"Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

[Bob_Ham]

In this video, Wal Thornhill claims that gravity is nothing more than the force between electric dipoles.

In this short 3-page paper (specifically section 4 on page 3), it is shown that this "dipole claim" for gravity does not hold up, but is in fact 75 orders of magnitude too weak. In other words, the dipole interaction would have to be 1075 times stronger to account for what is observed in nature.

What do you all think about this? It seems to me that Thornhill's model must be thrown out, as it can't even account for something as simple as the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

[Webbman]

how did you arrive at the mass of the earth and the mass of the sun, and also how did you measure the suns electric field? Why does the sun have a heliosphere if the electric field is so weak? Why does it have one at all?

did you just use estimates that others made?

I only ask because nobody knows neither the mass of the earth nor the sun, for no other reason than we don't know what the cores are made of. Any estimate would have a horrible uncertainty and if I started with 365 as my root number I could, one at a time, estimate all these things, and then use them together as known values,to prove something else. See then I can use my 365 later to validate that my numbers were correct! That couldn't happen in this ultra honest world could it?

some people do math as a form of demonstration but other refrain because they know most of the numbers are not actually reliable in any useful way. Without reliable numbers you can really only discuss the concept imo.

that pretty much sums up modern science for me though I do not speak for the EU crowd and I'm not going to defend dipole gravity, but I will say that you have overlooked the quantity (and direction) of energy the earth takes in.

welcome to the boards!

[Bob_Ham]

I'm responding to your questions a little bit out of order, since the answers to some questions will help with the answers to others:

how did you measure the suns electric field?

The electric dipole fields from both the Sun and Earth are upper limits, meaning that they were calculating using assumptions that would make the fields as strong as possible (largest possible distances between electrons and protons within each dipole, smallest possible atom size when determining how many dipoles within each body, etc.). Even these overestimated field strengths are still far too weak to account for the orbit of the Earth.

Why does the sun have a heliosphere if the electric field is so weak? Why does it have one at all?

As you allude to here, this model has many other problems, but I focused only on the main problem in this paper, in the interest of presenting something concise and understandable to most people.

how did you arrive at the mass of the earth and the mass of the sun

If you look at the Dipole Claim section, none of the equations used depend on mass. These calculations are strictly electromagnetic. Even still, electric dipole interactions cannot account for the orbit of the Earth.

The maximum electric dipole force between the Sun and Earth is 2.1 x 10-53 N, as found in the paper. We know that the centripetal force is given by

Fc = m v2 / r,

so, using Fmax = 2.1 x 10-53 N (calculating assuming nothing but dipole electric gravity), r = 1.5 x 1011 m (known distance to the Sun), and v = 30 km/s (known orbital speed of the Earth), the maximum mass of the Earth is

mmax = Fmax r / v2 = 3.5 x 10-51 kg.

This is far less than the mass of a single electron, so we know this can't be right. This model gives ridiculous results no matter what assumptions are made.

[Aardwolf]

Gravity is a much simpler and much more solid explanation for planetary orbits; it gives the correct answers,...

I didn't realise the n-body problem had been solved. Can I have a link please.

[Bob_Ham]

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]

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.

So the answer is no, it hasn't been solved ergo, gravity DOES NOT give the correct answers.

Your paper needs an amendment.

[Bob_Ham]

So the answer is no, it hasn't been solved ergo, gravity DOES NOT give the correct answers.

No, that is clearly NOT what I said. Read section 2 of the paper. Gravity DOES give the correct answer. Numerical methods considering all of the planets in the Solar System give the same answer for the orbital speed of the Earth (30 km/s) as the analytical two-body solution give. Contributions from the other planets affect the orbit of the Earth by a negligible amount. Now read section 4. "Electric gravity," or electric dipole interactions DOES NOT give the correct answer and is off by 75 orders of magnitude.

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?

[celeste]

Bob,
Have you read this: https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/ ... h2649.html
This, of course, a peer reviewed mainstream article showing the ratio of electrostatic forces compared to gravitational forces in the sun's vicinity. Nothing here dependent on Wal's model.
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.
I guess that before we talk about Wal's model, you may want to point out the error in this more conservative mainstream argument?

Comments?

[willendure]

In this video, Wal Thornhill claims that gravity is nothing more than the force between electric dipoles.

What do you all think about this?

Its been discussed at length on here before.

I think it does not add up against some logical arguments, for example:

* 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.
and more...

So Thornhill's electrical gravity failed to convince me at all. I think it also does not help the electrical universe to become credible and makes it easier for it to be consigned to the 'lunatic' fringe by 'serious' physicists. It would be better to build arguments based on empirical evidence.

But who knows, still plenty that we do not understand about gravity, so I remain open minded.

[Bob_Ham]

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.

First of all, I calculate 75 orders of magnitude, not 57.

Secondly, the article you are referencing considers the forces on electrons and protons in the immediate vicinity of the Sun. I calculated the maximum force between the Sun and Earth, assuming correct Wal Thornhill's claim that gravity is nothing more than an electric dipole force. These are two totally different calculations.

[Bob_Ham]

* 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.

These are also good points. Thanks for your input.

I have considered your second point in the context of stars orbiting within galaxies. They can't possibly all mutually orbit if they are attracted electrically, as only opposing charges attract. Any system of more than two charged stars cannot all attract each other, as some will necessarily have to repel each other.

[Aardwolf]

No, that is clearly NOT what I said. Read section 2 of the paper. Gravity DOES give the correct answer. Numerical methods...

So your evidence of an absolute statement is an approximate calculation. Fail.

Contributions from the other planets affect the orbit of the Earth by a negligible amount.

Unfortunately for your gravity theory is that those "negligible" amounts, over a fairly modest amount of time, add up to unstable chaotic orbits. Fail.

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?

I'm not defending Wal's theory as such, just want to point out the sweeping statement in your paper that is clearly wrong.

What you should be saying about gravity is that "it gives approximate answers".

2+2=4 is correct.
2+2=3.9972 is not correct.

[Mjolnir]

Hi Bob,

I'm just going to throw my two cents in here, based not on any technical expertise, just my impressions from lurking around this community for a while.
I don't think you will find many in this forum prepared to defend Wal's dipole gravity. It has been debated quite a bit, and most people here who claim to understand it has been very critical of it. Bengt Nyman has been promoting his own dipole theory. Unfortunately, Wal does not comment here to explain his theory (never appologise, never explain), but he can hardly be unaware of the criticism. Still he continues, undeterred, to propose his diople theory as one of the leaders of the EU community, most recently in three Space News videos on youtube about Jupiter. He has just said that one consequence of this theory is that the planets are hollow!
One has to wonder if the critics really understands what he proposes, or if he is simply incapable of changing his mind.
One of the things he says in the latest videos is that "gravity" is repulsive at greater distances - it is only attractive at the surface of the planets. At least that's what I think he said. Which makes me wonder if your description of his view of gravity as a simple attraction of bodies with opposite charges is correct.

Mjolnir

[Aardwolf]

* Why can we not create an anti gravity machine by simply charging a piece of foil?

Maybe the charge isn't large enough to have an effect on the surface of another planet sized charged object. In orbit however;

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.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/c ... thers.html
Sounds like an anti-gravity machine to me...

* How can gravity work in multiple directions at once? i.e. 3 heavy iron spheres will all mutually attract. Dipoles are necessarily directional.

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?

But who knows, still plenty that we do not understand about gravity, so I remain open minded.

As always, that's the most important thing but unfortunately so few actually mean it.

[Bob_Ham]

So your evidence of an absolute statement is an approximate calculation. Fail.

No, numerical methods can give arbitrary precision. It just depends on how small your step size is.

Unfortunately for your gravity theory is that those "negligible" amounts, over a fairly modest amount of time, add up to unstable chaotic orbits. Fail.

They do not "add up to unstable chaotic orbits." Simulations don't show what you're claiming. We get stability for billions of years, just like we observe in reality.

I'm not defending Wal's theory as such, just want to point out the sweeping statement in your paper that is clearly wrong.

Here is the conclusion from my paper:

"After this examination, it is clear that electricity alone cannot account for planetary orbits. Gravity is a much simpler and much more solid explanation for planetary orbits; it gives the correct answers, and it doesn’t predict impossibilities like EU does."

Sentence by sentence:

1. Considering only electricity does not account for planetary orbits. The answers are way off.
2. Gravity is much simpler. It is purely attractive and doesn't cause induced magnetic fields or other phenomena that are not observed in planetary orbits (like electromagnetic radiation that would come from accelerated charged planets).
3. Gravity does give the correct answers; the orbital speed of 30 km/s is calculated using gravity in section 2. This same value cannot be calculated using "electric gravity." Not even close.
4. Gravity does not predict impossibilities like unphysical surface charges just to explain the orbit of the Earth around the Sun. All you need for gravity to work is mass.

You seem very fixated on gravity here, but the paper isn't even about gravity. Even if gravity is wrong, the point here is that "electric gravity" is way off.