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: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:11 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:The sun could easily remove our moon from our planet, but it does not do that.


Ok, you lost me there. Please explain why you think the Moon should be pulled away from Earth.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Aug 28, 2015 7:00 am

querious wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:The sun could easily remove our moon from our planet, but it does not do that.


Ok, you lost me there. Please explain why you think the Moon should be pulled away from Earth.


I was biased here, due to seeing too many instable simulations.
The orbits are chaotic, but stable for millions of years.

Earth itself is older than that (>4 billion years), so it will be interesting to find out if its
orbit might have changed. If we simulate accurately with time going backwards we may see it.
I want to implement accurate calculations for planetary (and moon) orbits for different models of gravity,
to see how they differ.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Sun Aug 30, 2015 8:40 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
querious wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:The sun could easily remove our moon from our planet, but it does not do that.


Ok, you lost me there. Please explain why you think the Moon should be pulled away from Earth.


I was biased here, due to seeing too many instable simulations.
The orbits are chaotic, but stable for millions of years.

Earth itself is older than that (>4 billion years), so it will be interesting to find out if its
orbit might have changed.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Tidal_evolution
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Sun Aug 30, 2015 3:16 pm

kaublezw wrote:But I'm confused at around 40:00. He seems to suggest that gravity pulls the nucleus of atoms towards the center of mass, thus causing a small electric dipole within the atom, thus causing gravity? It seems to be a circular reference. What am I missing? Is it that the London force gets things started?


Aside from the circular reasoning... why don't all the nucleus end up away from the center of mass, if the whole system is set up by a positive feedback originating in the London force? I mean, it would seem from his description that that is just as likely.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:48 am

kaublezw wrote:Later on he suggests that if we are falling, during our fall, we have no mass? I was confused by that as well.


I think he said that during free fall the nuclei would return to the centre of the atoms, so the dipole is no longer present. But if the dipole is responsible for the force that we experience as gravity, then there would be no acceleration during a fall would there?

This theory of gravity is utter nonsense.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Aug 31, 2015 1:29 am

willendure wrote:This theory of gravity is utter nonsense.


Tying gravity to matter is not nonsense.

Wal correctly ascribes gravity as a surface phenomena, which is correct. Miles Mathis does the same thing in his theory.

---

Only thing i really did not like was saying that a star on one side of the galaxy has to be able to "see" a star on the other side, whih FTL or something. A strange proposition since in EU you already have the greater (A Birkeland Current) dominating the motions, the stars are in the same maelstrom, no "direct" connection needed.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:31 am

willendure wrote:
kaublezw wrote:Later on he suggests that if we are falling, during our fall, we have no mass? I was confused by that as well.


I think he said that during free fall the nuclei would return to the centre of the atoms, so the dipole is no longer present. But if the dipole is responsible for the force that we experience as gravity, then there would be no acceleration during a fall would there?

This theory of gravity is utter nonsense.


Willendure,
You forgot that kaublezw also said... "I'm not interested in reasons why you think the theory is wrong."

So please stick to thinking up ways to make this theory workable! Maybe the Aether just wants to get out of the way of falling objects, creating a vacuum that sucks things down? Why not?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:11 am

querious wrote:Willendure,
You forgot that kaublezw also said... "I'm not interested in reasons why you think the theory is wrong."

So please stick to thinking up ways to make this theory workable! Maybe the Aether just wants to get out of the way of falling objects, creating a vacuum that sucks things down? Why not?


But that would be an entirely different theory..?

Sorry, I just feel Thornhill's presentation is as full of holes (circular reasoning, arguments that defy logic) as the standard model of the sun. Indeed, he has some great presentations on the sun and it was one of his videos on the sun that got me interested in EU. But this presentation on gravity is so bad as to be almost an embarrassment. I don't think it helps at all in getting EU ideas accepted, its just material that critics can point at and label us all as crackpots.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Tue Sep 01, 2015 2:52 am

Why does a metal sheet not shield gravity, if this is all true? In the same way that a metal sheet will shield an electrical field? Thornhill claims this is not the case, because the atoms in the metal sheet will also "daisy-chain" the effect. Ok, but to daisy chain the dipole effect, the atoms need to be close together. So if the metal sheet is lying on the ground, perhaps that could happen. What if the metal sheet was suspended in the air, held perhaps by chains from above? That would air-gap the sheet from the surface and break the daisy chain. In fact, just putting the metal sheet on a table surface ought to be enough.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:07 am

Or what about calculating the trajectory of a probe sent out to explore the planets by NASA? They use Newtons equations to determine how it will be affected by the gravity of the planets. If the force were repulsive at larger distances instead of attractive, then the probes would not have travelled as expected. We got pictures back from Pluto just fine, so I think that kind of debunks that idea. Also, if gravity is determined by charge on a body, what would the charge on the probe be, coming from earth? Would it change or not as it travelled through space, and how would that affect its trajectory? What about Cassini, the probe that was zapped by Hyperion? Did that change its trajectory under gravity? No.

As I say, this is utter nonsense.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Tue Sep 01, 2015 4:18 am

Then there are the experiments where we try and measure G, by using two large metal spheres and directly measuring their force of attraction when brought close together. They do attract, but why would that be the case if gravity is polarized as in Thornhill's theory? Out of three bodies, that is the two spheres and the earth, only 2 should attract if that is the case.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:24 am

willendure wrote:
querious wrote:Willendure,
You forgot that kaublezw also said... "I'm not interested in reasons why you think the theory is wrong."

So please stick to thinking up ways to make this theory workable! Maybe the Aether just wants to get out of the way of falling objects, creating a vacuum that sucks things down? Why not?


But that would be an entirely different theory..?

Sorry, I just feel Thornhill's presentation is as full of holes (circular reasoning, arguments that defy logic) as the standard model of the sun. Indeed, he has some great presentations on the sun and it was one of his videos on the sun that got me interested in EU. But this presentation on gravity is so bad as to be almost an embarrassment. I don't think it helps at all in getting EU ideas accepted, its just material that critics can point at and label us all as crackpots.


I totally agree, I was just being sarcastic.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Sep 01, 2015 10:12 am

willendure wrote:Why does a metal sheet not shield gravity, if this is all true? In the same way that a metal sheet will shield an electrical field? Thornhill claims this is not the case, because the atoms in the metal sheet will also "daisy-chain" the effect. Ok, but to daisy chain the dipole effect, the atoms need to be close together. So if the metal sheet is lying on the ground, perhaps that could happen. What if the metal sheet was suspended in the air, held perhaps by chains from above? That would air-gap the sheet from the surface and break the daisy chain. In fact, just putting the metal sheet on a table surface ought to be enough.


Just float some aluminium on a magnet, anti-gravity right there.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Tue Sep 01, 2015 11:18 am

D_Archer wrote:Just float some aluminium on a magnet, anti-gravity right there.


Are you being sarcastic too?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Tue Sep 01, 2015 7:08 pm

D_Archer wrote:
willendure wrote:Why does a metal sheet not shield gravity, if this is all true? In the same way that a metal sheet will shield an electrical field? Thornhill claims this is not the case, because the atoms in the metal sheet will also "daisy-chain" the effect. Ok, but to daisy chain the dipole effect, the atoms need to be close together. So if the metal sheet is lying on the ground, perhaps that could happen. What if the metal sheet was suspended in the air, held perhaps by chains from above? That would air-gap the sheet from the surface and break the daisy chain. In fact, just putting the metal sheet on a table surface ought to be enough.


Just float some aluminium on a magnet, anti-gravity right there.

Regards,
Daniel



Hmmm, I just tried it and the aluminum just sat on the magnet. Darnit!
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests