Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

[rangerover777]

Eeris,

Maybe you did not understand what I wrote. Asking Steven questions and then suggest
to open a separate thread for that, so we could continue talk about Dewey Larson, have
nothing to do with your interpretation. And if Dewey Larson is a whole new chapter,
we’d rather do that thoroughly and not under Thornhill article.

Earis wrote : “Motion is inherent in both gravitation and electromagnetism. Is it the
forces producing the motion, or the motion producing the forces?”

1. Neither motion produce force nor force produce motion. If something then motion or
static are characteristics in space / time framework, which can describe almost anything
in this universe - but only from the “motion point of view”, not the absolute picture.
2. Force is a different animal, though partially can be characterized w/ motion and vice versa.

Earis wrote : “Now whether it's:
A. Spacetime > Motion > Electrical Charge > Gravitation or,
B. Spacetime > Motion > Gravitation + Electrical Charge (the current mainstream belief)
is up for debate…”

1. There are more ways then the two routs you suggested.
2. Again, motion is a characteristic. By itself it cannot fabricate neither gravitation
nor electric charge.
3. Motion have a tremendous role in the physical universe, much more then gravity, since
it “wraps” (characterized) many more phenomenas then gravity.

Earis wrote : “ Now, Dewey's stuff is very long and wordy and he has page after page
after page…”

Maybe now you understand why I suggested to open a separate thread for that…

* I'm opening a thread about Dewey Larson, under Planetary Science. You are invited.

Cheer up.

[webolife]

Hate to throw too much of a shift into this basic discussion of electrodynamics, but let's not forget the obvious and important connection between gravitational potential and electrical potential illustrated powerfully by the model of a hydroelectric dam. The fundamental forces relate these two types of fields by the same rules and geometry of potential and kinetic "energy", which, yes, is all about relative motion and its causes. I would disagree with RR777's assertion that forces do not cause motion by simply stating the obvious, once again, that "unbalanced" forces cause acceleration of bodies... I believe this to be true at every scale, so therefore forces do cause motion... there is a certain primordial question about the derivation of original motions within the universe (which I doubt is within the scope of this thread) this perhaps being also the habitation of StevenO's "motion of space"? If the counterassertion is made, that motion causes force, the fundamental electrical cause of the interactions between materials at the atomic level, and the astronomical scale action of galactic electrical fields brings the question right back to the primacy of the field, back to force causes motion.
Finally, both macroscopic magnetic fields and gyroscopic forces are correlatable to gravitational fields, so once again, I say, the force is primal...the effects, relative motions, mass, charge...

[StevenO]

Dewey attempts to define the "building blocks" as motion. You can name the physical manifestation of the median motion occurs in whatever you want. Regardless, it exists. As mentioned multiple times in the EU books, there is no disconnect, everything is one large, continuous electrical canvas. How the canvas appears at a particular place and time is determined by the motion at that locale.

Now whether it's:

A. Spacetime > Motion > Electrical Charge > Gravitation or,
B. Spacetime > Motion > Gravitation + Electrical Charge (the current mainstream belief)

is up for debate...

Dewey postulates the canvas is pure motion and every observable physics object is compound motion.

The order would then be somewhat like:

C: Motion(Energy) => harmonic motion=photon + rotation => gravity
3D rotating photons = atoms + rotational vibrations => electric and magnetic charges

I agree his work is tough to read...it's hard work.

[balsys]

MGmirkin states ....But, in the quizzical state of modern physics, it's thought that space is more or less "void" and that there is no aether (medium) through which light waves, magnetic field, etc. propagate. So, somehow "nothing" transmits magnetic fields and light waves. Personally, I think that notion is faulty. But, until it's rectified, it's what we're stuck with....

I thought forum members would like to be reminded of a paper by R.T. Cahill, found at http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Cahill_Experiment.pdf,

which measures the speed of light using 7 different methods and finds the same small variation from 0, in the same Galatic direction,with each method. This implies there is an aether! Mainstream physicists appear to be ignoring this important paper.

Cheers,

[Mark Hinton]

Hi All, I wanted to get back to magnets and Thorhill's idea that the dipoles align vertically to induce the electric fied. I think that the dipoles would just point north south like little compasses. that is the charge direction, I think it must be the "spin" that is inline. In all these posts about gravity and magnetics I haven't seen the role of spin included. I don't think the "magnets" in a magnet all line up alike, rather one up, one down, ... so that the currents are opposed, running one aganist the other in bisymetric spirals conter rotating in such a way as to cause constructive enterference. They "currents" don't go from pole to pole but crash in the middle where there opposite spins collide and go back just to the side of the "equator", magnetic force is zero between the polar spins.
I prefere to say that a negative charge can be left handed or right handed becuase in biology we think of the molecules of life in handedness. So individual negetive charges could be futher separated by spin charge, "into left and right" perhaps. I futher think the arrow of time, entropy only pertains to polarity charge not spin charge, and that is why there is life, because spin transitions are self organising, they gain "conserve" energy by becoming ordered, "syntropy". With chaos and order in perfect balance the steady state of the EU can go on and on forever without having big bangs or big crunches. Fermions, Bosons, is mass a product of spin? How life uses spin, "handedness" is awhole topic unto itself however I due think it relates to time varying magnetic fields that permeate space and thier relative variation to our positon on earth.

[MGmirkin]

I thought forum members would like to be reminded of a paper by R.T. Cahill, found at http://blog.hasslberger.com/docs/Cahill_Experiment.pdf, which measures the speed of light using 7 different methods and finds the same small variation from 0, in the same Galactic direction,with each method. This implies there is an aether! Mainstream physicists appear to be ignoring this important paper.

That's good stuff. I know I've seen a similar paper in which Miller's work was revisited and reanalyzed with modern methodology and also showed absolute motion and an entrained aether.

Can't for the life of me find it though...

Granted, there's the piece over here:
http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

But the one I'm thinking of seemed more like a paper and sounded more rigorous. Might have been a different paper by Cahill, as the name sounds vary vaguely familiar for some reason, though I can't place it.

(They seem to have an interesting bibliography section on aether drift experiments too...)
http://www.orgonelab.org/energyinspace.htm

This may-or-may-not by the one I read before? Sounds familiar.

(The Roland De Witte 1991 Experiment)
http://www.orgonelab.org/EtherDrift/Cah ... te2006.pdf

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[robinson]

Is there a topic on Magnetism here?

[MGmirkin]

Is there a topic on Magnetism here?

A good question. I don't know if a specific thread on magnetism exists or not? If so, there might be one in the Future of Science section of the forum, as such things go. If not, perhaps there should be.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[robinson]

Is there a topic on Magnetism here?

A good question. I don't know if a specific thread on magnetism exists or not? If so, there might be one in the Future of Science section of the forum, as such things go. If not, perhaps there should be.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

This discussion about magnetism deserves an entire topic. Magnetism, or rather, electromagnetism is one of my favorite topics, and certainly fits in with a forum about the electric Universe.

[davesmith_au]

This discussion about magnetism deserves an entire topic.

Agreed.

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... f=3&t=1002

Cheers, Dave Smith.

[robinson]

Thanks Dave. I was holding off on jumping into the discussion, because it seemed off topic. I don't know much about Thornhill's theory, but magnets are another story.

[MGmirkin]

Okay, I've cleaned up the two threads to balance things out. I've generally separated out most of the questions on magnetism vs. electricity to the other thread. Moved a couple things not on electricity / magnetism back to this thread. So, I guess, back to the discussion of gravity, et al, here?

[junglelord]

Here is a link to electrogravity.
http://www.rialian.com/rnboyd/william_l ... hysics.pdf

Tesla commenced to complete his Dynamic Theory of Gravity at the
same approximate period of time that his experimental results and
theories had been revealed in the three lectures, often illustrated with
demonstrations using Tesla-invented equipment, as revealed in the
following eight excerpts, in pertinent part (emphasis mine):
1. "The most probable medium filling the space is one consisting of
independent carriers immersed in an insulating fluid".
2. "In his experiments he dwells first on some phenomena produced
by electrostatic force, which he considers in the light of modern theories
to be the most important force in nature for us to investigate."
3. "He illustrates how mechanical motions are produced by a varying
electrostatic force acting through a gaseous medium."
4. "One of the most interesting results arrived at in pursuing these
experiments, is the demonstration of the fact that a gaseous medium upon
which vibration is impressed by rapid changes of electrostatic potential, is
rigid "
5. "If through this medium enormous electrostatic stresses are
assumed to act, which vary rapidly in intensity, it would allow the
motion of a body through it, yet it would be rigid and elastic, although
the fluid itself might be devoid of these properties".
6. "...on the assumption that the independent carriers are of any
configuration such that the fluid resistance to motion in one direction is
greater than in another, a stress of that nature would cause the carriers
to arrange themselves in groups, since they would turn to each other their
sides of the greatest electrical density, in which position the fluid
resistance to approach would be smaller than to receding."
7. "If in a medium of the above characteristics a brush would be
formed by a steady potential, an exchange of the carriers would go on
continuously, and there would be less carriers per unit volume in the
brush than in the space at some distance from the electrode, this
corresponding to rarefaction".
8. "If the potentials were rapidly changing, the result would be very
different; the higher the frequency of the pulses, the slower would be the
exchange of carriers; finally, the motion of translation through
measurable space would cease and, with a sufficiently high frequency
and intensity of the stress, the carriers would be drawn towards the
electrode, and compression would result."
70
The eight above excerpts are further reducible to the following four
statements pertinent to electro-propulsion technology:
1. Mechanical motions can be produced by varying electrostatic
force acting through a gaseous (ether) medium, which thereby becomes
rigidified, yet allows solid bodies to pass through.
2. Under influence of stress in one direction (under the polarizing
influence of light or heat), the carriers may group together, forming
tubes of force, creating greater ease of movement in that direction.
3. When a (D.C.) brush is created by a steady potential, a
continuous exchange of carriers is created corresponding to ether
rarefaction, as the tubes of force are drawn into the conductor.
4. With a sufficiently high frequency and stress intensity in the
opposite direction, carrier exchange is blocked by ether compression,
forcing the tubes of force to dissolve in the conductors of the ship,
imparting electromagnetic momentum. The system, using the two kinds
of potentials (D.C. and A.C.), is known as "p2".
The steady potential of the brush creates the required exchange of
carriers, 'ratifying' (stretching) the elastic, rigidified medium (composed
of the carriers immersed in the insulating fluid) in advance of the ship,
as the high frequency A.C. to the rear compresses them, blocking
exchange from the rear, dissolving the tubes of force (my
"microhelices"), creating instant momentum, normal to the surface
(which is at right angles to the electric and magnetic fields).
In 1884, John Henry Poynting's theorem had been that the flux of
energy at any place is represented by the vector product of the electric
and magnetic forces, multiplied by C/4*PI. 3 This implied that forces in a
conductor could be transformed there into other forms. In 1893, J. J.
Thomson stated practically the same thing, saying "...the aether is itself
the vehicle of mechanical momentum, of amount (1/4*PI*C) (D*B) per unit
volume. 4
(Using e.-s. Units for D and E
and e.-m. Units for B and H.)
3 Phil Trans. clxxv (1884), p. 343.
4 Recent Researches in Elect, and Mag. (1893), p. 13.
71
E = electrical force
D = electrical displacement
H = magnetic force
B = magnetic induction
Heinrich Hertz's theory 5 was that two systems of varying current
should exert a ponderomotive force on each other due to the variations.
Tesla's disagreement was apparently based on the fact that he proved
that the "ponderomotive force" is due not to mere "varying currents",
but to rarefaction and compression of the ether carriers, respectively,
produced by different kinds of currents (D.C., A.C., rapidly varying
electrostatic).
J. J. Thomson6 had extensively developed the theory of the moving
tubes of force, both magnetic and electric, saying that the magnetic effect
was a secondary one created by the movement of electric tubes, and
assumed:
► that tubes exist everywhere in space, either in closed circuits or
terminating on atoms;
► that electric force becomes perceivable only when electric tubes
have greater tendency to lie in one direction;
► that in a steady magnetic field, positive and negative tubes may
move in opposite directions with equal velocity;
► that a beam of light is a group of electric tubes moving at C at
right angles to their length (providing a good explanation for
polarization of the plane of rotation).
Tesla said his "dirigible torpedo" would fly at a maximum 300 miles
per second, perhaps since its forward velocity would be some maximum
fraction of C. Thomson's later publishings on this subject followed
Tesla's 1891 lectures before the Royal Society in London, and appear to
shed light on Tesla's work, stating:
► that a ponderomotive force is exerted on a conductor carrying
electric current, consisting of a transfer of mechanical momentum
from the agent which exerts the force to the body which
5 Ann. d. Phys. Xxxi (1887), p. 421; Hertz's Electric Waves, translated by D.E. Jones, p. 29.
6 Recent Researches in Elect. And Mag. (1893), p. 13.
72
experiences it;
► that, if moving tubes entering a conductor are dissolved in it,
mechanical momentum is given to the conductor;
► that such momentum must be at right angles to the tube and to
the magnetic induction;
► that momentum stored in a unit volume of the field is
proportional to the vector product of electric and magnetic
vectors.
"Thomson's" Electromagnetic Momentum hypothesis was later
developed by H. Poincare7 and by M. Abraham8.
By 1910, it was said9 that the consequence of these pronouncements
left three alternatives:
1. Modify the theory to reduce to zero the resultant force on an element
of free aether (as with Maxwell, Hertz, and Einstein);
2. Assume the force sets aether in motion (as with Helmholtz);
3. Accept the principle that aether is the vehicle of mechanical
momentum of amount [D-B] per unit volume (as with Poynting and J.
J. Thomson).
Whittaker's greatest error was in omitting Tesla's theory entirely.
After Tesla's experiments verified it, right in front of the esteemed
members of the "Royal Academy", the "three (later) alternatives" were
moot, and a new law existed, that of Tesla.
Tesla's Secrecy
Due to his pacifist sympathies, Tesla originally contemplated giving
his electric flying machine to the Geneva Convention or League of
Nations, for use in 'policing the world' to prevent war. Later
disillusioned after WWI with the collapse of the League, he said he'd
"...underestimated man's combative capacity".10

[junglelord]

A new link to gravity based on EM helix vortex motion from hydrogen. Spiked Neutrons are also explained and the model of the atom is determined via geometry of vortical helix motion.
Quite interesting.
http://www.mauricecotterell.com/gravity1.html