Webbman wrote:how did you measure the suns electric field?
Webbman wrote:Why does the sun have a heliosphere if the electric field is so weak? Why does it have one at all?
Webbman wrote:how did you arrive at the mass of the earth and the mass of the sun
I didn't realise the n-body problem had been solved. Can I have a link please.Bob Ham wrote:Gravity is a much simpler and much more solid explanation for planetary orbits; it gives the correct answers,...
Aardwolf wrote:I didn't realise the n-body problem had been solved.
So the answer is no, it hasn't been solved ergo, gravity DOES NOT give the correct answers.Bob_Ham wrote:Aardwolf wrote:I didn't realise the n-body problem had been solved.
It has no analytical solution, but numerically it is very simple and gives accurate results for the Solar System and many other systems (galaxies, molecular cloud collapses, etc.). See here for more information.
The n-body problem has nothing to do with the paper though, as the Earth-Sun system is only a two-body problem, which has an analytical solution. As you can see in section 2 on the first page of the paper, the two-body solution works very well for the Earth-Sun system, giving us the correct answer for the orbital speed of the Earth!
The effects of the other planets can be added in, but they contribute a negligible amount to the result, and leave the electric gravity model missing 75 orders of magnitude of central force needed to explain the Earth's orbit.
Gravity remains, as of now, the only working explanation for why the Earth orbits the Sun, as the electric gravity model predicts that the Earth would not even be bound to the Sun at all and would leave the Solar System. I am, of course, open to explanations provided by EU, but the "electric gravity" idea doesn't work.
Aardwolf wrote:So the answer is no, it hasn't been solved ergo, gravity DOES NOT give the correct answers.
Bob_Ham wrote:In this video, Wal Thornhill claims that gravity is nothing more than the force between electric dipoles.
What do you all think about this?
celeste wrote:I'm just noting your 57 orders of magnitude difference between electric forces and gravitational forces, where here even crude estimates of a gravity induced dipole (a gravity induced dipole in an otherwise neutral object), give us a quite different questimate of the relative strength of the two forces.
willendure wrote:* Why can we not create an anti gravity machine by simply charging a piece of foil?
* How can gravity work in multiple directions at once? i.e. 3 heavy iron spheres will all mutually attract. Dipoles are necessarily directional.
So your evidence of an absolute statement is an approximate calculation. Fail.Bob_Ham wrote:No, that is clearly NOT what I said. Read section 2 of the paper. Gravity DOES give the correct answer. Numerical methods...
Unfortunately for your gravity theory is that those "negligible" amounts, over a fairly modest amount of time, add up to unstable chaotic orbits. Fail.Bob_Ham wrote:Contributions from the other planets affect the orbit of the Earth by a negligible amount.
I'm not defending Wal's theory as such, just want to point out the sweeping statement in your paper that is clearly wrong.Bob_Ham wrote:I don't understand why you're so concerned with n-body simulations when electric gravity can't even get within a factor of 1075 of the correct answer. You haven't even addressed this yet. Regardless of how you feel about gravity, what do you think about electric gravity's inability to even get close to the correct answer?
Maybe the charge isn't large enough to have an effect on the surface of another planet sized charged object. In orbit however;willendure wrote:* Why can we not create an anti gravity machine by simply charging a piece of foil?
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/capabilities/space_tethers.htmlNASA wrote:A Japanese led international team is developing a suborbital test of an electrodynamic tether which may one day enable spacecraft to maneuver in space without the use of any propellant.
3 heavy iron spheres will all mutually attract...in theory. Until an experiment is performed on 3 entirely neutral heavy iron spheres how do we know mass causes attraction?willendure wrote:* How can gravity work in multiple directions at once? i.e. 3 heavy iron spheres will all mutually attract. Dipoles are necessarily directional.
As always, that's the most important thing but unfortunately so few actually mean it.willendure wrote:But who knows, still plenty that we do not understand about gravity, so I remain open minded.
Aardwolf wrote:So your evidence of an absolute statement is an approximate calculation. Fail.
Aardwolf wrote:Unfortunately for your gravity theory is that those "negligible" amounts, over a fairly modest amount of time, add up to unstable chaotic orbits. Fail.
Aardwolf wrote:I'm not defending Wal's theory as such, just want to point out the sweeping statement in your paper that is clearly wrong.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests