How does the electric universe paradigm explain gravity?

[euniverse]

How does the electric universe paradigm explain gravity?

Thanks in advance.

[Solar]

"Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe"

[earls]

"Gravitation" is simply a set of equations that govern how masses move in accordance to electromagnetic forces. No matter how you slice it, any form of "propulsion" will come back to EM forces.

Think about this... Hot things go up, cold things go down. When something reaches a sufficient temperature, gravity no longer has any reign upon. Why?

Heat/Temperature = Electromagnetism.

Cold things contract (gravitate together) hot things expand ... What is the opposite of gravitate? Repulse?

Throw in the rules of EM and charged masses, and somewhere in there you will find gravity or the gravitational constant.

I'm too mathematically stupid.

[euniverse]

So can we say that the fundamental quality of electricity (i.e. the polarity of +/-)

is responsible for gravity (i.e. the attraction and repulsion of mass)

on both a cosmic and microscopic scale?

[earls]

Yes sir. You've got one set of rules - Electromagnetism. And the rule(s) scale from top to bottom. There are three fundamental building blocks, negative, positive, and neutral in three dimensions that can take on a variety of configurations.

I got to thinking about it last night, the Universal "motor" as a whole.

You've got two "opposites" trying to neutralize each other, as they do they create turbulence. The turbulence is what forms the structure of our Universe.

In traditional theory the two opposites would be consider to ultra-super-massive blackholes rotating each other... As they do they throw off compression ripples, which mainstream deems "gravity waves." These gravity waves compress spacetime into the filaments of the universe which compress into galaxy, stars, solar systems, planets, atoms... And this is all fine and good, except there is a disconnect somewhere in mainstream as we go from the gravitational driven domain into the electromagnetic driven domain... Where precisely that lies, I can't tell you, as I haven't read any mainstream theories of such.

The thing is they all ready have the framework for the EU explanation, they just refuse to call a spade a spade... Instead of two ultra-super-massive black holes orbiting one another, you have two opposite "charges" orbiting one another, as their orbits degrade they throw off electromagnetic radiation which then "compresses" or more accurately "coalesce" into filaments, galaxies, solar systems (our Universe) according to the rules of EM.

[MGmirkin]

So can we say that the fundamental quality of electricity (i.e. the polarity of +/-)

is responsible for gravity (i.e. the attraction and repulsion of mass)

on both a cosmic and microscopic scale?

Well, in Thornhill's schema, it's slightly more complicated than just being about the charges and their repulsion / attraction. IE, it's about the geometries / structures involved in subatomic particles, as well as their deformability under electrical stress / pressure (hope I said that right; Thornhill explains it better in the article listed above). So, no, straight up electrical attraction / repulsion (under Thornhill's model anyway) is not the same thing as gravity. That's just more or less electrostatics. It does take a few readings of Thornhill's explanation to grasp the difference. IT does seem to be the shortcoming of many debunkers out there that they don't fully read what has been written and then make the wrong conclusion (that Thornhill says currents or electrostatics is equivalent to gravitation, which is not correct; related maybe, but not the same thing).

More experiments / mathematical rigor is of course always a good idea. Specific tests as well. Though Thornhill notes that he believes experiments already conducted with spinning superconducting disks by others support his electro-gravitic theory.

Also, Thornhill posits that gravity's speed is due to the fact that it is a longitudinal wave in the aether (whatever medium it is that conducts gravity and/or light through space), whereas the speed of light is slower since it is a transverse wave through the same medium. Think of it, like noted in the Holoscience article, as the difference between the speed of sound in water and the speed of a ripple on the surface. Sound is a longitudinal wave (compression wave), the ripple is a transverse wave (surface wave).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[euniverse]

One of the conclusions on a paper I wrote a few years back - unity consists of polarity/causality. Light is both a wave and a particle, therefore the wave is causal, the particles are polar. Both causality and polarity represent the two endpoints of universal phenomena. What's interesting I think about this is that 'polarity' is one pole, while 'causality' is the other pole.

Causality
^
|
|
v
Polarity

Cause and effect simultaneously exist. It is only what we decide to measure which determines the outcome. Do we measure the cause, or the effect. What bridges the two? The observer.

Perhaps gravity is an effect (upon measurement). So what is the cause (upon measurement) etc?

[Solar]

You've got two "opposites" trying to neutralize each other, as they do they create turbulence. The turbulence is what forms the structure of our Universe.

Usually, I don't think it gets any more complicated than that. Some conjecture:

-The triality (relationship between three) of electromagnetic force are called "attraction", "equilibrium", and "repulsion".

Which can also be perceived as "electromagnetic compression", "electrically neutral", and the accelerative or 'radiative' property of "electric fields".

-The orthogonal (perpendicular) transmutation (phase-transition) of this triality through "matter" results in the perception of "gravitate", "neutral" and "radiate". The polar opposite of "gravitate" is to "radiate".

I have to completely reject out of hand this vague unspoken notion that "gravity" is some uniquely odd universal force with no 'radiative' polar opposite. It shares the square of the distance relationship with another "field".

-The aspect of "force" called "gravity" seems to be "negative" and "balances" (tends towards equilibrium) the "positive" (pole) of "radiative" force.

[euniverse]

The aspect of "force" called "gravity" seems to be "negative" and "balances" (tends towards equilibrium) the "positive" (pole) of "radiative" force.


I would suggest therefore that the radiative force is causal or a 'wave' function

while gravity is polar and somehow a 'particle' function.

Therefore on a fundamental level, gravity is associated with particles, and is both (+) and (-).

The wave function is neither (+) or (-) but instead contains both potentials.

What would be examples of radiative forces?

[Solar]

The aspect of "force" called "gravity" seems to be "negative" and "balances" (tends towards equilibrium) the "positive" (pole) of "radiative" force.


I would suggest therefore that the radiative force is causal or a 'wave' function

while gravity is polar and somehow a 'particle' function.

Yes, that would seem to be the result, "gravity" being related to "particles" or the perception of "matter" (the result of orthogonal phase-transition) which is compressed towards center while "charge" is "displaced" into the surrounding "space" as an electrostatic "field" of "potential" wherein "charged particles" can be "accelerated" or "radiated" away. "Gravity" isn't a distinct peculiarity having nothing to do with electromagnetism and it's "fields" while everything else *does*.

(...) Classical theory tends to start out with charge as the source of electric fields, whereas Relativity pulls field from nowhere by the magic of abstract transformations of reference frames...

So now we have this aspect of force called "gravity" that is unrelated to electromagnetism and doesn't fit into the supposed "theory of everything" leaving one to ponder what it is with no answer.

Therefore on a fundamental level, gravity is associated with particles, and is both (+) and (-).

The wave function is neither (+) or (-) but instead contains both potentials.

Something to this affect yes. "Gravity" as the "negative pole" electromagnetically distorts the dipole moment of atoms ("particles") towards the center from which the original "potential" has been "displaced" via the presence of "matter". But lets not confuse this with Thornhill et al. I'm conjecturing here because "gravity" needs to have causative source in my mind. The way it's treated right now it is - its own "monopole".

What would be examples of radiative forces?

Sound, Heat, Light. Any "wave" that would "radiate" outward would seem to be immediately and simultaneously be accompanied by "waves" radiating inward to equalize what was "displaced" by the ability of the wave to "radiate" in the first place. The Earth "radiates" [or emits] infrared. You can't have a "wave" without first having something within which the "wave" occurs. That something responds in kind with 'inward' directed "negative radiation pressure" (-) and we give it a different name when it's actually the "polar" opposite of 'outward "positive radiative pressure" (+).

The great attraction of the theory is its logical consistency. If any deduction from it should prove untenable, it must be given up. A modification of it seems impossible without destruction of the whole. - Albert Einstein: "Out of my later years," p.58

His followers aren't listening. But people like Thornhill, Aspden, The Correas, Tom Van Flandern, Dowdye, Jr., E.H, A. G. Kelly PhD ... are paying a greater tribute to the man's words at the modest price of rejection.

[MGmirkin]

I would suggest therefore that the radiative force is causal or a 'wave' function while gravity is polar and somehow a 'particle' function.

Therefore on a fundamental level, gravity is associated with particles, and is both (+) and (-).
The wave function is neither (+) or (-) but instead contains both potentials.

Metaphysics, whatnow? What has causality to do with being a wave? What has being "polar" whatever that means to do with being a particle?

We seem to be throwing out discussion of Thornhill's physical model in favor of a confused / confusing metaphysics. Not getting it, sorry...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

One of the conclusions on a paper I wrote a few years back - unity consists of polarity/causality.

What exactly is 'unity,' 'polarity' and 'causality?' [Edit: okay, I get the general definition of causality, just not its relation to the other stuff.] Why are polarity and causality opposite ends of the same spectrum? I don't get the relationship...

Light is both a wave and a particle, therefore the wave is causal, the particles are polar.

Non sequitur, logically speaking. Literally, it does not follow. What does being a wave or a particle have to do with being "causal" or "polar" (as yet undefined in the metaphysics). Even if there is a relationship be wave/particle duality and whatever causal/polar duality is, how does it follow from the relationship that being a wave equates to causality or that being a a particle equates to polarity? Why couldn't being a wave equate to polarity and being a particle equate to causality? This metaphysics is not as self-explanatory as it has been asserted to be. At least from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with it.

Both causality and polarity represent the two endpoints of universal phenomena. What's interesting I think about this is that 'polarity' is one pole, while 'causality' is the other pole.

Still not following, sorry. Perhaps this needs to move to the NIAMI board, as the forum is generally not a publishing house of offbeat metaphysics... Which isn't to say we haven't had a few threads go akimbo since the forum started. Generally trying to keep things somewhat close to the straight and narrow.

No offense intended, just not really getting where this is going at all.

Anyway, Thornhill's physical hypothesis about gravity is available, if anyone wishes to check it out and discuss it.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Total Science]

Gravity is explained by electricity because all inertia and force is electromagnetic in origin.

No one uses gravity or nuclear forces to cause motion.

"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." -- Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908

The myths people assume to be false are true and the science people assume to be true is myth.

When are we going to see the Cavendish experiment performed in a Faraday cage?

We never will because gravitation is a myth.

[euniverse]

"Metaphysics, whatnow? What has causality to do with being a wave? What has being "polar" whatever that means to do with being a particle?
We seem to be throwing out discussion of Thornhill's physical model in favor of a confused / confusing metaphysics. Not getting it, sorry..."

Read below for the answers to your questions:

Hi Reilly -- Causality is half the knowledge equation. I liken the duality as follows - causality vs polarity. Causal elements are determinate, while polar elements are indeterminate.

What this means is that from the level of a polar world, we see duality or the yin/yang, dark/light, hot/cold etc manifestations around us. While from a causal perspective, there is no duality. Rather there is a single source which in time reveals dualistic elements. But at the moment of causation, its a singularity. This explains the problems Einstein dealt with concerning light - namely how could light be both a wave and a particle. The wave is causal, the particles are polar.

SM

Hi SM -- Interesting indeed. Your singular source is pretty much like the Big Bang. The duality it creates, then, is composed of energy and matter, which of course can be transformed into each other. Another thought about causality vs polarity. One of the peculiar aspects of chaos theory and/or non-linear dynamics is that there are causal systems that for all intensive purposes behave in a random fashion. They would be observed as random systems. Is it live, or is it Memorex?

Except when teaching undergraduates, physicists don't typically worry about the wave-particle duality that is observed in Nature. You are quite right, the wave is causal, described by the deterministic Schrodinger equation. The solutions of this equation determine the probabilities governing the electron's or photon's behavior.

Bohr's point was that phenomena at the microscopic, atomic level need not and do not operate the same way as macroscopic phenomena - macroscopic concepts do not necessarily apply at the atomic level. Sort of: accept what's there, and don't worry about it. That's what professional physicists do, for the most part - duality is a given - period. To some degree, the wave or particle is an artifact of the measuring process. Wave particle duality: we accept, but somewhat under duress.

Reilly*

The relationship of causality and polarity is the key to understanding the nature of phenomena.

*Reilly is Reilly Atkinson, professor of physics, chemistry etc etc. "SM" is euniverse.

[euniverse]

No offense intended, just not really getting where this is going at all.

Well, actually where it's going is here:

http://islandnet.com/~gsor/ukm.pdf

and here:

http://islandnet.com/~gsor/utk.pdf

i.e.:

"I have had the growing realization over the past few years that the problem of [humanity's] knowledge is not to demolish opposing views, but to include them in a larger theoretical structure." Ernest Becker.

"A unified system of knowledge is the surest means of identifying the still unexplored domains of reality. It provides a clear map of what is known, and it frames the most productive questions for future inquiry." Edward O. Wilson.

"The spread, both in width and depth, of the many branches of knowledge during the last hundred years has confronted us with a dilemma. We feel we are only now beginning to acquire reliable material for welding together the sum total of all that is known into a whole." Erwin Schroedinger

The theory corresponds exactly with thornhill's gravity model, as I was pleasantly surprised to discover. But it wouldn't be much of a theory if it was off base.