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 willendure » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:06 am

D_Archer wrote:For Wal this is work in progress, there is nothing wrong with trying to figure how this "gravity" thing works, whatever it is. If you have a better idea present it somewhere, write a paper. This thread is going nowhere.


Sure, I support that. Its ok for someone to think out loud and publicly as part of trying new ideas out. Its equally ok to criticize them. Debate, free speech etc.

Nobody understands gravity really - the quantum gravity stuff is still very hypothetical for example - by no means proven. In fact, quantum gravity hasn't really settled its theoretical ideas yet, researchers and thinkers there are coming up with and shooting down their models.

So I hope he takes the criticism and builds a better idea. Would be nice to see some direct answers to questions like why would a charged foil not float? And the other questions posed against his hypothesis in this thread.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Tue Jan 12, 2016 10:09 am

Just for the record, I am very much of the view that EU has a lot to add, but that I do not think gravity is electrical. Follow Einstein's reasoning. There are macroscopic effects of both electricity and gravity building our universe. What we have to convince the gravity only side of, is that electricity plays a very significant role indeed, not that everything is electricity.

That is what I hard the hard/soft EU distinction. I'm soft EU. Hard EU would mean you believe everything is electrical.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby D_Archer » Wed Jan 13, 2016 3:05 am

willendure wrote:Just for the record, I am very much of the view that EU has a lot to add, but that I do not think gravity is electrical. Follow Einstein's reasoning. There are macroscopic effects of both electricity and gravity building our universe. What we have to convince the gravity only side of, is that electricity plays a very significant role indeed, not that everything is electricity.

That is what I hard the hard/soft EU distinction. I'm soft EU. Hard EU would mean you believe everything is electrical.


Gravity is an acceleration, so physically it really is a nothing, acceleration is an outcome.

We only have to find the cause, the best we know so far is that the acceleration must be a result of more than 1 field meeting, we know E/M is a field and it must play a role, that is a good axiom to have because only than can science go further with theorizing and proposing experiments.

Celeste proposed a bigger picture of astrons being embedded in the current filaments and their helical movements are a direct result of that, that is outside in thinking, instead of just thinking of the object alone influencing its environ (inside out).

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:42 am

why would a charged foil not float?
How to make a lifter.

Backyard experimenters are making 'anti-gravity' devices based upon, yep you guessed it, applying charge to foil.
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby chrimony » Fri Jan 15, 2016 2:24 pm

comingfrom wrote:
why would a charged foil not float?
How to make a lifter.

Backyard experimenters are making 'anti-gravity' devices based upon, yep you guessed it, applying charge to foil.


This video from the same guy explains how it works, and it has nothing to do with gravity. It works by ionizing the air. He even shows a toy spaceship he made that goes in a circle, perpendicular to the field of gravity, using the same principle.

Would a statically charged piece of foil float on it's own? No.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:08 pm

chrimony wrote:
comingfrom wrote:
why would a charged foil not float?
How to make a lifter.

Backyard experimenters are making 'anti-gravity' devices based upon, yep you guessed it, applying charge to foil.


This video from the same guy explains how it works, and it has nothing to do with gravity. It works by ionizing the air. He even shows a toy spaceship he made that goes in a circle, perpendicular to the field of gravity, using the same principle.

Would a statically charged piece of foil float on it's own? No.


Everything floats.

There is no such thing as statically charged.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1184
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Jan 16, 2016 3:54 am

chrimony wrote:Would a statically charged piece of foil float on it's own? No.

Correct. A, simple, statically charged foil placed for example on an insulating film on the ground polarizes material below the insulator adding to downward forces rather than to counteract gravity.
To make something float or fly electrostatically requires a much more complex arrangement with high energies and high voltages as described in the experiments.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby chrimony » Sat Jan 16, 2016 5:26 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Correct. A, simple, statically charged foil placed for example on an insulating film on the ground polarizes material below the insulator adding to downward forces rather than to counteract gravity.


Then you should be able to test this hypothesis to see how a charged piece of foil acts when dropped in a vacuum.

To make something float or fly electrostatically requires a much more complex arrangement with high energies and high voltages as described in the experiments.


But you didn't address my first paragraph, which shows that it's the air being ionized and has nothing to do with gravity. Funny how many on this forum are completely skeptical of the mainstream, yet show no such skepticism to extraordinary claims of electrical phenomenon.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:27 pm

You can neither prove nor disprove the dipole gravity hypothesis by playing with aluminum foil, charged or uncharged, in air or in vacuum. You need to get down to the atomic level including quark posturing, to map the charge locations when free from gravity versus when under gravity.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby chrimony » Sun Jan 17, 2016 2:03 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:You can neither prove nor disprove the dipole gravity hypothesis by playing with aluminum foil, charged or uncharged, in air or in vacuum. You need to get down to the atomic level including quark posturing, to map the charge locations when free from gravity versus when under gravity.


You're all over the map. First you make an excuse of an insulator, and when pointed out that a vacuum removes that excuse, you just arbitrarily state that a vacuum won't work. At first you nod approvingly in the direction of the flying foil experiments, then arbitrarily reject them when pointed out (again) that they have nothing to do with gravity. You now retreat into a shell of infeasible testing, without any justification of how a gravity based on electric forces cannot be tested macroscopically.
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby David Talbott » Sun Jan 17, 2016 2:38 pm

chrimony wrote: (to Bengt Nyman:)
You're all over the map. First you make an excuse of an insulator, and when pointed out that a vacuum removes that excuse, you just arbitrarily state that a vacuum won't work. At first you nod approvingly in the direction of the flying foil experiments, then arbitrarily reject them when pointed out (again) that they have nothing to do with gravity. You now retreat into a shell of infeasible testing, without any justification of how a gravity based on electric forces cannot be tested macroscopically.


Though I've not followed this thread, it's bit curious to me that someone claiming to know physics and responding to Thornhill's perspective on gravity, would suggest that a macrocosmic test should be available.

I'll take no sides on this discussion other than to affirm that Bengt is correct in saying that Thornill's concept can only be tested at the level his work addresses gravity, which means the quantum level. No one is going to DEDUCE systematic subatomic distortions by gazing out at intergalactic space. :)
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby chrimony » Sun Jan 17, 2016 4:58 pm

David Talbott wrote:Though I've not followed this thread, it's bit curious to me that someone claiming to know physics and responding to Thornhill's perspective on gravity, would suggest that a macrocosmic test should be available.


I'm not sure why it should be curious, as Thornhill claims to know physics and is not shy about making ludicrous statements about quantum mechanics and relativity, complains bitterly about mainstream science not taking outside criticism seriously, and yet can't be bothered to defend his own theory on the Electric Universe forum. Pot, meet kettle.

I'll take no sides on this discussion other than to affirm that Bengt is correct in saying that Thornill's concept can only be tested at the level his work addresses gravity, which means the quantum level. No one is going to DEDUCE systematic subatomic distortions by gazing out at intergalactic space. :)


Can you answer some simple questions, or better yet get Thornhill to answer them? In his theory, is the force acting as gravity electrical or not? If it is electrical, how can it not be tested macroscopically? If it is not electrical, how did Thornhill DEDUCE this theory in the first place?

It seems to me you've retreated into the shell of infeasible testing without any justification other than to harrumph. The closing statement from one of your presenters is appropriate here:

"The Electric Universe theory yields itself to testable hypothesis and falsifiable theories. Which is what we need, after all, to ensure that we ourselves do not succumb to that siren song of certainty."
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Jan 17, 2016 5:30 pm

Some facts:
The dipole theory proposed by Wallace Thornhill is the work of Ralph Sansbury who passed away not long ago. As presented by Wal this theory uses a circular argument relying on proton mass/gravity to form a dipole later claimed to cause gravity. This circular argument invalidates the theory.
I have offered Wal to repair this shortcoming by taking part off my well documented dipole theory which is based on charge posturing causing electrostatic dipole formation and subsequent dipole gravity, without the need for any circular argument.
These are two very different theories and he who criticizes both with the same language is clearly demonstrating his lack of understanding of the subject. see 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 Corpuscles » Sun Jan 17, 2016 6:51 pm

Hi Bengt

Bengt Nyman wrote:Some facts:
The dipole theory proposed by Wallace Thornhill is the work of Ralph Sansbury who passed away not long ago. As presented by Wal this theory uses a circular argument relying on proton mass/gravity to form a dipole later claimed to cause gravity. This circular argument invalidates the theory.
I have offered Wal to repair this shortcoming by taking part off my well documented dipole theory which is based on charge posturing causing electrostatic dipole formation and subsequent dipole gravity, without the need for any circular argument.
These are two very different theories and he who criticizes both with the same language is clearly demonstrating his lack of understanding of the subject. see http://www.dipole.se


I have read along with this thread, from the "mug gallery of lurkers" .

It seems your persistence is motivated by a degree of promotion of your hypothesis.

I am sure I have at some stage looked at your proposal in the past, dismissed it, but your persistence has paid off>

I am wondering since it seems rather important that folks here and lurkers like me "understand the subject" whether you could explain this diagram appearing on the first page of your "hypothesis" web site.

Image

Yes I read you are for illusrative purposes imagining hydrogen atoms.

Are you not immediately invoking your own "circular logic" by creating a supposed dipole right upfront?

Why is there the 0.1 variance?

Please explain???

Thanks if you take the time. You know you wanna!

Cheers
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby David Talbott » Mon Jan 18, 2016 8:46 am

chrimony wrote:
Can you answer some simple questions, or better yet get Thornhill to answer them? In his theory, is the force acting as gravity electrical or not? If it is electrical, how can it not be tested macroscopically? If it is not electrical, how did Thornhill DEDUCE this theory in the first place?

It seems to me you've retreated into the shell of infeasible testing without any justification other than to harrumph.


Please note that I've removed your ludicrous and dismissive statement about Wal from the citation above, and more of the same is going to get you removed from the Forum. No one who's taken any time to examine Wal's comments proposing an electrical underpinning of gravity at the quantum level would dream of asking the macrocosm to announce the subatomic source! If you'll stop treating sensible people as nut cases, there may be a basis for your continuing here. This Forum is for discussion between people still learning what the EU means, or could mean, for science. People who think they are god's messenger to the unwashed typically do not last long here.

The place to look for the source of gravity is at the source, not in remote space. The picture out there may be quite grand, but as to subatomic distortions, you could just as well gaze out through the wrong end of the telescope. The reasonable tests will occur in the laboratory, and headway in that direction IS occurring at this time, with participation by highly capable scientists.
David Talbott
Site Admin
 
Posts: 336
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:11 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests