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 upriver » Thu Feb 04, 2016 8:24 pm

webolife wrote: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.


The field is the source of motion. The source of the field is instantaneous, not the field itself, I think...
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby nick c » Fri Feb 05, 2016 9:31 am

Several posts have been removed from this thread.
The posts involve sarcastic remarks lacking any substantive content; as well as personal attacks. All participants in this thread and this forum are expected to conduct themselves in a civil manner. While good faith criticisms are welcome, ad hominem attacks serve no constructive purpose.
The guideline is "attack the idea not the person putting forth the idea."
SEE:
Grow Up or Leave
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2320
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby webolife » Fri Feb 05, 2016 11:39 am

upriver wrote:The field is the source of motion. The source of the field is instantaneous, not the field itself, I think...

Explain further what you're thinking here, what field and source are you picturing?
And to keep with the thread, what do you picture as a gravitational field:
Particles or waves traveling between "attracting" objects?
Aetheric particles randomly pushing objects around?
Accumulation/capacitance of charge or mass?
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: 2449
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Siggy_G » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:09 pm

Why are you discussing the fall off of one electric dipole? A large scale body would in this case consist of x^y amount of atomic dipoles placed side-by-side, and their external electric fields overlap:

Image

A planet or any spherical body would mean that atomic dipoles are alligned radially in a spherical geometry.

The result is a spherical electret - or a spherical conductor - with one internal charge and the opposite charge tending towards the surface. The fall off of its external electric field is inverse square, i.e. when viewed at distance it´s similar to the electric field of a point charge. A similar case would occur with magnetic dipoles arranged spherically and its large scale external magnetic field.

Image

Image

(Source: Information and Communication Technology wiki - Kshitij Education India)
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Siggy_G » Fri Feb 05, 2016 1:45 pm

querious wrote:
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


Both Bengt and querious are right on this one, but for different viewpoints of the atomic dipole. As explained in the video Bengt linked to (from around 8:50), as one measures the electric field along the axial line of the dipole configuration, the s factor in the equation becomes the same unit as y, and the y^3 denominator is then reduced to y^2 (inverse square fall off).

See also: Electric dipole - for points on the axial line

An alternativ explanation may be that when dipole charge A is occluded by charge B along the line of sight, one really looks at a point charge (inverse square fall off), while at the perpendicular plane the two charges tend to cancel eachother out at distance. For microscopic scenarios these mechanisms induce interesting dynamics, as Bengt has researched.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:07 am

Thank you Siggy,

It is important to note that gravity and strong force are both the results of dipole attractions between protons and neutrons at one level and between atoms at another. However, the geometric effects and the strength of the strong forces versus the gravitational forces are very different. The posturing and dipole orientations in a solid body are very much dominated by the structure of the solid body and the strong forces involved in keeping that body together. Gravitational dipole orientation in a solid body amounts to a temporary and very minor tweak of these orientations and are barely observable compared to the dipole posturing and orientation holding the solid body together. Therefore, do not expect to find all dipoles in the solids of the earth or the moon to point toward the center of these respective bodies, that would simply violate the dipole posturing that occurred and is required to hold the solid body together. See for example atom orientations and crystalline structures in many solid materials.
The minor dipole orientation shifts which occur between nearby bodies and which causes gravity is elastic, temporary and superimposed upon the more fundamental dipole posturings and orientations which hold solid bodies together.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby upriver » Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:31 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:Thank you Siggy,

It is important to note that gravity and strong force are both the results of dipole attractions between protons and neutrons at one level and between atoms at another. However, the geometric effects and the strength of the strong forces versus the gravitational forces are very different. The posturing and dipole orientations in a solid body are very much dominated by the structure of the solid body and the strong forces involved in keeping that body together. Gravitational dipole orientation in a solid body amounts to a temporary and very minor tweak of these orientations and are barely observable compared to the dipole posturing and orientation holding the solid body together. Therefore, do not expect to find all dipoles in the solids of the earth or the moon to point toward the center of these respective bodies, that would simply violate the dipole posturing that occurred and is required to hold the solid body together. See for example atom orientations and crystalline structures in many solid materials.
The minor dipole orientation shifts which occur between nearby bodies and which causes gravity is elastic, temporary and superimposed upon the more fundamental dipole posturings and orientations which hold solid bodies together.


Are you talking about shifting the field over the massive matter or shifting the massive matter? How does spin relate to a shifting dipole?
upriver
 
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:55 pm

upriver wrote: Are you talking about shifting the field over the massive matter or shifting the massive matter? How does spin relate to a shifting dipole?

What "field" ? I don't understand your question(s).
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 » Sat Feb 06, 2016 9:07 pm

Siggy_G wrote:The fall off of its external electric field is inverse square, i.e. when viewed at distance it´s similar to the electric field of a point charge.

I have no idea why you think arraying dipoles magically makes them into a 1/r2 force.
You can ADD them to get their cumulative effect, but that doesn't affect the rate the individual fields falls off.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Siggy_G » Sun Feb 07, 2016 3:20 am

querious wrote:
Siggy_G wrote:The fall off of its external electric field is inverse square, i.e. when viewed at distance it´s similar to the electric field of a point charge.

I have no idea why you think arraying dipoles magically makes them into a 1/r2 force.
You can ADD them to get their cumulative effect, but that doesn't affect the rate the individual fields falls off.


When a plenum of dipoles are arranged in a spherical geometry, with each dipole tending to allign radially, the scenario is different from a plenum of dipoles adding up in the same direction. The latter would kind of be a large version of a single dipole, as you imply.

A spherical surface would be dominated by axial dipole fields (their fall off inverse square). To the extent they are spread out their fields overlap additively, so the fall-off can't possibly be inverse cube (because the neighbour dipole's field fades in as the former fades out). The macroscopic body generally becomes a charged sphere, which evidently has an electric field with inverse square fall off.

If dipoles are arranged radially along a large wire, then the radial fall-off of the electric field would be 1/r (linear fall off). This makes certain macroscopic arrangement of dipoles a little tricky to model, because one may have surface regions that practically are cylindrical, flat or concave.

So it is geometry dependent. That's why I questioned the mere focus on the field fall off of a single dipole.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Feb 07, 2016 12:19 pm

Before getting into complex arrays of dipoles please note that the falloff of the effect of a single dipole is distance dependent:
1. At a near distance the falloff follows L/r^3. At a further distance L approaches the value of r, why falloff at a distance follows: r/r^3 which equals 1/r^2.
2. The idea that dipoles in a solid body would be stacked side by side, or in a uniform pattern is wrong. The orientation of the dipoles in a solid body is very complex due to the internal bonding of dipoles, which are the strong forces that hold the body together.
3. Dipole gravity involves a minor tweak to this complex pattern, such that the dipoles are temporarily, elastically and only slightly turned to exchange dipole gravity with an adjacent body. The very large difference in strength between strong force and gravity illustrates the difference in influence over dipole orientation afforded by strong force versus by 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 Corpuscles » Sun Feb 07, 2016 5:42 pm

Hi Siggy

Siggy_G wrote:fields overlap:

Image

A planet or any spherical body would mean that atomic dipoles are alligned radially in a spherical geometry.



Firstly, although it may seem like flattery, but RATHER it is meant as indeed sincere compliment, you have many fine quality (not necessarily quantity) posts over the years and I value RESPECT your input.

If "gravity" is to be explained by dipoles then surely the same behaviour or attributes (dipole) must apply to all bodies of matter whether they be large or small. Agreed?

My nephew demonstrated his childlike skills on a trampoline recently doing summersauts etc.

The molecules in his body are complex , and his DNA being made of amino acids with strange chirality.

How does the "dipoles" change direction or orientation whilst he is summersaulting?
I asked Bengt however he just said he "cannot help my unbelief"

Further, I would ask you whether YOU consider gravity to be an effect of dipoles?

Also, I would seek an explanation of this comment made in an article by Wal Thornhill.

"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"

If I embellish it in blue, where have I misunderstood?

Conducting metals will shield electric fields. As evidenced by a Faraday cage.However, the lack of movement of electrons in response to gravity (whether they be naturally occurring electrostatic or artificial man made manipulations to create electricity) does NOT explain in any way why we cannot shield against (any hypothesised electric) gravity by simply standing on a metal sheet (Gravity therefore obviously has nothing to do with electrostatics or any atomic dipole arrangement). 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] This is an example to emphasise that all electric “charge” as we know it is considerably stronger than gravity . If gravity is speculatively presumed to be caused by an electric dipole force between subatomic particles then it ought have some interaction with what we call electricity therefore whilst sub atomic and atomic forces are described as positive and negative charges then it does not and cannot be regarded as the commonly described phenomena called electricity . It is clear that the accelerative force (called gravity) “daisy chains” through matter regardless of whether it is conducting or non-conducting. Therefore does not behave like electricity or any electric effect as we currently know it.


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

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Sun Feb 07, 2016 7:03 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:At a further distance L approaches the value of r, why falloff at a distance follows: r/r^3 which equals 1/r^2.


This is like the 4th time you've said that, and it's flat out wrong. "L approaches r" ?! - That would be getting CLOSER to the dipole!

At a further distance, s becomes WAY SMALLER than r, so it becomes a 1/r3, the exact opposite of what you keep claiming.

And Siggy is wrong too, even axially it falls that way, (when far away), as his own link with equations actually showed. When axial the field is just twice that when equatorial, but still inverse cube.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Mon Feb 08, 2016 11:04 am

querious wrote: "L approaches r" ?!

L is the perpendicular distance from the midpoint of the dipole axis to the point of interest.
r1 and r2 are the distances from each dipole to the point of interest. r1 = r2.
As r1 and r2 get bigger so does L.
As r1 and r2 get bigger L becomes closer and closer to the value(s) of r1 and r2.
At a long distance L approaches the values of r1 and r2.
L/r^3 then becomes r/r^3 = 1/r^2.
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 » Mon Feb 08, 2016 1:18 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: "L approaches r" ?!

L is the perpendicular distance from the midpoint of the dipole axis to the point of interest.
r1 and r2 are the distances from each dipole to the point of interest. r1 = r2.
As r1 and r2 get bigger so does L.
As r1 and r2 get bigger L becomes closer and closer to the value(s) of r1 and r2.
At a long distance L approaches the values of r1 and r2.
L/r^3 then becomes r/r^3 = 1/r^2.


There you go again, changing your tune. Earlier you said....

Bengt Nyman wrote: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


In the video you linked, "s" is the distance between dipoles, "r" is the distance from each dipole to the point of interest.
Now, does your your quote still make sense? Can you finally admit you had it backwards? Please think carefully before responding.
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 3 guests