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: bboyer, MGmirkin

MotionTheory
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

I agree and appreciate your insightful-assessment on gravity with excellent clarity. Also concurs on Dipole Electrogravity big role/factor in coherent force contributed to emergent of eventual/resultant gravity.

Motion Theory (*unintended plug/push my theory) - Gravity consists of:
2. Coherent Push Field
3. Decoherent/elemental Field Stream

NewtonG avg-curve fitted (2. + 3.) gravity points for eyeball size system. MOND - impromptu curve fitting.

GR warped space + NewtonG via mathematic conveniences. Warped Space was revolutionary thought 100 years ago, which barely describe the affect/behavior of 1. Not even attempted to describe - what it is - we end up with magical spatial warping. *philosophically - I feel sad for human generations(includes a bit of me) wasted brain on SpaceTime.

DEG - Covers 2 quite well in spite using 'Attract' force. It compute #s for gravity influence almost matched reality, especially for a system involves high coherent fields. Discrepancies readily apparent in situations: photon/EM refract/bend, gravity between 2 charge-neutral (neutrino?) masses, responding force vector direction lag behind, ..

We need to understand (or come up with reality-based congruent guesses): What is energy. What energy does. Mechanism of energy motion. Structures of energy. Mechanism of object(energy structure with detectable volume surface) motion. Then derive a gravity model that make reality sense and not full of holes.

Energy is physical, few order of magnitude smaller than our ability to observe. *please avoid extra mythical dimensions.
Siggy_G wrote:...

Finding and measuring the inner workings of gravity has been a challenge in physics till this day, whether it is hypothetical warped space, gravitons or other proposals. It is mostly the effect of gravity that can be measured, and even that isn't settled science. It is a reason anti-gravity is a (speculative) field of science and engineering, and a reason why anti-gravity devices aren't around yet. It's not easy to do an autopcy on an effect that is omnipresent and always additive, and figure out how to shield or counter it. Of course, further work and attempts must be done to achieve this.

The main criteria for a scientific model is that it is internally consistent and that one can empirically verify mechanisms from observation, extrapolation and interpolation. Dipole electrogravity, and its variants, is in my view scoring high in this regard.

A neat contribution to electrogravity theory has been done by the Norwegian physician Nils Rognerud. In his paper «Free fall of Elementary Particles» (1989/1994) he summarizes:
...

Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote: NEVER use 1/r^3 or 1/r^4, they are special case approximations.
I am sorry that you did not understand my calculations.
That is why I put them into Wolfram Alpha,
so you can do them too.

The F= k*q*q*[ 6*d^2/R^4 ]
IS the force between 2 dipoles at distance R,
where the dipoles each have distance d.
This works for every case, where vectors d and R are in line.
If they are not in line, the force becomes even smaller.

So for any distance where d is bigger than R,
which is the GENERAL CASE in the solar system,
we have 1/R^4 Instead of 1/R^2, which is gravity.
So the dipole-force is not gravity, as we can see in the cat example, it can indeed
overcome gravity at short distances.

So the 1/R^4 is actually the General case for dipoles in the planetary system.
It seems that you do not understand it, or maybe have a
different Coulomb law.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Siggy_G wrote: A neat contribution to electrogravity theory has been done by the Norwegian physician Nils Rognerud. In his paper «Free fall of Elementary Particles» (1989/1994)
Thanks for the info. I will look into it.
But do you realize that he is writing mostly about magnetism instead of dipoles?
It is a complete different theory.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

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

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Zyxzevn wrote: ...
Coulomb's law does not describe the force between dipoles. Coulomb's law describes the force between individual charges, and the term for the distance is always /r^2.
I told you NOT to use the special cases with approximations /r^3 or /r^4. When you mix those approximations with the 10^18 times larger charge to charge forces you get garbage.

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote:Coulomb's law does not describe the force between dipoles.
You should have stopped right there.

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

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Zyxzevn wrote: ...
A dipole is not A charge. There is no exact, mathematical formula for the force between two dipoles, only special cases and approximations.
You must calculate all four forces between the four charges in the two dipoles using Coulombs law with 1/r^2.
The composite of these four forces is the compound force between the two dipoles and depends on 1/r^2 just like the four forces.
Each charge-to-charge force is on the order of 10^18 times larger than the sum of all four forces. That's why exact gravity calculations allow no shortcuts, no dipole mathematics, no approximations, and no compromises, AND that's why gravity follows Coulomb's law and 1/r^2.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:So you still believe in your delusional universe that the experimental apparatus doesn't interact with Earth. Why am I not surprised, it seems to be central to the core of your belief.

Any thoughts on why big G periodically and predictably oscillates? Or is that revelation ostracised in your universe?
I said that getting big G doesn't depend on interaction with Earth. If I understand Cavendish correctly, the torsion experiment would give the same value for big G, even if done on the moon. It just measures the attraction between known masses, not the Earth and known masses.
There's your problem right there, you don't understand it. You've just been caught hook, line and sinker and just blindly accept what you are desperate for it to represent. The torsion force is balancing the attraction between the earth and the second weight. If you took this to the moon and it gave the same answer for G then you would have a serious problem. Of course you know the apparatus would need to be calibrated and then what does that tell you about "independently" measured G? It's B******t.
querious wrote:If there really is an oscillation in big G, then I agree something weird is going on. I think it's just measurement error. We're reaching a state of tech where we can rule it out, or explore how it (surprisingly) varies.
There is an undisputed oscillation and it's evident by comparing numerous experiments over about 40 years. This can't be a measurement error as there is a clear 11 year cycle in the errors and they are predictable. Of course when faced with fundamental problems like this it's best to just ignore to maintain the facade I suppose.

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

willendure wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: The presumably shielding objects in some thought experiments will merely take part in this. It is not unlikely though, that certain material types of presumably shielding objects will create small offsets or fluctations in measured weight of internal free-to-move objects. However, weights and voltmeters will become polarized in the same manner as what it's supposed to measure, so this may be hard detect.
How very convenient; dipole gravity permeates everything and is therefore impossible to shield or even detect. Yet you are certain it is there.

Are you just making this stuff up for fun?
Yes Siggy_G, please refrain from adopting the sacred abilities of dark matter to other heretic theories. Only the standard and mainstream theories are allowed to adopt such magical properties of invisibleness and undetectableness...

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Aardwolf wrote:
querious wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:The torsion force is balancing the attraction between the earth and the second weight. If you took this to the moon and it gave the same answer for G then you would have a serious problem. Of course you know the apparatus would need to be calibrated and then what does that tell you about "independently" measured G? It's B******t.
Guess you've never heard of torsion coefficient. Oh well. In case you're interested in ACTUALLY learning about how the Cavendish works, try this . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish ... rth's_mass

And anyway, are you actually suggesting there's a massive conspiracy, and we don't really know what G is?

Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote:Guess you've never heard of torsion coefficient. Oh well. In case you're interested in ACTUALLY learning about how the Cavendish works, try this . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish ... rth's_mass

And anyway, are you actually suggesting there's a massive conspiracy, and we don't really know what G is?
The usage of torsion suspension is unnessecary and problematic for the experiment, because the initial linear scenario (attraction from A to B), is instead turned into an occilation due to the elasticity and counter force of the torsion. It is then obfuscated whether the occilation of the free-to-rotate rod is triggered by Earth's rotation (the rod's inertia, like a Focault pendulum) or the horisontal gravitational attraction, or which combination of the two. The Earth's rotation amounts to 5 degrees per 20 minuttes.

The rotational occilation back and forth is a result of the «nudge» given by the two aforementioned factors, and then the rebound of the torsion elasticity.

The Cavemdish experiment should be set up in a way to avoid Earth's rotation interfering with the sphere rod's motion, and I gather G would be calculated a different constant.

Siggy_G
Moderator
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote:What about the fact that only the Earth's dipoles that are in the correct orientation, namely, the ones JUST under an object, are the only ones that can attract the object? All of the Earth's dipoles which form the hemisphere *diametrically opposite* a gravitating object will *repel* the object , not attract it.
It's a good point and a potential challenge to the model. However, the Earth's matter (here: dipoles) within the closest radial distance to the test object has the most influence, whereas the distant matter diminishes significantly (inverse square). The attraction of the dipoles within the closest hemisphere by far overgoes the repelling from distant dipoles of the underlying hemisphere, as they're located at the other side of the planetary centre.

Another point is that a planetary dipole model, simplified, becomes like a charged sphere, and inside it the E field is zero. Still, the magnetic component and Laplace force induced by the plenum of electro(n) dynamics are not excluded and an additional scenario.

If it turns out that G really should be a different value than previously calculated, this would also affect how one understands the gravitational strength and its fluctations in various scenarios.

Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote: ...
Coulomb's law does not describe the force between dipoles..
A dipole is two charges.
So Coulombs law also works with dipoles.
And as I explained in the extensive calculations, the opposite charges
of the dipole give both a attractive and repelling force.
These forces almost negate each other, causing the normal
1/R^2 force to drop to 1/R^3

Or even to 1/R^4 if you calculate the force between 2 dipoles,
as in your "gravity" model. As I explained in the calculations.
Note that the dipoles even have to be in line to be attractive.
If they are in opposite orientation, you get a repelling force.
That is why the force even drops faster.
Last edited by Siggy_G on Wed Mar 21, 2018 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Solar
Posts: 1372
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

This is the third thread on this topic:

Ralph Sansbury's Model 2008

Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill 2015

The excerpt below is from the 2008 thread with regard to Sansbury's pocket cell experiment:
All of the experiments which seem to support Einstein's notion are interpreted by Sansbury in a more common-sense fashion. When an electron or other charged particle is accelerated in an electromagnetic field, it is distorted from a sphere into an ellipsoid. The more electromagnetic energy applied to accelerating the particle, the more energy is absorbed by distortion of the particle until...
(...)

The fallout from Sansbury's idea, if proven, is prodigious. To begin, for the first time we have a truly unifying theory where both magnetism and gravity become a derived form of instantaneous electrostatic force.

(...)

This work is of crucial importance for Velikovskian re-arrangements of the solar system in recent times because astronomers have been able to say that such scenarios defy the laws of physics - which is true, insofar as they know the laws of physics. To discover that gravity is a form of charge polarization within the particles that make up the atom...
From the 2015 thread clarification was being sought regarding a "circular reference" to gravity affecting what was supposedly causing it:
Muskie wrote:At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity. But if I heard correctly "gravity" is already acting on the atoms, i.e., attracting the "heavier" nucleus downward. What am I missing - there seems to be a circular reference here? If the "heavier" nucleus is drawn towards the center of the earth by gravity, it's not causing gravity - its orientation is caused BY gravity. It may be dipole oriented because of gravity, but I can't see how it's causing gravity.

What am I missing?

Thanks.
For those interested in this idea have you found ANY experiments that answer some of the points in either of the above threads and/or lend support to Thornhill's idea(s) on what (supposedly) causes gravity?
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

Zyxzevn
Posts: 1002
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
Contact:

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Siggy_G wrote: A neat contribution to electrogravity theory has been done by the Norwegian physician Nils Rognerud. In his paper «Free fall of Elementary Particles» (1989/1994)
He uses TWO logical fallacies.

1)
He describes magnetic field caused by an electron, and states that this equal to an electric field.
This is a "relative" electrical field which is the field that an electron encounters if it was moving
together with the electron. He even uses the speed of the same electron itself,
to make this conversion to electric field.
It does not work for any electron standing still relatively to the moving electron,
just as you would expect from a magnetic field.
So he is essentially calculating the force of an electron on another electron that moves
around the nucleus at the same speed.

2)
But even the relativity trick does not work, because of the Sagnac effect,
which is a solution to the Ehrenfest paradox

Siggy wrote:Another point is that a planetary dipole model, simplified, becomes like a charged sphere
Here is another logical fallacy:
First you say that you can not shield gravity forces, but at the same time
you claim that the negative charges inside the sphere are shielded somehow.

In common electromagnetism, the negative charges inside the sphere are
not shielded by positive charges around the sphere.
Real-world shielding works by charges moving inside a conducting material towards the
electrical fields. These moved charges create an opposite electrical field and can negate the
original electrical field. This principle is used in a capacitor. See link.

And because electrical fields are additive and 1/R^2 the total
effect of the electrical field of the sphere is ZERO.

The electrical field of the inside negates the electrical field of the outside.
This works even at close distances, because the 1/R^2 field is exactly the
opposite of the area that the charge is distributed over.
As long the charges are evenly distributed.
If you like, I can do the maths for you.

Cat in free-fall

Another fundamental problem with electric based gravity is the
direct relationship between inertia mass and gravitational force.
Due to nuclear stuff, mass has no direct relationship with the amount of
charges inside the body.
It is why satellites don't fly away or fall down: the acceleration
equals the gravity. If the relationship was any different we would
see that directly.

Ralph Sansbury tries to solve that last problem by introducing new (very fast) particles.
But he still needs to explain the relationship between inertia mass and these particles.

That is why I propose to start with a system that works,
namely the heisenberg gravity and build from there.
Explained in a very simple way:
Gravity is caused by the energy-waves that all mass is built of.

Everything is waves.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Siggy_G wrote:The Cavemdish experiment should be set up in a way to avoid Earth's rotation interfering with the sphere rod's motion, and I gather G would be calculated a different constant.
Said as if nobody since Cavendish has figured out a way to improve on his crude Victorian era methods. Check this out . . . https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Stephen.Merko ... Big_G.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest