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 D_Archer » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:44 am

Corpuscles wrote:Hi queerious

querious wrote:Then why did you say above Wal's effect has been seen, and link to the lifters?

You misrepresent my comment. It was in reference to your silly foil "thought experiment".

I guess you finally thought hard enough about Wal's dipole gravity theory to see it holds no water.

You seem to make a habbit of guessing!

Welcome to the club.

I was unaware of any "club" and decline any invitation to be associated with your seeming destructive ambition.

So, does anyone on this forum who supports Wal's theory have anything to say about neutral vs charged foils?


You seem incapable of discussing it without obfuscating and trying to big note yourself. No wonder there were no replies!
After a long absence and infrequent visits here, I mistakenly thought you were somewhat immaturely desperately disappointed with Wal Thornhill on this issue, and had a need to clear up at least some of your own misconceptions. I now gain the impression that there is a more sinister motive. Therefore I will now desist from giving you further advertising space.

Edgar Allan Poe said something like:

By vilifying and denegrating a great man of intelligence (Thornhill) is the only way a little man of little capacity (________?) can pretend in his imagination to have attained greatness.

Cheers


Quote EAP:
"To vilify a great man is the readiest way in which a little man can himself attain greatness"

I am a quote collector. This is one of my favourites>

Quote EAP:
""It will be found, in fact, that the ingenious are always fanciful, and the truly imaginative never otherwise than analytic."

Regards,
Daniel

ps. Well done you spotted an interloper.
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby SDK » Fri Jan 22, 2016 3:49 am

querious wrote:
SDK wrote: .... It is not the real cause of the lifting effect. The real cause is the distortion of the say negative field of the strip by the opposite field of the wire and vice versa, reorienting part of field structure, thus attractive force, in the general direction of the wire and up as usually tested. ....


I have no idea what you're talking about there. ....


Hello Queerious.

Well, my best guess then is that my partly quoted message has not been meant for you Queerious. You seem to lack the basic understanding of the mutual induction of electrostatic field and one of its bulk large scale properties in assorted arrangements, the attractive forces it exerts on all the involved bodies, be them the so called dipoles and monopoles, molecules of air, surrounding walls, the experimenter himself and anything electrically inductable. If I may suggest, in order help you to gain such understanding, play with some weak magnets, say ferrite, or made from steel, pieces of mild steel and steel shavings in whatever arrangements, as the structures and behavior of magnetic fields as expressed by the lines of force are a fair, albeit not perfect analogy to structuring and actions of electrostatic field. Such experimentation is much simpler then messing with high voltage, oil and lint, especially when the experimenter is not exactly well aware of the dangers involved and knowledgeable regards safety measures required while handling electricity, especially high voltage equipment.

With kind regards, Slavek.
Watch out for who shines on your path.
User avatar
SDK
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:27 am
Location: Canada or Czech Republic

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:56 am

Corpuscles wrote:Hi

querious wrote:[Do you not understand why a charged foil within a dipole field gets to the crux of the question of dipole gravity?

?


NO! Please explain in full.

How does placing a small charge on a foil, itself coming from and existing in a gravitational field, having had it's weight altered .... albeit by the "negligible amount" ....of the mass of added or subtracted electrons invalidate the hypothesis?

What would I be expected to observe (or fail to observe) as conclusive refutational evidence of the hypothesis, from your thought experiment?

Do you consider placing a small charge on a foil, flips any hypothesised dipole arrangement in such foil? If so how?

Cheers
Note as clearly previously stated, I am not defending a gravitational dipole hypothesis, but rather disputing the validity of your oft triumphantly repeated "thought experiment".


Upon charging a neutral foil, which is in a dipole-induced electrostatic field, the measured weight (which is actually an electric force in dipole gravity), should change much more than accounted for by the negligible mass of the added/subtracted electrons.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Corpuscles » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:32 pm

Hi querious

querious wrote:Upon charging a neutral foil, which is in a dipole-induced electrostatic field, the measured weight (which is actually an electric force in dipole gravity), should change much more than accounted for by the negligible mass of the added/subtracted electrons.


I have given it some considerable thought, in attempt to try and 'get inside your head' and understand your point of view.

I have not currently the bandwidth, or the time, and had no interest in viewing this Thornhill presentation EU 2015 that has caused all the fuss. Maybe in future , as my curiousity now somewhat aroused? Whether Wal was trying to dumb it down for a widely dispersed, unknown audience of varied knowledge .....I dunno????

However your reply above does help me ( I think?) understand the confusion.... assuming you are not just here TB forum to denegrate Thornhill at any way possible?

The proponents of dipole gravity hypothesis are not proposing an electrostatic field in the commonly understood parlance.

I think (not certain) Thornhill adapted his hypothesis from another physicist Ralph Sansbury.

Now both of them are more than qualified and intelligent enough to know that GRAVITY is not 10 ^39 orders of magnitude greater than is measured. It is not electrostatic they are proposing , nor are they particularly proposing "mass" (whatever that is?) massively changes on the application of an electric charge to objects subject to a gravity field as per your "foil".

Somehow I get a picture of you imagining they are suggesting that the atoms and molecules on earth all have their 'electrons' pointing skyward?

What they are proposing is the stuff that makes up the matter , not electron or protons or neutrons, but the stuff whether material or not that makes up those components. Whilst they both hedge around it using terms like "subtrons" or "neutrino clouds" but IMHO they ought just get straight to it and call it the aether!

These according to their hypothesis cause very small distortions in the components. These they suggest cause very very small electric based attraction. It is electric in their terms, not in the way we generally think of the forms of electricity, but rather due to the very basis of every quantum theory of matter proposes that it is ALL entirely electric/magnetic phenomenon. Neither gentleman completely get's away from "spooky action at a distance", due to not being absolutely clear about the aether.

Here is a quote I found from Sansbury...... on a Thornhill article

Sansbury explains:

“..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic and dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.” [20]

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-gravity-in-an-electric-universe/

Now do you see .....their hypothesis is not about zapping things with electricity and therefore changing mass or weight?

Your foil thought experiment .......has absolutely no relevance at all , in any way, to their hypothesis.
Now it is currently, it seems to me, a unfalsifiable hyothesis. I don't buy it either completely. But lets face it mainstream reckon they have found the Higgs Boson .....BS!!!!... so we arn't about to find out anytime soon!

I feel pretty confident this information will not change your mind NOT ONE LITTLE bit. That is prefectly OK by me I have tried to help. However your much repeated mantra was likely to fool newcomers or those who have no prior knowledge ....other than the likely inadvertant 'faux pas' apparently in the video (?).

When I first found this site years ago, there was next to nothing other than Don Scotts book and Thornhills TPODS on their hypothesis, the resouce section was a few posts. I quickly found if you are in doubt, then send a PM to a moderator and politely ask your question or concern and they will in my experience bend over backwards to direct you to the appropriate resource to clarify the "EU" (whatever that is) position.

I thank you and commend you that you have remained courteous in your replies to me. That is a big deal! and I apologise for any harsh manner I have inflicted toward you , if unwarranted.


Anyway , I have enjoyed it.
Over and out
Cheers
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Fri Jan 22, 2016 6:40 pm

Corpuscles wrote:Hi querious

querious wrote:Upon charging a neutral foil, which is in a dipole-induced electrostatic field, the measured weight (which is actually an electric force in dipole gravity), should change much more than accounted for by the negligible mass of the added/subtracted electrons.


I have given it some considerable thought, in attempt to try and 'get inside your head' and understand your point of view.

I have not currently the bandwidth, or the time, and had no interest in viewing this Thornhill presentation EU 2015 that has caused all the fuss. Maybe in future , as my curiousity now somewhat aroused?


Well, Corpuscles, if you ever do find the time and interest, the video is located here...

Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015

He covers dipole gravity at 37:55 - 40:35 ; I'd love to get your take on it when you have the time.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Corpuscles » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:44 pm

HI querious

querious wrote:[Well, Corpuscles, if you ever do find the time and interest, the video is located here...

Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015

He covers dipole gravity at 37:55 - 40:35 ; I'd love to get your take on it when you have the time.


OMG! :oops:
Of course, I can find that much time!

I lost more time trying to work out how to tell you again that your 'thought experiment' was silly! But in the video context I see you already likely knew that?

Went over it 3 times then happened to go back to ~27min mark (London force and the unreal cherrypick interpretation of Sansbury's papers!)

Do they pay admission to got to these functions?.... or do the church deacons collect charitable donations?
Onset of Alzhiemers... maybe...????

Gutted, runny sloppy egg all over my face,....dribbling over the 2 boots in my mouth.
My sincerest apologies!

Bye .... before I get myself officially banned. Watch out you have made your point and you are likely in the target zone I suspect!?
Corpuscles
 
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 10:32 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Sat Jan 23, 2016 9:27 am

Dear physicists,

I have not viewed Thornhill's video. I only got some clue about his electric dipole gravity from some posts here. I think Wallace Thornhill has a lot to explain and has put himself in a very very difficult position.

My own opinion - an opinionated notion founded on the highly acclaimed paradigm of "thought experiments" and not the outmoded mode of empirical evidence - is that an electric dipole theory of gravity does not work. If such a simple manner could unify gravity and electromagnetism, it would have been achieved long long ago and Wal Thornhill would be way too late.

Wal's idea of the center of mass gravity causing bodies to polarized radially which in turn is the cause of gravity is wrong - rather hard to defend. It does not matter we go deeper into the quark levels to peek into the electric phenomena, an electric dipole is an electric dipole - that's it.

An electric dipole will always be influenced by external electric fields and free charges (always polarized external to Wal's dipole). Let's do a "thought experiment":
smear some electric charge on a thin aluminium foil. The external field of these free charges cause electric fields whose effect would far outweigh that of the gravity dipole fields - this would mean the weight of the foil would change considerably.

It is very nice if the cause of gravity is electric in nature as physics would then be much simplified. Most of us would not believe an electric dipole gravity theory works unless it is already a full-fledged theory which unify gravity and electromagnetism - unequivocally.

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:54 am

If you read it, you might find that your objection was already thought through and covered.

Querious and yourself think you found a hole, and that charged foil should show an antigravity effect.
There is a section in the paper on how to get an antigravity effect.

Conducting metals will shield electric fields. However, the lack of movement of electrons in response to gravity explains why we cannot shield against gravity by simply standing on a metal sheet. As an electrical engineer wrote, “we [don’t] have to worry about gravity affecting the electrons inside the wire leading to our coffee pot.” [19] If gravity is an electric dipole force between subatomic particles, it is clear that the force “daisy chains” through matter regardless of whether it is conducting or non-conducting. Sansbury explains:

“..electrostatic dipoles within all atomic nuclei are very small but all have a common orientation. Hence their effect on a conductive piece of metal is less to pull the free electrons in the metal to one side toward the center of the earth but to equally attract the similarly oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the nuclei and free electrons of the conductive piece of metal.” [20]

This offers a clue to the reported ‘gravity shielding’ effects of a spinning, superconducting disk.[21] Electrons in a superconductor exhibit a ‘connectedness,’ which means that their inertia is increased. Anything that interferes with the ability of the subatomic particles within the spinning disk to align their gravitationally induced dipoles with those of the earth will exhibit antigravity effects.

Despite a number of experiments demonstrating antigravity effects, no one has been able to convince scientists attached to general relativity that they have been able to modify gravity. This seems to be a case of turning a blind eye to unwelcome evidence. Support for antigravity implicitly undermines Einstein’s theory.[22]
I can't say I fully comprehend. Don't know if it clears up the question of charged foil for you.

But it appears to me, Thornhill has at least thought through such possibilities, and what he's saying here implies that even with his dipole gravity model, it takes something more than just applying charge to effect gravity.

I don't subscribe to Thornhill's theory. I don't understand it well enough yet. Certainly not well enough to criticize it yet. And I have read it.

What does strike me about the theory, is that it says Gravity is a resonance effect. (A quantum resonance effect, to be precise). What jumps to my mind is how Tesla transmitted power using resonance, instead of wires. I don't understand resonance all that much, but I believe resonance effects only that which is tuned to the frequency of the resonance. Not everything received Tesla's transmitted power, but only the specially made coils that were tuned to receive it. And so too, charging foil is of little effect to the resonance which the foil atoms receive from earth's gravity field, while at the same time causing other effects to the atoms.

Maybe if you tune the frequency of the charge you are applying to the foil....
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:39 am

comingfrom wrote:Don't know if it clears up the question of charged foil for you.


No, not one bit. Anybody else think it does?

Also, invoking a "quantum resonance effect" would be a different theory altogether from the one we're discussing.
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:51 am

Chan Rasjid wrote:My own opinion - an opinionated notion founded on the highly acclaimed paradigm of "thought experiments" and not the outmoded mode of empirical evidence - is that an electric dipole theory of gravity does not work.


Very nice summary of just one of the many reasons Wal's theory doesn't match observations... but why in the world would you say empirical evidence is "outmoded"?!
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Chan Rasjid » Sun Jan 24, 2016 12:29 pm

Hello querious,

I have not read all of the 250 posts in this thread!

I did note the argument over the charged aluminium foil. I think no one has come out with any credible refutation. I think there is no possibility of any one convincing me why a charged aluminium foil does not change its weight. If there is an explanation simple enough for me to understand, then my bet is that it would be like one of those already given which in no way can convince me - by using terms like daisy-chain, subatomic, subquantum, quarks, quantum resonance, etc.

Just using a term may not have any physical significance. If a term has real physical significance, a true understanding of just the term may mean reading a real physics article of 20 pages filled with sometimes complex equations - that's what real physics is all about - not just calling terms. I can give a very real example I have found.

Two coherent light sources would cause interference


The key is in just the one word "coherent". So I went through the internet to try and understand the meaning of what coherency means for light - I'll have to wait. All the explanations that I have found over the internet including from sections of some physics textbooks could not give a proper explanation that I find convincing. I think there is no classical explanation of what light coherency mean (in terms of light as EM waves) - that current physics does not really know what it is saying. I finally trace a rather involved and rigorous treatment - it's all QM and very mathematical. I am not ready yet.

So if there is a proper electric dipole theory of gravity that is correct, then it is most likely that the physics would be beyond me and I would not be qualified to comment - as in light coherency.

I think it is easy for mainstream to pick on Wal Thornhill's presentation of electric gravity and apply the label "crackpot physicists".

Best regards,
Chan Rasjid.
Chan Rasjid
 
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 5:39 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:34 pm

querious wrote

invoking a "quantum resonance effect" would be a different theory altogether from the one we're discussing
Are we discussing Wal Thornhill's theory of dipole gravity?

From the paper
Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle.

The transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant...

Image

This model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects.


You apparently missed the foundation upon which the theory is built, which you are criticizing.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Sun Jan 24, 2016 10:38 pm

P.S. But I want to thank you too, querious.

Making me go over it again has helped me to understand it better.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 759
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby SDK » Mon Jan 25, 2016 2:27 am

comingfrom wrote: This model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause [highlight]resonant quantum effects.


Scanning Tunneling Microscopy (STM) rendition of iodine. It has been published by Discovery magazine (June 1990) and if I understand it correctly, it’s an IBM rendition, for IBM has developed the technology at that time. Scanning is done with a point of a probe stated to be one atom in diameter at its end. The device measures tiny electric field variations at the sample surface. http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm10 ... icroscope/

iodine1.jpg

The original text states: "a well bonded group of iodine atoms (purple) pine for a missing friend (yellow)".

It shows quite clearly:

a] The resolution capability of STM.
b] The general valence geometry of iodine.

What models? What orbits?

With kind regards, Slavek.
Watch out for who shines on your path.
User avatar
SDK
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2016 9:27 am
Location: Canada or Czech Republic

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Mon Jan 25, 2016 7:10 am

comingfrom wrote:querious wrote

invoking a "quantum resonance effect" would be a different theory altogether from the one we're discussing
Are we discussing Wal Thornhill's theory of dipole gravity?

From the paper
Simply stated, all subatomic particles, including the electron, are resonant systems of orbiting smaller electric charges of opposite polarity that sum to the charge on that particle.

The transfer of energy between the subtrons in their orbits within the classical electron radius must be resonant...

Image

This model satisfies Einstein’s view that there must be some lower level of structure in matter to cause resonant quantum effects.


You apparently missed the foundation upon which the theory is built, which you are criticizing.
~Paul


Paul,
I'm well aware of this subtron theory, but I don't think it has much to do with dipole gravity.

Besides, we are discussing the logic of Wal's 2015 EU presentation where he covers dipole gravity...

Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015

Specifically, he covers dipole gravity at 37:55 - 40:35 - he doesn't invoke any "quantum resonances", just nucleii distortion to create an electrostatic dipole field, which daisy chains. Does that make sense to YOU?

What I'm criticizing is that presentation.

As to whether resonance among the electrons' subtrons can save the theory as presented is a different discussion, but it doesn't seem like even the authors are trying hard to link this resonance to dipole gravity.

Also, physicists HAVE looked for electron substructure...

Limit on Electron Substructure

Regards,
Querious
querious
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests