Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Locked
willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by willendure » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:27 am

Siggy_G wrote: Attempting to understand gravity as an interaction between objects, due to properties of matter, is a refreshing approach in physics.
Refreshing perhaps. GR predicts that light the path of which is bent by a massive object distorting space-time, will undergo twice the deflection compared with light bent by gravity as a direct force applied on it by that object. This has been experimentally confirmed, although experimental results have also been mixed on this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_ ... by_the_Sun

User avatar
Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Thu Sep 17, 2015 8:23 am

willendure wrote:.. GR predicts that light the path of which is bent by a massive object distorting space-time, will undergo twice the deflection compared with light bent by gravity as a direct force applied on it by that object. This has been experimentally confirmed, although experimental results have also been mixed on this.
As far I have studied this, the experiments only show bending very close to objects, like the sun. But this
bending disappears a bit further from the sun.
The thunderbolts youtube videos go into this subject.
Because the sun is surrounded by plasma, it seems more likely that the experiments show that the
bending was caused by plasma.

Also, all "Einstein's crosses" and "gravity-lens circles" that I have seen are more likely to be plasma.
Some are very aligned with the scenery around it.
The fact that scientists attribute these to gravity without criticism, shows the huge confirmation bias
towards gravity explanations.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Siggy_G » Thu Sep 17, 2015 9:06 am

willendure wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: I believe the resultant vector can be any direction, in this case the atoms within the metal spheres would be distorted both by the presence of each sphere and the presence of Earth underneath.

One component of that resultant vector causes the spheres to attract horisontally and the other component causes the spheres to fall towards Earth if let go.
If that were the case, then placing one sphere beside another would cause the weight of the original sphere to reduce, since its vector would no longer be straight down towards the earth. In addition to measuring the gravity between the spheres, we would measure a reduction in the gravity between them and the earth. Which we do not.
No, the vertical component remains the same. The resultant vector is vertical vector + (new) horisontal vector -> (new) diagonal vector that is longer than the original. Decomposing that vector (which is unnecessary in this case) gives the same vertical component as without the influence of a second sphere.

Pi sees
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Pi sees » Thu Sep 17, 2015 5:38 pm

Siggy_G wrote: There lacks a plausible reason(ing) for why space should act as a physical grid who's units any object rails along. On paper, and digitally, one can define an unseen flexible coordinate system for the dynamics of objects, but there's no reason why real physical space should act as such. It was a way to model away forces and replace it with a value grid. One could do that with any physical dynamics, but the understanding of underlying mechanisms then is either lost or severly confused. Which it is.
Furthermore, wouldn't the ongoing curvature of spacetime by mass constitute a form of work? If so, where is the necessary energy coming from? And why is there no evident correlation between heat output and the strength of (alleged) gravitational fields?

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:08 pm

Pi sees wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: There lacks a plausible reason(ing) for why space should act as a physical grid who's units any object rails along. On paper, and digitally, one can define an unseen flexible coordinate system for the dynamics of objects, but there's no reason why real physical space should act as such. It was a way to model away forces and replace it with a value grid. One could do that with any physical dynamics, but the understanding of underlying mechanisms then is either lost or severly confused. Which it is.
Furthermore, wouldn't the ongoing curvature of spacetime by mass constitute a form of work?
I like to think of energy's ability to curve spacetime not so much as a cause-effect relation, but more like a reciprocal relationship. Think of curved spacetime as concentrated energy.

In other words, curvature is as much a concentration of energy, as energy is a concentration (curvature) of spacetime.

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by willendure » Fri Sep 18, 2015 5:07 am

Siggy_G wrote:
willendure wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: I believe the resultant vector can be any direction, in this case the atoms within the metal spheres would be distorted both by the presence of each sphere and the presence of Earth underneath.

One component of that resultant vector causes the spheres to attract horisontally and the other component causes the spheres to fall towards Earth if let go.
If that were the case, then placing one sphere beside another would cause the weight of the original sphere to reduce, since its vector would no longer be straight down towards the earth. In addition to measuring the gravity between the spheres, we would measure a reduction in the gravity between them and the earth. Which we do not.
No, the vertical component remains the same. The resultant vector is vertical vector + (new) horisontal vector -> (new) diagonal vector that is longer than the original. Decomposing that vector (which is unnecessary in this case) gives the same vertical component as without the influence of a second sphere.
Ok then, so you are saying the vertical component of the vector remains unchanged.

Lets take our sphere suspended above the earth, and place two more spheres, one to its left, and one to its right. Now, by the symmetry of this, the centre sphere will have its dipoles oriented downwards only, with the correct vertical component of force for its weight. But we would then expect that the spheres on either side would experience no attraction at all to the central one, since the central sphere would have no horizontal aspect to the orientation of its dipoles.

In fact, we would measure gravitational attraction between the left and right spheres and the central one (and to each other too).

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Siggy_G » Fri Sep 18, 2015 2:37 pm

willendure wrote: Lets take our sphere suspended above the earth, and place two more spheres, one to its left, and one to its right. Now, by the symmetry of this, the centre sphere will have its dipoles oriented downwards only, with the correct vertical component of force for its weight. But we would then expect that the spheres on either side would experience no attraction at all to the central one, since the central sphere would have no horizontal aspect to the orientation of its dipoles.

In fact, we would measure gravitational attraction between the left and right spheres and the central one (and to each other too).
As far as I know, the Cavendish experiment hasn't been tested with the kind of configuration you describe (three objects, with focus on the central one). Could be interesting to measure whether the horisontal component is distorted or nullified by various object configurations. However, the atomic dipoles of the left and right spheres would still be tilted or distorted slightly towards the central one, causing attraction.

saul
Posts: 184
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 2:06 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by saul » Fri Sep 18, 2015 9:08 pm

Webbman wrote:a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.

since I believe neutrons have rings (like Saturn in appearance) and that gravity is the effect of a proton-neutron pairing that causes the neutron to sync with all other nearby neutrons at the speed of the electric force, its reasonable to believe that something that has no neutrons will behave differently than something that does, under the same conditions. and accounting for the mass difference.

That is not to say a proton wont be affected at all by gravity. It still has half the components.
I believe that the Cavendish experiment has been performed with metals of different isotope, i.e. with different n to p ratios. That would be the place to start looking. I'm not aware of measurement of active gravitational properies of leptonhs, nor of activer or passive gravitational properties of antimatter of any sort. Of course there is the principle of equivalence, but hey - experiment would sure trump that.

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:29 pm

Siggy_G wrote:
willendure wrote: Lets take our sphere suspended above the earth, and place two more spheres, one to its left, and one to its right. Now, by the symmetry of this, the centre sphere will have its dipoles oriented downwards only, with the correct vertical component of force for its weight. But we would then expect that the spheres on either side would experience no attraction at all to the central one, since the central sphere would have no horizontal aspect to the orientation of its dipoles.

In fact, we would measure gravitational attraction between the left and right spheres and the central one (and to each other too).
As far as I know, the Cavendish experiment hasn't been tested with the kind of configuration you describe (three objects, with focus on the central one). Could be interesting to measure whether the horisontal component is distorted or nullified by various object configurations. However, the atomic dipoles of the left and right spheres would still be tilted or distorted slightly towards the central one, causing attraction.
Uhm, are we still talking about dipole-caused electrostatic attraction here? This whole "resultant vector" conversation is an exercise in silliness.

If the Cavendish experiment had anything to do with atomic dipole distortion, it wouldn't even work because residual static charge (small, accidental surplus or deficit of electrons) on every object would swamp any electric forces due to distorted dipoles.

Watch these videos and ponder the extreme unlikehood of that happening...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foo ... ovie-1.mpg
http://www.fourmilab.ch/gravitation/foo ... ovie-2.mpg

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Bengt Nyman » Sat Sep 19, 2015 3:40 am

Siggy_G wrote:
willendure wrote:Who cares, because as I already pointed out, two metal spheres attract horizontally when positioned next to each other on the earth, thus showing that gravity does not only pull downwards.

Your dipoles can only pull one way, and gravity pulls all ways.
I believe the resultant vector can be any direction,
"willendure" has apparently not understood the difference between the Ralph Sansbury/Wallace Thornhill theory and the Bengt Nyman theory, properly observed by "Siggy".

The Ralph Sansbury theory is a circular argument where masses are attracted to masses, "vertically", based on gravity between proton mass and for example earth mass.

The Bengt Nyman theory claims that all bodies in space are attracted to all other bodies in space based on the resultant force of attracting and repelling forces between particulate as well as sub-particulate charges in said bodies.

Neither theory explains, nor claims to explain, what carries said forces through space.
That is a separate and intriguing question aside from the charge attraction/repulsion mechanism causing gravity.

User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Siggy_G » Sat Sep 19, 2015 8:15 am

querious wrote: Uhm, are we still talking about dipole-caused electrostatic attraction here? This whole "resultant vector" conversation is an exercise in silliness.

If the Cavendish experiment had anything to do with atomic dipole distortion, it wouldn't even work because residual static charge (small, accidental surplus or deficit of electrons) on every object would swamp any electric forces due to distorted dipoles. (...)
It was a response to willendure's thought experiment, yes.

Regarding the "sillyness" of resultant vectors: If there are horisontal and vertical forces at play simultaneously, the outcome can be defined through a resultant vector. A classical mechanics principle that is applied to numerous diciplines.

Another key term is "in addition to". If there are local magnetic and electrostatic influences, it will obviously affect objects in the experiment. Local magnetic or electrostatic forces overcoming gravity is not unheard of either.

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Sat Sep 19, 2015 11:00 pm

Siggy_G wrote:
querious wrote: Uhm, are we still talking about dipole-caused electrostatic attraction here? This whole "resultant vector" conversation is an exercise in silliness.

If the Cavendish experiment had anything to do with atomic dipole distortion, it wouldn't even work because residual static charge (small, accidental surplus or deficit of electrons) on every object would swamp any electric forces due to distorted dipoles. (...)
It was a response to willendure's thought experiment, yes.

Regarding the "sillyness" of resultant vectors: If there are horisontal and vertical forces at play simultaneously, the outcome can be defined through a resultant vector. A classical mechanics principle that is applied to numerous diciplines.

Another key term is "in addition to". If there are local magnetic and electrostatic influences, it will obviously affect objects in the experiment. Local magnetic or electrostatic forces overcoming gravity is not unheard of either.
I wasn't calling vector math silly. It is silly to apply it to a new "test configuration" of the Cavendish experiment when there are already so many obvious reasons dipoles can't explain gravity, which have been mentioned throughout this thread.

willendure
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by willendure » Sun Sep 20, 2015 11:35 am

Siggy_G wrote:
willendure wrote: Lets take our sphere suspended above the earth, and place two more spheres, one to its left, and one to its right. Now, by the symmetry of this, the centre sphere will have its dipoles oriented downwards only, with the correct vertical component of force for its weight. But we would then expect that the spheres on either side would experience no attraction at all to the central one, since the central sphere would have no horizontal aspect to the orientation of its dipoles.

In fact, we would measure gravitational attraction between the left and right spheres and the central one (and to each other too).
As far as I know, the Cavendish experiment hasn't been tested with the kind of configuration you describe (three objects, with focus on the central one). Could be interesting to measure whether the horisontal component is distorted or nullified by various object configurations. However, the atomic dipoles of the left and right spheres would still be tilted or distorted slightly towards the central one, causing attraction.
No, if the outer ones are tiled towards the central one, but it is tilted towards neither, then there would be no attraction. Both dipoles must be aligned to some degree to attract (or repel).

Querious points out that this is a silly conversation because static electricity would ruin the experiment, and I totally agree.

Gravity attracts in all directions at once. Electrical dipoles are necessarily directional in their vectors of attraction and repulsion. Lets even just dispense with the maths and do what I see EU advocates claiming we should do, and revert to natural philosophy to describe and understand the physics here. Gravity and electrostatic force are qualitatively different phenomena.

To give an example, if I hold the north of a magnet to the south of another magnet they attract. If I hold it to a sheet of paper nothing happens. The outer spheres will experience no force from the central one if its dipole is not oriented towards or away from them.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Bengt Nyman » Sun Sep 20, 2015 2:10 pm

Take your old boy scout compass and two magnets. Play with them.

Pi sees
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Pi sees » Sun Sep 20, 2015 5:33 pm

querious wrote: I like to think of energy's ability to curve spacetime not so much as a cause-effect relation, but more like a reciprocal relationship. Think of curved spacetime as concentrated energy.
I thought mass was concentrated energy??
In other words, curvature is as much a concentration of energy, as energy is a concentration (curvature) of spacetime.
Then shouldn't we observe gravitational and temporal distortions in the vicinity of high energy concentrations, such as lightening and power plants?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests