Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[Bengt Nyman]

In the video you linked, "s" is the distance between dipoles, "r" is the distance from each dipole to the point of interest.

That is correct, and in our check simulation s became L.
Can you admit that you have been hasty and wrong, and that dipoles at a distance fall of with 1/r^2.

P.S. Call it s, call it L, the result was and is the same: 1/r^2.

[querious]

In the video you linked, "s" is the distance between dipoles, "r" is the distance from each dipole to the point of interest.

That is correct, and in our check simulation s became L.
Can you admit that you have been hasty and wrong, and that dipoles at a distance fall of with 1/r^2.

Now I can understand why you are very selective when it comes to quoting, because you try to leave out what you actually said***. Here, I'll remind you once again...

When the dipole is short in relation to the distance to the point of interest, s becomes = r and the field falls off with r/r^3 = 1/r^2

Obviously, when the dipole is short in relation to distance, s becomes MUCH LESS than r, not "s becomes = r".

How much longer do we have to do this?

***For proof that Bengt has used this tactic before, see this post...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 65#p108617

[Bengt Nyman]

Obviously, when the dipole is short in relation to distance, s becomes MUCH LESS than r, not "s becomes = r".
How much longer do we have to do this?

Until you get it right.
S (s) is in your own words the perpendicular distance from the midpoint of the dipole axis to the point of interest.
R (r) is the distance between each dipole charge and the point of interest.
Now move the point of interest further away from the dipole. S (s) gets larger. At the same time r (both, r1 = r2) gets larger. At some point the difference between s and r becomes so small that it can be ignored.
In other words s = r and s/r^3 becomes r/r^3 or 1/r^2.
If you lack 3D visualization, draw it on a piece of paper.

[querious]

Obviously, when the dipole is short in relation to distance, s becomes MUCH LESS than r, not "s becomes = r".
How much longer do we have to do this?

Until you get it right.
S (s) is in your own words the perpendicular distance from the midpoint of the dipole axis to the point of interest.
R (r) is the distance between each dipole charge and the point of interest.
Now move the point of interest further away from the dipole. S (s) gets larger. At the same time r (both, r1 = r2) gets larger. At some point the difference between s and r becomes so small that it can be ignored.
In other words s = r and s/r^3 becomes r/r^3 or 1/r^2.
If you lack 3D visualization, draw it on a piece of paper.

Sorry, let's try this again...

I said...

In the video you linked, "s" is the distance between dipoles, "r" is the distance from each dipole to the point of interest.

What I should have said was....

In the video you linked, "s" is the distance between dipole charges, "r" is the distance from each dipole to the point of interest.

.
Point taken!

Now, that does nothing to let you off the hook....

You said (way before I made my little slip-up above, so you can't use that as an excuse)...

When the dipole is short in relation to the distance to the point of interest, s becomes = r and the field falls off with r/r^3 = 1/r^2

That was said right after you linked the video, so you had to know that "s" is the separation between dipole charges, and r is the distance between charge(s) and point of interest.

As you can see, what you said makes no sense.

[Bengt Nyman]

The bottom line is that dipoles and therefore dipole gravity falls off with 1/r^2 as it should.
So opponents will have to find a better argument against Ralph Sansbury, Wallace Thornhill, Bengt Nyman and Siggy in regards to the theoretical feasibility of dipole gravity.

[querious]

The bottom line is that dipoles and therefore dipole gravity falls off with 1/r^2 as it should.
So opponents will have to find a better argument against Ralph Sansbury, Wallace Thornhill, Bengt Nyman and Siggy in regards to the theoretical feasibility of dipole gravity.

So, after all that arguing, is this finally an admission you got it wrong in the highlighted part, without actually saying it?

BTW - The links you and Siggy posted both say that dipoles fall off with 1/r3, when far from the dipole. It also makes sense when you think about it. So opponents have just one more reason dipoles don't explain gravity, on top of numerous others.

[Bengt Nyman]

Querious, you are out of chips, bluffing no longer works, please feel free to leave the table.

[querious]

Querious, you are out of chips, bluffing no longer works, please feel free to leave the table.

Lol, I guess we'll have to let the other players decide who's actually out of chips.

[willendure]

Take one hydrogen atom, free from any external influences.
Take a second hydrogen atom and introduce it to the first hydrogen atom.
At first the atoms look nothing like my diagram. They are round, centered and pretty.
However, with the speed of gravity the electron in atom 1 senses the electron in atom 2 and attempts to push it away. But doing so the proton in atom 1 objects, it likes the electron in atom 2.
What's atom 1 to do ?
"My proton wants to be a little closer to your electron, but please keep your proton out of the way," says atom 1.
"Ok!" agrees atom 2.

Continuing on this flight of fancy...



Attraction = e^2 (0.81 - 1.21 - 1 - 1) = e^2(0.9*0.9 + 1.1*1.1 - 1*1 - 1*1)

In the case where the distance between the atoms is 1 (unit). Lets suppose the distance is actually r units:

Attraction = e^2 ((r-0.1)*(r-0.1)+(r+0.1)*(r+0.1) - 2(r*r))
= e^2 (r^2 -0.2r + 0.01 + r^2 + 0.2r + 0.01 - 2r^2)
= e^2 (2r^2 - 2r^2 + 0.2r - 0.2r + 0.02)
= e^2 (0.02)

Giving rise to a gravity that does not drop off as 1/r^2, as we observe in reality, and instead giving rise to a constant force, irrespective of distance.

If that were true, Newton would have written f = GmM not f = GmM/r^2.

I do believe this matter is settled.

Above is what I worked out from bengts diagrams. I think he changed things a bit after that. I don't think dipoles will give rise to a 1/r^2 law.

[Bengt Nyman]

Forces between charges always follow Coulombs law with ...1/r^2.
When in doubt go back to Coulombs law and derive one pair of forces at a time. Shortcuts through a "field" can easily lead you astray.
My numerical example that you quoted above is based on arbitrary distances and shows that whatever variables you put in, the dipole interaction shown always results in a small positive attractive force.

[Zyxzevn]

Forces between charges always follow Coulombs law with ...1/r^2.

The dipole creates 2 fields of 1/r². One q/r² and one -q/(r+d)²
Where d is the distance between the two charges.

F= q/r² - q/(r+d)²

You can see that when d = 0 then F = 0.
And that at any distance F < q/r²

F= ( q*(r+d)² - q*r² ) / ( r²*(r+d)² ) =
q * ( (r+d)² - r²) / ( r²*(r+d)² ) =
q * ( r² + d*r + d² - r² ) / ( r²*(r+d)² ) =
q * ( d*r + d² ) / ( r²*(r+d)² )

For d << r

F = q * ( d*r ) / ( r²*r² )
= q * ( d ) / ( r³ )

This is what querius is saying.

We can get the field close to 1/r² again by making the distance d very large.
This is also possible by chaining a lot of dipoles together. The distance d becomes
the largest distance between the dipoles.

For d >> r

F = q * ( d² ) / ( r²*d² )
F = q / r²

This is the equation that is used by Bengt it seems.
Also Siggy's examples show cases where d is relatively large to r

This is all without any shielding.

Siggy's example shows a sphere with one dipole on the inside and one dipole on the outside.
It seems to suggest that the inside is shielded off from the outside.
I don't think that shielding works that way. As I understand shielding adds a dipole in the system,
instead of completely blocking the field. So shielding can not create a monopole from a dipole.

A dipole gravity would only work when the charges are separated over a long distance.
Siggy suggests that the shape of the distribution is also important.

To make this all work in the solar system, I have to create a charge-distribution that reaches all
the way to the (probably non-existing) Oort cloud. The shape might be like that of a disk.

While I think that the sun creates a large electron-charge distribution in the solar system, I do not think
that it is responsible for the gravity system. Gravity is also not sensitive to shielding or electrical charge.

In Thornhill's other videos, he states there are sub-particles (of known subatomic particles) responsible
for the gravity. This is a much better choice, since we know for example that neutrinos are responsible for transporting mass. Neutrinos can not be detected directly, even in massive numbers.
Something similar might be responsible for gravity too. That is how I understand it.

In the latest video Thornhill even describes connection-lines between particles. This model is slightly different,
but can indeed be used to model all known interactions between particles. The connection-lines can
be related to particles, just as gluons that connect quarks.

An other model that might be considered is some sort of dynamic aether. Dynamic aether is moving with gravity and could be responsible for gravity as well.

Looking at the solar system, we clearly have a 1/r² force/acceleration that keeps the planets in orbit.
On the level of galaxies this force is different. We see 1/r forces/acceleration instead.
This force even creates spiral patterns, unlike the solar gravity.
Adding invisible matter to to the system does not change the 1/r relationship.
Polar forces like electromagnetism do create spirals and can create a 1/r accelerations.
As I understand it, this might be possible when the whole galaxy is different in polarity from its halo,
and when strong magnetic-like forces are included. Magnetic forces increase when charged matter is moving.
It might be interesting to see how these distribution is organized, whatever model of gravity you are using.

I think that it is interesting to find a common cause of both electromagnetism and gravity. That is a problem that even mainstream science is trying to solve.

[Eutrophicated1]

I've seen a lot of terminology used in this thread by people who're confusing weight with mass, with inertial mass, with rest mass. Maybe we should return to basic Newtonian rules to avoid such confusion. For the most part, and for our purposes here as residents on the Earth, Newton was right about his 3 laws.

Does his "universal gravitational constant" vary sometimes with location on the Earth? Sure. But not by enough to matter for our purposes. And his "laws" provide us with consistent ways of talking about "weight", "mass", and "force".

When we discuss these words, we should recognize that Newton also had rules about measuring these 3 quantities. In fact Newton required that we calculate weight by measuring the time an object takes to fall a specified distance from rest in a vacuum. From that measurement, we can calculate the terminal velocity and the acceleration experienced by said object. And, since we can measure and calulate these values, we can also calculate the "rest mass" of the object. As the object falls freely, it appears to have no weight; but of course, it still has the same mass. Mass, as Wal has maintained, is an intrinsic property of all matter. There are no teeny-tiny specs of matter that have "0" mass.

We also can call this mass "inertial mass", since the force needed to accelerate said mass to some predetermined velocity different from its initial velocity, can be called the inertial force (that which is needed to overcome the "inertia" of the object. When I use the terms "accelerate", "force" and "velocity", I am of course referring to the vector math of the situation.

I am sorry for any informational redunance any of you may have experienced; I just believe that when any of us, including Wal, discusses these topics, we need to be utterly consistent about how we approach all the terminology and jargon in them.

Thanks, eutrophicated1

[willendure]

We can get the field close to 1/r² again by making the distance d very large.
This is also possible by chaining a lot of dipoles together.

Thanks for your explanation. My derivation was based on some earlier equations bengt had supplied, which did not use Coulomb's law correctly (as I mentioned, he did update them after that).

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? In the Cavendish experiment, gravity is measured horizontally between two balls. How can their dipoles align both horizontally and vertically at the same time. Ok, ok, perhaps its a vector somewhere in between, but I think we can set up an experiment showing that gravity really does act in all directions at once, like a mono-pole.

[Eutrophicated1]

Wal Thornhills description of the "source" of gravity being due to shifts in subatomic structures seems more reasonable to me than any other theories I've heard. One thing I like about it is its overall simplicity. It doesn't need "special" particles or magical invisible anything to work. I also appreciate him using just the 3 basic subatomic particles, basic electromagnetic math, and the simplest force arrangements of all the new theories. I'm betting that the strength of the gravitational force has been easily calculated from the accumulated subatomic variations he described.

I also believe that a lot quantum physics' gobbledegook can be sloughed off in the near future. One interesting comment that Wal made referred to macro celestial objects instantaneously "knowing" things about very distant other macro celestial objects. Kind of like quantum entanglement, or quantum communications, only better.

Thanks, eutrophicated1

[Zyxzevn]

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.