Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st

Unread postby Muskie » Sun Jan 18, 2015 7:36 pm

At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity. But if I heard correctly "gravity" is already acting on the atoms, i.e., attracting the "heavier" nucleus downward. What am I missing - there seems to be a circular reference here? If the "heavier" nucleus is drawn towards the center of the earth by gravity, it's not causing gravity - its orientation is caused BY gravity. It may be dipole oriented because of gravity, but I can't see how it's causing gravity.

What am I missing?

Thanks.
Muskie
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st

Unread postby Shrike » Sun Jan 18, 2015 9:05 pm

Yes that got me to...
Although it wasn't the specific point what you mentioned.

What got me was that the particles/dipoles tend to go to the center of the earth due to gravity.
but if im not mistaken the center of gravity (at least as measured on earth) is near or just below earths crust. not at earths center .
Shrike
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2011 1:29 pm
Location: Netherlands (Nederland, Holland)

Re: Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st

Unread postby querious » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:17 pm

Muskie wrote:At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity.


The simple result of any complex arrangement of dipoles is an electric field. Gravity caused by such an electric field would be extremely easy to confirm or refute. Just give a piece of foil a static charge. It should either float upward or be forced downward, in addition or subtraction to it's "normal" weight.

What am I missing here?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:20 am

querious wrote:
Muskie wrote:At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity.


The simple result of any complex arrangement of dipoles is an electric field. Gravity caused by such an electric field would be extremely easy to confirm or refute. Just give a piece of foil a static charge. It should either float upward or be forced downward, in addition or subtraction to it's "normal" weight.

What am I missing here?


The right cool-aid.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Wed Jan 21, 2015 9:25 am

Hello Wal. I've just watched your most recent video (recorded at the 2014 EU Workshop) posted to the Thunderbolts YouTube channel. Posting these presentations for those of us who couldn't attend is GREATLY appreciated.

The purpose of this request is based on the slide entitled 'What Causes Gravity' starting at 30:58. You warn us that this is "the fun bit" and I agree.

Here is what you say:

"The nucleus, which is two to four thousand times heavier than those orbiting electrons will naturally in a gravitational field (because of its much greater mass) tend to move towards the center of the Earth. That means the orbits of the electrons is stretched and you end up with a postive end of each atom and a negative end -- it becomes a tiny electric dipole. Because all these particles are free to move internally, they all line up. That means that you have an electrostatic type of force at the subatomic level. It's not electrical, there is no charge involved because these are all neutral atoms in the earth or most other bodies. So the result is that it's the sum of all the aligned subatomic dipoles that produces the weak force of gravity."

For me, this statement is linguistically and logically very confusing. What I get out of this is that the atoms that are reacting to a gravitational field are the very same atoms creating it. I would very much appreciate a clarification.

Kindest regards, CL
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby Muskie » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:30 pm

This is exactly what I was asking in the thread below, i.e., "Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st." Hopefully we'll get a response from the Chief!
Muskie
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:38 pm

Shrike wrote:Yes that got me to...
Although it wasn't the specific point what you mentioned.

What got me was that the particles/dipoles tend to go to the center of the earth due to gravity.
but if im not mistaken the center of gravity (at least as measured on earth) is near or just below earths crust. not at earths center .


In conventional physics the center of mass is also the center of gravity. So while the center of mass of the Earth isn't "exactly" in the geometrical center, it's close enough. I've never heard of the Earth's center of gravity being just below the Earth's crust.

Peace, CL
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Wed Jan 21, 2015 1:54 pm

Muskie wrote:This is exactly what I was asking in the thread below, i.e., "Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st." Hopefully we'll get a response from the Chief!


My apologies for being redundant. I saw the title of your post when you submitted it, but that was a whole three days ago and I didn't remember. :oops:

I hope for everyone's sake that Mr. Thornhill doesn't consider himself "the Chief".

If he actually meant what he said at the end of his presentation, then I have no doubt that he'll respond. We have a legitimate, reasonable question that needs to be answered.

Peace, CL
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st

Unread postby nick c » Wed Jan 21, 2015 3:39 pm

I've never heard of the Earth's center of gravity being just below the Earth's crust.
I think that might refer to the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2437
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby Max Photon » Wed Jan 21, 2015 5:56 pm

I agree that Wal Thornhill's statement, as presented here, appears to have circular reasoning. Clarification would be nice.

But on top of the apparent circular reasoning, is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?
User avatar
Max Photon
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:02 am
Location: Spacetime

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby Muskie » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:07 pm

... is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?


It must be too late in day, what exactly are you questioning here?
Muskie
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:21 pm

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby CosmicLettuce » Wed Jan 21, 2015 6:37 pm

Max Photon wrote:I agree that Wal Thornhill's statement, as presented here, appears to have circular reasoning. Clarification would be nice.

But on top of the apparent circular reasoning, is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?


Agreed! That's why I say his statement is "linguistically and logically very confusing".

Help!

Regards, CL
"Nothing is rich but the inexhaustible wealth of nature. She shows us only surfaces, but she is a million fathoms deep" - Emerson

http://astroandmusic.blogspot.com/
User avatar
CosmicLettuce
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 8:09 am

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby upriver » Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:35 pm

I have pondered that and I am wondering how 2 particles, if there were only 2 particles, would gravitationaly attract each other if there was no external gravitational field...
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby Max Photon » Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:49 pm

Muskie wrote:
... is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?


It must be too late in day, what exactly are you questioning here?


Muskie,

The point I was making is that when Wal says:

The nucleus, which is two to four thousand times heavier than those orbiting electrons will naturally in a gravitational field (because of its much greater mass) tend to move towards the center of the Earth. That means the orbits of the electrons is stretched and you end up with a positive end of each atom and a negative end -- it becomes a tiny electric dipole.


... it is confusing (to me, anyway). Why? Because g (gravitational acceleration) experienced by the massive nucleus and the less massive electrons, is the same (e.g., 9.8 m/sec^2).

In other words, the nucleus and the electrons should "fall to earth" (so to speak), or accelerate, equally -- similar to the dropping of two objects of unequal mass off of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.
Last edited by Max Photon on Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Max Photon
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 8:02 am
Location: Spacetime

Re: Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

Unread postby Muskie » Wed Jan 21, 2015 8:51 pm

I have pondered that and I am wondering how 2 particles, if there were only 2 particles, would gravitationally attract each other if there was no external gravitational field...

I wish I had said it this way. An outstanding "thought experiment." (No offense. :D )
Muskie
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:21 pm

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests