Bengt Nyman wrote:
Bob_Ham wrote: ...
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.