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 Brigit Bara » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:26 pm

"That shouldn't be happening." (:
“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 » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:06 pm

Brigit Bara wrote:
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


hi,
yes, I know this video. also many anti gravity theory.
The gyro can not eliminate gravitational mass. It only makes it easy to hold a long stick with a weight.
Some videos are rotating the gyro on weight scale. Unfortunately the weight does not change.

there is 2 type gravity. gravity on Earth is same as EM drive.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:40 pm

willendure wrote:
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?


Cavendish experiment has a mistake he made without knowing that lead is diamagnetic.
Faraday first noticed. Faraday was trying to prove that gravity is electromagnetic force until just before his death.
Cavendish measured the magnetic field lines of lead reacted in the earth's magnetic field.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:06 am

Brigit Bara wrote:So I think the answer to your question is that there are still random and systemic errors and inconsistent results with experimental set ups.


Sure, gravity is a very weak force so calculating G with small masses in lab is always going to be a tough call.

However, you dodge the question of which direction the forces are in? They may be somewhat small and hard to measure accurately, but they are not only in the vertical are they in this horizontal set up. So that rules dipoles out, if you are claiming that they are always oriented towards the center of the Earth.

Its just too easy to destroy the dipole idea with the application of a little bit of logic, I honestly don't know why you all persist with this nonsense.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:09 am

ja7tdo wrote:Cavendish experiment has a mistake he made without knowing that lead is diamagnetic.


Sure, but the experiment has been repeated many times with different materials. Once people found out about the diamagnetic lead issue, do you think they just went 'oh dear, well that must be wrong..'. No, they repeated the experiment with other masses, materials and experimental set ups.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:19 am

willendure wrote:
ja7tdo wrote:Cavendish experiment has a mistake he made without knowing that lead is diamagnetic.


Sure, but the experiment has been repeated many times with different materials. Once people found out about the diamagnetic lead issue, do you think they just went 'oh dear, well that must be wrong..'. No, they repeated the experiment with other masses, materials and experimental set ups.


yes, recent experiments use glass. but glass is also diamagnetic and dielectric. air is weak electric plus. What happens is obvious.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:07 pm

willendure wrote:
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.
In what way exactly does the Pound-Rebka experiment (which wasn't in a lab anyway and didn't have a control so dubious in the extreme anyway) test that mass is responsible for gravity? Try again. One with a significant use of dark matter would be nice as that's supposedly the reason galaxies exist in the form they do.

willendure wrote: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.
Maybe those test are not possible on the surface of the earth within the field. However, as someone who places such faith in "proven" mass based gravity please provide the laboratory proof confirming such a mechanism.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:30 pm

willendure wrote:Sure, gravity is a very weak force so calculating G with small masses in lab is always going to be a tough call.
Actually it's quite accurate nowadays. And the laboratory experiments which you favour have proven it's actually variable.

https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

What's interesting is the correlation of the Length of Day and G. Even more interesting is the correlation of the troughs with the perihelion/aphelion of Jupiter's orbit;

Troughs in G measurement;
1987, 1993, 1999, 2005, 2010

Jupiters Perihelion/Aphelion;
1987, 1993, 1999, 2005, 2010

Which to me suggests gravity is more affected by the Sun's electromagnetic environment rather than it is a supposedly fixed mass of the planets.

The question is, now that "constant" G has failed it's lab experiments are you still going to persist with the nonsense that gravity is mass related?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:15 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

snip

The question is, now that "constant" G has failed it's lab experiments are you still going to persist with the nonsense that gravity is mass related?


hi,

thank you for good URL.
In my hypothesis, the electromagnetic wave generated by Schumann resonance is the identity of gravity. Schumann resonance is caused by rotation of a large amount of electrons existing inside the crust. It is related to LOD.

https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:43 pm

Aardwolf wrote:In what way exactly does the Pound-Rebka experiment (which wasn't in a lab anyway and didn't have a control so dubious in the extreme anyway) test that mass is responsible for gravity? Try again. One with a significant use of dark matter would be nice as that's supposedly the reason galaxies exist in the form they do.


I didn't say it did. It was just an example of a test of GR that GR passed.

I don't think GR has so much to do with dark matter, you are confusing that with dark energy, which GR supposedly does have due to the cosmological constant.

I am not a believer in dark matter myself, because it has been ruled out of being so many things, there is nothing left that it can be.

Aardwolf wrote:Maybe those test are not possible on the surface of the earth within the field. However, as someone who places such faith in "proven" mass based gravity please provide the laboratory proof confirming such a mechanism.


So far there is no more fundamental explanation of mass based gravity, nor is there proof that it is not the case. Unlike Thornhill gravity which is easy to disprove.

Why would a charged foil not float, for example?
Last edited by willendure on Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:45 pm

Actually, see the previous discussion:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15913

Save me going through the same arguments over and again...
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:40 pm

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:In what way exactly does the Pound-Rebka experiment (which wasn't in a lab anyway and didn't have a control so dubious in the extreme anyway) test that mass is responsible for gravity? Try again. One with a significant use of dark matter would be nice as that's supposedly the reason galaxies exist in the form they do.


I didn't say it did. It was just an example of a test of GR that GR passed.
The thread is about an alternative to gravity based theory so why is referencing a GR test relevant in any way? The test is not a confirmation of mass based gravity, it's a test to ascertain the faster running of clocks in higher gravity. A totally irrelevant example as it doesn't attempt to find the cause of gravity. You need a better example. You said there were loads.

willendure wrote:I don't think GR has so much to do with dark matter, you are confusing that with dark energy, which GR supposedly does have due to the cosmological constant.
I know. You brought up a GR test. I know it's irrelevant but we're talking about gravity driven by mass and in that respect dark matter is a significant element.

willendure wrote:I am not a believer in dark matter myself, because it has been ruled out of being so many things, there is nothing left that it can be.
Well if you don't believe in dark matter you cannot believe in mass based gravity. If needs dark matter to survive.

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Maybe those test are not possible on the surface of the earth within the field. However, as someone who places such faith in "proven" mass based gravity please provide the laboratory proof confirming such a mechanism.


So far there is no more fundamental explanation of mass based gravity, nor is there proof that it is not the case. Unlike Thornhill gravity which is easy to disprove.

Why would a charged foil not float, for example?
You haven't quantified any of the elements of this test, so therefore, if I suspend a ton of lead above a foil I also cannot make it float, ergo, I have disproven mass based gravity.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:06 pm

Aardwolf wrote:You haven't quantified any of the elements of this test, so therefore, if I suspend a ton of lead above a foil I also cannot make it float, ergo, I have disproven mass based gravity.


Nice try. Just do it without a ton of lead on top. Still can't? Ah well, looks like you are wrong.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:57 pm

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:You haven't quantified any of the elements of this test, so therefore, if I suspend a ton of lead above a foil I also cannot make it float, ergo, I have disproven mass based gravity.


Nice try. Just do it without a ton of lead on top. Still can't? Ah well, looks like you are wrong.
How would that be a test of mass based gravity?

You dispute electric based gravity by saying you cant offset it using electricity. I dispute mass based gravity because I can't offset it using mass. Mass based theory is just as disproven as Wal's by your reasoning.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1249
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby D_Archer » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:10 am

John Hutchison already proved you can levitate stuff with E/M.

When he turned on all his machines and flooded the room with E/M power, large metal balls levitated. Clearly an influx of charge does something to gravity.

The Earth is already charged, so its natural charge and whatever gravity is; are already linked.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1161
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests