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 seasmith » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:02 am

Willendure wrote: So you'll need to scratch your head and come up with a 'fictitious' mechanism by which they are held together.

If you took some time to understand atomic structure, as explained repeatedly by M Mathis, then you would understand why, at that scale, "likes like likes"; and things manage to stay together.

The whole 'quark' concept is mainly 3D geometry, don't let it confuse you.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:21 am

seasmith wrote:
Willendure wrote: So you'll need to scratch your head and come up with a 'fictitious' mechanism by which they are held together.

If you took some time to understand atomic structure, as explained repeatedly by M Mathis, then you would understand why, at that scale, "likes like likes"; and things manage to stay together.

The whole 'quark' concept is mainly 3D geometry, don't let it confuse you.


"In the end, this just means that the nuclear binding energy is gravity, plus a loss of charge. It is stronger
than what we normally think of as gravity because gravity at our level is actually the unified field. It is
gravity plus the charge field. " M Mathis

He uses gravity to explain it. (But not dipole gavity, I hasten to add).
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby nick c » Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:57 am

There have been several ad hominem attacks that have been removed from this thread.
I should not have to keep repeating this but apparently it needs to be repeated.
All participants on the TB forum should be familiar with the Forum Rules and Guidelines.

The key word is RESPECT.
You are not conducting exchanges with a disembodied internet entity but rather with a fellow human being, albeit one who has a different view.

Attacking a post on the basis of the logic and facts presented is perfectly acceptable. Attacking the personal integrity of the poster is not acceptable.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2388
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby seasmith » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:21 am

willendure wrote:
seasmith wrote:
Willendure wrote: So you'll need to scratch your head and come up with a 'fictitious' mechanism by which they are held together.

If you took some time to understand atomic structure, as explained repeatedly by M Mathis, then you would understand why, at that scale, "likes like likes"; and things manage to stay together.

The whole 'quark' concept is mainly 3D geometry, don't let it confuse you.


"In the end, this just means that the nuclear binding energy is gravity, plus a loss of charge. It is stronger
than what we normally think of as gravity because gravity at our level is actually the unified field. It is
gravity plus the charge field. " M Mathis


He uses gravity to explain it. (But not dipole gavity, I hasten to add) -w.


You just mis-quoted your own quote.
He uses ... "gravity plus the charge field. "
Charge re-cycling is the key dynamic [and it (bonding) IS a dynamic process], that you are
missing.
seasmith
 
Posts: 2790
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:58 am

seasmith wrote:
willendure wrote:
seasmith wrote:
Willendure wrote: So you'll need to scratch your head and come up with a 'fictitious' mechanism by which they are held together.

If you took some time to understand atomic structure, as explained repeatedly by M Mathis, then you would understand why, at that scale, "likes like likes"; and things manage to stay together.

The whole 'quark' concept is mainly 3D geometry, don't let it confuse you.


"In the end, this just means that the nuclear binding energy is gravity, plus a loss of charge. It is stronger
than what we normally think of as gravity because gravity at our level is actually the unified field. It is
gravity plus the charge field. " M Mathis


He uses gravity to explain it. (But not dipole gavity, I hasten to add) -w.


You just mis-quoted your own quote.
He uses ... "gravity plus the charge field. "
Charge re-cycling is the key dynamic [and it (bonding) IS a dynamic process], that you are
missing.


If you are a M Mathis adherent, yes. The point I am trying to make is that he needs something more than charge to make it work - gravity plus charge makes a unified field in his view. I'm critiquing the dipole.se/Bengt claim that it can be done with charge alone. I find it interesting that Mathis needs more than just charge to construct his hypothesis.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:01 pm

nick c wrote:There have been several ad hominem attacks that have been removed from this thread.


So here it is without the ad hominem.

bengt wrote:Compound coulomb interactions demystify and eliminate the need for fictitious particles like gluons and gravitons.


But as I pointed out - the things that make up these compound charge 'nests' manage to stay together, even when they are repelling each other. So you'll need to scratch your head and come up with a 'fictitious' mechanism by which they are held together.

Lets come back to your diagram of deuterium shall we? I think there must be a bug in your 'simulation software' because a set of charges arranged as you have them in this diagram would most certainly not remain in this configuration as a stable arrangement. Those two circles in the middle where you have 2 +2/3 charges right next to each other? They are going flying out of the pictures to the left and right.

Image
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Mon Jan 09, 2017 2:31 pm

willendure wrote: 2 +2/3 charges right next to each other? They are going flying out of the pictures to the left and right.

No. They are up-quarks, part of the proton. Their positions are the result of computer simulations based on actual charges and sizes. Also notice the two down-quarks in the neutron linking the two up-quarks together. There are nine coulomb force vectors at play. You have to quantify and simultaneously consider all nine. It's hard to do without a computer and simulation software.
You are looking at two views of a 3D situation.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:17 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote: 2 +2/3 charges right next to each other? They are going flying out of the pictures to the left and right.

No. They are up-quarks, part of the proton. Their positions are the result of computer simulations based on actual charges and sizes. Also notice the two down-quarks in the neutron linking the two up-quarks together. There are nine coulomb force vectors at play. You have to quantify and simultaneously consider all nine. It's hard to do without a computer and simulation software.
You are looking at two views of a 3D situation.


Just looking at this video here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSVMdEs6bVc

The quarks in each proton remain rigidly in-place relative to each other - so those relationships are not evolving under Coulombs law.

Then the quarks bump off each other like hard glass marbles. What force is that? Not the one described by Coulombs law that is for sure.

There is more than Coulombs law being 'simulated' here. I'm not really sure what it is simulating, but whatever it is, it does not describe the structure of matter with any degree of accuracy.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:49 pm

willendure wrote: ...

Agreed. Reality of all this is likely to be many orders of magnitude more complex than we know today. I build on what we know so far and conclude that there is much more to coulomb interactions than what GR, SR, ST or QF has taken into account so far.
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 Jan 10, 2017 8:13 am

I'm still waiting for a response from anyone who has seen Wal's Adelaide talk and can shed light on this comment by Dave Smith...

"Wal's work on beginning to really understand gravity is nothing short of outstanding."

What new concepts were explained?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby webolife » Tue Jan 10, 2017 1:25 pm

I have avoided this thread for reasons of not wanting to add the further confusion of yet another viewpoint, but I am going to try to sort out some issues and questions I am hearing:
1. Wal T's gravity view derives from Ralph Sansbury's electrigravity theory involving elastic dipoles in tiny particles he calls subtrons, which make up electrons. These are Sansbury's version of quarks. Sansbury has been in and out of vogue as his work is so controversial, and his redefinitions of physics terms are often confusing to an ordinary reader, even a student of physics. Essentially, his gravity derives from the accumulation of radially organized/aligned electric dipoles, something of a residual effect, which is why it's actions are negligibly tiny at the atomic level, and "big" when you have a large accumulation of them, as in stars or planets. Since dipoles are more randomly oriented throughout the body of a large object, only the alignment on the surface has the gravitic effect, according to Sansbury.
2. I commend Wal for trying to understand Sansbury's work. Before coming to the EU, I had a lengthy dialogue with Ralph regarding his FTL proposals, something I deal with in my Centropic Pressure Field theory (CPFT). I found that the more questions I asked, the more confused I got... not an uncommon experience when dealing with someone who has a truly novel approach to the universe. My interest in Sansbury was probably around the same time that Wal was studying Sansbury's electrigravitics, and it was from a link on one of Sansbury's sites that I found the EU.
3. Mathis has done an excellent job trying to quantify the unification of the different fields, which attracted me to his work a number of years ago, as my CPFT is a geometric unification whereas Miles' is algebraic. Again, I must be like Pooh, a bear of Very Small Brain, because not only did I find that his math and "mine" did not agree, I found him to be frequently jumping to conclusions that didn't seem warranted from his preceding logic steps. Again, not an unusual occurrence in the pursuit of a novel paradigm of Physics... you almost just have to be him to understand him. Many find my CPFT to be the same way... for example:
4. For me the only dipole necessary is a vector of force [or, in the finitude of the universe, a beam of pressure]. My fundamental vectors are always centropic [think gravitation] as they are directed toward the centroid of a system [at any dimensional hierarchy], so I see, like Mathis, a unified field. What makes a vector a dipole, beside the obvious illustration of an arrow, is that its actions are opposite depending on which way you are "looking down" the shaft...er, beam. You feel the vectoral force/pressure when looking toward the centroid as a "source", and if you were a believer in attraction, you would call it a "tug". Importantly, there is no phenomenality in the universe without the consideration of at least two different objects. Each of these objects is in a field, which can be visualized as a bundle of vectors all pointed toward the center of the object. All pressure is centropic, there is no attractive force, rather a squeezing force. But when you take two "like charges" ie. objects of like fields, and bring them into proximity, their peripheral vector components are in opposite directions, each toward its own center; the result is naturally, maybe obviously, what we term as repulsion vs., for lack of a better term, "coalescing" [ie. gravitation]. But obviously the universe is made up of more than two particles, so under the overarching unified compressive field, objects do coalesce, I like the term coagulate... call it gravitate. For me "gravity" is always and only a verb, not a thing or things such as "gravitons." It is an action caused by the contraction of a field or field element, but ultimately universal centropic pressure is also the cause of that contraction. A "chicken or egg" thing? I beg that question and go with both, or neither, whichever makes more sense at the time.
5. This brings us, well... me, to the relation of charge and mass. I already used charge in the above context of like charges, and by simple comparison of the two described actions, "coalescing" and repulsion, you can certainly visualize charge as a category of action, and see why it is most easily applied to a dichotomous situation where objects and their fields are similar, which happens generally in the hierarchy of atoms... we call this electrical, because it involves "electrons" and "protons", defined by an opposition of field effects. The universe is pushing the particles together, while the like "charged" electrons are repelling. Ever wonder why protons seem to stick together rather than repel? Is it perhaps because a proton's nature is no charge, vs. the singular charge of electrons? In this view perhaps it is the neutrons, an interaction of protons and electrons, that carry the field balancing repulsive nature that prevents an atom from becoming a black hole... To clarify further about the proton, in the vectoral system a proton is "looking" UP the shaft, ie. from the head toward the tail, while the electron is looking "down" the shaft, ie. in the direction of the arrow, and thus "holds" onto the atom rather than only flying away, as its fellow electrons are wont to have it do. Did I say "clarify"? Sorry about that ;)
6. Mass which has a greater effect at higher hierarchies than at lower, for plain reasons, is really just a different order for charge [the word charge means "weight" or "load"... and "gravity"], experienced by the interaction of two objects. The only way to detect "mass" is through the comparative motions of objects in proximity to each other. The larger the objects, the larger the distance may be in which "mass" can be determined. The smaller the objects, the smaller the distance must be in order to determine a mass relationship. In this sense, mass is invariably a relative comparison between two objects. Just like charge. Fundamentally, mass is the coalescence of objects in a larger field under the same centropic pressure described above, a unified field. The degree to which an object in motion [and all are] affects another object's motion is how we/I think of mass. The area [or less elementarily, volume] occupied by the objects [their mutual field] thus has an correspondence to the amount of "matter" in the objects, leading to a recognition that in a practical sense, "density" is the real phenomenon, while "mass" is just a partial perception of it. When we attempt to apply this concept at smaller hierarchies, say at the periodic table level, we discover an interesting relation: isotopes with greater mass have a smaller volume than lighter isotopes. Here is a way that gravitation seems to play a direct part in the electrical regime of the elements. As a pre-summative statement, electricity and gravitation are just two manifestations of the unified CPF.
8. Light, not the topic of this thread, is another manifestation of the CPF. The pressure toward the system centroid, manifests as an impulse from the back of the retina "outward" [ie. through the pupil toward the "source"] giving us the experience of the object's "light". Its operation is the same as charge and mass. Fundamentally, if I look "down" the shaft of the light vector [in the direction of the arrow, toward the light "source", as a sink] I see light. In the other direction... shadow. I look out toward the "edges" of the universe... there is dark. I look toward the centroid of a star... there is light. There is no Olbers paradox, or there is its solution. Since light is just vectors of the unified CPF, the straightest line is a sight line, and at angles of incidence to that light line are manifested the colors of the spectral gradient. But, as I said, that is tangential to the topic here.
9. If this is light's true behavior, it explains Mathis's "charge photons", and also accords with Sansbury's instantaneous light claim, without the requirement of novel particles or wavishness.

On "like likes like" this saying originates I believe from Feynman, but has been used by many others to explain how two objects of like charge can coalesce rather than always repel, a condition one can surmise must be present in the lumpy universe such as we live. It is fairly simple to visualize that in an intervening space between two macro-objects [remembering that the interaction of tiny objects requires the tiniest of spaces] a charge gradient will exist. The surfaces of two "like" charged objects will be "negative" or what I would describe as directed toward the centroids of the respective objects. This creates a situation toward the midspace or interstitial medium of positivity [easy to show with vectors]. What standard physics describes as attraction of the two objects toward the midspace medium, I would simply attribute to the unified CPF at work. With sufficient distance between the two "likes", the unified pressure "takes over" and coalescence happens. Like likes like. A further application of this is the recognition that the CPF is paramount in any energy exchange... ie. there will always be a net reduction in organizational energy, or potential energy, in the interaction of two or more objects; we call this "entropy", so "Centropy is entropy"! Somewhere in there is also the fundamental meaning of "time"... also for another thread.
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: 2512
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests