Thornhill's gravity model

[Electro]

Hi all!

I recently came across Wal Thornhill's video on electric gravity. It makes a lot of sense, to me anyway. Anyone disagreeing with him have yet to provide anything better...

I'm sure most of you have watched the video. I watched it again and again, and again, but I just don't get it! Some details are definitely missing, intentionally or not, possibly explaning why the idea is almost non-existent on the Web.

The theory is either incomplete, or details have been deliberately left out.

The idea that "gravity" induces dipoles in neutral matter on Earth makes a lot of sense to me. Mass related to charge is interesting as well. However, Thornhill does not explain why gravity would be attractive AND repulsive at the same time for let's say the Moon and the Earth. If both are negatively charged, I can understand why they repel each other. But how does the Moon stay in orbit around the Earth then?

Another problem. If the Sun is positively charged and the planets negatively charged, why aren't the planets crashing into the Sun? What would make them mutually repulsive?

Thank you

Regards

[Cargo]

I believe part of the solution involves the 'like likes like' principle.
http://studylib.net/doc/18657044/-like- ... ty-plasmas

[Electro]

I believe part of the solution involves the 'like likes like' principle.
http://studylib.net/doc/18657044/-like- ... ty-plasmas

Ok, but what about the relation between the Sun and a planet? How can they repel each other?

[Electro]

I believe part of the solution involves the 'like likes like' principle.
http://studylib.net/doc/18657044/-like- ... ty-plasmas

Ok, but what about the relation between the Sun and a planet? How can they repel each other?

Oh, I think I'm getting it now, but not 100% sure...

[Electro]

If anyone cares to add something, you're welcome to do so.

[Electro]

Is this model generally accepted in the EU community? Any objections?

[nick c]

Is this model generally accepted in the EU community? Any objections?

I think that this is regarded as theoretical and worthy of further investigation.
Unless one can one demonstrate how nothing (space) can be merged with time and then warped, we are left with no explanation of gravity.
Thornhill, Sansbury, and many others are attempting to come up with viable alternative models to the current favorite of consensus science. Sometimes we tend to forget that nothing is "proven true" in science, the purpose of which is to falsify alternative possibilities.

[Aardwolf]

Well the atmosphere of the earth is positively charged and also I understand some believe the core to also be positively charged therefore I would suppose it's possible that the moon is held at an equilibrium in a similar fashion to this;

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube+amazing+discovery+with+magnets&view=detail&mid=1E28A052563AB4777F7F1E28A052563AB4777F7F&FORM=VIRE

[Electro]

I think it makes a lot of sense. Those generally opposed to the idea have warped concepts as the only "explanation". So, as you say, until someone comes along with something concret or provable, it would be stupid to discard the theory.

[ja7tdo]

Hi,

I think there are two gravity. in space and on ground is different.
in space , gravity is electric force. there is attraction and repulsion.

on ground , principle of gravity is same with EM drive.
electromagnetic mass produce gravity.

https://translate.google.co.jp/translat ... edit-text=

[Electro]

I can understand how the Moon and the Earth can attract and repel at the same time. Both are negatively charged. However, if the Sun is positively charged, how can there be a repulsive force between the Sun and the negatively charged planets? Or, is the matter and energy ejected from the Sun what's repulsive? What am I not getting here? Come on Wal! We need more info!

[Electro]

I found more details by googling Ralph Sansbury.

In this link, Wal Thornhill explains the interaction/stabilizing mechanism between the Sun and the planets at least.

Now, following that reasoning, I must understand the interaction between moons and planets. Is the same solar wind stabilizing the Earth by sending positive charge to it, also transferring from the Earth to the Moon, keeping the Moon in Earth's orbit? And of course, not forgetting orbital velocity...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=384

[Brigit Bara]

Another point about the solar system's configuration is that in all models, you do have capture and planetary migration.

In the Electric Universe model, there is a much more comprehensive explanation of capture than any of the others, because the plasmaspheres surrounding the planets are what cause them to interact. The plasmaspheres are far larger than the objects they enclose; for example Jupiter's, if visible, would be four times larger than the moon in our sky.

These plasmaspheres interact in interesting ways. First, if they make contact, there will be electrical discharge between them. And this I have seen with even small bodies like asteroids and comets. And with the exchange of sparks or interplanetary arc discharges, the bodies have their electrical stress altered, which changes their gravitational state, and of course they reach various negotiations in electrical equilibrium.

Next, the plasmaspheres of planets also have exceedingly long tails, and it happens by coincidence that these have adjusted the spacing of the planets so that each long tail brushes the plasmasphere of the next planet only slightly. You can read about this continuing electrical connection which circularizes the orbit of Venus on holoscience.

Not exhaustive, but hope it adds to the discussion. Planetary migration has three explanations in mainstream science, but I am burning something, so I will post a link for that later

[Brigit Bara]

Another point about the solar system's configuration is that in all models, you do have capture and planetary migration.

In the Electric Universe model, there is a much more comprehensive explanation of capture than any of the others, because the plasmaspheres surrounding the planets are what cause them to interact. The plasmaspheres are far larger than the objects they enclose; for example Jupiter's, if visible, would be four times larger than the moon in our sky.

These plasmaspheres interact in interesting ways. First, if they make contact, there will be electrical discharge between them. And this I have seen with even small bodies like asteroids and comets (Yuge reaction disproportionate to size). And with the exchange of sparks or interplanetary arc discharges, the bodies have their electrical stress altered, which changes their gravitational state, and of course they reach various negotiations in electrical equilibrium.

Next, the plasmaspheres of planets also have exceedingly long tails, and it happens by coincidence that these have adjusted the spacing of the planets so that each long tail brushes the plasmasphere of the next planet only slightly. You can read about this continuing electrical connection which circularizes the orbit of Venus on holoscience.

Not exhaustive, but hope it adds to the discussion. Planetary migration has three explanations in mainstream science, but I am burning something, so I will post a link for that later

[Electro]

Hi,

I think there are two gravity. in space and on ground is different.
in space , gravity is electric force. there is attraction and repulsion.

on ground , principle of gravity is same with EM drive.
electromagnetic mass produce gravity.

https://translate.google.co.jp/translat ... edit-text=

That is my conclusion as well. On Earth, it's induced dipoles. In space, it's purely electric.