
Hopefully he learnt something useful in the process.
Thanks.Electro wrote: Yes, I did see that page. Thanks.
Hi Catonic,Catonic wrote: ...
Errr....pointing out that the EU model doesn't rely upon gravity, "electric" or otherwise to explain things that the Newtonian theory of gravity relies upon is "nothing"??Bengt Nyman wrote:Hi Catonic,Catonic wrote: ...
Bob Ham took this seriously and made a proper analysis. So far You have not added anything of value.
Thanks.Catonic wrote: ... pointing out that the EU model doesn't rely upon gravity, "electric" or otherwise ...
Bengt, I'm just an interested observer and cannot speak for the EU people so please take that into account.Bengt Nyman wrote:Thanks.Catonic wrote: ... pointing out that the EU model doesn't rely upon gravity, "electric" or otherwise ...
1. Explain to me how the EU model makes the world go around without the need for gravity of any kind ?
2. Why then would an EU profile like Thornhill put his name behind a version of the Sansbury electrical dipole gravity theory ?
3. I agree that trying to sell a new theory to somebody who already thinks he knows is like challenging his religion.
I disagree. Like I said; I get more and more returning readers on http://www.dipole.seElectro wrote:Nobody knows what gravity is.
Not sure what to tell you. Many have proposed the Coulomb force before but the argument is always the same, that gravity is only attractive and cannot be shielded.Bengt Nyman wrote:I disagree. Like I said; I get more and more returning readers on http://www.dipole.seElectro wrote:Nobody knows what gravity is.
It' a bit heavy but why don't you try it for real.
Each and every body in space is pulling on every other body, depending on masses/distances^2. To suggest that there should be no motion at all, i.e. a totally static universe in such an unstable situation is out of the question. Motion is subsequently unavoidable. At the same time conservation of energy and momentum results in restless but energy efficient elliptical orbits.Electro wrote: How does your model explain planetary motion?
You criticize the EU for not knowing all the answers, or not explaining everything fully.That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.
You criticize the EU for not knowing all the answers, or not explaining everything fully.That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.
I do accept there is electricity in space. That's not the problem. But the ones making the claims have a lot of questions to answer. There are too many websites claiming to believe the universe is electric, but they don't all agree.jacmac wrote:Electro:You criticize the EU for not knowing all the answers, or not explaining everything fully.That's what I don't like about EU. There's always something missing. It's a lot of ideas just thrown in without coherence. Many more questions than answers. And when you try getting some answers, they're just ignored.
I suggest you watch a short video of part of a Richard Feynman lecture.
"Knowing versus Understanding"
It is about 5-1/2 minutes long with an analogy relative to this discussion at the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
The EU ideas are still being figured out in different ways by different people.
Once you accept the notion that there is electricity in space, and quite a lot of it, you will see things in a new light.
Jack
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests