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 » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:27 am

willendure wrote:
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.
Fog particles are not vapour they are liquid water so your silly straw man argument is irrelevant.

willendure wrote: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.
Liquid water (the subject of my earlier post mentioning fog/clouds) is 2 orders of magnitude heavier/denser than air. Undisputed fact.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:03 am

willendure wrote:
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.
So you just get to decide which crackpot stuff is supposed to be believed. That sounds more like dogma than science.

willendure wrote:And a well known theory is holding up well in this regard.
So is that why there are so many successful tests/observations...oops, no there isn't. Still, dogma doesn't need supporting evidence so why worry.

willendure wrote: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.
I'm not necessarily saying Wal is right, I'm just saying you're wrong. You're wrong by you're own reasoning even though you are dogmatically blinkered to accepting it.
willendure wrote:Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong.
Mass based gravitational theory has failed every test/observation thrown at it but you refuse to apply you're own critical thinking against it. It's just gets a free pass, excuses, future fixes, etc. It failed. Accept it. Move on.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:06 pm

Aardwolf says, "I'm not necessarily saying Wal is right, I'm just saying you're wrong. You're wrong by you're own reasoning even though you are dogmatically blinkered to accepting it....Mass based gravitational theory has failed every test/observation thrown at it but you refuse to apply you're own critical thinking against it. It's just gets a free pass, excuses, future fixes, etc. It failed. Accept it. Move on."

There is a difference between what Aardwolf is so adeptly arguing, and what we find in EU Gravity. Aardwolf is working in the direction of demonstrating that "mass-based gravitational theory" has not held up.



Wal Thornhill, on the other hand, is economically questioning why matter displays the property of mass, and what the force of gravity is. He finds that they are the same dipolar force at a subatomic level.


This brings us to one of the most intransigent myths of the 20th century: that Einstein gave us a real understanding of gravity. He did not. He was the most significant physicist to cross the line between physics and metaphysics. His imaginary description of gravity in terms of matter curving space, in some non-physical extra dimension, explains nothing. How can you curve nothing?


Newton had shown that gravity is related directly to mass. But what causes matter to exhibit mass remains a fundamental mystery. Also, Newton’s gravity operates instantaneously (time does not appear in his gravitational equation). Yet Einstein would have us believe that the Earth has no information about where the Sun is until 8 minutes after.

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/global-wa ... ignorance/
“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 » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:11 am

Brigit Bara wrote:Wal Thornhill, on the other hand, is economically questioning why matter displays the property of mass, and what the force of gravity is. He finds that they are the same dipolar force at a subatomic level.


And my marble in a tin box experiment shows that that is wrong.

I'm only setting out to show that Thornhill is wrong, not that anything else is right. He can't possibly be right because gravity acts on the marble and the marble is shielded from the electrical field by the metal box. So it can't be dipoles.

Oh well, looks like we're all wrong.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby AltClut » Tue Feb 27, 2018 12:04 pm

try it with a tin the same size and mass of the earth. let me know how it goes...
AltClut
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 8:32 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Feb 27, 2018 1:26 pm

willendure wrote:...the marble is shielded from the electrical field by the metal box...

Read the introduction at http://www.dipole.se
And then bugger off please !
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:40 am

willendure wrote:Oh well, looks like we're all wrong.
Yes, mass based gravity proven wrong by 300 years of experiments and observations, by thousands of scientists spending tens, maybe hundreds of billions desperately looking for some empirical evidence to support their favoured theory...and Wal proven wrong by your tin box thought experiment.

Clearly both theories have the same equal problems.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:54 am

Aardwolf wrote:...and Wal proven wrong by your tin box thought experiment...

Not at all:
Because of the spin of charges, particles and dipoles involved, the transmission of gravity is electromagnetic. A body of mass inside another body, conductive or not, sees the outside world as it is because the backend of the dipoles in the enclosure mirror the reality of the world outside.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:04 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:...and Wal proven wrong by your tin box thought experiment...

Not at all:
Because of the spin of charges, particles and dipoles involved, the transmission of gravity is electromagnetic. A body of mass inside another body, conductive or not, sees the outside world as it is because the backend of the dipoles in the enclosure mirror the reality of the world outside.
I was being a little sarcastic...
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:48 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote:...the marble is shielded from the electrical field by the metal box...

Read the introduction at http://www.dipole.se
And then bugger off please !


I think in our previous discussion on the other thread on this, you admitted that your dipole model is overly simplistic and not sufficient to model reality. You are way out on a limb, compared with say quantum chromodynamics, the most accepted theory of the strong interaction. Good luck with your outsiders approach, but I don't see you going far with it.

Bengt Nyman wrote:A body of mass inside another body, conductive or not, sees the outside world as it is because the backend of the dipoles in the enclosure mirror the reality of the world outside.


Sounds cute, but what do you even mean by this? It just sounds like hand wavy nonsense to me.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 02, 2018 2:51 am

AltClut wrote:try it with a tin the same size and mass of the earth. let me know how it goes...


The fact is, that the tin that I can hold in my hand reveals the gravity acts on the marble inside it. If you want electrical gravity to be accepted, you still have to explain how that is possible regardless of the outcome of your over-sized version of the experiment.

Yes, gravity acts on different scales - but it is not enough for an electrical gravity theory to only explain one scale.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:26 am

Speculation:
Mass is a man made characterization. The reason why gravitational mass and inertial mass appear to be proportional is probably because they both emanate from the same source; the effect of spinning charges in sub particles, particles, atoms, molecules, etc.
The static, net, Coulomb attraction between charges in bodies we call gravity.
The dynamic, gyroscopic effect resisting a change in velocity or direction of the same spinning charges in bodies we call inertia.
Since they remain proportional we have come to call both of them mass.
The underlying cause might be the total and absolute sum of electrical charge in each body.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Mar 02, 2018 7:44 am

Or perhaps inertia is a characteristic of people, not things?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 487
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Mar 02, 2018 8:52 am

willendure wrote:
AltClut wrote:try it with a tin the same size and mass of the earth. let me know how it goes...


The fact is, that the tin that I can hold in my hand reveals the gravity acts on the marble inside it. If you want electrical gravity to be accepted, you still have to explain how that is possible regardless of the outcome of your over-sized version of the experiment.

Yes, gravity acts on different scales - but it is not enough for an electrical gravity theory to only explain one scale.


Sorry to butt in but I believe we are still waiting for your answers to a couple of very valid points made earlier:
1 - Do you accept Mass based Gravity has been falsified? Yes/No?
2 - Does this therefore by your own reasoning invalidate the Mass based Gravity theory? Yes/No?

I'd also like to ask a question of my own as a relative (no pun intended) newcomer here - what is your definition of Gravity? As for the whole "Electric Gravity" being so flawed, have you ever heard of Electrogravitics?
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:27 am

neilwilkes wrote:
willendure wrote:Yes, gravity acts on different scales - but it is not enough for an electrical gravity theory to only explain one scale.


Sorry to butt in but I believe we are still waiting for your answers to a couple of very valid points made earlier:
1 - Do you accept Mass based Gravity has been falsified? Yes/No?


No,

neilwilkes wrote:2 - Does this therefore by your own reasoning invalidate the Mass based Gravity theory? Yes/No?


No. Because I can see that gravity works as modelled by GR or Newton on many different scales.

neilwilkes wrote:I'd also like to ask a question of my own as a relative (no pun intended) newcomer here - what is your definition of Gravity? As for the whole "Electric Gravity" being so flawed, have you ever heard of Electrogravitics?


Electrogravitics; You mean the ionic wind effect?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests