Thornhill's gravity model
- Brigit Bara
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
When a poster responds with ad hom & guilt-by-association arguments and with killing straw men, you have to wonder if they have read or understood the primary published material. Two threads for the same personal mission seems a bit redundant, since objections have been refuted here by showing that G is not a constant and Cavendish's experiment does not yield the precision claimed. The CERN experiment is still running.
The fact is, we are all funding CERN because mass and gravity are not understood. We also put up with insult upon injury when these arrogant academics go way out of their way to mock any one who works on an alternative. Not only that, but the experts appear to reserve their deepest contempt for any one who wants more for their billions than a "god particle" winking in and out of existence where required, and a fresh new army of PhDs handed out for processing noise. We are expected to know our place and be thankful for useless philosophical revelations in glossy magazines that have no application. Meanwhile, all active sciences and technologies are being attacked and outlawed. This is not a good trajectory.
In the past, people from all walks of life developed chemistry and technology for use in every day life by every day people, and the theoreticians were left dealing with the fait accompli. That is what really happened. These academics think too much of their role, and while the public loves to trust experts, even that weakness can only be exploited so far.
And by the way, is spending billions on experiments and processing noise replicable science?
It could be more simple than this.
The fact is, we are all funding CERN because mass and gravity are not understood. We also put up with insult upon injury when these arrogant academics go way out of their way to mock any one who works on an alternative. Not only that, but the experts appear to reserve their deepest contempt for any one who wants more for their billions than a "god particle" winking in and out of existence where required, and a fresh new army of PhDs handed out for processing noise. We are expected to know our place and be thankful for useless philosophical revelations in glossy magazines that have no application. Meanwhile, all active sciences and technologies are being attacked and outlawed. This is not a good trajectory.
In the past, people from all walks of life developed chemistry and technology for use in every day life by every day people, and the theoreticians were left dealing with the fait accompli. That is what really happened. These academics think too much of their role, and while the public loves to trust experts, even that weakness can only be exploited so far.
And by the way, is spending billions on experiments and processing noise replicable science?
It could be more simple than this.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
~Homer
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Rubbish. 3 bodies, 1 force and the result is chaos. What's left to work out? What are the other variables in this complex solution?willendure wrote:Lack of an analytic solution just means that the solution is complex, and cannot be described with simple formula.Aardwolf wrote:Yes. It's unsolvable under any laws. Ultimate fail and the more bodies you add the worse it gets. Ergo, the theory is wrong.willendure wrote:N-body problem
Not sure what this is? The fact that you cannot analytically solve an n-body problem under Newtons laws?
I'm expecting what is observed in reality. Millions of years of stability. unlike any models no matter how complex (although they shouldn't be complex with only 1 force).willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Comical considerering the quackery you are wilfully ignoring.willendure wrote:The man is clearly a fraud.Brigit Bara wrote: For example, John Hutchison was discussed as having potential supporting experiments for EU Gravity.
That is actually what I am complaining about - there are too many interested in EU that believe quackery like this - that is why the 'mainstream' mocks you. It doesn't matter if the EU is right about anything, if they can be so simply dismissed.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Millions of tons of liquid water happily does.willendure wrote:That must be why I float away on sunny days.Brigit Bara wrote: For me, the simplest example of antigravity is actually totally mundane.
The water molecules, free to rotate in an e-field, align with other dipolar water molecules.
This results in a charge separation within the cloud and a very wide, half-mile e-field surrounding some clouds.
- Brigit Bara
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
The supporting experiments referred to are those of Eugene Padkletnov, not Hutchison.
Superconductor research, another third rail. (:
And the RI lecture on gyroscopes by Professor Eric Laithwaite.
Superconductor research, another third rail. (:
And the RI lecture on gyroscopes by Professor Eric Laithwaite.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
~Homer
- Brigit Bara
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
By the way, it is wrong to say that no one has found weight reduction in spinning gyroscopes. Isn't it.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
~Homer
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
We are 4/5ths water.Aardwolf wrote:Millions of tons of liquid water happily does.willendure wrote:That must be why I float away on sunny days.Brigit Bara wrote: For me, the simplest example of antigravity is actually totally mundane.
The water molecules, free to rotate in an e-field, align with other dipolar water molecules.
This results in a charge separation within the cloud and a very wide, half-mile e-field surrounding some clouds.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
I have to wonder if you have 'read' the primary material being discussed here? Likely not since you describe it as being 'read', when in fact it is a video:Brigit Bara wrote:When a poster responds with ad hom & guilt-by-association arguments and with killing straw men, you have to wonder if they have read or understood the primary published material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
The planets do not follow simple elliptical trajectories, they do veer off a bit. The sun is massive enough to dominate though, and that keeps things stable.Aardwolf wrote:I'm expecting what is observed in reality. Millions of years of stability. unlike any models no matter how complex (although they shouldn't be complex with only 1 force).willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Think about this. If gravity was due to charge and out planet is charged, what charge would a space craft leaving our planet have? And how would that effect its interaction with other planets and moons? We use Newtons laws to calculate gravity sling-shots and take no account of charge, but it still works out close enough to what Newton predicts. All bodies fall the same, regardless of charge.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
And clouds/fog are 5/5ths water. Your point?willendure wrote:We are 4/5ths water.Aardwolf wrote:Millions of tons of liquid water happily does.willendure wrote:That must be why I float away on sunny days.Brigit Bara wrote: For me, the simplest example of antigravity is actually totally mundane.
The water molecules, free to rotate in an e-field, align with other dipolar water molecules.
This results in a charge separation within the cloud and a very wide, half-mile e-field surrounding some clouds.
-
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
- Location: USA and Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Gravity is not caused by surface charge, like free electrons or lack thereof on the surface of an object. Gravity is caused by internal, atomic particle charge polarization in reaction to external bodies.willendure wrote:If gravity was due to charge...
As shown by others on this thread the effect of surface charge on massive objects is negligible compared to gravity.
Last edited by Bengt Nyman on Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Agreed. However the theory is there is only one controlling attractive force and it can't replicate those motions without resulting in chaos. By applying the theory the veering off a bit accumulates and result in ejected bodies in a relatively short amount of time.willendure wrote:The planets do not follow simple elliptical trajectories, they do veer off a bit. The sun is massive enough to dominate though, and that keeps things stable.Aardwolf wrote:I'm expecting what is observed in reality. Millions of years of stability. unlike any models no matter how complex (although they shouldn't be complex with only 1 force).willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.
Therefore, it's a failed theory.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Right, so how is the effect of that internal charge polarization within the atoms of two adjacent bodies transmitted between the two bodies?Bengt Nyman wrote:Gravity is not caused by surface charge, like free electrons or lack thereof on the surface of an object. Gravity is caused by internal, atomic particle charge polarization in reaction to external bodies.willendure wrote:If gravity was due to charge...
As shown by others on this thread the effect of surface charge on massive objects is negligible compared to gravity.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Slings shots take account of attraction which says nothing about the cause of the attraction. We don't know what the cause is, we're just reacting to observations. Also, you haven't defined what you mean by charge nor quantified exactly what or how much charge an object needs to have any effect.willendure wrote:Think about this. If gravity was due to charge and out planet is charged, what charge would a space craft leaving our planet have? And how would that effect its interaction with other planets and moons? We use Newtons laws to calculate gravity sling-shots and take no account of charge, but it still works out close enough to what Newton predicts.
No they don't. They fall depending on the calculated attractive force which we then use to infer what the density of the attracting object is. This is why we have moons & satellites in space with stupidly low densities when they are clearly solid rock.willendure wrote:All bodies fall the same, regardless of charge.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests