"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 Bengt Nyman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 3:35 am

Cargo wrote:Gravity does not function by Mass alone.

That is correct. Some way there is a numerical correlation between the absolut and total content of bound electrical charges in form of up-quarks and down-quarks (as opposed to measurable surface charge by lack or excess of free electrons) which allows us to quantitatively determine a body's gravitational potential by knowing its "Mass".
In other words: Absolut and total content of bound electrical charges = Mass = gravitational and inertial potential.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Catonic » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:28 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Electro wrote: How does your model explain planetary motion?

Each and every body in space is pulling on every other body, depending on masses/distances^2........


Not in the EU model. In that model the mass of an object changes as it's electrical charge changes, as Wal Thornhill states in the video that Bob Ham referenced in the first post of this thread. And it is the dynamics of the plasma/electric current field that causes atoms, molecules, comets, planets, stars, galaxies to form and break apart, not gravity. As Bob Ham worked out, Wal Thornhill's theory of gravity is way too weak to explain how planets move around the Sun etc. but that is not a problem as the EU model relies on other forces to make up the massive shortfall.
What is at fault here is not Wal Thornhill's theory of gravity but the inability of his critics to understand the basic dynamics of the plasma/EU model, imo.
Catonic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:41 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby nick c » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:09 pm

Not in the EU model. In that model the mass of an object changes as it's electrical charge changes
I believe that is incorrect. Thornhill following Sansbury uses a dipole model. The charge of the object does not determine the mass or the gravity. It also distinguishes between mass and matter.
-Matter is inviolable, cannot be created or destroyed - it is the amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons or their component parts.
-Mass is a variable function of matter dependent upon the dipole arrangement of the atoms.
-Charge is the balance or imbalance of protons and electrons.

That is my (not a physicist) understanding of the basics of Thornhill's model.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2349
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Electro » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:32 pm

nick c wrote:
Not in the EU model. In that model the mass of an object changes as it's electrical charge changes
I believe that is incorrect. Thornhill following Sansbury uses a dipole model. The charge of the object does not determine the mass or the gravity. It also distinguishes between mass and matter.
-Matter is inviolable, cannot be created or destroyed - it is the amount of protons, neutrons, and electrons or their component parts.
-Mass is a variable function of matter dependent upon the dipole arrangement of the atoms.
-Charge is the balance or imbalance of protons and electrons.

That is my (not a physicist) understanding of the basics of Thornhill's model.


I might have said it differently, but as per Wal Thornhill, the electrical charge on a planet can directly affect its apparent mass.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:28 pm

nick c wrote: ...

Thank you Nick, you are closer than Catonic. Gravity is caused by net Coulomb forces between charges in the bodies involved. These forces cause a slight shift in the relative position of these charges which can be simplistically expressed as the formation, or rather re-formation, of dipoles. Since these charges and their dipoles are primarily responsible for holding atoms, molecules and materials together the reality of the dipole geometry is magnitudes more complicated than proposed by Sansbury and Thornhill. I have illustrated the most simple cases on my Dipole page to explain the basic mechanism. What is needed next is time on a supercomputer to establish the dipole orientations in a piece of material while not exposed to external gravity, and compare it to the dipole orientations when exposed to external gravitation. The difference is going to be extremely subtle as suggested by the big difference in distances, and even bigger difference in force levels or Q*Q/r^2.
I have offered Wal Thornhill to cooperate on this project because Sansbury's and Thornhill's intuition appears to have been pointing in the right direction, but I have not yet heard if Wal is interested.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Catonic » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:57 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Bob_Ham wrote: ...

Hi Bob,
Wal Thornhill is talking about a thought offered by the deceased Norwegian physicist Ralph Sansbury. If you are interested in the original and more complete treatment of Coulomb dipole gravity I recommend that you look at [url]http://www.dipole.se


Bengt, I had a look at your paper at the above address.
Good on you for having a go at explaining matters which do need to be tackled, as you rightly point out. Someone who thinks for them self instead of just accepting what they read or taught is way ahead of the curve as they say.
Your ideas seem to me to have some common points with how Gerald Pollack describes the dynamics of the Exclusion Zone in his book "The Fourth Phase of Water", specifically in relation to how both attraction and repulsion work and are balanced in the interplay between electrons, protons and neutrons or neutral "zones".
There are also, at least it seems to me, some agreement between your theory and Wal Thornhill's views on the role of gravity in the EU model in so far as he sees gravity as having a repulsive force as well as an attracting one.
Of course, the context is vastly different. For example, your statement that

"Work by Albert Einstein and others including Space Time, General Relativity and Special Relativity explain the effects of time, velocity, acceleration and gravity in space, but does not offer a satisfying explanation for the cause of gravity."

is not likely to win you too many friends here. :) However you have done the right thing by raising your ideas here, imo, as being exposed to other points of view is good and necessary if real science is to advance.
Forming into little groups, refusing to look at alternative theories, always defending the theories of your group and un-thinkingly attacking or ignoring other theories are things that ideologists do, not scientists, so hopefully you will get some here to look at your work.
It seems to me that one of the major differences between your approach and the plasma/EU model is that your are starting at the atomic level and building up from there to explain gravity at the general or macro level whereas the EU model starts at the macro level and then explains the dynamics of the atom from the perspective or in light of the role of plasma/electro-magnetism at the general level.
This results in a very different way of seeing things and understanding what is cause and effect and what forces are strong and important and what are weaker and much less important.
That is one way of looking at these issues anyway.
I presume you have gone to other forums, more conventional physics forums populated by those who accept Einstein's ideas and presented your paper for comments there. They should be more open to your general approach but you can never tell in these matters.
Anyway, it is all interesting. :)
Catonic
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:41 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby MotionTheory » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:43 pm

Good to step back to ask: How a pull/attract/bond force actually pulling via field? It means pulling speed must exceed field propagation speed = no field at all. qed gravity attract force concept is faulty. Even humor gravity, it takes energy to exert force (work), well unless energy is perpetually free, otherwise orbiting motion will cease quite fast.

Charges repel & attract. Same reason as above, attract force doesn't exists. Burden is to show exactly what+how only repel force works for electric.

Just to be clear - I am supportive of EU. EU could serves science better if it stays w/i electric scope, unfortunately it fell into the 'universe' grandeur cliff.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 4:20 am

MotionTheory wrote: ...

1. A "field" is a man made construction to simplify envisioning the effect of a cause. In the real world there are no fields. Therefore to talk about the speed of "field propagation" is so far meaningless.
2. To claim that forces can only push, not pull is an expression of mankind's inability to understand how you can pull on things without a rope. Gravity is a good example.
3. You have to be careful using linguistic simplifications to replace the understanding of the world around us or you end up with a comfortably simple world which has little or nothing to do with reality.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:39 am

MotionTheory wrote:Good to step back to ask: How a pull/attract/bond force actually pulling via field? It means pulling speed must exceed field propagation speed = no field at all. qed gravity attract force concept is faulty. Even humor gravity, it takes energy to exert force (work), well unless energy is perpetually free, otherwise orbiting motion will cease quite fast.

Charges repel & attract. Same reason as above, attract force doesn't exists. Burden is to show exactly what+how only repel force works for electric.

Just to be clear - I am supportive of EU. EU could serves science better if it stays w/i electric scope, unfortunately it fell into the 'universe' grandeur cliff.
It's relatively easy to create an equilibrium with attraction and repelling force. It must essentially be how quantum levitation works.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=quantum+levitation&&view=detail&mid=CBF187FA2FEBE0FC4CC1CBF187FA2FEBE0FC4CC1&&FORM=VDRVRV
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby MotionTheory » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:09 am

Please discuss ideas/concepts...

Pull force - [Nuclear, Gravity, Electric, covalent, Van der Waals, ..] - are just a names/labels of behavior, while not knowing the actual physics mechanic.

Field is a convenient descriptor for a volume of stuff/thing distributed around an object. E.g. magnetic field surround a magnet, so what that field consists of? how that stuff flow/move inside the magnet? and outside of magnet?

AC current has similar behavior to magnet except X amount of energy moved through the wire. There is effectively no charges net moved/displacement. So, how did X moved through the wire?

Bengt Nyman wrote:
MotionTheory wrote: ...

1. A "field" is a man made construction to simplify envisioning the effect of a cause. In the real world there are no fields. Therefore to talk about the speed of "field propagation" is so far meaningless.
2. To claim that forces can only push, not pull is an expression of mankind's inability to understand how you can pull on things without a rope. Gravity is a good example.
3. You have to be careful using linguistic simplifications to replace the understanding of the world around us or you end up with a comfortably simple world which has little or nothing to do with reality.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:29 am

MotionTheory wrote:Please discuss ideas/concepts...

Sorry, too little time for physics 101.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby MotionTheory » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:35 am

Quantum Mechanic is a methodology/technique of encapsulate/group range of 'no-clue' behaviors into useful statistical step-functions. Each step of extrapolation based on 'no-clue' reduces statistical confident in function correctness (i.e. due to error propagation).

What is Quantum Mechanic? Due to 'no-clue', answer always be: pick an interpretation.

Aardwolf wrote:
MotionTheory wrote:Good to step back to ask: How a pull/attract/bond force actually pulling via field? It means pulling speed must exceed field propagation speed = no field at all. qed gravity attract force concept is faulty. Even humor gravity, it takes energy to exert force (work), well unless energy is perpetually free, otherwise orbiting motion will cease quite fast.

Charges repel & attract. Same reason as above, attract force doesn't exists. Burden is to show exactly what+how only repel force works for electric.

Just to be clear - I am supportive of EU. EU could serves science better if it stays w/i electric scope, unfortunately it fell into the 'universe' grandeur cliff.
It's relatively easy to create an equilibrium with attraction and repelling force. It must essentially be how quantum levitation works.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=quantum+levitation&&view=detail&mid=CBF187FA2FEBE0FC4CC1CBF187FA2FEBE0FC4CC1&&FORM=VDRVRV
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby MotionTheory » Wed Jan 31, 2018 10:50 am

We are here to learn, including 101-ers. How's about being generous with a bit of your time to:

Please explain the mechanic of how AC current moved through wire? Hopefully also define mechanic behind each term(volt, resistance, amp, inductance, eddy, spin, conductivity,..) before using them. Perhaps a coherent answer would be free of terms (labeling behaviors but not mechanic).

Bengt Nyman wrote:
MotionTheory wrote:Please discuss ideas/concepts...

Sorry, too little time for physics 101.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:06 am

MotionTheory wrote:We are here to learn, including 101-ers.

Go to YouTube, the 101 and the mainstream stuff is all there.
Best of luck.
Last edited by Bengt Nyman on Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Unread postby seasmith » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:16 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
MotionTheory wrote:We are here to learn, including 101-ers.

Go to YouTube, the 101 and the midstream stuff is all there.
Best of luck.



Not taking a side here, but isn't it incumbent upon the person using a term to define their use of the term ?

`
seasmith
 
Posts: 2730
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests