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 querious » Mon Jan 25, 2016 11:06 am

comingfrom wrote:
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.


Paul,
What is the evidence for the LACK of movement of electrons in response to gravity?

While it's true we don't have to "worry" about gravity affecting the electrons going to our coffee pot, what bearing does that have on the discussion?! Is that supposed to be some sort of argument that gravity DOESN'T affect them?

Finally, what is so special about dipole-created electric fields, that conducting metals no longer shield them?

Thanks to you, too, for these stimulating discussions!

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby jacmac » Mon Jan 25, 2016 9:28 pm

Ok.
We are on page 18 now.
It is time to answer this very important question:
How do you get those damn bits of styrofoam packaging off of your hands, and why don't they just fall off?
jacmac
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Jan 26, 2016 11:38 am

Suggestion:
Do not think in terms of a simple electric field when it comes to dipole gravity. Dipole gravity involves two opposite and competing fields and the net result is a compound field which is dependent upon the observers location in regards to the angular direction of the axis of the dipole and the distances to both poles of the dipole.
Now overlay these compound fields form several adjacent dipoles in a body near earth as well as near objects on each side and above, and you can see why simple talk about "a field" simply does not cut it.
Also understand the difference between the effect of a dipole like a neutron, a proton or an atom in a rigid structure, compared to a free agent charge like an extra electron or ion.
A dipole bound in a rigid structure contributes to dipole gravity because any force affecting the dipole affects the entire body.
However, a free charge goes where it wants without generating any gravitational effect because it it not tied to the body.
Take a piece of aluminum foil for example. Place it on an insulator on the ground. Charge it. It will induce the attraction of an opposite charge in the ground under the insulator. You have now added electrostatic attraction between the foil, or a piece of anything, and the body under it. However, you have done nothing to change the dipole gravity. If you lift the foil or the styrofoam off the body the electrostatic attraction remains until the superficial charges are equalized, leaving dipole gravity as it was and is.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:48 am

querious wrote
What is the evidence for the LACK of movement of electrons in response to gravity?

While it's true we don't have to "worry" about gravity affecting the electrons going to our coffee pot, what bearing does that have on the discussion?! Is that supposed to be some sort of argument that gravity DOESN'T affect them?

Finally, what is so special about dipole-created electric fields, that conducting metals no longer shield them?

Don't think I can beat Bengt's answer, but you made me think of another question.

How come magnets have such a strong effect on steel, and virtually no effect on pretty much everything else?
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Wed Jan 27, 2016 7:08 am

comingfrom wrote:querious wrote
What is the evidence for the LACK of movement of electrons in response to gravity?

While it's true we don't have to "worry" about gravity affecting the electrons going to our coffee pot, what bearing does that have on the discussion?! Is that supposed to be some sort of argument that gravity DOESN'T affect them?

Finally, what is so special about dipole-created electric fields, that conducting metals no longer shield them?

Don't think I can beat Bengt's answer, but you made me think of another question.


What part of Bengt'so answer made sense to you?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:10 pm

querious

What part of Bengt'so answer made sense to you?

Gravity is a combination of two fields.
And gravity dipoles within structured matter will remain in resonance due to the entirety of the large body having that resonance.
Free agent particle are barely effected by gravity.

What part of Limit on Electron Substructure made sense to you?

Or, can you translate into understandable English, what that paper is saying for us. please.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:22 pm

Two electric fields per dipole. In a body with many many dipoles: 2X many many electric fields competing and mostly cancelling each other which is why the electric field concept becomes more trouble than it's worth when it comes to gravity.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Wed Jan 27, 2016 4:56 pm

comingfrom wrote:querious

What part of Bengt'so answer made sense to you?

Gravity is a combination of two fields.
And gravity dipoles within structured matter will remain in resonance due to the entirety of the large body having that resonance.
Free agent particle are barely effected by gravity.


So you think "free agent" charges do, or don't, move in a dipole-generated field?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:28 pm

You know, querious, that charged matter is mobilized by electric and magnetic fields.
And you know, a magnet easily overpowers gravity even with steel balls of measurable weight.

If a standard not powerful magnet can pick up a steel ball bearing against all the force of Earth's gravity, how much less will gravity effect a loose electron?

That's not saying gravity has no effect on an electron.
Neither am I saying that gravity is a dipole-generated field,
but this from Bengt
many electric fields competing and mostly cancelling each other which is why the electric field concept becomes more trouble than it's worth when it comes to gravity.
I agree with.

Hence I started the Overlapping Fields thread.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Wed Jan 27, 2016 8:21 pm

comingfrom wrote:You know, querious, that charged matter is mobilized by electric and magnetic fields.
And you know, a magnet easily overpowers gravity even with steel balls of measurable weight.

If a standard not powerful magnet can pick up a steel ball bearing against all the force of Earth's gravity, how much less will gravity effect a loose electron?

That's not saying gravity has no effect on an electron.
Neither am I saying that gravity is a dipole-generated field,
but this from Bengt
many electric fields competing and mostly cancelling each other which is why the electric field concept becomes more trouble than it's worth when it comes to gravity.
I agree with.

Hence I started the Overlapping Fields thread.
~Paul


Hi Paul,
I also agree with Bengt that whenever we measure a negligible electric field, we are ACTUALLY measuring a large electric field coming from positive and negative electrons, separately, which cancel out. This actually already has a scientific term: "superposition" of fields

My problem with Bengt is he wants there to be a dipole-generated electric field, which attracts other dipoles, but for some inexplicable reason can't attract/repel excesses of charge when they're bound to a foil, just because he knows this invalidates his theory.

So, when you stop and read this critically, does it still make sense to you...

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.


Read carefully, and logically, this is what the above is saying, in a nutshell...

Conducting metals will shield electric fields. If gravity is an electric field, it is clear that the force “daisy chains” through conducting metals.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:24 am

querious,

You are reading 'electric field' twice, and leaving out the 'however' bit in the middle.

The way I read it, Thornhill is apparently making a distinction between an 'electric field' and 'electric dipole force' (gravity).

I think he is saying, electrons (in atoms) respond to electric fields, but the polarity of the atom is not effected.
Gravity effects the polarity of the atom, but doesn't effect the movement of its electrons.

It makes sense to me, but I don't know if it is true.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:04 am

comingfrom wrote:querious,

You are reading 'electric field' twice, and leaving out the 'however' bit in the middle.

The way I read it, Thornhill is apparently making a distinction between an 'electric field' and 'electric dipole force' (gravity).

I think he is saying, electrons (in atoms) respond to electric fields, but the polarity of the atom is not effected.
Gravity effects the polarity of the atom, but doesn't effect the movement of its electrons.

It makes sense to me, but I don't know if it is true.
~Paul


If electrons respond to electric fields, then by definition they also respond to electric fields which happen to be generated by dipoles.

Can we agree on that?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:58 pm

querious wrote: ??

A dipole does not generate a simple, conventional electric field. See above. To try to use unspecific and sweeping electric field arguments for or against dipole gravity illustrates a lack of understanding of both subjects.
We have talked about your aluminum foil argument repeatedly. In the simplest case described several times above you add electrostatic attraction to existing gravity. In a similar case where you charge the foil and an insulated support underneath the foil with the same polarity you simply add electrostatic repulsion which can easily be made to levitate the foil. Superimposing electrostatic attraction or repulsion by maintaining a temporary, electrostatic charge has well known effects and neither supports nor denies the nature of gravity, be it caused by imaginary gravitons, man-made space-time or real world dipoles.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby comingfrom » Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:20 pm

Hi, querious.

If electrons respond to electric fields, then by definition they also respond to electric fields which happen to be generated by dipoles.

Can we agree on that?
No. Because then by definition non conducting materials would be effected by magnets too.

We know the different fields effect different things in different ways.
With that fact in hand, Wal, and Bengt, are proposing dipolarity to explain it.
~Paul
User avatar
comingfrom
 
Posts: 760
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2015 9:11 pm
Location: NSW, Australia

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Fri Jan 29, 2016 6:34 am

comingfrom wrote:
querious wrote:If electrons respond to electric fields, then by definition they also respond to electric fields which happen to be generated by dipoles. Can we agree on that?
No. Because then by definition non conducting materials would be effected by magnets too.

Analogies only work if they aid understanding, and that doesn't help.

So, can you just explain why you think an electron doesn't respond to the electric field produced by a dipole?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron