Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[querious]

Well the world is massively corrupt but that doesn't mean dipole gravity is correct either.

While I do believe its an electrical effect it isn't what you think. Gravity is the left over remainder in a charge balancing equation.

the earth requires a certain amount of charge on the whole to reach an equilibrium. It cant attain this and the part between what it can draw in and what it needs is gravity.

since I believe in electromagnetic strands, and protons/neutrons are the most dense forms of this. it only makes sense that a body has a total strand count, and thus there is some point where all strands would share an equal amount of activity or wave function/energy.

since there isn't enough energy for this to occur the leftover requirement still exists and the body does the only thing it can do to meet the demand. It draws in everything attached to it.

there is however a difference between what we see as attached and what is attached from a strand point of view.

is the amount of energy your household heater draw a function of the system or the material of the heater? You provide the voltage but the heating element determines how much current it wants to dissipate as heat. The earth works exactly the same way except the voltage and current isn't sufficient to meet the requirement. Just because it doesn't have it, doesn't mean it doesn't want it.

which is exactly the difference between the sun and the earth. The sun has more than it needs and thus expels. The earth doesn't so it attracts. I imagine there is no gravity at the sun, or the gravity is repulsive. I suppose no one noticed the steady stream of protons coming at us. The remainder of the electrical equation.

I'm going back to NIAMI board now.

No, the sun expels because the thermal energy is enough to overcome... oh nevermind.

[Bengt Nyman]

...It is the peculiar nature of quantum mechanics that allow these multiple forces to co-exist, and for one or other to be dominant on a certain scale. Allowing for example, the protons in a nucleus to remain together, even though they are electrically repelling each other...

Funny you should mention Strong Force, since I have explained how it works, without any custom theories or custom math. Coulomb strong force exactly reconciles known binding energy of Deuterium and known frequency difference between an atomic clock on earth versus the same clock in orbit. Feel free to read about it.

[willendure]

...It is the peculiar nature of quantum mechanics that allow these multiple forces to co-exist, and for one or other to be dominant on a certain scale. Allowing for example, the protons in a nucleus to remain together, even though they are electrically repelling each other...

Funny you should mention Strong Force, since I have explained how it works, without any custom theories or custom math. Coulomb strong force exactly reconciles known binding energy of Deuterium and known frequency difference between an atomic clock on earth versus the same clock in orbit. Feel free to read about it.

Perhaps you just positioned your "quarks" in this diagram in such a way that you conveniently get the right answer.

[Bengt Nyman]

...

Perhaps not.
But I think I know your problem. You are a human being, preferring to follow the words of a recognized god, king or leader, so that you run minimum risk of being seen as believing wrong.
Chicken ?

[willendure]

...

Perhaps not.
But I think I know your problem. You are a human being, preferring to follow the words of a recognized god, king or leader, so that you run minimum risk of being seen as believing wrong.
Chicken ?

There isn't any explanation on your dipoles.se of how you arrived at the diagram you take measurements off of. So I have to assume the choice is arbitrary, or chosen for the convenience of supporting your idea.

Nor do you put up the full results of your calculation that gets to within 1% of the binding energy of Deuterium.

I don't care if I am seen as wrong or right, I just read, digest and try to understand science for my own fulfillment.

[Bengt Nyman]

1. Posturing and particle positions are the result of computer simulations.
2. Said data was transferred to a 3D cad model using posturing from above and best known quark sizes.
3. Coulombs law was then used to calculate ALL force vectors, attracting and repelling.
4. Computer simulations were again used to establish the reach of Coulomb strong force, in other words the distance between the two Deuterium hadrons where strong force attraction is 0, outside of which it is repelling in the case of two protons.
5. The above was used to integrate the coulomb strong force binding energy that holds the Deuterium nucleus together.
6. This was all included on the website a couple of years ago but it made the presentation very lengthy and I don't know if anybody cared for the whole dissertation.

The case of the atomic clock is much simpler and still described in detail on the site.
You can calculate it yourself.

[willendure]

1. Posturing and particle positions are the result of computer simulations.

What computer simulations and how did they calculate these positions?

[willendure]

Following the line of though that "everything is electrical" so gravity must be electrical is a very reductive way to think. Perhaps it is true everything is electrical. This seems to be the driving idea behind the dipole.se model.

But what about this? You have a proton model with two +2/3 quarks in it, which can attract or repel other quarks in other protons or neutrons. But the +2/3 quarks in a proton are repelling each other like mad, what keeps them in the Proton when coulomb force would be sending them flying apart?... something non-electrical perhaps? I just want to point this out because the "everything is electrical" model can only go so far before you need to reach for something non-electrical to hold it together. If the universe is nothing but electrical charges, it would just be a soup of fundamental charge particles. More than that is needed to give rise to the structure of matter that we observe, and this is sufficient for me to reject the reductive "everything is electrical" model.

[Bengt Nyman]

I am sorry Willendure. Your lack of background and understanding in these matters appear to be bottomless. My website describes in detail the charge nesting that produces strong force between sets of quarks, even though they also have the potential to repel each other.
But you still don't seem to understand it, or you prefer to jump to something else to bitch about.
Read about strong force on my website, until you understand it !

[willendure]

I am sorry Willendure. Your lack of background and understanding in these matters appear to be bottomless. My website describes in detail the charge nesting that produces strong force between sets of quarks, even though they also have the potential to repel each other.

Like hell it does. The only reference to 'nesting' I can find is this:

"In time our perception of particles is due to give way for a more dynamic set of energy constellations of more or less stable nests of complex, closed loop, standing waves with characteristics defined by their complexity, content and lifespan."

Oh gee, that explains it in such detail I can no longer refute your genius.

[Bengt Nyman]

Read the whole thing about strong force, figures and all !

[querious]

I am sorry Willendure. Your lack of background and understanding in these matters appear to be bottomless.

No Bengt, it's your lack of critical thinking skills that is bottomless.

Prove us wrong by tackling the charged foil issue for real, for once.

[Bengt Nyman]

...

I owe you nothing.
Go away !

[querious]

...

I owe you nothing.
Go away !

Of course you owe ME nothing. However, don't you owe it to yourself to have a clear understanding of this pet theory you love so much? You spend an awful lot of time defending it, but not explaining it.

Let me ask you this - Do you really NOT understand my charged foil objection?

[jacmac]

Although most of the discussion on this topic is above my physics knowledge level I would like to share this bit of history.
I suggest that Wilhelm Weber(1804-1891) supports the ideas of Bengt Nyman.
This is the web site:
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... cience.pdf
It is on page 32 of the original article.

It is my understanding that Weber's idea about the atomic structure was different than that of Maxwell
The science community of the day went with Maxwell, which is the basis for our standard understanding of electromagnetism.

In the opening pages of
the memoir is found perhaps the most astounding
of these discoveries, Weber’s determination
of a minimal distance below
which the Coulomb force, the repulsion of
like particles, must reverse and become attractive.

Thus the strong force comes from the natural repulsive force of like charged particles, that attract at VERY CLOSE distances, according to Weber.

NOTE: This material comes from;

"Laurence Hecht is an associate editor of 21st Century. A cothinker
of Lyndon H. LaRouche,"

I am not a fan of Lyndon LaRouche but I have not seen any other reference for this material.

Jack