Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill

[Muskie]

At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity. But if I heard correctly "gravity" is already acting on the atoms, i.e., attracting the "heavier" nucleus downward. What am I missing - there seems to be a circular reference here? If the "heavier" nucleus is drawn towards the center of the earth by gravity, it's not causing gravity - its orientation is caused BY gravity. It may be dipole oriented because of gravity, but I can't see how it's causing gravity.

What am I missing?

Thanks.

[Shrike]

Yes that got me to...
Although it wasn't the specific point what you mentioned.

What got me was that the particles/dipoles tend to go to the center of the earth due to gravity.
but if im not mistaken the center of gravity (at least as measured on earth) is near or just below earths crust. not at earths center .

[querious]

At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity.

The simple result of any complex arrangement of dipoles is an electric field. Gravity caused by such an electric field would be extremely easy to confirm or refute. Just give a piece of foil a static charge. It should either float upward or be forced downward, in addition or subtraction to it's "normal" weight.

What am I missing here?

[willendure]

At minute 31:00 of "Wal Thornhill: An Electric Cosmology for the 21st Century | EU Workshop," i.e., the segment "What Causes Gravity" seems to be saying that gravity results from, or is caused by the sub-atomic alignment of dipole neutral atoms where the heavier positively charged nuclei are drawn downward - leaving the lighter negatively charged electrons on the "high" side. This dipole orientation on the planetary scale accounts, or explains gravity.

The simple result of any complex arrangement of dipoles is an electric field. Gravity caused by such an electric field would be extremely easy to confirm or refute. Just give a piece of foil a static charge. It should either float upward or be forced downward, in addition or subtraction to it's "normal" weight.

What am I missing here?

The right cool-aid.

[CosmicLettuce]

Hello Wal. I've just watched your most recent video (recorded at the 2014 EU Workshop) posted to the Thunderbolts YouTube channel. Posting these presentations for those of us who couldn't attend is GREATLY appreciated.

The purpose of this request is based on the slide entitled 'What Causes Gravity' starting at 30:58. You warn us that this is "the fun bit" and I agree.

Here is what you say:

"The nucleus, which is two to four thousand times heavier than those orbiting electrons will naturally in a gravitational field (because of its much greater mass) tend to move towards the center of the Earth. That means the orbits of the electrons is stretched and you end up with a postive end of each atom and a negative end -- it becomes a tiny electric dipole. Because all these particles are free to move internally, they all line up. That means that you have an electrostatic type of force at the subatomic level. It's not electrical, there is no charge involved because these are all neutral atoms in the earth or most other bodies. So the result is that it's the sum of all the aligned subatomic dipoles that produces the weak force of gravity."

For me, this statement is linguistically and logically very confusing. What I get out of this is that the atoms that are reacting to a gravitational field are the very same atoms creating it. I would very much appreciate a clarification.

Kindest regards, CL

[Muskie]

This is exactly what I was asking in the thread below, i.e., "Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st." Hopefully we'll get a response from the Chief!

[CosmicLettuce]

Yes that got me to...
Although it wasn't the specific point what you mentioned.

What got me was that the particles/dipoles tend to go to the center of the earth due to gravity.
but if im not mistaken the center of gravity (at least as measured on earth) is near or just below earths crust. not at earths center .

In conventional physics the center of mass is also the center of gravity. So while the center of mass of the Earth isn't "exactly" in the geometrical center, it's close enough. I've never heard of the Earth's center of gravity being just below the Earth's crust.

Peace, CL

[CosmicLettuce]

This is exactly what I was asking in the thread below, i.e., "Gravity question from Electric Cosmology for the 21st." Hopefully we'll get a response from the Chief!

My apologies for being redundant. I saw the title of your post when you submitted it, but that was a whole three days ago and I didn't remember.

I hope for everyone's sake that Mr. Thornhill doesn't consider himself "the Chief".

If he actually meant what he said at the end of his presentation, then I have no doubt that he'll respond. We have a legitimate, reasonable question that needs to be answered.

Peace, CL

[nick c]

I've never heard of the Earth's center of gravity being just below the Earth's crust.

I think that might refer to the barycenter of the Earth-Moon system.

[Max Photon]

I agree that Wal Thornhill's statement, as presented here, appears to have circular reasoning. Clarification would be nice.

But on top of the apparent circular reasoning, is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?

[Muskie]

... is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?

It must be too late in day, what exactly are you questioning here?

[CosmicLettuce]

I agree that Wal Thornhill's statement, as presented here, appears to have circular reasoning. Clarification would be nice.

But on top of the apparent circular reasoning, is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?

Agreed! That's why I say his statement is "linguistically and logically very confusing".

Help!

Regards, CL

[upriver]

I have pondered that and I am wondering how 2 particles, if there were only 2 particles, would gravitationaly attract each other if there was no external gravitational field...

[Max Photon]

... is not the first sentence also problematic? Does not the proverbial experiment of dropping two objects of dissimilar mass from the Leaning Tower of Pisa demonstrate that gravitational acceleration is independent of mass?

It must be too late in day, what exactly are you questioning here?

Muskie,

The point I was making is that when Wal says:

The nucleus, which is two to four thousand times heavier than those orbiting electrons will naturally in a gravitational field (because of its much greater mass) tend to move towards the center of the Earth. That means the orbits of the electrons is stretched and you end up with a positive end of each atom and a negative end -- it becomes a tiny electric dipole.

... it is confusing (to me, anyway). Why? Because g (gravitational acceleration) experienced by the massive nucleus and the less massive electrons, is the same (e.g., 9.8 m/sec^2).

In other words, the nucleus and the electrons should "fall to earth" (so to speak), or accelerate, equally -- similar to the dropping of two objects of unequal mass off of the Leaning Tower of Pisa.

[Muskie]

I have pondered that and I am wondering how 2 particles, if there were only 2 particles, would gravitationally attract each other if there was no external gravitational field...

I wish I had said it this way. An outstanding "thought experiment." (No offense. )