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 willendure » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:13 pm

Electro wrote:Hi all!
I recently came across Wal Thornhill's video on electric gravity. It makes a lot of sense, to me anyway. Anyone disagreeing with him have yet to provide anything better...


See the previous discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15913

tldr; His idea is so easy to pick holes in - its not even half way to being a credible hypothesis.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Sat Jan 27, 2018 4:49 pm

willendure wrote:
Electro wrote:Hi all!
I recently came across Wal Thornhill's video on electric gravity. It makes a lot of sense, to me anyway. Anyone disagreeing with him have yet to provide anything better...


See the previous discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15913

tldr; His idea is so easy to pick holes in - its not even half way to being a credible hypothesis.


Thanks for the link.

I must admit I'm very confused. Perhaps Thornhill's refusal to address these issues means the theory is incomplete or plain wrong. It made a lot of sense to me at first, but now I have more questions than answers.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 pm

Maybe gravity is way simpler than what we think? We're standing on a rock!
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:06 pm

Electro wrote:I must admit I'm very confused. Perhaps Thornhill's refusal to address these issues means the theory is incomplete or plain wrong. It made a lot of sense to me at first, but now I have more questions than answers.


Its embarrassing is what it is. I mean, its not like the EU doesn't have an issue with too many crack-pots spouting nonsense, and then Thornhill comes out with this tripe. There is a lot of obviously electrical phenomena out there, from the sun, to super novas, to electric volcanoes on Io... plenty of credible things we could make a case for and start to gain acceptance instead of providing more ammunition to those who would dismiss us as fools.

Even if you were to explain away gravity in terms of electricity - that still leaves the mystery of what causes electrical forces doesn't it? So no real answer to the mystery of the underlying mechanism is added by doing so. Its a strange obsession some people have.

1. Charged foils don't overcome gravity.
2. Dipole gravity would be highly directional, but real gravity pulls in all directions at once.
3. Gravity only ever attracts.
... many more simple refutations on the other thread.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:25 pm

willendure wrote:
Electro wrote:I must admit I'm very confused. Perhaps Thornhill's refusal to address these issues means the theory is incomplete or plain wrong. It made a lot of sense to me at first, but now I have more questions than answers.


Its embarrassing is what it is. I mean, its not like the EU doesn't have an issue with too many crack-pots spouting nonsense, and then Thornhill comes out with this tripe. There is a lot of obviously electrical phenomena out there, from the sun, to super novas, to electric volcanoes on Io... plenty of credible things we could make a case for and start to gain acceptance instead of providing more ammunition to those who would dismiss us as fools.

Even if you were to explain away gravity in terms of electricity - that still leaves the mystery of what causes electrical forces doesn't it? So no real answer to the mystery of the underlying mechanism is added by doing so. Its a strange obsession some people have.

1. Charged foils don't overcome gravity.
2. Dipole gravity would be highly directional, but real gravity pulls in all directions at once.
3. Gravity only ever attracts.
... many more simple refutations on the other thread.


Even if Wal's theory is incomplete and oversimplified, we can't say we have much to compare it with. I mean the accepted theory is general relatively. I'm not a physicist but I do have a good bullshit detector. GR makes my alarm ring big time! What's even more astonishing is that so many people are buying it, like a religion! If you ask the so-called experts what the fabric of space is made of, they'll tell you there's no physical fabric, but somehow, massive objects bend the fabric of space. A circular argument. I'll take Wal's gravity over Einstein's any time!
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:03 pm

hi, Electro

did you read my post?

I think gravity in space is electric force.
but gravity on ground is another force.
it is very complex.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg

Thornhill's theory is not complete , I think too.
but in space, Thornhill's theory is almost correct.

you should think about electric force line.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... gk7t7Iyx7w

Maintaining the orbit of the planet is the charge of the sun's plasma. The sun is a huge plus and it also has a minus. The planets, for example earth, rocks are negative, the ionosphere and atmosphere are positive. This plus and minus are acting complicatedly and startup is maintained. Also, do not forget the existence of standing wave due to solar vibration.

We have just arrived at the entrance of understanding space. It was Thornhill that invited us to the entrance.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:41 pm

ja7tdo wrote:hi, Electro

did you read my post?

I think gravity in space is electric force.
but gravity on ground is another force.
it is very complex.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg

Thornhill's theory is not complete , I think too.
but in space, Thornhill's theory is almost correct.

you should think about electric force line.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... gk7t7Iyx7w

Maintaining the orbit of the planet is the charge of the sun's plasma. The sun is a huge plus and it also has a minus. The planets, for example earth, rocks are negative, the ionosphere and atmosphere are positive. This plus and minus are acting complicatedly and startup is maintained. Also, do not forget the existence of standing wave due to solar vibration.

We have just arrived at the entrance of understanding space. It was Thornhill that invited us to the entrance.


I believe we should stop inventing new forces and particles. Gravity is related to matter. Matter is made of atoms. We are made of atoms. The forces that bond all matter on Earth, extend to us, since we are part of the Earth.

In space, like you're saying, it's more complicated. There really seems to be a different mechanism. A complex circuit powered by the Sun...
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Mon Jan 29, 2018 10:06 pm

Electro wrote:
I believe we should stop inventing new forces and particles. Gravity is related to matter. Matter is made of atoms. We are made of atoms. The forces that bond all matter on Earth, extend to us, since we are part of the Earth.

In space, like you're saying, it's more complicated. There really seems to be a different mechanism. A complex circuit powered by the Sun...


There is no basis for saying that mass creates gravity. Newton also made unfounded claims.

Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16906
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Wed Jan 31, 2018 8:02 am

ja7tdo wrote:
Electro wrote:
I believe we should stop inventing new forces and particles. Gravity is related to matter. Matter is made of atoms. We are made of atoms. The forces that bond all matter on Earth, extend to us, since we are part of the Earth.

In space, like you're saying, it's more complicated. There really seems to be a different mechanism. A complex circuit powered by the Sun...


There is no basis for saying that mass creates gravity. Newton also made unfounded claims.

Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16906


Of course, mass doesn't create gravity and everybody knows that. But in Newton's case, the math works. The more mass attracts coz the more you have mass, the more there is matter, the more there are atoms, the more there are charges, the more there is attraction (dipoles)... The more massive objects attract smaller objects... Basically, that's what Wal Thornhill is saying in other words.

According to Wal, the 'clockwork' of the solar system is governed by gravity and its stability provided electrically.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby MotionTheory » Wed Jan 31, 2018 11:22 am

Molecular arrangement/offset nucleus at atom radius level, it is many order of distance magnitude over atomic dipole (minute nucleus offset within an atom). e.g dipole gravity in crystal would follow lattice direction/plane rather than cummulative radial from below-to-surface.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:48 pm

Electro says, "Of course, mass doesn't create gravity and everybody knows that. But in Newton's case, the math works. The more mass attracts coz the more you have mass, the more there is matter, the more there are atoms, the more there are charges, the more there is attraction (dipoles)... The more massive objects attract smaller objects... Basically, that's what Wal Thornhill is saying in other words.

According to Wal, the 'clockwork' of the solar system is governed by gravity and its stability provided electrically.


I am beginning to suspect that this poster has not understood what he has watched quite as well as all that, and should slow down a bit. The Electric Universe model is at very great pains to first demonstrate that gravity is not a sufficient force to either form the sun, nor the planets, nor organize the solar system, nor to explain the motions of the spiral galaxies. Instead, the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, so that gravity can safely be ignored in most of the things we witness in space. But not all.

And they have constantly pointed out that "we still don't know why matter has mass."

I believe this clear, consistent message has helped many people become aware of the fact that billions of dollars are being spent in order to detect a "god particle," which can impart mass to matter, under the dominant theory. Even people who have not left the current astronomical paradigm, I believe, have benefited from Wal Thornhill's persistence in pointing this out to the general public. Who, of course, are ponying up for the CERN experiment.

Certainly people are beginning to talk. Gamma and x rays are the signatures of electrical activity, not of shockwaves plowing through clouds of dust and gas.
“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: 433
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Thu Feb 01, 2018 1:14 pm

But even if that is all a reader gains, he has still gained.

It is important to understand what is not known, or how incomplete the state of scientific understanding really is, before you begin with work on the areas of ignorance, such as gravity and mass. And it is very hard to detect from many of the science news releases that there are so many problems with mass.

But if a person still prefers to think of a massive body as bending space-time, he is welcome to it.

I think that electrically formed stars, brown dwarfs, gas giants, and planets will then possess an electrical charge state, and gravity is the very weak, remnant force at an atomic level. This is variable. G is not a constant. Many of us are interested in the fact that on earth, life was once much larger, and has both undergone mass extinctions and has become smaller in size. If gravity and the electrical charge state of the earth is a variable, it would help explain so much megaflora and megafauna of the past. (Perhaps even longer life spans.)

But there are other anomalous movements which gravity cannot explain, whereas a changing electrical state can.
“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: 433
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:08 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:
Electro says, "Of course, mass doesn't create gravity and everybody knows that. But in Newton's case, the math works. The more mass attracts coz the more you have mass, the more there is matter, the more there are atoms, the more there are charges, the more there is attraction (dipoles)... The more massive objects attract smaller objects... Basically, that's what Wal Thornhill is saying in other words.

According to Wal, the 'clockwork' of the solar system is governed by gravity and its stability provided electrically.


I am beginning to suspect that this poster has not understood what he has watched quite as well as all that, and should slow down a bit. The Electric Universe model is at very great pains to first demonstrate that gravity is not a sufficient force to either form the sun, nor the planets, nor organize the solar system, nor to explain the motions of the spiral galaxies. Instead, the electric force is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity, so that gravity can safely be ignored in most of the things we witness in space. But not all.

And they have constantly pointed out that "we still don't know why matter has mass."

I believe this clear, consistent message has helped many people become aware of the fact that billions of dollars are being spent in order to detect a "god particle," which can impart mass to matter, under the dominant theory. Even people who have not left the current astronomical paradigm, I believe, have benefited from Wal Thornhill's persistence in pointing this out to the general public. Who, of course, are ponying up for the CERN experiment.

Certainly people are beginning to talk. Gamma and x rays are the signatures of electrical activity, not of shockwaves plowing through clouds of dust and gas.


What are you talking about? I'm all for Wal Thornhill's theory.
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:10 pm

hi,

I think the mass is a resistance by electromagnetic force.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... HPw4wmzTmA

The material is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, but neutrons can also be decomposed into electrons and protons. In other words, electrons and protons make up substances.

When a force is applied to an electron, an electromagnetic wave is generated behind. This is electromagnetic resistance. The same is true for protons, but because the surface area is large, the resulting resistance also increases.

Electromagnetic mass is EM drive, the principle of gravity on the earth's surface.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby MotionTheory » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:47 pm

The article's author asked good questions: "Is this resistance similar to mass? Several checks are necessary to consider the resistance by electromagnetic waves as mass. What is temperature? What happens at cryogenic temperatures? How does inertial force work?..."

Just the right answer to "what is temperature?" would lead to Theory of Everything. The answer is 1 or 2 level more fundamental than EU level.

ja7tdo wrote:hi,

I think the mass is a resistance by electromagnetic force.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... HPw4wmzTmA

The material is made of electrons, protons, and neutrons, but neutrons can also be decomposed into electrons and protons. In other words, electrons and protons make up substances.

When a force is applied to an electron, an electromagnetic wave is generated behind. This is electromagnetic resistance. The same is true for protons, but because the surface area is large, the resulting resistance also increases.

Electromagnetic mass is EM drive, the principle of gravity on the earth's surface.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests