Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[querious]

But, on the subject of the chaining of dipoles together... A chain of dipoles would be necessarily 'directional', so would only produce a 1/r^2 law in one particular direction at a time, no?

A dipole chain produces a sequence:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
I assume that the + and - are very close to each other.
And when they are very close to each other the effect of each pole almost negates,
with the one next to it.
This gives:
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
+ =============================== -
So this means that a sequence of dipoles, is almost like one wide dipole.

I really don't understand the reasoning behind this.

If it was like this I could understand...

+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - => + ............. -

But dipoles lines up won't do that.

[Bengt Nyman]

Don't forget that dipole's primary accomplishment is to hold solid bodies together by means of their teamwork creating short-reach strong-force within atomic nuclei and atomic and nuclear bonds within solids. This determines the primary and very irregular pattern of and between dipoles in solid objects. As an extracurricular activity dipoles are also sensitive to electrostatic temptations from adjacent objects giving rise to microscopic shifts in the patterns above resulting in gravity.
In other words, if you managed to map the dipole directions in a solid body within earth gravity you would not see a uniform dipole orientation pointing to the influence of earth gravity. You would only see a microscopic deviation in dipole orientation from the pattern described above and recorded outside the influence of earth gravity.

[Chan Rasjid]

Don't forget that dipole's primary accomplishment is to hold solid bodies together by means of their teamwork creating short-reach strong-force within atomic nuclei and atomic and nuclear bonds within solids. This determines the primary and very irregular pattern of and between dipoles in solid objects. As an extracurricular activity dipoles are also sensitive to electrostatic temptations from adjacent objects giving rise to microscopic shifts in the patterns above resulting in gravity.
In other words, if you managed to map the dipole directions in a solid body within earth gravity you would not see a uniform dipole orientation pointing to the influence of earth gravity. You would only see a microscopic deviation in dipole orientation from the pattern described above and recorded outside the influence of earth gravity.

I'll make a guess. This brief description of how electric dipole gravity supposedly works assumes a lot of physics that we do not really yet know about - about the physics of "short-reach strong-force within atomic nuclei", "dipoles are also sensitive to electrostatic temptations from adjacent objects", etc.

I've seen too much of science calling upon authority - The Standard Model of CERN, Higg's boson, Big Bang, gravity waves being discovered,etc. Calling upon authority, whether within mainstream or outside, does no good in the promotion of knowledge. We should treat dipole gravity theory in itself and not on any authority of Wal Thornhill, Ralph Sansbury, Siggy or Bengt.

I know of the enthusiasm of the EU to bring gravitation fully into electromagnetism; but a wish does not mean it could be done now. Ever since the discovery of electricity and magnetism, there have been attempts to explain gravity through electromagnetism. I don't think any of the proposed theory works. If an electric dipole gravity theory works - a real unification of EM and gravitation and competing with GR - many physicist would be talking about it. Mainstream can never hold back others from using and developing a correct theory. So the fact that only a few physicists mention the work of Ralph Sansbury means (to me!) that the electric dipole gravity theory is not yet a viable explanation of gravitation.

Another point is obviously the EU's general dismissal of General Relativity as a proper explanation of gravity. So this is another reason why the EU community feels an urgency to explain gravity through electrical properties of matter.

Sansbury “..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.”

These are just words attempting to explain why gravity shielding (standing on a metal platform) does not occur. The words imply a lot of physics - but the physics involved has yet to be specified.

Concerning the electric dipole theory of gravity, I am fully with querious - it does not work; for simple reasons. Querious objections to dipole gravity did not involve using words implying physics that are vague and unspecified. He only mentions what is an electric dipole and what is the property of an electric dipole. An electric dipole is one of the simplest idea in electromagnetism - there is no controversy at all as to what an electric dipole is - it is easily found in every basic textbook of electromagnetic theory.

If an electric dipole gravity is true to its namesake, then gravity is an electric force - absolutely so; never mind it is buried deep with the quarks. Gravity is the superposition of electrical force or the electric fields of all the electric charges making the electric dipoles of matter. The only physics that querious apply is that any electric force or field will always be affected by any electric charges or fields from external sources. So when electrical charges are made to accumulate on an aluminium foil, it would have a much greater effect on the gravity (now electric fields) originally due to any electric dipoles originally within the foil - the weight of the foil will measure significantly different.

As you can see, the above refutation of electric dipole gravity of Ralph Sansbury does not call upon words that imply unspecified physics - it comes all from the simplest properties of an electric dipole. From what I see (currently), there is no way Wal Thornhill's or Ralph Sansbury's gravity theory can be a candidate theory trying to compete with General Relativity, etc.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.

[Bengt Nyman]

Sansbury “..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation.

Chan Rasjid.

Sansbury made the mistake to overlook the coupling between strong force and gravity. Consequently you will find that electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei DO NOT have a common orientation due to gravity.
Their orientations are dictated by electrostatic intra-body interactions, with a common but very minor, elastic and "temporary" tweak caused by gravity, if and when present.

Chan and querious do not seem to understand the difference between gravity and other forms of electrostatic forces like for example between electrostatically, artificially and temporarily charged bodies.

Chan seems to think that: "If everybody does not immediately understand or recognize progress in science, it can't be true."

[querious]

Sansbury “..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation.

Chan Rasjid.

Sansbury made the mistake to overlook the coupling between strong force and gravity. Consequently you will find that electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei DO NOT have a common orientation due to gravity.
Their orientations are dictated by electrostatic intra-body interactions, with a common but very minor, elastic and "temporary" tweak caused by gravity, if and when present.

Chan and querious do not seem to understand the difference between gravity and other forms of electrostatic forces like for example between electrostatically, artificially and temporarily charged bodies.

Chan seems to think that: "If everybody does not immediately understand or recognize progress in science, it can't be true."

Hi Chan,
You see above a perfect example of why I had stopped talking to Bengt about this. He just makes declarations with literally zero substance. No need to explain needed, because it's YOU who just doesn't understand the "difference" between electrostatic gravity and all the other well known properties of electromagnetism.
I've been hoping that at least 1 other supporter of Wal's theory would come forward with a reason a charged foil won't be affected, but so far nobody seems to care, including the mods. And I find it truly baffling that he presents this theory in front of a bunch of EU fans at multiple events, who should be the first to think of this objection. Apparently, if Wal says it, it must be true, with no critical thought or curiosity required.
I'm glad to have another poster that gets how utterly simple it is to disprove dipole gravity with a charged foil.
Although, there are at least 5 other equally obvious reasons, as powerful as that one.

Regards,
Querious

[Bengt Nyman]

... "difference" between electrostatic gravity and all the other well known properties of electromagnetism.

Electrostatic gravity is not a form of electromagnetism. It's electrostatic.
An aluminum foil can be made to electrostatically stick, levitate or fly by overwhelming (electrostatic) gravity, which in no way proves, disproves or alters the mechanism of electrostatic gravity.

[querious]

... "difference" between electrostatic gravity and all the other well known properties of electromagnetism.

Electrostatic gravity is not a form of electromagnetism. It's electrostatic.
An aluminum foil can be made to electrostatically stick, levitate or fly by overwhelming (electrostatic) gravity, which in no way proves, disproves or alters the mechanism of electrostatic gravity.

Did you actually read what you just posted? Is your dipole-phrase-bot malfunctioning again?

[nick c]

querious,
There is no need for personal bullying and insults!
Instead of using a personal attack (accusing him of being an dipole automaton) why not respond factually to the Bengt's post? He is stating that your mistake is that you are failing to distinguish between electrostatic and electromagnetic. If something is wrong on a basic level with Bengt's statement then it should be easy enough to expose...perhaps a link to a text book quote, an observation, an experiment, etc. etc.

[Zyxzevn]

If it was like this I could understand...

+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - => + ............. -

But dipoles lines up won't do that.

Not in ascii, sadly.

Maybe this symbol of a dipole is better:
(+)----(-)

Many dipoles in a line:
(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)

Because many (-) and (+) are very near to each other, they cancel each other out.

So this chain becomes:

(+)----()----()----()----()----()----()----()----()----(-)

So effectively it becomes a very large dipole.

Then where in nature do we find dipoles somehow aligned?
Usually only over small distances.
In water, it is the vanderwaals force. It also creates the surface-tension.

[querious]

If it was like this I could understand...

+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- - => + ............. -

But dipoles lines up won't do that.

Not in ascii, sadly.

Maybe this symbol of a dipole is better:
(+)----(-)

Many dipoles in a line:
(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)(+)----(-)

Because many (-) and (+) are very near to each other, they cancel each other out.

So this chain becomes:

(+)----()----()----()----()----()----()----()----()----(-)

So effectively it becomes a very large dipole.

Then where in nature do we find dipoles somehow aligned?
Usually only over small distances.
In water, it is the vanderwaals force. It also creates the surface-tension.

So, are you bringing this up because you think dipole gravity is plausible?

If so, could you address the charged foil issue?

[Bengt Nyman]

Querious, please describe your aluminum foil question in detail:

If it is laying flat, is the foil bed conductive or insulated ?
If it is insulated what is under the insulation ? Mother earth or a conductive plate with additional insulation under it ?
You are now attempting to charge the foil.
Are you charging it by adding electrons or removing electrons ?
What do you expect to happen if electrostatic gravity it false ?
What do you expect to happen if electrostatic gravity is true ?

I will be happy to go through this with you one last time.

Bengt Nyman

[Zyxzevn]

So, are you bringing this up because you think dipole gravity is plausible?

Did I say that anywhere?
I am bringing it up, because two people use two different equations.

I like to investigate the relationship between EM and gravity. For several reasons, I do not
believe Einstein was right with his gravity.

I personally think that gravity is like photon pressure.
Instead of pushing something away, it attracts something. And to conserve momentum,
there might be something that conserves momentum lost by photon pressure.
I do not think that a normal photon will work, other fields/particles are responsible for that.
But that's just a theory.

A model for gravity in astronomy has to solve several problems:
At earth:
1) the linear relationship between mass [Kg] and weight [Newton].
2) the impossibility of shielding it.
3) Time dilation (GPS).
At Solar system level:
4) 1/r² relationship with distance.
5) Precession
6) No energy loss.
7) Most orbits are in a single plane.
8) Stability of orbits.
At galactic level:
9) 1/r relationship of the rotation of stars in a galaxy (the "dark matter" problem).
10) The specific shapes of galaxies.
11) the red-shift of light over very long distances (the "inflation").

The electric universe adds electromagnetic forces in these systems. And if there are large-scale
electromagnetic forces, it will certainly influence the orbits.
It would be interesting to see how big the influence of these Electromagnetic forces really are.
Also the influence of the Birkeland currents.
I think that the EU does a very good job at showing these possible influences, and delivers
some good explanations for certain astronomical phenomena.

Because gravity is so small compared to electromagnetism, Thornhill and Sansbury explore the
model of a gravity in which gravity is some side-effect of electromagnetism. For that Sansbury
introduces new particles that are faster than light. That is possible, since he assumes
that Einstein was not completely correct. Thornhill uses something similar. Forces are immediate,
light is slow.

I think that Thornhill was not trying to proof that gravity is directly electric, but that it has some relationship.
He looks for this relationship in particles that are inside the electron.
Bengt seems to suggest that electric forces are really the same as gravity. I do not think that this model is correct.
On other sites, related to Tesla, I have also seen magnetism as the cause for gravity. I think this is also incorrect.

I do not think that a polar force, whether electric, magnetic or sub-atomic, can simply model gravity.
We would start with 1/r³ relationship, unless the poles are very far apart. We might get relativity side-effects,
like magnetism. And if 2 polar systems would meet, we would see a strange reorientations.
Until now we do not see objects flying away when you put them upside down very quickly.
The example in Thornhill's video is related to a rotation stability problem, not a gravity thing.
See: http://i.imgur.com/gMXEo5e.gif

The only way I see to model gravity with a polar force would be by adding an extra dimension. Which is
somehow similar to what Einstein did (he used time as a dimension).

[querious]

Querious, please describe your aluminum foil question in detail:

If it is laying flat, is the foil bed conductive or insulated ?

It's hanging from a 25 meter long piece of nylon thread

If it is insulated what is under the insulation ? Mother earth or a conductive plate with additional insulation under it ?

It's in a large building with a concrete floor, 50 meters from any surface.

You are now attempting to charge the foil.
Are you charging it by adding electrons or removing electrons ?
Removing
What do you expect to happen if electrostatic gravity it false ?
The charge won't affect the weight, beyond the mass of removed electrons.
What do you expect to happen if electrostatic gravity is true ?
The charge will cause the weight to change, much more than can be explained by the mass of removed electrons.

[Bengt Nyman]

What do you expect to happen if electrostatic gravity is true ?
The charge will cause the weight to change, much more than can be explained by the mass of removed electrons.

My turn to ask:
1. Why do you expect the weight to change ?
2. Will the weight increase or decrease ?

[querious]

What do you expect to happen if electrostatic gravity is true ?
The charge will cause the weight to change, much more than can be explained by the mass of removed electrons.

My turn to ask:
1. Why do you expect the weight to change ? Because charges experience a force within your electrostatic dipole field.

2. Will the weight increase or decrease? The excess of pos charge would cause weight to increase, if your dipoles are oriented similarly to Wal's.