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 Bengt Nyman » Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:14 pm

querious wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:... I think I'll have to reinstate my previous policy of not responding to you.

Make it a promise, please. I prefer to communicate with the rest of the forum. You are nothing but a loud
mouth pain in the neck.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Anti University Dean » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:03 pm

A reason for entanglement could be that we misinterpreted quantum mechanics.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Particles trsnsmit waves, the interference pattern serves as a guide for the particle motion. This pilot wave theory may be better than the Copenhagen interpretation.
Anti University Dean
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:44 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Thu Oct 22, 2015 6:21 pm

Anti University Dean wrote:A reason for entanglement could be that we misinterpreted quantum mechanics.
http://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-new-quantum-reality/
Particles trsnsmit waves, the interference pattern serves as a guide for the particle motion. This pilot wave theory may be better than the Copenhagen interpretation.

Yes, those experiments are pretty interesting! I don't think QM can be explained by them, though, for 2 reasons.

1) Entanglement - I doubt they'll ever be able to have the drops mimic it.

2) Probability - The drops can be set on ALMOST precisely the same trajectory towards the slits, and I predict their distribution on the "screen" will begin to give away this starting variable. That wouldn't happen with a real QM experiment. So: droplets=sorta probabilistic QM=truly probabilistic.

But if these experiments could somehow lead to the breakthrough proof that spacetime is a superfluid and QM is based on pilot-waves after all, that would be really cool.

BTW, what is your opinion of Wal's dipole gravity theory?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Oct 26, 2015 7:51 pm

Querious, I followed your link here from the "Why the Hostility" thread on the EU board.

Push Gravity, Not Pull Gravity

I largely lost interest in theories that consider gravity to be a pulling force, because it seems absurd to suppose that there would be any way for objects to pull on each other when at rest if there is a vacuum between them and all around them.

Only pushing forces seem to make sense, because momentum from one object can be transferred to the other upon contact. With a pull, there is no contact.

If two objects are suspended on strings so the objects are a short distance apart, by blowing between them the objects move toward each other, because moving air has lower pressure than stationary air. So they are pushed toward each other by the higher pressure air around them; they are not pulled together.

I think gravity and magnetic and charge attraction have to be pushes as well, not pulls. Theories of pulling gravity seem to be non-mechanical and thus not realistic.

What does the pushing? Gravitons? Maybe those aren't needed. Photons may do the job. The most abundant photons seem to be infrared. And there may well be subphotons as well. That's what the aether would be then. Subphotons can aggregate into photons and photons can aggregate into subatomic particles.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Mon Oct 26, 2015 10:20 pm

Lloyd wrote:Querious, I followed your link here from the "Why the Hostility" thread on the EU board.

Push Gravity, Not Pull Gravity

I largely lost interest in theories that consider gravity to be a pulling force, because it seems absurd to suppose that there would be any way for objects to pull on each other when at rest if there is a vacuum between them and all around them.

Hi Lloyd,
Feynman talks about push gravity in The Feynman Lectures on Physics ... http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_07.html#Ch7-S7

Alas, gravity is not a force, see How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force

Any theory of "push gravity" will have to contend with these observations.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Lloyd » Tue Oct 27, 2015 8:01 pm

How We Know Gravity is Not (Just) a Force
http://www.universetoday.com/108740/how-we-know-gravity-is-not-just-a-force/
... there are several extraordinary experiments that confirm the curvature of space and time.
The key to general relativity lies in the fact that everything in a gravitational field falls at the same rate. Stand on the Moon and drop a hammer and a feather, and they will hit the surface at the same time. The same is true for any object regardless of its mass or physical makeup, and this is known as the equivalence principle.
... In general relativity, gravity is not a force between masses. Instead gravity is an effect of the warping of space and time in the presence of mass. Without a force acting upon it, an object will move in a straight line. If you draw a line on a sheet of paper, and then twist or bend the paper, the line will no longer appear straight. In the same way, the straight path of an object is bent when space and time is bent. This explains why all objects fall at the same rate. The gravity warps spacetime in a particular way, so the straight paths of all objects are bent in the same way near the Earth.
... Newton’s gravitational theory predicts that light would be deflected slightly by a nearby mass. ... general relativity predicts it will be deflected twice as much.
... The effect was first observed by Arthur Eddington in 1919. Eddington traveled to the island of Principe off the coast of West Africa to photograph a total eclipse. He had taken photos of the same region of the sky sometime earlier. By comparing the eclipse photos and the earlier photos of the same sky, Eddington was able to show the apparent position of stars shifted when the Sun was near. The amount of deflection agreed with Einstein, and not Newton. Since then we’ve seen a similar effect where the light of distant quasars and galaxies are deflected by closer masses.

This statement, "everything in a gravitational field falls at the same rate", needs consideration for sure. If there were an aether, objects of different size would move inward at the same rate, if they were floating in the aether and the aether were moving inward. Aether could move constantly inward toward matter, if it were aggregating into denser matter or if it were somehow changing and flowing outward in a form that doesn't affect gravitating matter.

Bending of space and time makes no sense to me, since space without matter is not measurable and time has no spatial length.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4382
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby seasmith » Tue Oct 27, 2015 9:08 pm

Lloyd wrote:
aggregating into denser matter...


As usual, Occam's principle provides the sharpest edge on the tool of reason, and your statement there Lloyd, probably cuts closest to the bone. The intellectual gymnastics one must go through to muddle up space and time (duration), and then puddle that illogical mess into 'wells of gravity' where mysteriously-formed bodies of mass then magically fall in to place; not to mention the horribly convoluted mathematics being devised to describe the situation, but never explain it...
Well for some it has almost become a form of mental masturbation, if one can use that term in mixed company.
However one may conceive of "space", it is indisputably something; it is certainly not 'nothing'. As Lloyd and quite a few others here have made clear, gravity aggregates space into "denser matter".
The obvious inverse would be 'light', diffusing matter back into space. Simply strike a match, that is what is happening.

Various models have been presented on this forum describing the role of electricity, in its various manifest forms, as the universal mediator between the above listed states. In those models, electricity is the common ground, gravity is more like the return leg of a perpetual (as far as we know) circuit.

The further we are able to peer out in to space, the more apparent the electric relationships become.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Wed Oct 28, 2015 11:52 am

One more obvious problem with Wal's dipole gravity is that the dipoles which are on the opposite side of the Earth from wherever you happen to be, are oriented in the OPPOSITE DIRECTION of that required to attract you to it, and would actually work to REPEL you. And a good portion more are totally ineffective in attracting you at all because they lie halfway around the world.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Oct 28, 2015 2:34 pm

Electrostatic interactions do cause a tiny rest force that may very well be "gravity". The details are a lot more complex than Ralph Sansbury (and Wal) have suggested. Wal's version additionally makes the mistake to claim that weight (due to gravity) elongates the nucleus-electron dipole and causes (circularly) gravity.

The quarks in neutrons are responsible for neutron gravity without the help of any electron orbitals. It now looks like the quarks in protons in a similar way contributes to atom gravity. The question of how much atom gravity that is caused by quark tripoles compared to that caused by atom dipoles remains to be determined.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Fri Oct 30, 2015 9:25 am

Anti Gravity 2.jpg
Test of the Nyman dipole-tripole hypothesis:

The Nyman hypothesis claims that gravity and strong force are caused by charged particles posturing in response to charges in surrounding particles and bodies. If this is true, a neutral particle like a neutron should respond to an external charge similar to the way it responds to charges in another neutron.

Equivalent charge. See figure above.

The gravitational pull on a neutron at the surface of earth is:

W = g*m = 9.81*1.674*10^-27 = 1.642*10^-26 Newton

A tripole equation using the above offset can now be used to calculate an equivalent, external, single charge that would produce a force equal to that between two neutrons:

ke*[0.6667*q*Y/(r-x)^2 -0.6667*q*Y/r^2] = 1.86962*10^-54
ke = 8.9875517873681764*10^9 N*m^2*C^-2
q = 1.60217662*10^-19 C
r = 1*10^-6 meter
Offset = 4.5584*10^-41 meter

Y = 1.7718*10^-40 C

ES force between a 1.7718*10^-40 C charge and a neutron 1*10^-6 meters apart = 1.869*10^-66 Newton
Earth gravitation on one neutron = 1.642*10^-26 Newton.
Earth gravitation is consequently 0.8785*10^40 stronger than one on one neutron attraction.
A charge producing a force equal to earth gravity would have to be (0.8785*10^40)*(1.7718*10^-40) C
= 1.5565 Coulombs at a distance of 1*10^-6 meter from the neutron.

A substantially lesser charge would suffice to lift a neutron from a distance equal to one neutron radius:
(1.113*10^-15 / 1*10^-6)^2 *1.5565 C = 1.9875*10^-18 Coulombs (=12.4 electrons)

Proposed neutron gravity experiment:

Place a negative charge of 2*10^-18 Coulombs (eq.13 electrons) above a source of neutrons.
Stir up the neutrons and see if they defy earth gravity and gravitate toward the charge above them.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:06 am

Just saw an announcement for EU2016.

Does anyone know if Wal intends to address some of the obvious problems with dipole gravity during his next presentation?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Mon Dec 28, 2015 11:21 am

Open letter to Wallace Thornhill:

Hi Wal,
You are right about Dipole gravity. Just make sure you get the details right. Feel free to refer to:
http://www.dipole.se
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jan 05, 2016 3:25 am

Wal commented on his presentation and the reactions to it in the latest podcast on the Thunderbolts Project Youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr-rdSTg-Fk
---

I did not write it down, saw it in the weekend. The gist was to explain away the circularity argument of dipole gravity he advised to think bigger (scalewise).

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 Bengt Nyman » Tue Jan 05, 2016 6:23 am

D_Archer wrote:Wal commented on his presentation and the reactions to it in the latest podcast on the Thunderbolts Project Youtube channel ... The gist was to explain away the circularity argument of dipole gravity he advised to think bigger.

However, Wal repeated that the (Ralph Sansbury) theory involves that protons are heavier than electrons and that therefore protons in proton-electron dipoles are all pointing toward, for example, the earth.
At the same time Wal pointed out that the forces are electric.
The first part of the statement is, in addition to being a circular argument, obviously false when you study dipoles in near proximity to each other, and in less proximity to earth, or other large masses.
The second part of the statement is correct and should suffice to start a serious discussion about the fact that gravity is electric.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Tue Jan 05, 2016 4:22 pm

D_Archer wrote:Wal commented on his presentation and the reactions to it in the latest podcast on the Thunderbolts Project Youtube channel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gr-rdSTg-Fk
---

I did not write it down, saw it in the weekend. The gist was to explain away the circularity argument of dipole gravity he advised to think bigger (scalewise).

Regards,
Daniel


That commentary proves Wal is still utterly clueless about electromagnetism. He tries tries to explain away the circularity with a weak hand-waving argument, but still completely ignoring the fact that a dipole field would drive a charged foil in opposite directions.

Guess nobody on this forum has the guts to question him, or else nobody can understand the simple logic of these objections.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: neilwilkes and 2 guests