Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[Bengt Nyman]

I don't see that taken into account in your simple calculation.

You are right. It's not intended to. The dimensions and numbers are also totally fictitious. The sample situation shown aims to illustrate, as simply as possible, that two atoms always turn each other into two electric dipoles which also always results in a weak attraction between two.
For realistic numbers including the centering force inside each atom, realistic distances and dipole elongations you have to buckle down and study the rest.
The dipole elongation is incredibly small, hardly measurable even against the diameter of the proton.

P.S. Willendure told me that his background is in computer science. What is yours ?

[querious]

I don't see that taken into account in your simple calculation.

You are right. It's not intended to. The dimensions and numbers are also totally fictitious. The sample situation shown aims to illustrate, as simply as possible, that two atoms always turn each other into two electric dipoles which also always results in a weak attraction between two.
For realistic numbers including the centering force inside each atom, realistic distances and dipole elongations you have to buckle down and study the rest.
The dipole elongation is incredibly small, hardly measurable even against the diameter of the proton. That's why it does not contribute another /r^2 to dipole gravity.
Another way to look at it is to calculate the "effective charge" of each atom, as seen by the other atom. Now you are in an even simpler Coulomb situation with/r^2.
P.S. Willendure told me that his background is in computer science. What is yours ?

Reading the above, I'm unclear whether you agree with my observation...

"As the dipoles move further apart, the distortion they cause in each other must ALSO reduce. So you have that field strength reduction ON TOP OF the reduction in (1/r2) force caused by increasing overall separation."

If you disagree, please expound on your reasoning.

[Bengt Nyman]

If you disagree, please expound on your reasoning.

I disagree. We are not talking about voltage, and a field. We are talking about charge.
It's a simple case. Why don't you sketch it up and calculate it yourself using Coulombs law. As you well know, magnetic dipole equations do not apply to electric charges. Remember that the elongation is asymmetrical in that the electron shells distort in the same direction in both atoms. It is a bi-stable case, left or right does not matter.
Good luck.

[querious]

If you disagree, please expound on your reasoning.

I disagree. We are not talking about voltage, and a field. We are talking about charge.
It's a simple case. Why don't you sketch it up and calculate it yourself using Coulombs law. As you well know, magnetic dipole equations do not apply to electric charges. Remember that the elongation is asymmetrical in that the electron shells distort in the same direction in both atoms. It is a bi-stable case, left or right does not matter.
Good luck.

Ok, I get it now. The joke's on me. Fool me once...

[willendure]

Dipole attraction and subsequent dipole gravity is always positive though very weak. See arbitrary example below. For a more complete description see http://www.dipole.se

Attraction = e^2/0.9^2 + e^2/1.1^2 - e^2/1^2 - e^2/1^2
= e^2(1/0.81 + 1/1.21 - 1/1 - 1/1
= e^2(1.23456790 + 0.82644628 - 1 - 1)
= e^2(0.06101418)
= 0.061e^2

Ignoring for now the other copious & obvious problems with this theory, just demonstrate, like above, that:

1) A small change in overall separation results in a force change of 1/r2, like gravity, rather than 1/r4, as dipoles are known to do.

2) How adding a 3rd atom results in the same forces between them.

Bengt, now that you have updated your formulas to use 1/r^2, that is interpreting Coulombs law correctly, I can see that this gravity would drop off with 1/r^2. This is fairly easy to see, because as r gets big, the r^2 term will dominate in your formula, and we can ignore the other terms to deduce that it will tend towards a 1/r^2 form. (If you ignore the weakening of the dipole with greater separation, as querious points out).

In fact, I knew your original formulas were wrong, but I thought I'd have some fun with you...

However, you did not, and can not answer: "2) How adding a 3rd atom results in the same forces between them." This is because your dipole gravity is directional.

[Bengt Nyman]

"willendure"
Sorry I don't have time for you trolls.

[querious]

"willendure"
Sorry I don't have time for you trolls.

willendure,
I'm sure you've cottoned on to what's really going on here by now.

[davesmith_au]

I have not followed this thread at all, but one thing stands out to me, which has always stood out to me since I was young. Not ONCE have I seen these detractors, nor any mainstream physicist, nor anyone else, attempt with any coherence, to explain the cause of the force of gravity. Yet the moment someone outside the fold even displays that he MAY be on the right track, or that he is even trying to work it out, they jump up and down to 'prove' him wrong, with nothing right to show for themselves, often totally misunderstanding the basic facets of the argument. Wal's writings on this speak for themselves. He has had his initial ideas published in a journal. I don't know of anyone else who has even had a go at explaining what the CAUSE of the gravitational force is. It just magically is.

Tell the trolls to go research Wal's work themselves. He's working on his hypothesis still. It's not complete, nor does anyone pretend it is. Unlike flash-in-the-pan trolling, such work takes many years to bring into shape. Let one of them even have a crack at it before they shake their fingers of doom at others.

This constant nitpicking is just like Nereid used to undertake. Keep the opponents running around in circular arguments with nothing substantial to offer themselves. Ask these people what THEY think the cause of gravity could be. Make sure they show their math...

Cheers, Dave.

[querious]

I have not followed this thread at all, but one thing stands out to me, which has always stood out to me since I was young. Not ONCE have I seen these detractors, nor any mainstream physicist, nor anyone else, attempt with any coherence, to explain the cause of the force of gravity. Yet the moment someone outside the fold even displays that he MAY be on the right track, or that he is even trying to work it out, they jump up and down to 'prove' him wrong, with nothing right to show for themselves, often totally misunderstanding the basic facets of the argument. Wal's writings on this speak for themselves. He has had his initial ideas published in a journal. I don't know of anyone else who has even had a go at explaining what the CAUSE of the gravitational force is. It just magically is.

Tell the trolls to go research Wal's work themselves. He's working on his hypothesis still. It's not complete, nor does anyone pretend it is. Unlike flash-in-the-pan trolling, such work takes many years to bring into shape. Let one of them even have a crack at it before they shake their fingers of doom at others.

This constant nitpicking is just like Nereid used to undertake. Keep the opponents running around in circular arguments with nothing substantial to offer themselves. Ask these people what THEY think the cause of gravity could be. Make sure they show their math...

Cheers, Dave.

It's not incumbent on me to explain how gravity works before pointing out reasons why a hypothesis doesn't fit the observations.

[chrimony]

Not ONCE have I seen these detractors, nor any mainstream physicist, nor anyone else, attempt with any coherence, to explain the cause of the force of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

That's the modern attempt at gravity. Here's historical approaches at gravity through classical mechanics, and why they were abandoned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanica ... ravitation

Tell the trolls to go research Wal's work themselves. He's working on his hypothesis still. It's not complete, nor does anyone pretend it is. Unlike flash-in-the-pan trolling, such work takes many years to bring into shape. Let one of them even have a crack at it before they shake their fingers of doom at others.

I see people asking basic questions and not getting answers. But Wal himself doesn't have any problem taking swipes at mainstream science, especially when he feels the observations don't match the theories. Is there a double standard at play here?

Cheers, Dave.

Cheers.

[willendure]

Not ONCE have I seen these detractors, nor any mainstream physicist, nor anyone else, attempt with any coherence, to explain the cause of the force of gravity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_gravity

That's the modern attempt at gravity. Here's historical approaches at gravity through classical mechanics, and why they were abandoned:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanica ... ravitation

Or loop quantum gravity:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loop_quantum_gravity

But let me point something out for a second time... Can anyone explain the cause of electrostatic attraction/repulsion? Why does an electron repel another electron? Why does a voltage in an old TV set move the electron beam? And even as we dig deeper into the underlying mechanism, and sub-atomic particles, string theories, standard model variants etc, do we eventually reach a point where we cannot dig any deeper and just have to accept that is the way the universe is?

As I keep pointing out, gravity does not need to be explained electrically.

[willendure]

"willendure"
Sorry I don't have time for you trolls.

You can not answer: "2) How adding a 3rd atom results in the same forces between them."

So your theory is wrong and you are wasting peoples time peddling such nonsense.

[Siggy_G]

The thing is, Wal's electric gravity theory and Bengt's dipole theory each attempt to explain gravity as an effect from objects on objects - and not from objects on space which in turn affects objects. Also, it focuses on a weak additional component that accumulates with the addition of matter.

Space as a middle agent is, and always was, a complete mathematical and non-physical assertion. Since Einstein at the time couldn't identify any accumulative weak force he had to infer that gravity did not depend on properties of matter, such as electric charge. "It had to be due to some property of spacetime".

There lacks a plausible reason(ing) for why space should act as a physical grid who's units any object rails along. On paper, and digitally, one can define an unseen flexible coordinate system for the dynamics of objects, but there's no reason why real physical space should act as such. It was a way to model away forces and replace it with a value grid. One could do that with any physical dynamics, but the understanding of underlying mechanisms then is either lost or severly confused. Which it is.

Attempting to understand gravity as an interaction between objects, due to properties of matter, is a refreshing approach in physics.

[Siggy_G]

Who cares, because as I already pointed out, two metal spheres attract horizontally when positioned next to each other on the earth, thus showing that gravity does not only pull downwards.

Your dipoles can only pull one way, and gravity pulls all ways.

I believe the resultant vector can be any direction, in this case the atoms within the metal spheres would be distorted both by the presence of each sphere and the presence of Earth underneath.

One component of that resultant vector causes the spheres to attract horisontally and the other component causes the spheres to fall towards Earth if let go.

[willendure]

Who cares, because as I already pointed out, two metal spheres attract horizontally when positioned next to each other on the earth, thus showing that gravity does not only pull downwards.

Your dipoles can only pull one way, and gravity pulls all ways.

I believe the resultant vector can be any direction, in this case the atoms within the metal spheres would be distorted both by the presence of each sphere and the presence of Earth underneath.

One component of that resultant vector causes the spheres to attract horisontally and the other component causes the spheres to fall towards Earth if let go.

If that were the case, then placing one sphere beside another would cause the weight of the original sphere to reduce, since its vector would no longer be straight down towards the earth. In addition to measuring the gravity between the spheres, we would measure a reduction in the gravity between them and the earth. Which we do not.