Thornhill's gravity model

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: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:07 am

willendure wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote:If gravity was due to charge...

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.
As shown by others on this thread the effect of surface charge on massive objects is negligible compared to gravity.


Right, so how is the effect of that internal charge polarization within the atoms of two adjacent bodies transmitted between the two bodies?
Clearly the fabric of space-time is distorted into a curve...or does that sound a bit too crackpottery.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:10 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
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).

Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.


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.
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.

Therefore, it's a failed theory.


The veering off a bit results in precession of the orbits. It could result in things flying apart if the planets were close enough and heavy enough. Perhaps that did happen, but things have now settled down into a stable arrangement, by a sort of process of natural selection, if you will.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:16 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
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).

Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.


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.
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.

Therefore, it's a failed theory.


The veering off a bit results in precession of the orbits. It could result in things flying apart if the planets were close enough and heavy enough. Perhaps that did happen, but things have now settled down into a stable arrangement, by a sort of process of natural selection, if you will.
I know in nature nothing flies apart, that's not in question. The solar system flies apart when you apply the theory on any models you care to devise. Therefore the theory is in error. It doesn't fit observations. Do you understand what the n-body problem is?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:37 am

willendure wrote:Right, so how is the effect of that internal charge polarization within the atoms of two adjacent bodies transmitted between the two bodies?

Quickly and reliably.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:34 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote:Right, so how is the effect of that internal charge polarization within the atoms of two adjacent bodies transmitted between the two bodies?

Quickly and reliably.


My point is, if its in the electrical field, then it can be blocked, it doesn't matter if your talking surface charge or some other charge differential deeper within the body.

Take a metal tin, put a marble inside it and close the lid. Shake the tin and you will feel and hear the marble drop to the bottom and roll about. That would not happen with electrical gravity, because the tin is a good conductor so will all be at the same electrical potential, shielding the marble from gravity.

(Moderator edit: removed ad hom)
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:38 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:We are 4/5ths water.
And clouds/fog are 5/5ths water. Your point?


You might have been implying some sort of anti-gravity effect is responsible for water evaporating into the air. I might have been employing some sarcasm to show how silly that is.

We'd better not discuss the evaporation of water though in this thread, or Jimmy McJim will be along to tell us that MOIST AIR IS LIGHTER. or was it heavier? I forget.
Last edited by willendure on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:42 pm

Aardwolf wrote:Clearly the fabric of space-time is distorted into a curve...or does that sound a bit too crackpottery.


Not if it is right. And a well known theory is holding up well in this regard.

Quantum mechanics is bat shit crazy too, and that also is holding up well. That is my point, just because something is counter-intuitive doesn't mean it is wrong. But then just because something appeals to your childish sense of fantasy that we might have anti-gravity machines, or travel faster than light, or that the little guy will prove the whole scientific establishment wrong, doesn't make something right either.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:52 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:By the way, it is wrong to say that no one has found weight reduction in spinning gyroscopes. Isn't it.


I don't know. But this is an experiment you should try out yourself.

1 set of electronic scales.
1 gyroscope.
1 small supporting tower that the gryscope can be placed on top of at any angle.

Weight the supporting tower and gyroscope not spinning.
Spin up the gyroscope and place it in the horizontal position on the tower (it will precess around the tower).

Do both set ups weight the same?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:07 pm

Thank you for the suggestion.

Think of the abuse and flack I could enjoy for showing and reporting gyro weight loss on youtube, as others have.

It is probably better to use the published results.

Abstract
An investigation has been conducted into the controversial phenomenon of weight-reduction of spinning wheels. When subjected to forced precession and controlled lifting, a spinning wheel does indeed lose 8% of its weight, as measured by a load-cell. That is, some of the gravitational potential energy acquired during lifting is supplied by the horizontal input force causing the enhanced precession. Consequently, the averaged vertical lifting force is less than Mg. The explanation for this phenomenon follows directly from the requirement of energy conservation throughout the process.
“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
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:22 pm

Aardwolf, I suppose it is possible willendure's body could float away on a sunny day. Provided, like water in the water cycle, it evaporated first.

Be careful how you condense when you get hit by that cosmic ray, though.
Image
“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
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:23 am

Brigit Bara wrote:Thank you for the suggestion.

Think of the abuse and flack I could enjoy for showing and reporting gyro weight loss on youtube, as others have.

It is probably better to use the published results.

Abstract
An investigation has been conducted into the controversial phenomenon of weight-reduction of spinning wheels. When subjected to forced precession and controlled lifting, a spinning wheel does indeed lose 8% of its weight, as measured by a load-cell. That is, some of the gravitational potential energy acquired during lifting is supplied by the horizontal input force causing the enhanced precession. Consequently, the averaged vertical lifting force is less than Mg. The explanation for this phenomenon follows directly from the requirement of energy conservation throughout the process.


I don't know where you got this from, but no way does it lose 8%.

There is a highly controversial result showing that when spinning in one direction and not the other, it loses 1 5000th of a percent of its weight:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... se-weight/

and even that is not proven to not be due to errors in the experimental set up.

===

In the case of a heavy gyroscope on the end of a pole, the spinning of the gyroscope effectively transfers its weight into the lifters hand. That is the center of pressure or center of balance is shifted. Obviously it is hard to lift a heavy weight on the end of a pole, due to the leverage of the pole. But when the weight is more directly in your hand there is less leverage. It still weighs the same though.

===

None of this has any bearing on Thornhill's gravity musings.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:09 am

inre: gyroscopes, spinning wheels, and weight loss
willendure says, "None of this has any bearing on Thornhill's gravity musings."

If gravity is a weakly offset dipole in every particle, then if you warp the dipole by spinning, so that the dipoles align in another direction, it will overcome gravity, to some degree.

Thank you for your interpretation of the spinning 40 lb weight.
Last edited by Brigit Bara on Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
“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
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:16 am

Spinning wheel set-up snipped for posterity:

Image

Image

Also in Prof. Laithwaite's lecture, there are some unusual behaviors of gyroscopes for further study.
“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
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby MotionTheory » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:52 am

2 counter rotating wheels on same axial would generate 2x torque (gravity induced) as to a single CW or CCW spinning wheel. This setup eliminated angular momentum and precession from calculation/reasoning.

Gravity induced - what - to generate this toque? Logically then, gravity interacts against gravity since there aren't any other forces involved here. Mass of both objects are unchanged and if gravity (or same as dipole) is only attract/pull then we can't use union/add of 2 attract forces to create a lesser sum (relative to earth+gyro at rest setup).

Neither mass or electric gravity is correct.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:53 am

About gravity and gyroscopes:
There are two ways to look at the physics of a gyroscope:
1. You put the whole arrangement on a scale and you weigh it in all its configurations, spinning or not. You will not observe any change in weight.
2. You arrange a seesaw balancing act with another weight, you can now show a large change in the seesaw balance caused by the spinning gyro, not because of a change in the weight of the gyro, but because a spinning gyro produces a moment which tips the balance and transfers into the seesaw support. Now check the scale that the whole arrangement rests on (point 1 above) and you will see that the weight has not changed.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest