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 » Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:47 pm

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
I guess you don't want to attempt to state what's happening in your own words. Let's see if I can give you a nudge in the right direction. From your link;
To find the torsion coefficient (κ) of the wire, Cavendish measured the natural resonant oscillation period T of the torsion balance:
Now, maybe you would like to explain exactly why the torsion balance is oscillating? If, as you stated below here it's only measuring the attraction between the weights;
querious wrote:It just measures the attraction between known masses, not the Earth and known masses.
...they would only go in one direction, toward the weights and stay there. What force, pray tell, could possibly be causing them to move away from the weights after moving towards them...?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:50 am

Not until recently have I understood the seriousness with which the American experimenter Tomas Townsend Brown's gravity experiments were received in the American science and defense industry. Though the cause of gravity was not understood at the time, Brown's experiment with a heavy, standing capacitor charged to 150 000 volts loosing or gaining 1% in weight depending on the polarity of the charge is direct experimental support of Dipole Gravity. Had the experiment been performed today in the exploration of dipole gravity it would have been called into evidence for dipole gravity.

However, because of the controversy created by the fact that much of this information was classified, several complications have arisen; The original details and results of the experiments are no longer publicly available. Also, the efforts to protect classified information appears to take many strange forms including willful denial and deliberate confusion.

Evidence of this is clear to read still today in the en.Wikipedia articles about Electrogravitics and Ionic Winds which are examples of remaining confusion of the two subjects.

This is unfortunate because the very minor and mostly vertikal anti-gravity effect which can be produced by creating a very strong electrostatic, anti-gravity dipole is, at this point, much more important as part of understanding gravity than as a means to practically defy gravity.

Outside the subject of dipole gravity are T. T. Brown's and other's experiments with strong ionic winds. This very separate effect is also produced electrostatically but produces a very noticeable ionic and atmospheric wind which is capable of lifting ultralight structures as well as to produce or augment propulsion in any direction.

To possible defenders of national or specialty interests still trolling this forum I ask to refrain from making disruptive or misleading contributions simply because understanding gravity will be much more beneficial to mankind as a whole than some erroneously imagined national or special interests.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Siggy_G » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:43 am

Regarding the fall off of dipole electric fields, I'm currently working on a paper. The exact fall off aside (since it requires a thourough presentation, or the final paper), we can still look at what happens to the dipolar field in various cases.

A small dipolar field. Notice the distortions on the sides i.e. the spreading transition region is significant:

Image

A medium dipolar field. The transition region is a little less significant:

Image

A long dipolar field. The transition region is even less significant. Also notice the E-field in the middle region:

Image

A really long dipolar field, like a double layer. Again, notice the E-field in the middle region:

Image

A curved dipolar field (semi accurate), when a section of a charged sphere:

Image

For your consideration.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Siggy_G » Thu Mar 29, 2018 5:24 am

Zyxzevn wrote: (...) The electrical field of a uniformly charged Solid sphere.
For any place outside the sphere, the electrical field is:

E(r)= k*Q/r^2
Where Q is the total charge on the sphere,
and r is the distance from the centre.

If we have two spheres the charges subtract from each other.

So we have for any dipole sphere:

E(total) = k*( Q(+) - Q(-) )/r^2

For any dipole we have Q(+) = Q(-)= Q

So we have
E(total) = k*( Q-Q )/r^2 = k*( 0) /r^2 = 0


The effective charge of the second sphere is also distance dependent. If you say it is the same as the first sphere, as in on top of the initial sphere, then of course, the E-field is zero. Now, the surface of the inner sphere is further away (inwards) from a test charge, and thus its effective charge is less than the outer sphere.

In other words, the distance r to a test charge isn't the same for both spheres, where d is the additional distance to the inner sphere. The formula will be:

E(total) = k* ( Q/r^2 - Q/(r+d)^2 ) -> E(abs) > 0
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Thu Mar 29, 2018 12:11 pm

Image
Thanks Siggy,
This is a great image which show the problem with the dipole hypothesis.
The fields of both spheres disperse in the same rate.
That is because the area increases in the same rate with distance.
So with 2 equally but opposite charged spheres, independent of their sizes,
the electrical fields cancel each other out.
That is what I showed in the calculations.

Siggy_G wrote:.. charge isn't the same for both spheres

If you have different charges on or in the spheres, the total electrical field is
equal to the difference. Now we have a normal electrical field again,
not one that is dependent on mass, but on electric charge.

I think that you can argue that Mercury can be electrically charged,
as it receives a lot of charged solar wind.
And that this may give mercury an offset to its gravity only path, changing its orbit slightly.

Or maybe you want to use Sansbury's idea of smaller particles that carry the force of gravity in
some way. Or quasi-particles. But this is not the same as charge (electron/proton).
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Higgsy » Thu Mar 29, 2018 4:11 pm

Siggy_G wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote: (...) The electrical field of a uniformly charged Solid sphere.
For any place outside the sphere, the electrical field is:

E(r)= k*Q/r^2
Where Q is the total charge on the sphere,
and r is the distance from the centre.

If we have two spheres the charges subtract from each other.

So we have for any dipole sphere:

E(total) = k*( Q(+) - Q(-) )/r^2

For any dipole we have Q(+) = Q(-)= Q

So we have
E(total) = k*( Q-Q )/r^2 = k*( 0) /r^2 = 0


The effective charge of the second sphere is also distance dependent. If you say it is the same as the first sphere, as in on top of the initial sphere, then of course, the E-field is zero. Now, the surface of the inner sphere is further away (inwards) from a test charge, and thus its effective charge is less than the outer sphere.

In other words, the distance r to a test charge isn't the same for both spheres, where d is the additional distance to the inner sphere. The formula will be:

E(total) = k* ( Q/r^2 - Q/(r+d)^2 ) -> E(abs) > 0

I can't believe that on a so-called "science" forum that this is a matter of dispute. The answer is trivially that the field is zero outside two concentric spheres of equal and opposite charge and of unequal size.

Why? Because if you integrate over a uniformly charged sphere to find the field at any point outside the sphere you will find that the field is identical to a point charge of the total charge on the sphere located at its centre. So if you have two concentric spheres of equal and opposite charge and unequal size, the field outside the spheres is zero everywhere, regardless of the sizes of the spheres.

Come on, guys, this is high school calculus.
"Every single ion is going to start cooling off instantly as far as I know…If you're mixing kinetic energy in there somehow, you'll need to explain exactly how you're defining 'temperature'" - Mozina
Higgsy
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby neilwilkes » Fri Mar 30, 2018 7:07 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Not until recently have I understood the seriousness with which the American experimenter Tomas Townsend Brown's gravity experiments were received in the American science and defense industry. Though the cause of gravity was not understood at the time, Brown's experiment with a heavy, standing capacitor charged to 150 000 volts loosing or gaining 1% in weight depending on the polarity of the charge is direct experimental support of Dipole Gravity. Had the experiment been performed today in the exploration of dipole gravity it would have been called into evidence for dipole gravity.

However, because of the controversy created by the fact that much of this information was classified, several complications have arisen; The original details and results of the experiments are no longer publicly available. Also, the efforts to protect classified information appears to take many strange forms including willful denial and deliberate confusion.

Evidence of this is clear to read still today in the en.Wikipedia articles about Electrogravitics and Ionic Winds which are examples of remaining confusion of the two subjects.

This is unfortunate because the very minor and mostly vertikal anti-gravity effect which can be produced by creating a very strong electrostatic, anti-gravity dipole is, at this point, much more important as part of understanding gravity than as a means to practically defy gravity.

Outside the subject of dipole gravity are T. T. Brown's and other's experiments with strong ionic winds. This very separate effect is also produced electrostatically but produces a very noticeable ionic and atmospheric wind which is capable of lifting ultralight structures as well as to produce or augment propulsion in any direction.

To possible defenders of national or specialty interests still trolling this forum I ask to refrain from making disruptive or misleading contributions simply because understanding gravity will be much more beneficial to mankind as a whole than some erroneously imagined national or special interests.


Well said, Bengt.
Especially the part about this going deeply classified in the late 50's - someone certainly hit heavy paydirt as all the aerospace & defence companies were actively talking up gravity control as currently well advanced with most having actual rigs ranging from test beds to prototype vehicles with full gravity control "within our current technology given an effort on the scale of the Manhattan Project". This was 1956/57 yet 2 years later it had vanished to the point where nobody ever mentioned it again. Even when Brown himself tried to get back in the game he was advised to DROP all his private research into Electrogravitics by his Military contacts. Someone, Somewhere succeeded I think and we have today the B2 as total vindication of the BB effect.

Another respected scientist, Dr Frederick Alzofon, also tried to get funding for an experiment that would prove his UFT (Unified Field Theory) with a 1981 paper to the AIAA/ASE/ASME 17th Joint Propulsion Conference in 1981 called "Anti Gravity with present technology implementation and theoretical foundation" which has never been disproved simply because it would work. Again, no type of funding was ever made available even though the cost to reproduce his later 1994 experiment that apparently validated the whole concept "from the moment they threw the switch" would be very cheap indeed even at today's prices I estimate around $500,000 - nothing when you think of the tens of billions squandered on LCDM, Black Holes, Fusion reactors & LHC colliders as simply redoing this experiment would either give a definitive YES or a definitive NO.
Well reasonable, yes?

Again - maybe the reason for the turn down was simply that this has already been developed in the Black world and there are no intentions to declassify the technology any time soon - even Boeing were recently turned down in an application to have classified technology they had worked on allowed for use outside the covert military.....
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 362
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby silvanelf » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:41 pm

Solar wrote:Basically, the Sansbury/Thornhill gravity “model” desperately needs a cohesive presentation specifically explaining how it was derived from Sansbury’s work, the data of course, as well as references to other official (or not) experiments and source material that may support same. Normally I enjoy researching topics but for some reason I don’t fully understand the Sansbury/Thornhill approach. I think I read some of this once; do some of you have Sansbury's original source material for this??

The first link below is a general comment about Ralph Sansbury's model, the second link contains a list of papers from Ralph Sansbury.

Speed of Light: What is wrong with Ralph Sansbury's Model of the Universe?
https://www.quora.com/Speed-of-Light-What-is-wrong-with-Ralph-Sansburys-Model-of-the-Universe

Natural Philosophers Wikipedia: Ralph Sansbury
http://wiki.naturalphilosophy.org/index.php?title=Ralph_Sansbury
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby silvanelf » Wed Jun 06, 2018 10:54 pm

Siggy_G wrote:The effective charge of the second sphere is also distance dependent. If you say it is the same as the first sphere, as in on top of the initial sphere, then of course, the E-field is zero. Now, the surface of the inner sphere is further away (inwards) from a test charge, and thus its effective charge is less than the outer sphere.

In other words, the distance r to a test charge isn't the same for both spheres, where d is the additional distance to the inner sphere. The formula will be:

E(total) = k* ( Q/r^2 - Q/(r+d)^2 ) -> E(abs) > 0


First of all, your example demonstrates the field of a dipole: a charge at distance r and an opposite charge at distance (r+d), while the point of measurement lies along the line through both charges. But if you develop the expression for distances much larger than the distance between the two charges (meaning r >> d) then you will get the usual dipole field E(total) which falls off with r^-3.
So even in your own example you don't get a field following an inverse square law.
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby silvanelf » Thu Jun 07, 2018 12:28 am

Solar wrote:Basically, the Sansbury/Thornhill gravity “model” desperately needs a cohesive presentation specifically explaining how it was derived from Sansbury’s work, the data of course, as well as references to other official (or not) experiments and source material that may support same.

I've posted a quote from Ralph Sansbury below. A few comments:

All experimental physics shows that there is no experimental evidence in support of Sansbury's claim about charge polarization within electrons. But this doesn't bother Sansbury at all, because he argues backwards. He claims that charge polarization with electrons and atomic nuclei can be used to explain gravity, then he simply claims that his model of dipole gravity justifies his assumption of charge polarization within electrons and nuclei.

He claims that Roemer's measurement of the speed of light was a "mistake" -- but his arguments against these measurements by Roemer, Bradley, Fizeau, Foucault and many others are really awkward and convoluted. For example, in the second quote below Sansbury argues that light speed measurements require a constant exposure to the source of light according to "recent experiments" -- he doesn't mention that these "recent experiments" are just his own experiments and they were never confirmed by others. This kind of reasoning goes on and on.

This book is about evidence for charge polarization inside electrons and atomic nuclei. Such polarization can be shown to explain apparent quantum discontinuities and the apparent spacetime distortions of Relativity. We start with the two most damaging mistakes in the history of physics that led to the unnecessary added premises of Quantum Mechanics and Special and General Relativity.

The first mistake was Roemer's so called measurement of the speed of light in 1676 and the second was Kaufmann's 1903 measurement of the apparent increase of the mass of beta electrons as their velocity increased. The experts of the times in these specific sorts of measurements, in each case, were ignored. Preference was given to the opinions of a larger number of scientists whose expertise lay elsewhere.

The damage caused by these mistakes continues to undermine our basic understanding of electromagnetic radiation, gravity and the atom. Recent advances in optics and electronics provide the necessary tools to correct these mistakes and put physics back on track.

That is Roemer's measurement did not require constant exposure to the light source. However, recent light speed measurements suggest that constant exposure is required and that the cumulative effect interpretation is closer to the facts.

source: Ralph Sansbury, Gravitomagnetism and Light
https://www.scribd.com/document/1496162 ... mic-Nuclei
silvanelf
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Thu May 31, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby oz93666 » Sun Jun 24, 2018 8:44 pm

I've been watching one of Wal's videos .. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvfFJiUWuDk ...Where he lays out the theory of electric gravity 04:40 onwards he says " atoms to some depth on jupiter will have a negative electric pole facing outward's" ..."gravity throughout the Universe is a repulsive force" !!! WHAT DOES THAT MEAN???

Then he goes on to talk about a satellite approaching Jupiter's "gravitational influence, and so having an induced dipole" so the dipole changes under jupiters influence ...but this will effect the way the sun pulls on this satellite !!! We see no evidence of this ....

This appears to be a fundamental flaw in this theory that when an object is influenced by the mass of another , it changes , and so changes the way other masses influence it gravitationally . If this was going on it could easily be measured in a laboratory .....

Does anyone here believe in this theory ???? How has it survived for so long ????
oz93666
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:13 pm

Wal Thornhill's gravity theory is an attempt to interpret an incomplete theory by the deceased physicist Ralph Sansbury. A more complete description of the mechanism of Coulomb Dipole Gravity can be found at: http://www.dipole.se
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby celeste » Sun Jun 24, 2018 10:34 pm

oz93666 wrote:Then he goes on to talk about a satellite approaching Jupiter's "gravitational influence, and so having an induced dipole" so the dipole changes under jupiters influence ...but this will effect the way the sun pulls on this satellite !!! We see no evidence of this ....

This appears to be a fundamental flaw in this theory that when an object is influenced by the mass of another , it changes , and so changes the way other masses influence it gravitationally . If this was going on it could easily be measured in a laboratory .....



My objection too. In more mathematical language, the gravitational force on a body will always be less than the sum of all the individual 2 body forces, if we go with a dipole gravity model. That is why it doesn’t work.

It may however apply here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_force
Note the mainstream approach is to add up all the two body forces, and introduce a new repulsive force.
Why? Because the attraction of nucleons is apparently less than the sum of all the two body forces. This is exactly what is predicted by dipole attraction.

Again though, it doesn’t work on the large scale as an explanation of gravity
celeste
 
Posts: 821
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby oz93666 » Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:23 am

Thanks for the replies ... still looking into this ....letting it all sink in .
oz93666
 
Posts: 195
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby kevin » Fri Aug 03, 2018 11:25 am

https://www.scribd.com/doc/58504789/Mic ... trogravity
Polarization.
I don't normally venture up here into the regions of such gifted humans, but...…...Faraday called out.


Kevin
kevin
 
Posts: 1148
Joined: Sun Mar 23, 2008 10:17 am

Previous

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests