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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Mon Sep 28, 2015 3:47 pm

Pi sees wrote:
querious wrote:
Pi sees wrote: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 same thing.
Pi sees wrote:
querious wrote: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.
Do you also feel this way about the W boson?
Pi sees wrote: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.
querious wrote: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, ...
Neither do I! Which is why I said curvature IS mass-energy. They are 2 sides of the same coin, imho.
Pi sees wrote: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)?
querious wrote: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?
Tests of general relativity

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Tue Sep 29, 2015 6:56 pm

wikipedia wrote: Tests of general relativity
There are so many Thunderbolts videos on the topic.
(Why do I even have to do this?)

But lets get into the list of FAILED tests of general relativity:

1. Perihelion precession of Mercury
Mercury is the only planet that needs a different formula for gravity.
Einstein's formula works here.
According to some recent simulations published on Natural Society, we get wrong
results if we apply the Einstein's formula to the Earth's orbit for example.

2. Deflection of light by the Sun
This is a clear fail. It only works in the plasma regions of the sun.
So it is actually a fail.

3. Gravitational redshift of light
This is a fail too. According to the GPS specialist Ron Hatch the frequency of light does not change at all.
What does seem to change is the time. But that might again be invalid special relativity.

4. Post-Newtonian tests of gravity
These are based on the above false results.

5. Gravitational lensing
Total bogus.
These are all rings of plasma.
We do not see it where we should see it, so this is a FAIL.

6. Light travel time delay testing
Same as 2.
Again did they fool themselves.

7. The equivalence principle
Gravity is constant everywhere and constant in time.
Irrelevant, but still wrong according to Sheldrake's research.

8. Gravitational redshift
Same as 3.

9. Frame-dragging tests
Hey, after using all Einstein's corrections gravity is the SAME as if it instant.
So the simpler conclusion is to assume that gravity is actually instant.
Interestingly they still uphold the myth of black holes and such..

10. Strong field tests: Binary pulsars
The electric versions are more consistent.
They totally FORGET the idea of electro-magnetic fields.
So it is a FAIL too.

11. Direct detection of gravitational waves
FAIL!
But I expect that a passing train will cause some new discoveries,
just like they had in CERN.

12. Cosmological tests
So many fails.
Expansion of the universe, cosmic background radiation..
Shall we just skip this nonsense?

Not on wikipedia anymore..
13. There is an experiment where they looked at the speed of decay of nuclear material on different
altitudes. They found a difference.
But the decay of nuclear material changes in the seasons. We do not even understand that.
So this is rather a FAIL to understand radioactive decay, instead of any evidence.

Additionally:
14. NO evidence for black holes.
15. Theoretical inconsistencies.
16. Incompatible with the most accurate theory there is: quantum physics.

And my favorite:

17. Special relativity is slightly wrong.
a. the "photon" is connected with sender all the time, just like in quantum physics.
It follows the lightspeed relative to the sender. No timeshift-trick needed.
b. entanglement and special relativity mix up clocks.
c. Sansbury's experiment with light.

Additionally:
17. The specialist myth. Only people who can understand the complex math
can verify the statements made by general relativity, If you think that it is wrong,
you have to rely on other people to correct you.
This is not correct.
a. If a theory can only be understood by specialists, it is a broken theory. It means that
even the specialists can not understand it well enough to explain it in a simple and correct way.
The theory can not be used to create a better understanding of gravity, so it is broken.
b. The hilbert space is a very simple principle. The transformation of space and time,
are simple mathematical tricks. Everything of relativity is very simple.
So we do not need specialists to see through this facade of formulas.
c. A theory that contains singularities is by definition wrong. That is a simple
mathematical principle. It means that the theory is only an approximation of reality.


************************************

While I like to discuss about it and to learn more, we had other threads about this.
This threat is actually about Thornhill's presentation on gravity.
And I already stated that he builds a new theory on gravity, because the old one has failed.

Dipoles and gravity

I still do not agree with the idea that electric dipoles are creating gravity. I wonder even
if gravity can create dipoles. It would be simple to test whether acceleration creates dipoles.
If we rotate a disk we should be able to measure a voltage difference between
the center and the edge of the disk.
Of course this should not become a vandegraaff-generator.

Gravity and electromagnetism

Gravity is very very weak compared to the electric force, so the idea that certain electric interactions
might generate certain forces does not seem so bad.
Since gravity is related to mass, for this model to work, the proton and neutron should react
more than the electron.
So quarks and such should be much more interactive than the electron.
Because quarks do not necessarily carry a charge, this becomes rather difficult.

Because every particle has a spin, it is easier to link magnetism to gravity. But this still does
not seem to work very well.

Weight changing
The best solution would be to look at what causes differences in mass in materials.
Materials with the same amount of protons, neutrons and electrons can have different weight,
depending on their arrangement. In the nuclear fusion of deuterium into helium,
the 2 atoms become one atom that is lighter, while it has the same amount of particles.

This mass is transferred by the neutrino particle.
So logically neutrinos should have some deep relation with gravity.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Tue Sep 29, 2015 7:47 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
There are so many Thunderbolts videos on the topic.
(Why do I even have to do this?)
I've said that to myself a million times, as it seems willendure & I are the only ones pointing out the absurdity of dipole gravity. There are so many easy arguments that blow it completely out of the water.

As regards GR, I'm probably not going to change any minds, so let's agree to disagree on that, or start another thread where we can go through your "refutations" one by one, carefully.


So you agree that dipoles can't explain gravity. Now, why do YOU think that?

(Hey Bengt, we have another "lazy" one here for you to set on the right path with your stunningly clear arguments.)

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by willendure » Wed Sep 30, 2015 3:54 am

Zyxzevn wrote: But lets get into the list of FAILED tests of general relativity:
...

I still do not agree with the idea that electric dipoles are creating gravity.
Well I am glad that your refutation of GR does not lead you to conclude that dipole gravity is the answer. There is really nothing in your refutations that would suggest that it is. That is part of the problem that I have with this dipole gravity nonsense - the problems with the existing theories do not lead us into the dipole model. Or to put it another way, the dipole model does not answer those problems.

Better I say to look at the problems with the existing model, and to so what alternatives do answer those problems.

I'm a little less sceptical of GR than you are, but I am also definitely not saying that dipole is wrong because GR is right. I'm saying dipole is wrong because it is an illogical and badly conceived hypothesis that provides no new answers anyway.
Zyxzevn wrote: Materials with the same amount of protons, neutrons and electrons can have different weight,
depending on their arrangement. In the nuclear fusion of deuterium into helium,
the 2 atoms become one atom that is lighter, while it has the same amount of particles.

This mass is transferred by the neutrino particle.
So logically neutrinos should have some deep relation with gravity.
An interesting thing to bring up. Neutrinos are supposedly massless? I don't know what the answer to this is, except to repeat what my physics teacher said a long time ago. When you fuse helium a large amount of energy is released, and since E=mc^2, that accounts for the loss in mass between the fuel in and the spent fuel out.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by willendure » Wed Sep 30, 2015 7:20 am

Image

Here is the mass deficit graph. It shows how much less atoms weigh, than the individual nucleons that make them up would weigh by themselves. When the nucleons bind together to form a nucleus, energy is released, and the atoms end up lighter than they would otherwise be. I just posted this up to illustrate Zyxzevn's comment.

User avatar
Vecta3
Posts: 32
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:30 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Vecta3 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:29 am

What about the opposing force of levity? Refer to Enst Lehrs "Man or Matter" to learn how levity works. Potentially gravity is incomprehensible without it.
With a Silent Mind: Krishnamurti- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d3FoZ55wSw
If you understand the problem then the answer will come out of it as the answer is not separate from the problem.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:04 pm

Does Steve Crothers, a "competent critic of modern cosmology", agree with Wallace Thornhill, the Chief Science Advisor to The Thunderbolts Project, that dipoles explain gravity?

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by David » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:25 pm

querious wrote:Does Steve Crothers, a "competent critic of modern cosmology", agree with Wallace Thornhill, the Chief Science Advisor to The Thunderbolts Project, that dipoles explain gravity?
As far as I know, Crothers does not agree with dipole gravity; he's never given any indication that he does. A better question would be: "Does anyone at all agree with the theory"? Thornhill could very well be the only person on the planet who believes it. And if he's not alone, their numbers are vanishingly small.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:30 pm

David wrote:As far as I know, Crothers does not agree with dipole gravity; he's never given any indication that he does.
Then how in the heck can Crothers let Wal, Chief Science Advisor to The Thunderbolts Project, go on with these presentations? Does he just not see the obvious problems with it?

It's truly baffling.

David
Posts: 313
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:19 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by David » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:57 pm

querious wrote: Then how in the heck can Crothers let Wal, Chief Science Advisor to The Thunderbolts Project, go on with these presentations? Does he just not see the obvious problems with it?

It's truly baffling.
Crothers and Robitaille give presentations at these conferences that claim that the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) is produced by the earth's oceans. However, Thornhill and company don't agree. So all these guys are on different pages -- it's just one big, jumbled, mixed bag of ideas.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by Zyxzevn » Tue Oct 13, 2015 5:45 pm

querious wrote: It's truly baffling.
It seems that they are working independently.

I like to study different theories of gravity or anything.
Generally many people have the idea that all forces could be different aspects of just one force
or just one phenomenon. That is why people try to create gravity from electric or magnetic forces.

And maybe on some level there is some connection, though I do not think it is as Thornhill presented it.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Tue Oct 13, 2015 8:48 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
querious wrote: It's truly baffling.
It seems that they are working independently.
Working independently is to be expected.

I'm just trying to imagine Crothers sitting through one of Wal's presentations and *not* being curious enough to try to figure out if dipoles really can explain gravity.

A few moment's worth of critical thought on the matter should've had Crothers jumping up and pulling Wal from the podium to save him from embarrassment.

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 2:29 am

Unfortunately Wallace Thornhill got tripped up in the physical details of dipole gravity.
Here is a methematical representation which avoids the complex geometry involved:

Gravity between bodies is caused by electrostatic posturing and subsequent attraction. A body can be said to have a certain amount of virtual, visible, accessible or free dipole charge in response to the proximity of other bodies. This free dipole charge always postures to cause a net attraction force between bodies.
The free dipole charge in a body is 8.6169*10^-11 Coulomb/kg and is sensed by all bodies in its environment.
Coulombs Law now determines the attraction, or "gravity", between bodies based on the free dipole charge in each body and the distance^2 between the bodies.

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 » Wed Oct 14, 2015 7:20 am

Then how in the heck (...) It's truly baffling.
querious, willendure and David:

Scrutiny can be fruitful, but get your loose cannons into proper positions. Please distinguish between:

a) the critique given on how (macroscopic) gravity is modelled, regardless of gravity's causes (Crothers)

and

b) proposed underlying mechanisms of gravity (Thornhill and B. Nyman)

Thornhill has outlined a possible correlation between London dispersion forces and gravity. There are other researchers that has found the subject plausible. See: The van der Waals and gravitational force in matter (Lei Zhang, 2013)
We argue that the gravitational force is the van der Waals force actually. In other words, the gravitational force and mass are related to the quantum fluctuations of electron clouds in atoms, and these parameters are dictated by dielectric susceptibility.
Bengt Nyman has developed a theory where dipoles on subatomic level can explain numerous forces. There are other researchers that has found the subject plausible. See: Polarization in the Sun and planets (J. Ebner, 2012)
Electrostatic dipoles can make any shape possible for magnets. Dipoles can make loops just as well as magnets. The loops apply an obvious compressive force. The ends of the individual atomic dipoles tend to line up, opposite charge to opposite charge, around the planet in long dipole loops.
Although not exactly the same, these approaches are similar and physically rational. They have a dipole / ellipsoid atom approach, which can be developed further.

Of course, feel free to scrutinize and critique on a scientific basis.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:12 am

Siggy_G wrote:Of course, feel free to scrutinize and critique on a scientific basis.
Already did that, but I'll ask again...

Can anyone on this forum explain why a charged foil doesn't react to the dipole-generated electrostatic field of the Earth?

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests