## "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

querious
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Higgsy wrote:
querious wrote:
Looks like, quantitatively, the PEP comes down to the HUP . . .

Now, this just moves the mystery to the HUP level, but I feel a little better now. It still doesn't explain why fermions can't occupy the same place, and thus are "pushed apart" by the HUP. But the PEP/HUP should be included on the list of fundamental forces! When looking at a white dwarf, you are literally seeing macroscopic evidence of the HUP! To some degree this is true with ordinary matter, (the filled electron shells), but mostly it is due to electrical repulsion among nuclei.
I'm not sure I would look at it like this. Let's start by considering the pressure in a classical gas. Ask yourself which of the three or four (depending on whether you include gravity) fundamental forces is responsible for the pressure? In statistical mechanics, the pressure is derived by the statistics of the particle momentum distributions, and in calculating the equilibrium condition for a main sequence star, none of the fundamental forces is required to derive the balancing condition against the influence of gravity - it all comes from the Maxwellian distribution of the gas particle momenta.

If you measure pressure by enclosing a classical gas in a closed volume and measuring the force exerted on a wall, then you are measuring the momentum condition of the gas, by the exchange of momentum between the gas particles and the wall, and that is mediated (mainly) by the electromagnetic force - but that doesn't mean that the pressure in a classical gas arises from the electromagnetic force.

In the case of a degenerate gas, the PEP forces particles into higher energy states when all low energy states are filled and therefore the particle momentum distribution is different from a classical gas (higher energy at low temperatures, even at absolute zero, and different statistics). If you could enclose a degenerate gas and measure the force it exerts on a wall, the mediating fundamental force would still be (mainly) electromagnetic. In that respect, a degenerate gas is no more mysterious than a classical gas. We don't ask why classical gas pressure isn't included in the fundamental forces, so why should we for a degenerate gas?

I am sure there are many textbooks that cover this, but the one on my shelf is R J Tayler, The stars: their structure and evolution, Cambridge University Press. He derives the equations of stellar structure in Chapter 3, discusses degenerate stars in Chapter 10, and derives the expressions for degenerate pressure in Appendix 3.
I get your point about classical gas pressure being just microscopic particle momentum exchange with the wall. And the particles never actually touch the wall, they are are repelled by the EM force.

But, what is the actual mechanism that degenerate fermions use to avoid each other?

I found an interesting slide show on PEP... http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mdt26/PWT ... _pauli.pdf

...but I confess to not understanding most of the equations in it.

balsysr
Posts: 7
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 5:25 pm

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

I has been interesting to read the response to electric gravity in this forum. Seems that some good points are being made here. As the discussion has introduced the standard model of gravitation, string theory, higgs bosons and all the other ideas relating to a theory of everything that try to unify gravity with Maxwells equations. As a physicist (and an EU supporter) I have always had an interest in this.
A problem that a conventional physicist has with the EU (and particularly the thunderbolts site) is that there are too many bits that have to be relearned before you get a sense of what it is about, many way out ideas (some clearly wrong, others just not fully formed and some good ideas that need further development - works in progress). For this reason its hard to accept the EU's statements. But OK, keep an open mind and you may learn things that deepen your understanding of physics and the universe, along with having a laugh at crazy ideas.
On the theory of everything I think the best explanation is given by Hotson who discusses Dirac's equation. The link http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/2168 ... ve-energy/ has links to hotson's original papers and critiques discussing pro's and con's. Personally I find his work very compelling. In it gravity is caused by unlinked epos (electron-positron pairs) in the universal BEC (Bose-Einstein condensate). I have found this work to be easy to follow and for the layperson has very little maths. Even so, he explains a large number of things (eg origin of strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force, how the Pauli exclusion principle works, etc.). Really worth a read.

First turn your distrust of and read what is said to get the whole picture before criticising the parts. Then by all means go through and find the things to be critical of. I am sure it will get you thinking.

Cheers,

Bob_Ham
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:06 pm
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

balsysr wrote:As a physicist...
Where do you publish?

Aardwolf
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Higgsy wrote:This idea that Newtonian gravity is incorrect because WE can't solve general n-body problems analytically is horrendously mixed-up thinking. Why must it be a condition for a theory to be correct that it allows all problems to be solved analytically? That's just complete nonsense.
No. What is nonsense is your inability to model 1 force. It isn’t some complicated math conundrum devised by an evil genius. Large inanimate objects happily follow this one force exerted on them by other large inanimate objects and are stable in their paths for billions of years. They don’t need complicated numerical integration to work out where they are going to be in a weeks’ time, they just follow the one force driving them. Inability to model this incredibly simplistic interaction is a failure of the theory. It’s a close approximation, if you take some liberties, but it is far from correct.
Higgsy wrote:We have overwhelming evidence that the gravitational field from a point mass goes as the inverse square of distance from the mass.
Where did I dispute that? The problem is when more than 2 interact.
Higgsy wrote:It's a very simple relationship, and it appears to be correct to a high level of precision.
Thanks for finally agreeing it’s an approximation, although as I pointed out to Bob, you can’t get too precise because then even the integrated models fail.
Higgsy wrote:That's how we put men on the moon, dock space stations and put probes on comets.
Strawman. You know as well as I do that perturbations are small and cumulative and my point is about long term orbital stability. Also crafts are guided with brute force. Any deviation from the broadly estimated direction is corrected along the way. It’s very disingenuous to say that gravity is proven because of these craft. Trial and error was how it was done. If we relied solely on gravitational theory we wouldn’t have had any successful missions.
Higgsy wrote:Now it's a fact that, given that relationship, we cannot find analytical solutions to the general interactions of more than two bodies. (There are some analytical solutions to certain three body cases). So what? Nature does what it does.
Fair enough. Accept that gravitational theory is just an approximation until something better comes along then. I’m happy to agree with that although Bob won’t like it, he’ll have to amend his paper.
Higgsy wrote:Inverse square. As discussed. The fact that we can't describe it with an analytical solution doesn't mean that the inverse square law is wrong, because our ability to find analytical solutions in arbitrarily complex cases is not a criterion to decide whether the theory is correct.
There's another strawman. I never disputed the inverse square law, only the interaction between the forces cannot be modelled. And also it’s not a complex case. 1 force acting on 3 bodies should be easy. Science has spent 350 years trying to solve and will spend another 350 and be no closer. Maybe, just maybe, you’re all missing something.
Higgsy wrote:Let me turn this round to give you a chance of seeing how nonsensical your position is.
How can my position be nonsensical. My position is that your position is an approximation, and you have stated nothing that disagrees with that position.
Higgsy wrote:Can you give me an example of a correct theory that gives exact analytical solutions in all real world cases?
Relevance? What does this have to do with our discussion? If I were unable to find one then that validates your position how? You want to state other scientists can’t make their theories work therefore I don’t have to either? That’s not very scientific.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Bob_Ham wrote: ...
Hi Bob,
Wal Thornhill is talking about a thought offered by the deceased Norwegian physicist Ralph Sansbury. If you are interested in the original and more complete treatment of Coulomb dipole gravity I recommend that you look at http://www.dipole.se

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

P.S. The Sansbury-Thornhill intuition deserves credit since it recognizes the roll of Coulomb attraction in the mechanism of gravity. However, the oversimplified concept shown in the video has several problems.
First, it suggests that the atomic nuclei would be pointing toward earth because of its mass, assuming gravity to explain gravity in a circular argument, similar to the Einstein circular space time argument, while in addition making multi-body gravity hard to explain.
Secondly, it overlooks that dipole orientation in bodies are determined by the exchange of Coulomb dipole forces within the body, holding the body itself together.
The gravity contribution, or modification, to this internal dipole pattern is very minor and not caused by weight distribution within atoms but rather by a complex pattern of Coulomb attractions and repulsions between bodies under gravity. For more information see website link in right hand column.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Gravity waves

Recent observations and measurements suggest that quantitative changes in gravity between bodies in space travel with the speed of light. The measurements furthermore confirm the transient, single chirp nature of the change in gravity between two bodies when the mass of one of them suddenly changes by an explosive conversion from mass to energy. A body in space is tied to all other bodies in space through strings of gravity with strengths inversely proportional to the square of respective distances. A change in mass of one body consequently permeates with the speed of light through all its gravity strings to all surrounding bodies in space.

The Coulomb dipole model of gravity, accessible to the right, is based on contemporary particle physics and supplements quantum physics and string theory without creating the conceptual conflict that is experienced with the idea of "space time" as a cause of gravity.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Bob_Ham wrote:
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.
You are right Bob. It disproves the concept of surface to surface gravity as proposed by Sansbury and illustrated by Thornhill. However, it does not disprove electric gravity in form of Coulomb dipole gravity which involves all mass and all dipoles in the bodies involved. Quantum physics points out that there is a disconnect between quantum physics and "space time" gravity. However, there is no disconnect between particle physics, Coulomb dipole gravity, quantum physics and string theory.

ja7tdo
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

hi,

I think it is different space gravity and surface gravity.
space gravity is electromagnetic force. there is attraction and repulsion.
Earth's surface gravity is caused by electrically polarization like Wal's dipole.
between crust (-) and ionosphere(+), The substance is charged to a weak +.
details of surface attraction is unknown yet.
but I think Wal's theory is almost right.

Newton's mistake, Maxwell's misunderstanding
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 10&t=16906

Miura
JA7TDO

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

ja7tdo wrote:hi, ... Miura JA7TDO
Interesting, thank you.

I see it this way; Einstein did an honest job in his Special Theory of Relativity.
However, I think he also desperately wanted to be able to explain gravity, so 10 years later he announced the General Theory of Relativity. I believe he might have justifyed it with: "Imagination is more important than knowledge," and: "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
I agree that space time means that when observing something that is 1000 light-years away, you are looking 1000 years back in time. However, when Einstein suggests that mass distorts the fabric of his imaginary "space time", it is my duty to call on other scientists for a better suggestion.
Had Albert lived until 1964, when the quark model was independently proposed by physicists Murray Gell-Mann and George Zweig, Albert Einstein could have explained gravity in terms of physics, restored his integrity and recalled his earlier hoax on an unsuspecting scientific community.

P.S. "When you denounce God, fear not God himself, but fear thou neighbors." B.N.

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Bob_Ham wrote: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.
Bob Hams evaluation above of the Thornhill illustration of dipole gravity is limited to Bob's interpretation of said model as a Surface Gravity Model. As such Bob's rejection misses what we all know; gravity is a function of mass, not surface. I have tried to contact Bob Ham but received no answer.

Bob Hams rejection of Electric Gravity is meaningless due to his lack of understanding of the complete theory and his claims do not address the Electric Gravity or Coulomb Gravity that rules our universe.

Catonic
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 10:41 am

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Bob_Ham wrote: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.
Ehhh......where does Wal Thornhill claim that "electric gravity" (whatever that is???) can explain or account for the orbit of the Earth around the Sun?
The electric/plasma universe model has a completely different explanation of the dynamics of the solar system, the galaxies etc.
The "dipole claim" is not the cause of such dynamics, except in your mind.
Your "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up, so I suggest you try and come up with another one, without claiming that other people believe something that you have created, not them.

Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Catonic wrote:
Bob_Ham wrote: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.
Ehhh......where does Wal Thornhill claim that "electric gravity" (whatever that is???) can explain or account for the orbit of the Earth around the Sun?
The electric/plasma universe model has a completely different explanation of the dynamics of the solar system, the galaxies etc.
The "dipole claim" is not the cause of such dynamics, except in your mind.
Your "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up, so I suggest you try and come up with another one, without claiming that other people believe something that you have created, not them.
I think Wal's dipole model, or more precisely, Sansbury's model, does not address orbital interactions. It might work on the surface of a planet, but not as the mechanism driving the solar system. In fact, no where in his presentation or in the articles does he mention the sun-planet interactions through this model. In space, there needs to be a different mechanism. Probably more electrical...

Bengt Nyman
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden
Contact:

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Electro wrote: I think Wal's dipole model, or more precisely, Sansbury's model, does not address orbital interactions ... there needs to be a different mechanism. Probably more electrical...

Electro
Posts: 394
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2015 8:24 pm

### Re: "Electric Gravity" Doesn't Hold Up

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Electro wrote: I think Wal's dipole model, or more precisely, Sansbury's model, does not address orbital interactions ... there needs to be a different mechanism. Probably more electrical...