Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[Zyxzevn]

Einstein's supporters, which encompass most of the present mainstream science, have a disturbing tendency to make unsupported claims or claims of verification when there are alternative and sometimes better explanations.

Is General Relativity an explanation to gravity bending light?

Or is gravity's light bending a prediction of General Relativity?

According to Einstein's theory of general relativity,
gravity is supposed to bend space/time. Because light goes straight in vacuum
gravity should also change the course of light through vacuum.
This would bend the light.

The scientists supporting this theory have seen all kinds of "evidence" that this might be
going on. But looking at this evidence, there is always something wrong with it.

1. Lightbending near the sun.
   Stars appear on a different place when their light goes very near the sun.
   The light bending near the sun appears only very near the sun where there is plasma, and
   there is none further away from the sun. This bending appears to be from plasma alone and nothing
   else.
2. Gravity rings
   With the Hubble telescope we have some nice pictures of half-rings that were predicted by Einstein's theory.
   But closely examining these pictures we see many rings together and no obvious source for them.
   And if we look at the places where we should expect such rings, we see no rings at all.
   So these rings are likely to be caused by something else.
   The most obvious explanation would be that these rings are actually plasma, that form circles due to some
   electrical field. And if we look at long lines of plasma, we can often see that they form circular structures
   at the end. So these rings are simply plasma.
3. Einstein's crosses
   According to Einstein's theory, light can bend into four directions.
   (I do not know under what circumstances though).
   And has followers were very happy when they saw 4 similar lights very near to each other, in some
   kind of cross formation. So this is proof, according to them.
   But after closer examining the evidence, I can clearly see that these 4 lights are part of the galaxy that is
   underneath. Also there is nothing in the center of the "cross". The cross itself is not straight, but badly aligned.
   So there is nothing that can support this as evidence.
   
   What is interesting though, is that we often see some symmetric lights near galaxies.
   So these lights might origin from the galaxy and have been formed at the same time.
4. Change of clocks in space.
   According to Einstein's theory time should run faster in space, further away from the gravity field of earth.
   According to the GPS satellites, this has actually been observed, but there is some criticism.
   a. According to Ron Hatch who worked on the GPS,
   some calculations were wrong. He found that the time was different, but that the
   frequency of the microwaves did not change. He goes further to explain that this
   might lead to a different theory for gravity.
   b. According to the latest thunderbolts video
   their might not even have been any time difference at all. It needs a bit more discussion.
5. Change of orientation of gyroscopes in space.
   After starting gyroscopes on the surface of the earth, we send them in space and see if
   their orientation changes. According to some complex math, Einstein's gravity should
   give a certain change in the direction.
   I found this experiment in an article from Thornhill.
   They indeed found some change, but the math is too complex for me to verify this.
   The experiment has so many people involved, that it seemed too big to fail. Of the few hundred
   people that took part of the experiment, I wonder how many actually understood
   the math. 2 Maybe?
   a. Even if Einstein were right, I can not even imagine how the space/time could change the direction.
   For me it seems more likely that the moon and sun have a certain influence on
   the rotations, also the rotation of the earth, the orbit of the earth, even the orbit of the sun.
   Additionally we have to use some Lorentz transformations. The earth is moving fast relative to the
   center of the galaxy.
   b. If the experiment is correct, what would Ron Hatch's theory give us?
6. Special relativity.
   For general relativity to be true, it needs special relativity to be true under all circumstances.
   And there are some indications that this might not be the case. It would certainly be interesting to find out.

[Bengt Nyman]

The old concepts of spacetime and relativity no longer serves modern physics. They are used by the Standard Model as placeholders for missing insights and more importantly to claim understanding of the universe and the money for further research. I am convinced that many within the Standard Model realizes the bluff but accepts the dogma as an important part of retaining power and funding.
The regrettable part is the deception that this plays on the public, particularly the blinding confidence that it instills in dogma followers who lack the capacity and/or the physics background to know better.
I commend Albert Einstein for his remarkable physics intuition and his true contributions, which do not include where he gave rise to dogma and deception.
I also commend Ralph Sansbury for his physics intuition pointing him toward electric gravity. Unfortunately Ralph was never given a chance to refine his thoughts into a corrected and complete theory.
I commend Wallace Thornhill for possessing the remarkable physics intuition telling him that some of today's physics dogma is fake.
I invite Wallace to share and build further on my theory, just as he did with Ralph Sansbury, to continue his quest to tell about The Long Path to Understanding Gravity.

[Zyxzevn]

The old concepts of spacetime and relativity no longer serves modern physics.

We need some simple experiments that can break these concepts.

[Bengt Nyman]

The old concepts of spacetime and relativity no longer serves modern physics.

We need some simple experiments that can break these concepts.

They are vague and pretentious concepts which will die a natural death once we offer real science that breaks the stalemate.

[willendure]

You know, just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it is wrong. Perhaps GR is right all along. Personally, I think there is evidence for and against. Its nice to be selective and put up the evidence against, but there is plenty for it too.

Anyway, what I really wanted to post up was a set of more obvious gravity anomalies, the densities of some solar system bodies, as deduced from their gravitational effects on a man-made satellite:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(moon) - 0.544 g/cm3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethys_(moon) - 0.984 g/cm3
http://sci.esa.int/rosetta/14615-comet-67p/ - 0.4 g/cm3

Any more? Hyperion and 67P you could just about believe are made of something like pumice stone, yet it does not seem convincing, especially as on the other hand we are being told they are made of ice... The sums went wrong somewhere here for sure.

[willendure]

Here is another list of gravity anomalies:

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/41 ... anomalies/

To summarize:

1. Satellites are not accelerated exactly as predicted when flying by a planet.
2. The distance between earth and sun appears to be increasing by 15cm per year.
3. The pioneer spacecraft is slowing down as it leaves the solar system.
4. The moons orbit is becoming increasingly eccentric.
5. Saturn's precession does not match the model.

Still doesn't make me want to believe in dipole gravity though...

[willendure]

2. The distance between earth and sun appears to be increasing by 15cm per year.

This one is interesting, because it suggests that the Sun is increasing in mass. We might expect it to be decreasing, due to mass lost to the solar wind, but this suggests it is increasing by 10^18kg per year.

That in turn might support the hypothesis that is indeed externally powered, by incoming charged material...

[querious]

Mass is trapped energy, not merely a byproduct of it.

That's what I'm saying.

The alleged Higgs field seems like shaky grounds upon which to claim that all matter is fundamentally massless.

Oh really? Why? And, I didn't say ALL matter, I said quarks & leptons. The mass of a proton has little to do with the Higgs field, that's mostly plain ol' mass-energy from the interacting quarks.

I could see how the presence of mass might distort EM fields and rarefied plasmas in its vicinity, but that is not the same thing as distorting "spacetime" itself.

I'm not really sure what you mean. But if you disagree that mass-energy curves spacetime, that's your right.
I think gravity does distort light paths, which I consider as EM fields.

So we can measure the ridiculously tiny "gravitational" attraction between two lead spheres on the Earth's surface, but not the curvature of spacetime that would supposedly occur in close proximity to high-level energy concentrations such as those in transmission lines and large generators (even over a period of months or years)?

For all PRACTICAL purposes, that is correct.

Look at the mass-energy sitting in 1 meter of ALUMINUM high-tension cable (50 lbs, maybe?). Then the mass-energy flowing through it for 1 year. Then get back to me with your reasoning of how you hope to separately measure the 2 curvatures.

Or, look at the mass-energy sitting in a 25-ton generator. Then the mass-energy flowing out of it for 1 year. Then get back to me with your reasoning of how you hope to separately measure the 2 curvatures.

And, like I said, the mass-energy of Earth swamps either of those, making their separate curvature measurement nearly impossible.

[Pi sees]

So we can measure the ridiculously tiny "gravitational" attraction between two lead spheres on the Earth's surface, but not the curvature of spacetime that would supposedly occur in close proximity to high-level energy concentrations such as those in transmission lines and large generators (even over a period of months or years)?

As I say M=E/c^2. Even though you think there is a lot of energy in a transmission line, when divided by the speed of light squared, its mass equivalent is tiny. Much easier to get a measurable effect with two balls of lead.

So we wouldn't notice even the teeniest difference in clock rate over a period of several months or years? Not even if you had the clocks right next to the transmission line or power generator? Then how can such a claim be tested? Is there any evidence of temporal distortion in close proximity to the sun, above and beyond what we would expect from its mass alone?

[Pi sees]

Mass is trapped energy, not merely a byproduct of it.

That's what I'm saying.

You said it's a byproduct of trapped energy. So is it a byproduct or the same thing?

The alleged Higgs field seems like shaky grounds upon which to claim that all matter is fundamentally massless.

Oh really? Why? And, I didn't say ALL matter, I said quarks & leptons. The mass of a proton has little to do with the Higgs field, that's mostly plain ol' mass-energy from the interacting quarks.

And the constituent quarks in the proton (are supposed to) get their mass-energy from the Higgs Field, yes? It's shaky ground because they've selectively identified an incredibly brief blip in energy output which they have assumed to be the Higgs field because that's what their models, preconceptions, and career prospects demand. Not to mention that the whole experimental setup doesn't exactly lend itself to independent verification and testing.

I could see how the presence of mass might distort EM fields and rarefied plasmas in its vicinity, but that is not the same thing as distorting "spacetime" itself.

I'm not really sure what you mean. But if you disagree that mass-energy curves spacetime, that's your right.
I think gravity does distort light paths, which I consider as EM fields.

I just don't see how mass-energy would curve spacetime, nor have I come across anything remotely resembling a convincing explanation. How can you distort a non-thing? How can you physically distort an abstract co-ordinate system? It seems more plausible and more parsimonious that the EM fields of matter (and energy) distort the EM fields of light rays; at least that doesn't require the invocation of one utterly mysterious entity (gravity) to distort another (spacetime).

So we can measure the ridiculously tiny "gravitational" attraction between two lead spheres on the Earth's surface, but not the curvature of spacetime that would supposedly occur in close proximity to high-level energy concentrations such as those in transmission lines and large generators (even over a period of months or years)?

For all PRACTICAL purposes, that is correct.

Look at the mass-energy sitting in 1 meter of ALUMINUM high-tension cable (50 lbs, maybe?). Then the mass-energy flowing through it for 1 year. Then get back to me with your reasoning of how you hope to separately measure the 2 curvatures.

Or, look at the mass-energy sitting in a 25-ton generator. Then the mass-energy flowing out of it for 1 year. Then get back to me with your reasoning of how you hope to separately measure the 2 curvatures.

And, like I said, the mass-energy of Earth swamps either of those, making their separate curvature measurement nearly impossible.

Then how would you suggest that we test this idea? Is there any evidence for it (e.g. anomalous time dilation in close proximity to the Sun), or is it just an unfalsifiable speculation?

[MrAmsterdam]

How about this controversial phenomenon?

it has been mentioned before on another post
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... ais+effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

The Allais effect refers to the anomalous behavior of pendulums or gravimeters, which is sometimes observed during a solar eclipse. The effect was first reported as an anomalous precession of the plane of oscillation of a pendulum for the solar eclipse of June 30, 1954 by Maurice Allais, a French polymath who went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. He reported another observation of the effect during the solar eclipse of October 2, 1959.
-----
Explanations

Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly, that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation, without giving any explanation of his own.[12] Allais’s explanation for another anomaly (the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum) is that space evinces certain anisotropic characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an aether which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. He has presented this hypothesis in his 1997 book L’Anisotropie de l’espace. This explanation has not gained significant traction amongst mainstream scientists.

After analysis of Foucault pendulum data during the solar eclipse of July 11, 1991, L. Savrov suggested that the "pendulum responded to the remanent shock wave at the maximum of the total eclipse phase".[13]

How does that fit into the picture?

[willendure]

How about this controversial phenomenon?

it has been mentioned before on another post
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... ais+effect

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

The Allais effect refers to the anomalous behavior of pendulums or gravimeters, which is sometimes observed during a solar eclipse. The effect was first reported as an anomalous precession of the plane of oscillation of a pendulum for the solar eclipse of June 30, 1954 by Maurice Allais, a French polymath who went on to win the Nobel Prize in Economics. He reported another observation of the effect during the solar eclipse of October 2, 1959.
-----
Explanations

Maurice Allais states that the eclipse effect is related to a gravitational anomaly, that is inexplicable in the framework of the currently admitted theory of gravitation, without giving any explanation of his own.[12] Allais’s explanation for another anomaly (the lunisolar periodicity in variations of the azimuth of a pendulum) is that space evinces certain anisotropic characteristics, which he ascribes to motion through an aether which is partially entrained by planetary bodies. He has presented this hypothesis in his 1997 book L’Anisotropie de l’espace. This explanation has not gained significant traction amongst mainstream scientists.

After analysis of Foucault pendulum data during the solar eclipse of July 11, 1991, L. Savrov suggested that the "pendulum responded to the remanent shock wave at the maximum of the total eclipse phase".[13]

How does that fit into the picture?

I think these gravity anomalies during solar eclipses are not very conclusive; others have repeated the experiment and found the same, and others have not found the same. See the table of experiments here, you can see that some attempts to repeat them produced no such result:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect

I think if a pendulums motion is influenced not just by the earth, but also the moon and the sun, and the above would suggest that it is - this disproves the dipole idea. Why? because the mass of the pendulum cannot have several dipole distortions imposed on it by the dipoles of the earth, moon and sun all at the same time. Its basically the same as the "dipole gravity is directional but gravity acts in all directions at once argument".

Who knows why these gravity anomalies occur. Either we are making a simple error in our reasoning OR our current theories of gravity are wrong. I don't think further investigation will lead us down the electric dipole model, but it certainly is an interesting phenomena to be investigated until it is understood.

[Bengt Nyman]

... Either we are making a simple error in our reasoning OR our current theories of gravity are wrong ...

The standard model acknowledges that they do not have a workable explanation for gravity.
We also know that the concept of spacetime does not explain gravity, and attempts to do so result in a circular argument.
This leaves us with only one viable model; dipole gravity.
A persons inability to understand dipole gravity between multiple bodies is not an argument, and certainly no proof against it.

[willendure]

A persons inability to understand dipole gravity between multiple bodies is not an argument, and certainly no proof against it.

I notice you didn't go so far as to explain the multiple body version Bengt... In fact I seem to recall that I said you could not explain it, a challenge which went unanswered.

[Bengt Nyman]

I notice you didn't go so far as to explain the multiple body ...

See http://www.dipole.se / strongforce.
Here's a quick, non-dimensional hint for you lazy boy: