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 » Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:11 pm

querious wrote: So, can you just explain why you think an electron doesn't respond to the electric field produced by a dipole?

Again: Dipoles do not generate conventional electric fields. They generate two offset, competing and 99.9999999999999999999....... % mutually cancelling fields.
An electron responds to all other charges in its vicinity. If you are referring to an otherwise empty universe with nothing but one electron and one potential dipole like a hydrogen atom, the answer is that they will repel each other.
You can easily do the dipole math yourself.
If on the other hand you are asking about one electron and one neutron the answer is that the neutron will turn the +2/3 up-quark toward the electron and the two will attract each other. Check my dipole gravity simulations on YouTube.
Whether they will collide, fuse and form a anti-proton is beyond this subject.

Personally I do not use the concept of "fields" because they fail to adress more complex situations where you have to go to the particles, charges and/or voltages involved to work out the effects.
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 » Fri Jan 29, 2016 2:46 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: So, can you just explain why you think an electron doesn't respond to the electric field produced by a dipole?

Again: Dipoles do not generate conventional electric fields.


True, dipole-generated electric fields get weaker with distance (1/r3) much faster than isolated charges (1/r2). That's the only difference.

But that's another excellent reason dipoles can't explain gravity, aside from my charged foil argument.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Corpuscles » Fri Jan 29, 2016 3:05 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:Personally I do not use the concept of "fields" because they fail to adress more complex situations where you have to go to the particles, charges and/or voltages involved to work out the effects.


Hi Bengt

Now, having partially recovered from the shock of viewing Wal Thornhills presentation (…now in full)
I am curious of your version of dipole gravity and am trying to understand your view.

I have some questions if you don't mind? Please could you comment on the following:

If subatomic dipoles relate in any way to gravity then they must have an instantaneous mobile vector orientation! ?This vector somehow must sense or feel the greatest nearby accumulation of matter.? ( Field????)
Each and all items within the larger mass with correspondingly aligned centre of the Earth vectors ( or compound vectors accumulating to one direction)?

For sub atomic gravity generation to function, then the subatomic particles within such things as protons and neutrons , must behave like a non viscous perfect fluid and continually instantaneously re-orientating themselves. For example, when any separate smaller items of unconnected matter is rotated? Drop anything in a gravitational field and it “knows” which way to fall! Unless it’s mass and gravitational attraction is less than the particles in the atmosphere above it.

If I take a 1metre long piece of timber say 10cm by 5cm.
I hold it with my hand and impart a spinning motion and let it fall to the ground whilst spinning.

Are you suggesting that all the quarks within the atomic lattice structure are instantaneously changing their position due to the spin so the net effect is an alignment to the Earth?

IF SO?

Now let us take a balloon nearly full of water and repeat the experiment imparting spin. There is no longer a coordinated fixed solid lattice structure as the fluid itself is sloshing in all sorts of directions
The "quarks" need to play a part in the molecular attraction via orientation (if I understand your proposal) but also need to instantly re-orientate to maintain the vector necessary for your dipole gravity? How is this possible.

Also it is action at a distance so therefore a "field".

Please explain where I have misunderstood?

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:01 am

querious wrote:Dipole-generated electric fields get weaker with distance (1/r3) much faster than isolated charges (1/r2).

Please treat dipoles as the two adjacent charges that they are. There is no single "field" that describes their effect on each other.
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 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:30 am

Corpuscles wrote:1. If subatomic dipoles relate in any way to gravity then they must have an instantaneous mobile vector orientation!
2. It “knows” which way to fall!
3. If I take a 1metre long piece of timber I hold it with my hand and impart a spinning motion ...
Are you suggesting that all the quarks within the atomic lattice structure are instantaneously changing their position due to the spin so the net effect is an alignment to the Earth?
4. Now let us take a balloon nearly full of water and repeat the experiment imparting spin. There is no longer a coordinated fixed solid lattice structure as the fluid itself is sloshing in all sorts of directions
The "quarks" need to play a part in the molecular attraction via orientation (if I understand your proposal) but also need to instantly re-orientate to maintain the vector necessary for your dipole gravity? How is this possible.
5. Also it is action at a distance so therefore a "field".


1. Yes, instantaneous to you and me.
2. Yes, see 1.
3. Yes, see 1 and 2.
4. Molecular viscosity is infinitely slow compared to quark and atomic dipole re-orientation.
5. No. We do not know what communicates action at a distance. "Field" is a primitive and unsatisfactory substitute for understanding the real mechanism.

P.S. You are on the right track with good questions.
Science history proves that what we think we know today often blocks advancing our understanding and conflicts with what we eventually learn.
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 » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:06 pm

Hi Bengt

Bengt Nyman wrote:5. No. We do not know what communicates action at a distance. "Field" is a primitive and unsatisfactory substitute for understanding the real mechanism.



Thanks for the reply.
I gather you are declaring my speculated hypothetical "instantaneous re-orientation" is in accord with your theory?
Have you ever modelled the positions of these sub particles when the body is spinning and falling? I cannot see how it maintains molecular function / distances (in your model) and similtaneously multitasks it's conjectured gravity vector?

What is the "real mechanism"? Are you saying you don't know? If so , isn't that the same as declaring you do not know what causes gravity?

If there is a separate "mechanism" for conveying the action at a distance then surely that is more likely the reason /cause for the effect?

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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Jan 31, 2016 6:31 am

Corpuscles wrote:Hi Bengt ... Thanks for the reply.

I hope I have answered your questions.
I can not do much about your possible disbelief.
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 Feb 02, 2016 11:50 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:Dipole-generated electric fields get weaker with distance (1/r3) much faster than isolated charges (1/r2).

Please treat dipoles as the two adjacent charges that they are. There is no single "field" that describes their effect on each other.

Bengt,
Do you disagree that dipole electric fields fall off with 1/r3?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:04 pm

querious wrote: Do you disagree that dipole electric fields fall off with 1/r3?

Yes, I disagree.
When a dipole is long in relation to the distance to the point where you calculate the compound field it falls off with s/r^3.
When the dipole is short in relation to the distance to the point of interest, s becomes = r and the field falls off with r/r^3 = 1/r^2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wjy5qXtxc
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 Feb 02, 2016 5:07 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: Do you disagree that dipole electric fields fall off with 1/r3?

Yes, I disagree.
When a dipole is long in relation to the distance to the point where you calculate the compound field it falls off with s/r^3.
When the dipole is short in relation to the distance to the point of interest, s becomes = r and the field falls off with r/r^3 = 1/r^2.


You have those relations backwards, which may be why it's so hard for you to understand my reasoning behind the charged foil.

See Electric Field due to a Dipole

Especially THIS minute --------> 13:20 - 14:29
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby webolife » Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:58 am

Also Bengt,
1. You earlier discounted a "single field" explanation for dipoles on the ground there must be two charges.
But what if the two "charges" are simply the effects felt at opposite ends of a single vector?
2. Further you complained that a "field" is an unsatisfactory "mechanism" for physical interaction between two particles. Yet, what if it is the field that yields the mechanics, rather than the mechanics making the field? Do you categorically deny this as a possible reality, or can you admit that you are reduced to a major presupposition from which your conclusion [albeit logically] proceeded?
3. And how do you separately justify "instantaneous realignment" but disavow "instantaneous action at a distance"? In answering this last question try to take into account the "single vector" proposition of question 1, and the possible presupposition [i think "faith base"] in question 2.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2516
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:40 am

querious wrote: ... backwards ...

No, you got it backwards !
Listen to it again.
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 » Wed Feb 03, 2016 7:59 am

webolife wrote:1. ... "single field" ...
2. ... what if it is the field that yields the mechanics ...
3. ... "instantaneous realignment"

1. Two charges produce two separate fields. To know the field vector at any point in the vicinity of a dipole you have to calculate both field vectors and then the compound, resultant vector at the point of interest.
2. Aethers or fields of unknown substances or origins is not part of this subject.
3. Dipole alignment do not require speeds in excess of speed of light. The communication between bodies is another story, where I prefer not to speculate.
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 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:08 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: ...

WRONG !


So Bengt,
Your argument is basically that the field from a single exposed charge falls off FASTER than from 2 nearby charges nearly cancelling each other? Do you realize how ridiculous that is?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:16 am

querious wrote:Your argument is ... ?

I am not arguing anything. I am using well known physics. You are not.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron