"Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

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: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Cargo » Tue Jul 18, 2017 9:33 pm

Except. Gravity is not a 'thing'. It's an effect of something we don't yet understand. Clearly, there is more involved then just Mass makes Gravity.

And, tangent to an odd sighting. Whereby we must ask, what happens with Gravity here?

https://youtu.be/whGKe-k0yI0?t=125

What other know function of physics is capable of countering the effect of Gravity?
As far as I'm aware, only electric fields can alter the effects of gravity. Therefore it seems extremely logically to think that it (electric) is related to the cause of the effect (gravity).

Soon, every planet will have a BH inside it. Because that is result of all Gravity is a Thing theories. And Time is Space and Space is Time nonsense. Black Holes with Event Horizons. Wormholes and Gravity Waves. Hollywood Science. How many times must we accept these "impossibilities" from the mainstream.
Cargo
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:09 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:So your evidence of an absolute statement is an approximate calculation. Fail.


No, numerical methods can give arbitrary precision. It just depends on how small your step size is.
Planets don't orbit based on approximations and guesswork. They are governed by forces. You may think the statement "numerical methods can give arbitrary precision" has some sort of scientific meaning but it's a sham.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Unfortunately for your gravity theory is that those "negligible" amounts, over a fairly modest amount of time, add up to unstable chaotic orbits. Fail.


They do not "add up to unstable chaotic orbits." Simulations don't show what you're claiming. We get stability for billions of years, just like we observe in reality.
Link to this simulation please.

Bob_Ham wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:I'm not defending Wal's theory as such, just want to point out the sweeping statement in your paper that is clearly wrong.


Here is the conclusion from my paper:

"After this examination, it is clear that electricity alone cannot account for planetary orbits. Gravity is a much simpler and much more solid explanation for planetary orbits; it gives the correct answers, and it doesn’t predict impossibilities like EU does."

Sentence by sentence:

1. Considering only electricity does not account for planetary orbits. The answers are way off.
2. Gravity is much simpler. It is purely attractive and doesn't cause induced magnetic fields or other phenomena that are not observed in planetary orbits (like electromagnetic radiation that would come from accelerated charged planets).
3. Gravity does give the correct answers; the orbital speed of 30 km/s is calculated using gravity in section 2. This same value cannot be calculated using "electric gravity." Not even close.
4. Gravity does not predict impossibilities like unphysical surface charges just to explain the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. All you need for gravity to work is mass.

You seem very fixated on gravity here, but the paper isn't even about gravity. Even if gravity is wrong, the point here is that "electric gravity" is way off.
As I said I'm not defending Wal's theory, however, real scientists shouldn't make sweeping statements as if they are facts. Gravity as the mainstream understands it is an approximation. I get that you're convinced it's correct because your mind is closed on the matter. Even after 300+ years of searching and some of the greatest minds applied to it there is still only arbitrary approximations. It should be a piece of cake considering there's only 1 force, so what's wrong? At some point you would hope there would be a push back, as there is clearly a fundamental problem, and we can actually advance science, which unfortunately seems unlikely any time soon while individuals insist that what we know is "correct".
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:34 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
willendure wrote:* Why can we not create an anti gravity machine by simply charging a piece of foil?
* How can gravity work in multiple directions at once? i.e. 3 heavy iron spheres will all mutually attract. Dipoles are necessarily directional.


These are also good points. Thanks for your input.

I have considered your second point in the context of stars orbiting within galaxies. They can't possibly all mutually orbit if they are attracted electrically, as only opposing charges attract. Any system of more than two charged stars cannot all attract each other, as some will necessarily have to repel each other.
Maybe each body attracts and repels simultaneously to create an equilibrium. Similar to this effect;

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+amazing+discovery+with+magnets&view=detail&mid=1E28A052563AB4777F7F1E28A052563AB4777F7F&FORM=VIRE
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1156
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby willendure » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:54 pm

Bob_Ham wrote:
willendure wrote:* Why can we not create an anti gravity machine by simply charging a piece of foil?
* How can gravity work in multiple directions at once? i.e. 3 heavy iron spheres will all mutually attract. Dipoles are necessarily directional.


These are also good points. Thanks for your input.

I have considered your second point in the context of stars orbiting within galaxies. They can't possibly all mutually orbit if they are attracted electrically, as only opposing charges attract. Any system of more than two charged stars cannot all attract each other, as some will necessarily have to repel each other.


Exactly. Same goes for the solar system; replacing gravity with electrical forces won't work, its complete rubbish that some people with no sense of logic promote on here. Gravity only attracts, never repels.
willendure
 
Posts: 535
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:31 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Planets don't orbit based on approximations and guesswork. They are governed by forces.


Yes, and the dominant force is gravity, according to conventional physics. Each body gravitationally affects every other body in the system. Any force field works this way. It is the same for charged particles where the only thing being considered is electricity. Modeling a system of more than two charged particles with the electric force requires the same n-body methods to solve. Were you not aware of that, or would you claim that electricity is also an “approximation”?

Aardwolf wrote:You may think the statement "numerical methods can give arbitrary precision" has some sort of scientific meaning but it's a sham.


So then you don’t think it’s possible to model a system of charged particles using electric forces either?

Aardwolf wrote:Link to this simulation please.


https://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1946

Aardwolf wrote:Gravity as the mainstream understands it is an approximation.


No, it isn’t. The gravitational force in Newtonian gravity is given by

Fg = G M m / r2.

This is an exact formula, not an approximation. In fact, this takes the exact same form as the electric force, which is given by

Fe = k Q q / r2.

I doubt you will try to argue that the electric force is also an “approximation.”

Aardwolf wrote:I get that you're convinced it's correct because your mind is closed on the matter.


No, it isn’t. I took the time to investigate electric gravity to see if it held up, and I even took the time to write up my results in LaTex. If my mind was closed, then I wouldn’t have done the calculations in the first place, and I certainly wouldn’t have written them up and posted them here to get feedback.

Aardwolf wrote:Even after 300+ years of searching and some of the greatest minds applied to it there is still only arbitrary approximations. It should be a piece of cake considering there's only 1 force, so what's wrong?


The same thing that is wrong with modeling a system of particles using the electric force: There are many particles, all of which interact with each other, and the forces between each depend on the distance between each particle and determine where the particles will go next. Yes, in both cases, there is only one force being considered, but each body imposes a different amount of this force on each other, depending on the distances between them. There are lots of calculations to keep track of simultaneously. Have you ever tried to do this kind of calculation, or do you just criticize those who actually work on it?
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Cargo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 5:42 pm

So we should model Atoms and such with Gravity instead of Electricity?
Cargo
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:05 pm

Cargo wrote:So we should model Atoms and such with Gravity instead of Electricity?


No, because atoms have very small mass, so the gravitational force between them is very small compared to the electrical force between them.

For example, let's consider an electron and a proton one meter from each other. The gravitational force between them is

Fg = G M m / r2 = 1.01 x 10-71 N.

Here, M is the mass of the proton (1.67 x 10-27 kg), m is the mass of the electron (9.11 x 10-31 kg), G is the gravitational constant (6.67 x 10-11 in MKS units), and r is the distance between them. The electric force between them is

Fe = k Q q / r2 = 2.30 x 10-30 N.

Here, Q is the charge of the proton (1.6 x 10-19 C), q is the charge of the electron (same as the proton), k is the electric constant (8.99 x 109 in MKS units), and r is the distance between them.

As you can see, the electric force is 1041 times stronger for these two particles. But what about two planets? Earth and Mars have masses of around 1024 kg each. This is 1043 times more mass. Even if these bodies have excess surface charges of a million C, the gravitational force between them would be about 1040 times stronger than the electric force between them.

It depends on how much mass vs charge the particles have that are being considered. I hope this explanation helps.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby toni » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:14 pm

The apple didn't fall to the ground due to pull or push.
It fell to the ground because it was seeking its own density, like all things in nature do.
If Newton was sitting with an apple for a few weeks, he would notice that the apple evaporated to the heavens. If you look into 2 spirals that create mass, you will note that spirals are turning around a shaft which should be called a gravity shaft.
In other words, gravity is the controller, balancer and surveyor of electricity which is creating mass. When one can understand this, the rest is easy.

Regards,
Toni
toni
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:31 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Cargo » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:47 pm

"one meter from each other"

Wait. What? No, that's not right at all. The distance between the particles is more like xxx miles relative.

The rotation of the solar bodies being only the result of a miracle perfectly balanced perpetual gravity pull is beyond imagination.
Cargo
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:21 pm

Cargo wrote:"one meter from each other"

Wait. What? No, that's not right at all. The distance between the particles is more like xxx miles relative.


I picked one meter in the example of the proton and electron that I came up with in order to simplify the calculation. The distance doesn't matter when comparing gravity and the electric force though, as both of them are proportional to 1/r2. Plug the numbers in yourself. Use any distance. The ratio between the two forces will still give that the electric force is 1041 times stronger than gravity for the electron and proton and 1040 times weaker than gravity for the charged planets, no matter what the distance.

Cargo wrote:The rotation of the solar bodies being only the result of a miracle perfectly balanced perpetual gravity pull is beyond imagination.


Is "the rotation of the solar bodies being only the result of a miracle perfectly balanced perpetual electric force pull" not beyond imagination?
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Wed Jul 19, 2017 10:32 pm

toni wrote:The apple didn't fall to the ground due to pull or push.
It fell to the ground because it was seeking its own density, like all things in nature do.


You are talking about Archimedes' principle. This phenomenon occurs because of gravity. Things float when the upward buoyant force balances the downward gravitational force, and when the downward force is greater than the buoyant force, things sink. This depends on density because gravity is proportional to mass. Even if you don't accept gravity, you still need a downward force of some kind to cause something to sink against the buoyant force in the first place, and if you want it to depend on density, then that force needs to depend on mass.

Here are some basic calculations, showing you how this works. Notice that the acceleration due to gravity (denoted with the letter "g") is part of the calculation, along with the density (denoted with the Greek letter "ρ") of the object and the density of the surrounding medium (which is water in the considered problem).
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Cargo » Thu Jul 20, 2017 6:46 am

Bob_Ham wrote:
Cargo wrote:"one meter from each other"

Wait. What? No, that's not right at all. The distance between the particles is more like xxx miles relative.


I picked one meter in the example of the proton and electron that I came up with in order to simplify the calculation. The distance doesn't matter when comparing gravity and the electric force though, as both of them are proportional to 1/r2. Plug the numbers in yourself. Use any distance. The ratio between the two forces will still give that the electric force is 1041 times stronger than gravity for the electron and proton and 1040 times weaker than gravity for the charged planets, no matter what the distance.

Cargo wrote:The rotation of the solar bodies being only the result of a miracle perfectly balanced perpetual gravity pull is beyond imagination.


Is "the rotation of the solar bodies being only the result of a miracle perfectly balanced perpetual electric force pull" not beyond imagination?


Yes, because electric fields can both attract and repel. And Plasma fields can do even wilder things. Like create spin, or transfer force even over great distances. Whereas a gravity fields only does one thing.

Bodies have gravity. This is not the issue. Space is Electric. There is no Gravity in Space. But there is 99% Plasma. And it's always going all over the place and between everything. It's the Final Frontier.
Cargo
 
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:52 am

Cargo wrote:Yes, because electric fields can both attract and repel.

Repulsion just makes the problem even worse if you want to explain the Earth orbiting the Sun though. An object can only stay in orbit around another with a significant attractive force. If there is also repulsion, then the attractive force needs to be even stronger to overcome that repulsion.

Cargo wrote:And Plasma fields can do even wilder things. Like create spin, or transfer force even over great distances. Whereas a gravity fields only does one thing.

So gravity can't "transfer force over great distances"? What in the gravitation equation I showed you (Fg = G M m / r2) limits the amount of force any more than for electricity (Fe = k Q q / r2)? They are both 1/r2 forces, which means there is no limit to their reach.

Cargo wrote:There is no Gravity in Space.

So where do you suggest gravity stops? Somewhere within Earth's atmosphere? Why?
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jul 20, 2017 8:29 am

Been away from the site for a while, and thought it might be helpful to insert some reminders:
1. Gravitation is an effect, a happening, a perception of centropic pressure, or force directed toward the centroid of a system, eg. the moon toward earth, the earth toward sun, an electron toward a "lower energy level", etc.
2. This effect is seen also in electrical systems, although we commonly refer to the pressure or force as directed "toward ground". Hydroelectric modeling demonstrates that through all the energy transformations involved the electric/gravitational "centropism" is paramount.
3. "Like likes like", a Feynman maxim, has been demonstrated in numerous instances, eg. Pollard, et.al. Summarily, bodies/conditions that support a particular charge, conventonally "negative", are wrapped in an environment of opposite [positive] charge, due to the "opposites attract" principle. This perpetuates a condition whereby the original like-charged bodies gravitate toward each other to a point where there is an electrically maintained stability/equilibrium between them [which also explains "repulsion", though a little more detailed description of the geometry of the pressure vectors is required to make this clear].
4. The question of where this universally observed ["unified"?] centropic pressure is derived leads to the kind of research and dialogues in which we are engaged. Gravity is not a thing, it is something happening to things. Is the unified pressure "field" electrical? gravitational? centropic? entropic? Yes, I say :)
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: 2410
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bob_Ham » Thu Jul 20, 2017 10:01 am

webolife wrote:Gravitation is an effect, a happening, a perception of centropic pressure

It sounds like you're trying to argue semantics here while throwing in some words that sound fancy. The point is that gravity can be modeled as a force in conventional physics, which can be used to calculate accelerations, and thus motions of objects. Using this model yields accurate results, regardless of what philosophical term you want to tie to gravitation.

Pressure is defined as force per unit area, so in order to label gravitation as a "centropic pressure" you would have to define some surface over which you are claiming it acts. Your terminology doesn't even make sense here, so I'm not sure why you're trying to bring in these new labels for things. We are talking about gravitational and electric forces, where a force is defined by F = ma.

Did you read the paper? The point is that "electric gravity," as described by Wal Thornhill is a factor of 1075 too weak to account for simple motions like the orbit of the Earth about the Sun (that's a 1 with 75 zeros after it). The conventional gravitational model accounts for the orbits of all planets in the Solar System. So why is there this desire within the EU community to throw out gravity? It gives the correct answers where electricity and magnetism (or plasma) cannot.
User avatar
Bob_Ham
 
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests