Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

[caplanmh]

I have studied Wal's theory as to how gravity is affected by electric charge. Perhaps I have missed something here but surely if the charge on a planet affects the perceived mass of the planet, then can not this effect be demonstrated in the lab?
For example can not a globe (filled with material or not), be placed on a balance scale but be suspended by a thread in a frame and given an electric charge. If Wal is right then I would expect the mass to increase.

Having said all that, it seems such an obvious test to have made, I suspect there is something I have overlooked!

Any explanations?

[Drethon]

Just the $0.02 of someone who is not in the field but perhaps the effect of the change of charge is too small to measure in something smaller than an asteroid or any resulting magnetic field overwhelms the difference.

[Drethon]

An additional thought to add to this is the effect may not be gravity per se but an orbital mechanic.

Lets say that the gravity is just that, gravity as we have been taught all along. Orbits relying only on gravity have velocity as one force and gravity as the second balancing force to cause bodies to orbit in a rough circular fashion.

If we consider space around a star to be a charged sphere then a different effect is added in. Based on the charge of an object it will find a spherical shell within the sphere that best matches the charge of orbiting body. As it moves in and out of it ideal orbit it is attracted back to its neutral orbit, perhaps gaining and loosing velocity as it gains or looses charge from changing orbit.

This is all uneducated random thought I had but on the surface it seems to make some sense...

[caplanmh]

Well OK Drethon, what you speculate may be the case but lets not lose sight of the problem.

Wal's theory is simple in principle, if the electric charge on a planet increases - let us say such as to double its mass - then its orbit will double to maintain angular momentum, similarly its spin reduces to maintain angular momentum. The how and why of it is not the problem. The problem is why can not an increase in mass be detected in a lab experiment and thus prove it?

[redeye]

For example can not a globe (filled with material or not), be placed on a balance scale but be suspended by a thread in a frame and given an electric charge. If Wal is right then I would expect the mass to increase.

I'm sure this is relevant...although I can't explain why.

Cheers!

[earls]

Why aren't the bulk of EU claims tested? Because no one has the time, money or expertise.

[nick c]

Pertaining to this thread is a monograph,[url2=http://www.varchive.org/ce/cosmos.htm]Cosmos Without Gravitation[/url2], written by Velikovsky in 1946. It is an assault on the present understanding of gravity, by an outsider, and a psychiatrist at that! While in some ways it may appear to be somewhat naive and dated, the article raises questions concerning anomalies to the present assumptions about gravity, and also, proposes some experiments. [I don't know if any of these have been performed, but I (imhop) suspect that a mainstream physicist could find himself in a professional 'doghouse' should he come up with results contrary to the prevailing paradigm. I say this not as a condemnation of 'Science' but rather as a matter of fact statement of the power of political dynamics in human endeavors, of which the institution of 'Science' is one example.]
I cannot speak for Thornhill, however, he must have found this article inspirational, as he has often credited Velikovsky in other contexts.
Somewhat related to the "Allais Effect" is this experiment proposed by Velikovsky. It seems so simple, but I have to wonder, has this experiment ever been done?

“In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance ... Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or the physical state of the body.” (Einstein)(37)

This law is supposed to hold with great accuracy. The velocity of the fall is generally explored with the help of a pendulum; it appears to us that a charged object must fall with a different velocity than a neutral object. This is generally denied. But the denial is based on the observation that there is no difference in the number of swings of a pendulum in a unit of time, in the case where a charged or neutral bob is used. This method may produce inaccurate results. In an accurate method, the falling time and the time of ascent of the pendulum must be measured separately. In the case of a charged body, the increase in the velocity of descent of the pendulum may be accompanied by a decrease in the velocity of ascent, and thus the number of swings in a unit of time would remain the same for charged and non-charged bobs.

In a charged body the attracting and the inertial properties are not equal.
It appears also that the weight of a body increases after it is charged. An experiment made with a piece of hard rubber (ten grams), neutral and again charged by rubbing, on a scale with a sensitivity of one-tenth of a milligram, showed a change in weight of over ten milligrams. This appears to be the result of an induced charge in the bottom (ebony) of the balance (placed on a thick plate of glass). A grounded wire held over the scale with the charged rubber raises the scale. If “gravitation” is an electrical phenomenon, attraction by induced electricity is not an entirely different phenomenon. Nevertheless, this experiment cannot be regarded as conclusive for the present problem.

also with regards to gravity in the solar system, Velikovsky proposes that the precession of Mercury's perihelion, often cited as [url2=http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... ode98.html]proof[/url2] of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is better explained by:

The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of gravitation. Einstein showed how his theory can account for the anomaly of Mercury; however, the smaller irregularities in the movements of Venus and Mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein’s formulas.
[...]
The anomalies in the motion of Mercury and other planets. The velocities of revolution of the planets depend on their charges. A strongly charged body is carried across the lines of the magnetic field more swiftly than a weakly charged body. If the charge of a planet increases, the velocity of revolution of such a planet must increase too. Positive as well as negative charges arrive from the sun in an uninterrupted flow.

The planet Mercury moves faster and faster. This must be the result of an increasing charge of the planet. Also, the anomalies in the motion of other inner planets may be attributed to a changing charge; other irregularities in the motion of the planets can be attributed to the fact that the electrical charge of the sun is not equally distributed on the solar surface.

As a side note, keeping in mind that this was written in the early 1940's,
Velikovsky suggests that the Sun's magnetosphere extends at least to the orbit of Pluto. I think this could go down as another "correct prognosis" that was subject of another [url2=http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpB ... 30&start=0]thread[/url2].

The sun is a rotating charged body, and it creates a magnetic field. We assume the solar charge to be large enough to produce a magnetic field with lines of force reaching the orbit of Pluto.[...]
There were a few attempts made to unite the electromagnetic and gravitational field theories; but as far as I know nobody has tried to solve the problem of planetary movement around the sun as a motion of charged bodies in a magnetic field; my explanation implies that the measurement of the solar magnetic field by Hale is not correct.

If the sun has a sufficiently strong magnetic field so as to reach the farthest of the planets, the quantitative elements are dictated by the charge of the sun, the strength of its magnetic field, and the charge of the planets.

colorization added

Nick C

[junglelord]

Boyd Bushman makes some pretty fast and testable claims about gravity and rotating magnetic fields. I was the first to say lets replicate his test....got some money for magnets?

[MGmirkin]

Just the $0.02 of someone who is not in the field but perhaps the effect of the change of charge is too small to measure in something smaller than an asteroid or any resulting magnetic field overwhelms the difference.

Just FYI: "Static" [stationary{?}] charge alone does not produce a magnetic field as I currently understand it. Net differential motions of like charges (currents) do.

Charge on a body (electrostatics) apparently has to do with the electric field (voltage potential between bodies). Electrodynamics (motions of charges) relates to electric currents and their byproducts: magnetic fields. Now, electric fields may inevitably CAUSE a motion of charges, at which point electrostatics gives way to electrodynamics. Or, so I understand... If I've mis-stated something, anyone more familiar with the topic can certainly correct me or add nuance.

More on that elsewhere, so I guess I won't repeat myself too much. ;o]

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[Zonei]

They upgraded weak nuclear into electroweak force. I'm counting days when they'll upgrade gravitational into electrogravitic. But let's wait for the upcoming Grand Hadron Collider to start breaking atoms.

Here, five bucks says gravity will turn out to be nothing more than cumulative convergence of the Casimir force.

[Knox Harrington]

An additional thought to add to this is the effect may not be gravity per se but an orbital mechanic.

Lets say that the gravity is just that, gravity as we have been taught all along. Orbits relying only on gravity have velocity as one force and gravity as the second balancing force to cause bodies to orbit in a rough circular fashion.

If we consider space around a star to be a charged sphere then a different effect is added in. Based on the charge of an object it will find a spherical shell within the sphere that best matches the charge of orbiting body. As it moves in and out of it ideal orbit it is attracted back to its neutral orbit, perhaps gaining and loosing velocity as it gains or looses charge from changing orbit.

This is all uneducated random thought I had but on the surface it seems to make some sense...

Wouldn't this have a measurable effect of the orbit trajectory of bodies with extreme orbits (like comets)? According to electric/plasma universe theories the comet spends most of its time far away from the sun and will therefore obtain equilibrium with the electrical potential there. As the comet moves close towards the sun it should experience a repelling effect because of the changes in electrical potential, decreasing its speed when moving closer to the sun and accelerating it as it moves away. I have no idea if there has been observations that confirm irregularities in the orbits of comets, but if should not be too hard to confirm.

[MGmirkin]

Not sure on comets (would be interesting to know more), but I recall thee was talk a while back of "anomalous acceleration" of various spacecraft (probes), which Wal has, I think {?}, attributed to charge on the craft vs charge on the sun and/or other bodies it may have passed near.

(Anomalous Trajectories)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/arch ... tories.htm

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[nick c]

I don't know how I missed putting this into my above post
Wal Thornhill apparently agrees that the perihelion advance of Mercury in it's orbit is not confirmation of Einstein's General Relativity:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2
Since gravity is a property of matter, which in turn is an electrical phenomenon, Einstein’s hyper-dimensional geometry is not going to reveal the true nature of gravity whether general relativity gives the right answers or not. The two tests mentioned ignore the possibility that both phenomena may be explained or influenced by factors considered in another more simple and all-encompassing theory. Subtle deviations in the position of Mercury will occur as a result of charge transfer with the Sun due to the planet’s eccentric orbit. Charge transfer alters the internal electrical stress of Mercury. That subtly alters the planet’s mass, which by the law of conservation of orbital energy shifts its orbit.
colorization added

Nick C

[webolife]

Zonei said:
"Here, five bucks says gravity will turn out to be nothing more than cumulative convergence of the Casimir force."

Add a few zeroes to the right side of that five, Z. I'm absolutely counting on it!
"My" UFT requires that [compressive] fields from subatomic (nuclear, weak, Casimir) to astronomical (electrostatic, electrigravitic) all be manifestations of the same unified field, with same geometry applied at every scale.

[minorwork]

I don't know how I missed putting this into my above post
Wal Thornhill apparently agrees that the perihelion advance of Mercury in it's orbit is not confirmation of Einstein's General Relativity:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=e511t4z2
Since gravity is a property of matter, which in turn is an electrical phenomenon, Einstein’s hyper-dimensional geometry is not going to reveal the true nature of gravity whether general relativity gives the right answers or not. The two tests mentioned ignore the possibility that both phenomena may be explained or influenced by factors considered in another more simple and all-encompassing theory. Subtle deviations in the position of Mercury will occur as a result of charge transfer with the Sun due to the planet’s eccentric orbit. Charge transfer alters the internal electrical stress of Mercury. That subtly alters the planet’s mass, which by the law of conservation of orbital energy shifts its orbit.
colorization added

Nick C

I somehow came to the site of Miles Mathis. I think his work shows that Mercury's position is a result of "solo gravity" and the sun's B-photon pressure. http://milesmathis.com/orbit.html I've read thru this twice and as I am far from a mathematician would like others opinions on his work. At the physicsandmath forum I got demerits for linking to his site on time. http://milesmathis.com/time.html His logic seems tight to me. He is critical, if I read him right, of the standard model in the same basic areas as are EU theories. He shows to me in his Mercury paper the balance of gravity and charge that Wal Thornhill has postulated. Straighten me out if I'm way off base.