Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

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

Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby kaublezw » Tue Aug 18, 2015 11:12 am

First, I absolutely love these presentations, and this one is no exception.

But I'm confused at around 40:00. He seems to suggest that gravity pulls the nucleus of atoms towards the center of mass, thus causing a small electric dipole within the atom, thus causing gravity? It seems to be a circular reference. What am I missing? Is it that the London force gets things started?

Later on he suggests that if we are falling, during our fall, we have no mass? I was confused by that as well.

I'm not interested in reasons why you think the theory is wrong. I'm interested in grasping the theory as it is defined by Wal. :D
kaublezw
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 6:01 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Tue Aug 18, 2015 7:37 pm

This concern was already addressed here...
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15553

IMO it was never resolved.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby tholden » Tue Aug 18, 2015 8:10 pm

Ralph Sansbury, the author of these calculations involving sub-electron particles, viewed gravity as involving radially oriented electrostatic dipoles generated by spin and orbiting i.e. by pure centripedal/centrifugal force.

In other words, if you were to put the Earth out into pure intergalactic space and stop all of its motions, it would have no gravity. As to the question of a surface charge attenuating gravity in prehistoric times, it doesn't seem to matter how the dipole effect was generated, the surface charge would neutralize it.
tholden
 
Posts: 930
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Wed Aug 19, 2015 9:26 am

If gravity had anything to do with dipoles, then a charged piece of foil should weigh differently than a non-charged one.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Bomb20 » Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:16 pm

[quoteIMO it was never resolved.][/quote]

To me knowledge he will publish a clarifying article on is website. So, some patience is required.
User avatar
Bomb20
 
Posts: 176
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:16 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Metryq » Thu Aug 20, 2015 2:26 am

querious wrote:If gravity had anything to do with dipoles, then a charged piece of foil should weigh differently than a non-charged one.


Think about that one very carefully for a minute.

Assuming there are scales sensitive enough measure the difference, charged foil should have more mass because it is carrying a few more electrons—that is assuming gravity is something distinctly different and has nothing to do with electrical effects. However, if gravity is electrical, carrying charge may distort our ability to "weigh" the foil (e.g. repulsive effects that offset weight despite the sample actually having a greater mass). Suppose electro-gravity is quantized, just like redshift from deep space objects, thus increasing or decreasing in steps. The foil might fall within one regime and be unable to show a quantum change.

Imagine fish trying to understand what "dry" means. So fish scientists send a probe onto land to bring back a sample. They examine the sample in their lab and determine that "dry" is a nonsense distinction.
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 513
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Thu Aug 20, 2015 5:38 am

Metryq wrote:However, if gravity is electrical, carrying charge may distort our ability to "weigh" the foil (e.g. repulsive effects that offset weight despite the sample actually having a greater mass).


Repulsive (or attractive) wouldn't just "offset" our ability to weigh it - they would be the ENTIRE reason for ALL the weight in the first place - even with a completely neutral foil (by electrostatic induction). So any charge applied to a neutral foil would show up as a drastically altered weight.

I still haven't heard anything close to a coherent argument that gets around this utterly simple fact.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby chrimony » Thu Aug 20, 2015 10:06 am

querious wrote:I still haven't heard anything close to a coherent argument that gets around this utterly simple fact.


Well that's odd, because Mr. Thornhill informed us at the beginning of his talk that, "The Electric Universe conferences are perhaps the only real conferences to come to if you want to learn about science."
chrimony
 
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2013 6:37 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Aug 21, 2015 4:43 am

a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.

since I believe neutrons have rings (like Saturn in appearance) and that gravity is the effect of a proton-neutron pairing that causes the neutron to sync with all other nearby neutrons at the speed of the electric force, its reasonable to believe that something that has no neutrons will behave differently than something that does, under the same conditions. and accounting for the mass difference.

That is not to say a proton wont be affected at all by gravity. It still has half the components.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Fri Aug 21, 2015 9:42 am

Webbman wrote:a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.


Then what is your expectation (with regard to gravity) for a charged vs uncharged piece of foil?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Webbman » Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:49 pm

querious wrote:
Webbman wrote:a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.


Then what is your expectation (with regard to gravity) for a charged vs uncharged piece of foil?


no change since I consider gravity a function of the neutron-proton interaction.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby querious » Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:48 am

Webbman wrote:a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.

since I believe neutrons have rings (like Saturn in appearance) and that gravity is the effect of a proton-neutron pairing that causes the neutron to sync with all other nearby neutrons at the speed of the electric force, its reasonable to believe that something that has no neutrons will behave differently than something that does, under the same conditions. and accounting for the mass difference.

That is not to say a proton wont be affected at all by gravity. It still has half the components.


I think you're making this stuff up just to troll this topic.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Webbman » Sun Aug 23, 2015 1:10 pm

querious wrote:
Webbman wrote:a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.

since I believe neutrons have rings (like Saturn in appearance) and that gravity is the effect of a proton-neutron pairing that causes the neutron to sync with all other nearby neutrons at the speed of the electric force, its reasonable to believe that something that has no neutrons will behave differently than something that does, under the same conditions. and accounting for the mass difference.

That is not to say a proton wont be affected at all by gravity. It still has half the components.


I think you're making this stuff up just to troll this topic.


how is my viewpoint any less credible than anyone elses? Wal's view is an atomic dipole and mine is based on rotation of what I believe are the true parts of the neutron. A ring with a similar morphology to Saturn.

You are entitled to disagree if you wish though I would prefer if you proved me wrong.

last I checked rings are not unprecedented in our solar system. Truth is that they are everywhere.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 524
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Aug 23, 2015 6:21 pm

querious wrote:
Webbman wrote:a lot of questions could be answered by comparing gravity's effects on hydrogen and helium atoms.

It is my expectation that since hydrogen has no neutrons, gravity will be different (most likely diminished) than that of the helium atom other than the factor of the atomic mass difference.


Then what is your expectation (with regard to gravity) for a charged vs uncharged piece of foil?


Some charged foils can actually fly. But I think most of it is due to the flow of ionized air.
If we can believe tesla or Hutchison there might be something electrictrical or magnetic with electricity.

I agree with you that I do not think that electric force is exactly how gravity works.
But I do think that it is possible that gravity is related to the electric force in some way.
Salsbury talks about sub-electron particles, and maybe that is what Thornhill means too.
These sub-electron particles might be responsible for quantum-like effects.
I simply translate this as: "there is a relation between gravity and electromagnetism,
that appears at quantum level physics."

My opinion about quantum-physics is a bit different, because I regard (most) particles illusionary.
But I do think that quantum-effects are responsible for both gravity, mass and time.
Funny enough, some mainstream scientists have similar idea (about quantum-entanglement and gravity):
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.4568
Sadly they mix it with invalid concepts like dark energy, but the principle might be interesting.
Note that entanglement is usually related with the magnetic spin of particles. So it can have
a very strong connection with magnetism.

One underlying force and principle might be responsible for all different forces.
The electric force and magnetic force are very interconnected, thanks to the Lorentz transformations
(or alternatively Special relativity).
So a similar principle could be responsible for gravity.

I agree with Thornhill that the planetary structures are much more stable than we would expect due to a
gravity force. Newton's gravity is not a stable system. The sun could easily remove our moon from our planet, but it does not do that. Nor does Einsteins gravity seem more stable (while some claim it is).
James Keele explains how a computer simulation of Einstein's gravity is not realistic. But I'm not sure if he did the calculations exactly correct. But it is kind of known that Nasa still use the Newton's gravity formulas.
So what is stabilizing the orbits of the moons and the planets?
If we look at Saturn, electric charge might cause the rings to spread out so evenly. Any real gravity
would tear them apart instead, as you can see in any simulation with many particles.

With earth's gravity it does not seem to be simple electric charge. But I do think that gravity might have a polar force that creates some kind of stabilization effect. And if this polar force works on a very subtle quantum-level,
it could be very similar to what Thornhill describes.
But before jumping to any conclusions, I think that we should make such force more testable and
more mathematical. But that will take some time. Not everyone is like Srinivasa Ramanujan
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Unread postby willendure » Mon Aug 24, 2015 2:42 pm

What about the low gravity pull of 67P? Its density is estimated as being like pumice stone, but looks like rock, who knows how it can be claimed to be ice with a density that low. Also some of the moons of Saturn have very low densities, as inferred from their gravitational pull.

I have no idea if Thornhill's theories of gravity add up, but something is amiss and not coming out right with the conventional theories that it is simply the attraction associated with mass.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Next

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest