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
colzboppo
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:11 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by colzboppo » Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:56 am

querious wrote:
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?
Because gravity isn't caused by a simplistic dipolar electrostatic field...? It could be a radially induced force instead for example.

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 10:44 am

colzboppo wrote:
querious wrote:
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?
Because gravity isn't caused by a simplistic dipolar electrostatic field...? It could be a radially induced force instead for example.
Also, please refrain from offering content-free, Bengt-style rebuttals.

colzboppo
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:11 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by colzboppo » Mon Oct 19, 2015 12:00 pm

querious wrote:
colzboppo wrote:
querious wrote:
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?
Because gravity isn't caused by a simplistic dipolar electrostatic field...? It could be a radially induced force instead for example.
Also, please refrain from offering content-free, Bengt-style rebuttals.
I was going to edit my post with a link to a paper that contained the basis of this theory but then realised I couldn't find it in my browsing history. It's an interesting alternative concept at least. http://www.mauricecotterell.com/downloa ... %20Web.pdf

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Mon Oct 19, 2015 2:56 pm

colzboppo wrote:I was going to edit my post with a link to a paper that contained the basis of this theory but then realised I couldn't find it in my browsing history. It's an interesting alternative concept at least. http://www.mauricecotterell.com/downloa ... %20Web.pdf
That "paper" is meant as a joke, right? About the ONLY thing it gets right is that like charges repel, and unlike charges attract. Beyond that, it's just gibberish.

colzboppo
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2015 10:11 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by colzboppo » Mon Oct 19, 2015 4:28 pm

No, take it for what it is, I'm not trying to convince you personally. Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding has a more constructive opinion on its musings that could help point wal in the right direction, I have a feeling he's on the right track with an electromagnetic explanation for gravity, but just can't quite figure it out yet. The idea that every atom acts as an electromagnetic motor starting with hydrogen as a simple generator that's powered by heat, emitting radial gravitational energy is a rather elegant proposition to the EU school of theories.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:10 pm

colzboppo wrote:No, take it for what it is, I'm not trying to convince you personally. Perhaps someone with a deeper understanding has a more constructive opinion on its musings that could help point wal in the right direction, I have a feeling he's on the right track with an electromagnetic explanation for gravity, but just can't quite figure it out yet. The idea that every atom acts as an electromagnetic motor starting with hydrogen as a simple generator that's powered by heat, emitting radial gravitational energy is a rather elegant proposition to the EU school of theories.
If you can't see why the paper is gobbledygook, you need to read an introductory physics book. Of course, if you're one of the people who think all that "book learnin" is for chumps, by all means, go and waste your time on such idiocy.
It's just a real shame to see such faux-curiosity about the world.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by willendure » Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:20 am

querious wrote:
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?
I can, I can... Its because gravity is not a dipole-generated electrostatic field. :lol:

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 21, 2015 8:32 am

querious wrote: Can anyone on this forum explain why a charged foil doesn't react to the dipole-generated electrostatic field of the Earth?
Somebody knowledgeable about the differences between E, B, D and H electric fields should be able to tell you.
I avoid using fields for two reasons, one is the above, the other is that there is always a cause to an electric field, and working directly from that avoids the problem.
For example: Dynamic dipole gravity is caused by a mutual, interactive posturing between trapped charges, like electrons orbiting atomic and molecular nuclei. Both nuclei and electrons are trapped in place but have a limited ability to offset or eccentrify their positions in response to external influences. See earlier dipole gravity figures. If you charge your aluminum foil with for example extra electrons, these free electrons will avoid each other and place themselves as far away from each other as possible around the edges of the foil. This will not effect dynamic dipole gravity, or any other form of gravity, because these free electrons will simply slip away and go where they want. However, if you also managed to put a negative charge onto earth, the free electrons on your aluminum foil would still try to get away but would get no further than to the edges of the top side of your aluminum foil. The free electrons that you deposited on earth would also want to spread out. It would take a lot of free electrons on the surface of the earth before you would see any effect like an electrostatic repelling force competing with gravity over control of your aluminum foil.
If instead you invested in adding a positive charge to the surface of the earth, while your aluminum foil is still negatively charged, you would experience both gravity and electrostatic attraction pulling the aluminum foil toward the earth.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:36 am

Bengt Nyman wrote: If you charge your aluminum foil with for example extra electrons, these free electrons will avoid each other and place themselves as far away from each other as possible around the edges of the foil. This will not effect dynamic dipole gravity, or any other form of gravity, because these free electrons will simply slip away and go where they want.
I agree that any extra electrons will redistribute themselves over the outer surface of the foil, in order to lower their potential energy.

However, you make it sound like this posturing explains why a charged foil doesn't react to the Earth's dipoles. It doesn't, because their ability to "slip away and go where they want" is limited to moving to the outer surface of the foil.

But thanks for at least TRYING to come up with an explanation, this time.

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 21, 2015 9:43 am

[quote="querious"][/quote]
A charged body never affects a neutral body. Dynamic dipole gravity does not change the charge of either body.

There is a lot we do not know about charge, and force at a distance, and more. SM long ago gave up on trying to find "common sense" answers to complex questions. They told me recently while talking about GR gravity versus Gravitons that "the two are not competing or conflicting, just expressions of two different models".

Many extreme complexities will never be understood by a human mind and therefore requires simplified models and variables that man can handle, even it has nothing to do with common sense or what we have learned in the past.
Try teaching your dog to understand your computer.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:05 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:
A charged body never affects a neutral body. Dynamic dipole gravity does not change the charge of either body.

There is a lot we do not know about charge, and force at a distance, and more. SM long ago gave up on trying to find "common sense" answers to complex questions. They told me recently while talking about GR gravity versus Gravitons that "the two are not competing or conflicting, just expressions of two different models".

Many extreme complexities will never be understood by a human mind and therefore requires simplified models and variables that man can handle, even it has nothing to do with common sense or what we have learned in the past.
Try teaching your dog to understand your computer.
I guess it now needs to be said again...

Also, please refrain from offering content-free, Bengt-style rebuttals.

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 21, 2015 10:30 am

querious wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:
I don't understand ...
I guess it needs to be said again...

A charged body never affects a neutral body. Dynamic dipole gravity does not change the charge of either body.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Wed Oct 21, 2015 10:47 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:I guess it needs to be said again...

A charged body never affects a neutral body.
Once again you prove your ignorance about electrostatics. Ever heard of electrostatic induction?

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 21, 2015 11:07 am

querious wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:I guess it needs to be said again...

A charged body never affects the charge of a neutral body.
Ever heard of electrostatic induction?
Electrostatic induction does not change the charge of a body, it redistributes it, just like dynamic dipole gravity does at a microscopic level.

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread post by querious » Wed Oct 21, 2015 11:25 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:I guess it needs to be said again...

A charged body never affects the charge of a neutral body.
Ever heard of electrostatic induction?
Electrostatic induction does not change the charge of a body, it redistributes it, just like dynamic dipole gravity does at a microscopic level.
Wow, now you've resorted to changing your own quotes. I think I'll have to reinstate my previous policy of not responding to you.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests