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 Pi sees » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:44 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:Just adding this video which shows what electric forces can do in space.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NbCzbDdd-g



Things like this make me think that gravity is a fictitious force. Like gravity, fictitious forces can't be screened and they produce the same rate of acceleration on all objects irrespective of their mass.

From what I can tell, there are only two considerations which count against the idea that gravity is a fictitious force:

1) The ubiquity of gravitational effects; and
2) All masses are gravitationally attracted to one and other.

The first consideration is an Argument From Incredulity; it's hard to believe that the very thing which keeps our feet on the ground isn't due to a real and fundamental force of nature. (On a somewhat related note, I find it interesting that one of the basic tenents of physics is that an object will move in a straight line unless acted upon by an additional force. The most obvious exception to this tenent was - and still is - the inexorable tendency of objects to fall to the ground, and it seems to me like "gravity" was initially conceived as an ad hoc "explanation" for this curious discrepancy between theory and empirical reality).

The second consideration is, like the first, very much a product of our own terrestrially-b(i)ased experience of physical reality. The purported gravitational attraction exerted by mass is so incredibly minute that it is virtually undetectable for any mass smaller than a moon. Such is the minuteness of this purported universal gravitational attraction, that I cannot understand how scientists can be sufficiently confident in its existence given that other factors -i.e. residual electromagnetic attraction, temperature effects, atmospheric conditions, measurement errors, and apparatus setup - would surely produce a terrible signal-to-noise ratio. Let me put it this way: if a parapsychologist suggested that telepathy occures at a level of weakness (and inconsistency!) comparable to "Big" G, how would the rest of the scientific community respond? Couple that with the fact that no one even seems to know what "mass" actually is, and the notion that all mass exerts "gravitational" attraction seems to be on very shaky ground indeed.
Pi sees
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Pi sees » Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:52 pm

perpetual motion wrote:Lets say that this 14.7 PSI just leaves this planet for some unknown reason, what
do you think would happen? Forget about all life suffocating and try to think
logically as to what will happen to everything above ground level as to where it will go, with the earth spinning at it's present velocity.


I don't honestly know, but a good way to find out would be to put an object in an air-tight chamber and then evacuate all the gas inside the chamber. If the pressure of the above atmosphere is responsible for keeping objects on the ground, then the object in the evacuated vacuum chamber should jump (or at least float) to the top of the chamber, such that any further progress upward is once again impeded.

I will say that it is the magnetosphere that is holding this air
pressure down to this PSI number. If more power comes into this entity it would
squeeze more tightly and this PSI would go up, making animals and plants have
to work harder to grow and move along.


Why would the magnetosphere only be affecting the air? What about planets with weak magnetospheres?
Pi sees
 
Posts: 103
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 7:04 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Sep 09, 2015 3:55 am

kaublezw wrote: He seems to suggest that gravity pulls the nucleus of atoms towards the center of mass, thus causing a small electric dipole within the atom, thus causing gravity? It seems to be a circular reference.
Later on he suggests that if we are falling, during our fall, we have no mass?
I'm not interested in reasons why you think the theory is wrong. I'm interested in grasping the theory as it is defined by Wal.

99% of what Wallace maintains is correct; much of the remaining mysteries of the cosmos are of an electric nature. You have specifically told me that you do not want to know what is wrong with his theory so I shall abide by your directive by not telling you. However, I will give you a clue. It has to do with exactly what you are objecting to. If you are interested in electric dipole gravity which contrary to Albert Einstein gravity and Wallace Thornhill gravity is not based on a circular argument, you can find it at 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 querious » Wed Sep 09, 2015 6:58 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
kaublezw wrote:If you are interested in electric dipole gravity which contrary to Albert Einstein gravity and Wallace Thornhill gravity is not based on a circular argument, you can find it at http://www.dipole.se


Hi Bengt,
Your idea makes some sense in the way depicted for quarks, although I doubt the quarks are motionless enough for it to work.
What really kills your idea as a solution to gravity is it doesn't work on the macroscopic scale. Those 2 protons locked together just used up their opposite charges to hold each other together, but they've also cancelled each other's charges, and hence any further ability to contribute to gravity.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:14 pm

querious wrote: Your idea makes some sense in the way depicted for quarks, although I doubt the quarks are motionless enough for it to work.
What really kills your idea as a solution to gravity is it doesn't work on the macroscopic scale. Those 2 protons locked together just used up their opposite charges to hold each other together, but they've also cancelled each other's charges, and hence any further ability to contribute to gravity.

Not at all. Charges never occupy the same space and therefore never cancel each other.
We are not talking about matter and anti-matter.
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 » Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:24 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: Your idea makes some sense in the way depicted for quarks, although I doubt the quarks are motionless enough for it to work.
What really kills your idea as a solution to gravity is it doesn't work on the macroscopic scale. Those 2 protons locked together just used up their opposite charges to hold each other together, but they've also cancelled each other's charges, and hence any further ability to contribute to gravity.

Not at all. Charges never occupy the same space and therefore never cancel each other.
We are not talking about matter and anti-matter.


I meant that they're so close they've lost their effectiveness, in the same way a hydrogen atom is considered electrically neutral.

Also, is this your explanation of how the earth attracts the moon?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Sep 09, 2015 7:30 pm

Charge Posturing, Dipole Formation and Gravity.
The mechanism of gravity can be illustrated by the dipole formation between two hydrogen atoms.
The electrically charged protons and electrons in each atom turn the other atom into a dipole. There are four electrostatic forces at play between the two atoms.
The result is always a tiny, positive, attractive force; Dipole Gravity.
Attachments
Dipole gravity -10.jpg
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 Sep 09, 2015 7:39 pm

querious wrote:I meant that they're so close they've lost their effectiveness, in the same way a hydrogen atom is considered electrically neutral.

That is your mistake, not recognizing that there are no neutral particles, atoms, molecules or bodies when it comes to gravity. The atomic constituents are electrically charged, they react to each other and they cause gravity, strong force and more.
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 » Wed Sep 09, 2015 8:00 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:Charge Posturing, Dipole Formation and Gravity.
The mechanism of gravity can be illustrated by the dipole formation between two hydrogen atoms.
The electrically charged protons and electrons in each atom turn the other atom into a dipole. There are four electrostatic forces at play between the two atoms.
The result is always a tiny, positive, attractive force; Dipole Gravity.


Is this your explanation of how the earth attracts the moon?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Sep 10, 2015 1:35 am

querious wrote:Is this your explanation of how the earth attracts the moon?

Dear Querious, do you have a degree in physics ?
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 Sep 10, 2015 5:46 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:Is this your explanation of how the earth attracts the moon?

Dear Querious, do you have a degree in physics ?


I don't see how that's relevant.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:30 am

querious wrote:I don't see how that's relevant.

I do. This is not your personal tutoring site.
Please try to be less disruptive.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby antosarai » Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:37 am

When cornered, ad verecundiam?
antosarai
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 8:41 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Thu Sep 10, 2015 7:31 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote:I don't see how that's relevant.

I do. This is not your personal tutoring site.
Please try to be less disruptive.


Is this your way of admitting you've lost the argument?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:57 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:If you are interested in electric dipole gravity which contrary to Albert Einstein gravity and Wallace Thornhill gravity is not based on a circular argument, you can find it at http://www.dipole.se


Image

Its an interesting idea, but I don't think it explains gravity, for reasons that I have already touched on.

The two hydrogen atoms pictured might well attract each other elctrostatically. The problem is, that their attraction is based on them having their nuclei displaced, in such a way that they attract each other.

So lets assume then, that all atoms in the world are have their nuclei displaced in such a way that they attract each other towards the centre of the earth. Such an arrangement could be just like gravity, if it were attainable.

Now lets make two nice hefty balls of metal, and set them up so that we can measure whether or not they attract each other with their own gravity. We find that they do. We also find that this gravity force can be such that the two balls positioned side by side attract horizontally. Or we could put one ball above the other, and find that it pulls the ball below upwards.

Now if atoms are all arranged in this world to pull downwards, how can they also be arranged to pull sideways, or upwards?

In a three body example, using electrostatic attraction to explain gravity results in the problem, that only two of the bodies should attract. A third body should be able to be positioned so that it does not attract to one of the others, or repels them. Unfortunately, we find that masses always attract.

Masses always attract, but electrical forces can attract or repel, based on the polarity of the charge. This is not overly difficult to verify by experiment.

Then there is the issue of the charged foil. Just connect a foil up to a suitable voltage, and it should float away. Nope, doesn't work either.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest