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 » Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:50 pm

Electro wrote: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.


So now tell us, what is electrical charge 'made of' and how does it attract or repel other charges? As I say, its an equally mysterious thing.

So I don't find it at all hard to accept that nature is counter intuitive or bizarre or that it somehow has to comply with my 'classical' conceptions formed from the intuitions I have of how I think it should behave on the macroscopic level that I 'see' day to day.

My problem with Thornhill's idea isn't that it is incomplete, or even contains circular arguments, it is that it does not describe what we can measure by experiment very easily.

Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong. Yes, your idea may be right and lives another day. Thornhill's idea is simply wrong.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Electro » Thu Feb 01, 2018 6:16 pm

willendure wrote:
Electro wrote: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.


So now tell us, what is electrical charge 'made of' and how does it attract or repel other charges? As I say, its an equally mysterious thing.

So I don't find it at all hard to accept that nature is counter intuitive or bizarre or that it somehow has to comply with my 'classical' conceptions formed from the intuitions I have of how I think it should behave on the macroscopic level that I 'see' day to day.

My problem with Thornhill's idea isn't that it is incomplete, or even contains circular arguments, it is that it does not describe what we can measure by experiment very easily.

Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong. Yes, your idea may be right and lives another day. Thornhill's idea is simply wrong.


Ok, then what's graviry in your opinion?
User avatar
Electro
 
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby MotionTheory » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:05 am

Gravity is a Tensor Field, not a force vector G.

This should be obvious by treat earth as flat and an airplane flies parallel to surface. Airplane flight path has certain upward pitch. This path is unstable because equilibrium between gravity and lift is a line. Increase or decrease thrust, this airplane would escape or drop respectively.
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Fri Feb 02, 2018 12:51 am

MotionTheory wrote:Gravity is a Tensor Field, not a force vector G.

This should be obvious by treat earth as flat and an airplane flies parallel to surface. Airplane flight path has certain upward pitch. This path is unstable because equilibrium between gravity and lift is a line. Increase or decrease thrust, this airplane would escape or drop respectively.


Einstein's space is a mathematical concept. It is not real. The tensor is the same as magic.

Philosopher Kant says, we should talk about nature with the relationship between things and things.Mathematics is a tool, it is not natural.

I pointed out that the space and the gravity on the earth are different. Gravity in outer space is electric attraction, repulsion. The important thing is to say that plus and minus electric lines of force are not neutralizing and are forces working separately.

Faraday's electric lines of force
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... gk7t7Iyx7w
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Feb 02, 2018 5:21 am

willendure wrote:Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong. Yes, your idea may be right and lives another day.
I didn't realise that mass based gravity theory had passed al its lab tests. Which tests were they by the way?

Oh, and what's all this dark matter, dark energy etc. needed for and which lab tests incorporated those?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1253
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby MotionTheory » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:55 am

GR spacetime model is a math magician - cloaking extra dimensions via semantics: dialation & contraction.

In Electric Gravity thread, I asserted: there is only push force, thus exclude all existings gravity models (including electric).

ja7tdo wrote:
MotionTheory wrote:Gravity is a Tensor Field, not a force vector G.

This should be obvious by treat earth as flat and an airplane flies parallel to surface. Airplane flight path has certain upward pitch. This path is unstable because equilibrium between gravity and lift is a line. Increase or decrease thrust, this airplane would escape or drop respectively.


Einstein's space is a mathematical concept. It is not real. The tensor is the same as magic.

Philosopher Kant says, we should talk about nature with the relationship between things and things.Mathematics is a tool, it is not natural.

I pointed out that the space and the gravity on the earth are different. Gravity in outer space is electric attraction, repulsion. The important thing is to say that plus and minus electric lines of force are not neutralizing and are forces working separately.

Faraday's electric lines of force
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... gk7t7Iyx7w
MotionTheory
 
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:01 pm

Electro says, "What are you talking about? I'm all for Wal Thornhill's theory."


Fair enough. The original post just says that one video presentation on Electric Gravity is not enough to give a complete understanding of the theory, and that is right!

It may be that the apparent gaps and seeming omissions can be addressed with a little more reading and a couple of diagrams.


The idea that "gravity" induces dipoles in neutral matter on Earth makes a lot of sense to me. Mass related to charge is interesting as well.


Great place to start. Atoms are offset, very slightly, together. It is a very weak attractive force as all the dipolar atoms are radially aligned.

Image

This results in a slightly charged planet:

Image

However, this does not mean that planets are positively or negatively charged objects that either attract or repel -- though there is a degree of charge separation, as shown above.
“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 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:05 pm

However, Thornhill does not explain why gravity would be attractive AND repulsive at the same time for let's say the Moon and the Earth. If both are negatively charged, I can understand why they repel each other. But how does the Moon stay in orbit around the Earth then?

Another problem. If the Sun is positively charged and the planets negatively charged, why aren't the planets crashing into the Sun? What would make them mutually repulsive?




Static charges cancelling each other is the wrong model to apply. Instead, plasma sheaths surround each planet isolating it from the solar wind, and in turn the sun is isolated within its plasmasphere from the interstellar medium. Plasma sheaths are much larger than the planets; and it is they that interact in the capture, electrical exchanges, and continuing stability of the the solar system. It is not a question of static attraction between +ive or -ive charges, but of plasma behaviors. Also the circuitry of Birkeland currents, which enter the poles of the planets, play a role in celestial mechanics and weather. The circuitry dwarfs the role of gravity.
“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 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:15 pm

One objection made on the thread is that the dipolar fields would only go in one direction -- for example, north to south. But the dipoles are radially arranged towards the center of the earth.

I can say this: if stars and planets are formed in an intensifying [em] field pinching down an [electric] current, then there is both the formation of spheres and a remnant charge.

ref: See paper on hematite spheres similar to Martian blueberries created by CJ Ransom and co.


There is also electrical sorting of materials during the process, according to ionization potential:

Image
Last edited by Brigit Bara on Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:32 pm, 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 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 7:30 pm

Now once again, looking at the simple dipolar atomic model of gravity, we see that there are no new particles needed to wink in and out of existence and to alter fields and impart mass to atoms.

Image

But someone objects, where are the experiments?

Suppose you are able to cause the gravitationally induced dipoles to be offset from the vertical, by particle distortion.

Image


When Professor Eric Laithwaite [1921-97] was invited to give the Faraday Lecture in 1974-5 at the Royal Institution, he brought with him an array of gyroscopes – from toy ones that balanced on model Eiffel towers, to a huge 50lb one that he spun up and raised effortlessly above his head with one hand. “Look,” he exclaimed to the assembled dignitaries, “It’s lost weight!”


One interpretation of the mysterious ability of people to lift spinning weights is that the motion, if fast enough, offsets the dipoles at a molecular level.
“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 ja7tdo » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:49 pm

The dipole structure means electronic polarization. Polarization occurs when irradiating electromagnetic waves to substances. However, considering rotating objects, electrical gravity does not follow unless polarization occurs instantaneously.

That is impossible. Does matter rotated at ultra high speed float?

It is not reasonable to think of separating only gravity from other physical phenomena. Gravity is also related to atomic structure, protons and electrons, temperature and so on. It is impossible to consider only gravity, leaving the theory of relativity, quantum mechanics, elementary particle science as it is.

I believe that electrical cosmology affects planetary science as well as electrical gravity theory affects the whole physics.So, I started looking back on science history and searching for mistakes.This is the same technique as Thornhill.

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 willendure » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:34 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong. Yes, your idea may be right and lives another day.
I didn't realise that mass based gravity theory had passed al its lab tests. Which tests were they by the way?


GR has held up well in lab tests, most famously Pound-Rebka, but there are many other experiments too. I agree there are still elements of doubt, but I don't think anything outright rejected GR. So it lives another day.

Thornhill on the other hand can be disproved easily. Charge a foil and measure its change in weight. Build a Faraday cage and float inside it. Build other anti-gravity machines based on nothing more than overcoming the Thornhill field with a simple voltage. Also dipoles are directional, so bring two large masses together and measure their attraction, then introduce a third mass at a different angle and see how that changes the gravity measured. And so on. I await the results that those of you who are so convinced by this will be rushing out to demonstrate that they are geniuses of a higher order than even Einstein. My friends, a Nobel prize surely awaits you.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:45 am

Brigit Bara wrote:One objection made on the thread is that the dipolar fields would only go in one direction -- for example, north to south. But the dipoles are radially arranged towards the center of the earth.


Did you ever look at the set up for measuring G, the Cavendish experiment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment

The masses are arranged horizontally, but gravitational attraction between them is measured. So which way is it that the dipoles are oriented?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:44 pm

willendure says, "Did you ever look at the set up for measuring G, the Cavendish experiment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment The masses are arranged horizontally, but gravitational attraction between them is measured. So which way is it that the dipoles are oriented?"


Image


Cavendish was a fine electrical researcher! But actually "the jury is still out" on calculating G the way that he calculated earth's density.


Deep space experiment could measure the gravitational constant with nearly 1,000 times improvement in accuracy (Update)
May 17, 2016 by Lisa Zyga, Phys.org

(Phys.org)—Scientists have proposed an experiment that could measure the value of Newton's gravitational constant, G, from deep space instead of an Earth-based laboratory. The researchers predict that the deep space experiment could estimate G with an improvement in precision of nearly three orders of magnitude, since it would avoid the influence of Earth's gravity. The researchers, Michael Feldman et al., have published a paper on the proposed experiment in a recent issue of Classical and Quantum Gravity.


Uncertainty with Big G

Newton's gravitational constant, G, determines the strength of the gravitational force between any two objects anywhere in the universe. Over the past century, a dozen or so Earth-based experiments have used torsion balances, atom interferometers, and other tools to measure the value of G to be approximately 6.67408 x 10-11, with an uncertainty of 4.7 × 10−5.

Although this may sound precise, it is not very precise at all compared to many other physical constants, which have uncertainties that are many orders of magnitude smaller than this. In recent years, the large variations in the measured values of G have caused scientists to question if G is truly constant at all. (Currently, the overwhelming consensus is that G is constant, and that the variations are due to large systematic measurement errors.)

"G is currently the least well known of all the fundamental physical constants, which is embarrassing," Feldman told Phys.org. "A more precise number, and the possibility that G could vary with time, location, or the type of matter involved, could link to improvements in Einstein's general relativity, including quantum gravity."

One of the main reasons that G is so difficult to measure accurately is that experiments must account for the influence of Earth's gravity, g (sometimes called "little g" in contrast to "big G"). Little g is the acceleration due to gravity specifically on Earth, where it has a constant value of approximately 9.8 m/s2. Elsewhere in the universe, this value changes, since it depends on the Earth's mass and the distance between the Earth and another object. However, the value of big G does not depend on these factors, and so it remains the same everywhere in the universe.


Deep space lab

In the new paper, the researchers suggest that the best way to avoid the effects of Earth's gravity on measurements of G is to perform the experiment in deep space, which refers to space outside our solar system.

The scientists propose to launch their apparatus into deep space, likely by "piggybacking" on a major mission. Out there, where the gravity of planets and stars would be negligible, the host spacecraft would release a spherical object that has a 1-cm-wide tunnel through its center. Then (this would likely be the most difficult part), the host spacecraft—which is constantly spinning the whole time—would eject a much smaller oscillating object into the tunnel in the sphere at just the right angle and speed so that the object would move back and forth through the tunnel, without bouncing off the walls.

The host apparatus would continually shine femtosecond laser pulses on the object as it oscillates in the tunnel, and the object (a retroreflector) would reflect these pulses back to the host spacecraft. These pulses would provide data on the period of the object's harmonic motion, which is directly dependent on the value of G. The data would then be sent back to Earth via radio communication for interpretation.

If everything goes as expected, the researchers' simulations showed that this experiment could measure G with an uncertainty of 6.3 x 10-8, which is nearly three orders of magnitude more precise than the current best measurement.

Even though the deep-space experiment wouldn't have to deal with the Earth's gravity, it would still have to contend with other, smaller non-gravitational accelerations that would also affect the retroreflector's motion. These influences include solar radiation pressure, solar tidal effects, cosmic rays, and the momentum from the laser pulses. Some of these effects could be dealt with through careful design—for example, the sphere could be shielded from solar radiation pressure by positioning it in the shadow of the host spacecraft. But the researchers explain that any acceleration greater than 10-17 m/s2 must be modeled and accounted for when interpreting the data.



Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2016-05-deep-spac ... y.html#jCp


So I think the answer to your question is that there are still random and systemic errors and inconsistent results with experimental set ups.
“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 03, 2018 3:23 pm

ja7tdo » Fri Feb 02, 2018 8:49 pm

The dipole structure means electronic polarization. Polarization occurs when irradiating electromagnetic waves to substances. However, considering rotating objects, electrical gravity does not follow unless polarization occurs instantaneously.

That is impossible. Does matter rotated at ultra high speed float?


Hi ja7tdo, I read your interesting link, thank you.

This is what I am referring to:

"Anti-Gravity Wheel?"
dur. 5:41

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
“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

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron