Thornhill's gravity model

[Bengt Nyman]

Gravity is no more complicated or mystical than magnetism.
We have been sold the wrong idea about gravity for 113 years.
Gravity and magnetism are similar in many ways.
Gravity is caused by orbital offsets and works on all materials, regardless of electron orbital planarity.
Magnetism is caused by orbital planes being parallell and works only on materials where orbital planes are free to angulate to become parallell, temporarily or permanently.

[Siggy_G]

(...) don't you agree with the logic that if gravity was due to dipoles, then a charged foil would behave vastly differently than it does? The simple fact that charging a foil has NO DISCERNABLE EFFECT on it's weight in the proposed dipole field renders the entire discussion pointless. (...)

This has been answered several times from the perspective of dipole gravity, but can be summarized:

All objects and mediums within Earth's environment are subject to a global polarization on atomic level, including the relatively charged or presumable screening objects. This is their rest state before taking relative charges into account. If an object rotates, its atoms realign according to the global field and as a domino effect within the internal structure.

An analogy can be the response of multiple free-to-rotate bar magnets to a strong external magnet - or a compass.

Net charge is a relative measurement, relating to excess charges. A charged object means that one can obtain a temporary current from free electrons, upon a discharging contact, but it doesn't describe how and where the charges are positioned within the object.

It can be argued that internal charges of an object alters or increases the polarization of local nearby atoms so that they counter act any effect the internal charge should have towards dipole gravity.

Simplified, if one part of an object is charged to presumably counter act dipole gravity, another part realigns its dipoles towards that local charge (locally increasing dipole gravity) which cancels out the former effect. Gravitational mass stays the same, yet the object is measured to be charged. Or vice versa.

(Having said that, I'm pretty sure charging and discharging gives some observable fluctation on the effect of gravity due to surrounding domino effects, depending on mass-to-charge ratio)

[Zyxzevn]

Gravity is caused by orbital offsets and works on all materials, regardless of electron orbital planarity.

You are describing the dielectric effect, not gravity.

[Bengt Nyman]

...

No. You are quoting and answering out of context.

[querious]

It can be argued that internal charges of an object alters or increases the polarization of local nearby atoms so that they counter act any effect the internal charge should have towards dipole gravity.

Simplified, if one part of an object is charged to presumably counter act dipole gravity, another part realigns its dipoles towards that local charge (locally increasing dipole gravity) which cancels out the former effect. Gravitational mass stays the same, yet the object is measured to be charged. Or vice versa.

This is not an explanation, it is a hand-waving justification to save dipole gravity. You simply assert that any net charges cause the dipoles to magically rearrange themselves, so that no difference in weight can be detected.

How in the world can dipoles that are forced to realign to the net charges be expected to simultaneously maintain the SAME level of attraction to the Earth's dipoles?

But the part that really destroys you argument is the very existence of the net charges themselves, which would absolutely swamp whatever forces of attraction the dipoles have towards the Earth. There's no way that forces on the net charges themselves can be "balanced" by dipoles simply rearranging themselves. They have a much stronger net field than the dipoles.

[Bengt Nyman]

You are forgetting the spin. One is electromagnetic, the other is electrostatic. They coexist but they do not comingle.
Compare the case where a permanent magnet is also electrostatically charged. The static charge does not affect or alter its magnetic properties.

[Siggy_G]

How in the world can dipoles that are forced to realign to the net charges be expected to simultaneously maintain the SAME level of attraction to the Earth's dipoles?

Not what I wrote. Local net charges may alter the effect of dipole gravity, but would at the same time alter the alignment of local dipoles (equivalent of the charges' strength). The realigned local dipoles would have the corresponding opposite effect of the net charges.

There's no way that forces on the net charges themselves can be "balanced" by dipoles simply rearranging themselves. They have a much stronger net field than the dipoles.

The amount of excess charge particles only have to be some tiny percentage of the bulk neutral (dipole) atoms in order for an object to be measured as charged. This is why charge-to-mass ratio was mentioned.

Also, as Bengt points out, the spin also means there are dynamic electromagnetic / Lorentz force components at work.

[querious]

There's no way that forces on the net charges themselves can be "balanced" by dipoles simply rearranging themselves. They have a much stronger net field than the dipoles.

The amount of excess charge particles only have to be some tiny percentage of the bulk neutral (dipole) atoms in order for an object to be measured as charged. This is why charge-to-mass ratio was mentioned.

And? So what? They'd still have an observable effect if you're claiming an electric field as the CAUSE of gravity! Heck, Zyxzven's video showed a few net charges are enough to counterbalance gravity completely!

[Siggy_G]

(...) Zyxzven's video showed a few net charges are enough to counterbalance gravity completely!

Yes, the soap bubbles around the charged rod? Guess what the charge-to-mass ratio (and buoyancy) is in those scenarios.

[Brigit Bara]

Net charge is a relative measurement, relating to excess charges. A charged object means that one can obtain a temporary current from free electrons, upon a discharging contact, but it doesn't describe how and where the charges are positioned within the object.

Therefore, charging something for the moment with free electrons is different than charge stress or charge distribution in a planetary body which is related to gravity.

But if two planets exchanged electric arcs, one might lose and one might gain, is my guess.

E=mc^2
read: variable

[Zyxzevn]

(...) Zyxzven's video showed a few net charges are enough to counterbalance gravity completely!

Yes, the soap bubbles around the charged rod? Guess what the charge-to-mass ratio (and buoyancy) is in those scenarios.

I think he meant the floating aluminium thing. It counters gravity.
It needs aluminium to store electrons and it counters gravity as soon it is charged
by touching the rod with the same charge.

The uncharged water-drops are in a gravity-less environment.
They are attracted by a charged plastic pen.
Does that match the elctro-gravity of Siggy or of Bengt?

It is hard to have a working model, if we can not replicate it experimentally.
That is why I posted the videos.
We need an experiment to work with.

For example: In one of the videos Thornhill even hinted at using a rotating
disk to create a dipole field similar to electro-gravity. It has a centrifugal
acceleration similar to gravity.
Maybe that is a good experiment?

From the discussion it seems that no experiments can work, because
electro-gravity works only with big objects.
This seems to imply that gravity is different from the electromagnetism that we know.

[querious]

(...) Zyxzven's video showed a few net charges are enough to counterbalance gravity completely!

Yes, the soap bubbles around the charged rod? Guess what the charge-to-mass ratio (and buoyancy) is in those scenarios.

No, the one with professor repelling the charged mylar with a charged rod.

The bubbles/drops circling around the rod looks like it was done in a zero-g environment.

....and I now see that Zyzxven just posted a similar correction right before I finished the above reply....

[MotionTheory]

Actual clock (event counter, not pink unicorn time dilation) runs slower in gravity potential than surface & field. e.g. Atomic clock in submarine. Where Electric Gravity (dipole model) has strongest clock influence at the surface.

[Bengt Nyman]

...

Please rephrase, I did not understand.

[Zyxzevn]

Actual clock .. runs slower in gravity potential..

I believe so too, but do you have a link to observations?
I want to collect them.

The Wikipedia article on GR lists more the space-bending stuff that I do not believe in,
because they can be explained differently.