in mass exchange, hence ancient legends of catastrophe. Again, it is an elegant but adventurous theory that needs observational validation.
Jaythree wrote:One question not mentioned concerning the possible electrical nature of gravity is why opposite charge screening does not seem to occur for gravitational forces, which operate at an infinite range (whether or not at c remains to be known).
Jaythree wrote:On the matter of the London force, the idea is that although a dipole is formed instantaneously somewhere in the wave function, when it does occur, there is a cascade effect on neighboring molecules, so dipole alignment can thus be distributed and magnified. Whether this contributes to Thornhill's theory is debatable, I agree.
Jaythree wrote:As for G, it is a constant demonstrated so far for use only on Earth and indeed may be valid only for our particular state in time between cosmological events, not just in the last few hundred years (this becomes even more problematic within the precepts of general relativity (equivalence)).
Jaythree wrote:My original question remains: what would it take to disprove Thornhill's theory, not by reference to other theories, but by observation...for example, the lack of an orbital change in a Jovian moon immediately following an electrical discharge event.
Jaythree wrote:There is much to question about currently accepted cosmology and underlying theories. The metaphysical notion of gravity as a distortion of space-time, for one.
I like Thornhill's (as well as others) exposing of the incorrect utilization of mathematics in modern science. Mathematics is a tool to describe or explain some aspect of a theory, not a means of creating an imaginary reality and then assuming that because the equations and formulae are "elegant" that it must be real.Jaythree wrote:Then there is the issue of "renormalization" to allow infinities in the math that permits other point-sized bodies like black holes.
Jaythree wrote:It's said that Edison made 10,000 light bulbs before one worked. I'm sure people were shooting down his idea before he got to number 5.
StevenO wrote:G has been measured to be fairly constant and everything else is speculation.
Jaythree wrote:You're still cherry-picking. You say on the one hand that we have no proof that gravity is propagated infinitely and on the other that G is the same everywhere.
Jaythree wrote:Also, your contention that plasma sheathing around the Earth strengthens your mathematical argument for the insufficiency of charge is backwards...the enormous Birkeland currents discovered recently by THEMIS only 40,000 miles from Earth are indeed shielded.
Jaythree wrote:Most of your assertions are of the variety, "If this were true, I'm sure somebody would have noticed it." This of course is a prejudice against scientific discovery, not a rational rebuttal.
Jaythree wrote:There is much to question about currently accepted cosmology and underlying theories. The metaphysical notion of gravity as a distortion of space-time, for one. The idea of an electron as a "point-sized" particle, in order to avoid the problem of charge self-repulsion, for another. Then there is the issue of "renormalization" to allow infinities in the math that permits other point-sized bodies like black holes. Not to mention work-arounds to the Pauli Exclusion rule, like color charge, so that more than one thing can occupy the same place at the same time; and gauge fields to provide a hypothetical multi-dimensional inner space so that a zoo of newly discovered particles could preserve their properties as they move around.
Jaythree wrote:We are propping up aging theories and protecting turf much like believers in an Earth-centric cosmos before Copernicus. What is needed is a celebration of the legacy of pioneers with the courage of original thought and perseverance...people like Thornhill. It's said that Edison made 10,000 light bulbs before one worked. I'm sure people were shooting down his idea before he got to number 5.
nick c wrote:hi StevenO,StevenO wrote:G has been measured to be fairly constant and everything else is speculation.
Fairly? Why do you not write "completely" constant?
And that is only with measurements made over a short timespan on Earth. Hardly a falsification of Thornhill's proposition.
Variable G may well be "speculation" but so is constant G.
Constant G is, right now, an assumption.
Not that it is unreasonable for a theory to have an assumption of a constant G, but all too often it seems to be regarded as an unassailable fact.
It is equally valid for Thornhill to propose a theory with a variable G.
Let the evidence decide.
Jaythree wrote:You guys are good thinkers and I learned something from this thread. My personal favorite theory is a broad unification paradigm proposed by James Sung, originally at MIT, now back in China. Very radical (you really do have to suspend disbelief at first) but extremely simple and experimentally verifiable, his theory sweeps away the internal contradictions in the Standard Model, yet preserves critical relationships and values already proven (e.g., c). I have made pdf copies of his books and will put them up the Web for download (about 600 pages). As a teaser, imagine that space-time is quantized, that the quanta are sub-Planck-sized "pixels" (<10^-33), that the super-cube dimensions are space-time and charge, and that what we perceive as matter/energy is actually dynamic "dislocations" in the pixel lattice. Much like we imagine we see motion on a video display, so the "solid state" universe appears to permit motion, but is actually mapping and "lighting up" quantized locations in space-time-charge dimensions. OK, a lot to swallow, but Sung does the math and offers experiments to disprove the theory. OK, I'll shut up now. Thanks.
StevenO wrote:F = G x M1 x M2 / r2
Total Science wrote:StevenO wrote:F = G x M1 x M2 / r2
That occult 17th century formula doesn't describe anything in the universe.
The moon falls away from the Earth at 3.8 cm per year.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest