Thornhill's gravity model

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: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:58 am

I have proposed an experiment that invalidates Thornhill's hypothesis, and all you do is attack it in ways that are irrelevant to what it shows. Thornhill's model is electrical gravity, but an electrical field can be shielded with metal plates, which should therefore negate his gravity and result in an anti-gravity machine. If the shielded metal plate is not subject to an electrical field, what will distort its atoms into dipoles that are attracted to the supposed dipoles in the mass of the Earth?

Aardwolf, propose an experiment that demonstrates Thornhill's gravity is the correct model, rather than trying to confuse and obfuscate my reasoning, which most people will find sound.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:09 am

Aardwolf wrote:the fact is gravity based on mass has been disproven by almost every conceivable measure.

Varying G as discussed
Flyby anomaly
Pioneer anomaly
Borehole anomalies
N-body problem
Galaxy flat rotation problem
Galaxy winding problem


Flyby anomaly
Pioneer anomaly
Galaxy flat rotation problem

These are low acceleration phenomena. They show that at the bottom end, Newton's laws do not seem to hold up too well. At higher accelerations Newton holds up very well, and at even higher accelerations GR provides different answers to Newton, and takes over as a more accurate theory (but remains in agreement in the mid-range). In that sense Newton is entirely subsumed by GR. If we invent a better theory of gravity, it will be one that entirely subsumes GR, but fixes the anomalies at the low end. Of course, once other possible sources of these anomalies are ruled out.

N-body problem

Not sure what this is? The fact that you cannot analytically solve an n-body problem under Newtons laws?

Galaxy flat rotation problem
Galaxy winding problem

I agree these are likely to be influenced by galactic scale electrical phenomena. No way is a galaxy simply rotating under Newton's laws. But that does not mean his laws are still operating correctly, just that they are being combined with other forces to produce the result we observe.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:10 am

I am thinking of installing some metal plates on the ceilings in my house. You know, so I can float about, it will be fun.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:29 am

willendure wrote:I have proposed an experiment that invalidates Thornhill's hypothesis, and all you do is attack it in ways that are irrelevant to what it shows. Thornhill's model is electrical gravity, but an electrical field can be shielded with metal plates, which should therefore negate his gravity and result in an anti-gravity machine. If the shielded metal plate is not subject to an electrical field, what will distort its atoms into dipoles that are attracted to the supposed dipoles in the mass of the Earth?.
You don't know what you are proposing. What are you shielding and from what exactly? And I'm not on here particularly to defend Wal's theory as I'm potentially not entirely in agreement with his proposed mechanisms. I'm merely pointing out that you have accepted an even more dubious theory with consistently failed tests and observations which you readily ignore. Even though according to you that's supposed to be ultimate arbiter. I guess proof only applies to theories you don't agree with.

willendure wrote:Aardwolf, propose an experiment that demonstrates Thornhill's gravity is the correct model, rather than trying to confuse and obfuscate my reasoning, which most people will find sound.
You were the one proposing experiments. You said they were easy. Of course I will retain the prerogative to ignore or downplay the results if I don't like them, as you have clearly demonstrated that is your attitude with regard to mass based gravity theory.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:41 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:the fact is gravity based on mass has been disproven by almost every conceivable measure.

Varying G as discussed
Flyby anomaly
Pioneer anomaly
Borehole anomalies
N-body problem
Galaxy flat rotation problem
Galaxy winding problem


Flyby anomaly
Pioneer anomaly
Galaxy flat rotation problem

These are low acceleration phenomena. They show that at the bottom end, Newton's laws do not seem to hold up too well. At higher accelerations Newton holds up very well, and at even higher accelerations GR provides different answers to Newton, and takes over as a more accurate theory (but remains in agreement in the mid-range). In that sense Newton is entirely subsumed by GR. If we invent a better theory of gravity, it will be one that entirely subsumes GR, but fixes the anomalies at the low end. Of course, once other possible sources of these anomalies are ruled out.
Three fails so far then. Hand waving away errors due to unknown future fixes is no way to do science. It failed. It's wrong.

willendure wrote:N-body problem

Not sure what this is? The fact that you cannot analytically solve an n-body problem under Newtons laws?
Yes. It's unsolvable under any laws. Ultimate fail and the more bodies you add the worse it gets. Ergo, the theory is wrong.

willendure wrote:Galaxy flat rotation problem
Galaxy winding problem

I agree these are likely to be influenced by galactic scale electrical phenomena. No way is a galaxy simply rotating under Newton's laws. But that does not mean his laws are still operating correctly, just that they are being combined with other forces to produce the result we observe.
So to fix another fail you want to invoke galactic electricity, but do not think electricity has any effect on local motions? Why not just abandon the continually failing theory, it would be a lot easier.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:55 pm

I think, as bracing and wonderful as it is, this conversation is not necessarily addressing the Electric Universe model of gravity.
For example, John Hutchison was discussed as having potential supporting experiments for EU Gravity.

holoscience.com

Search Results
Not Found
Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn’t here.

Search for:
John Hutchison


The supporting experimentation specifically referenced on holoscience is that of Evgeny Podkletnov.
ref: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/antigravity/
ref: https://www.google.com/search?q=Podklet ... 23&dpr=1.5

Evgeny Podkletnov does work with superconductors and spinning plates.

Also, the work of Ralph Sansbury came up on the thread earlier, and he certainly has a lot of name recognition here. He is often referenced in interviews and columns in the EU for his model of "subtrons," and faster than light communications within atomic structure. This is key to EU Gravity. Sansbury and WWThornhill diverge in some points, but it slips my mind where this difference lies.

The following is a quote from holoscience:
Last edited by Brigit Bara on Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:01 pm

[E]lectrons, protons and neutrons are composed of smaller orbiting charged units (which we may dub “subtrons”)* whose total charge sums to –e, +e and zero, respectively. The magnetic moment of the neutron and spin of the electron suggests that this is so. The stumbling block to such a model has always been the assumption of Einstein’s speed limit on the electric force between charged subtrons. For instance, it has been calculated that subtrons orbiting inside the classical radius of the electron would have a speed of 2.5 million light-years per second. That is the distance from here to the other side of the great Andromeda galaxy in one second! The speed of the electric force must exceed that by a considerable margin for the electron to be a stable particle.


Ralph Sansbury* The word “subtron” was coined by Ralph N. Sansbury in his monograph “Electron Structure” in The Journal of Classical Physics in January 1982. It led to a new classical explanation of magnetism and gravity.


The electron, proton and neutron have not only a classical size but also a shape, which changes in response to the electric force. The electrical energy absorbed by these particles in deformation rather than acceleration gives rise to the phenomenon of inertial mass. It is the fundamental origin of the relationship E = mc^2. If gravity is an electrical force, we can see why the gravitational mass of a body is identical to its inertial mass. We have a real classical model with which to explain inertia, gravity, magnetism and quantum theory. Magnetism is a subject on its own to be dealt with later.


But if we take an atom for example, it is a complex system of electrical resonances between orbiting charged subtrons within orbiting charged particles. A stable electron orbit is one in which the gain and loss of energy between a deformable electron and all of the subtrons in the other electrons and the nucleus sums to zero over that orbit. Electrons in an atom “whisper” to the nucleus in order to prevent the “classical catastrophe” of the electron spiralling into the nucleus. Changes in resonant state occur in quantum jumps and give rise to an un-cancelled oscillating electric force that may be accepted by another atom. An atomic nucleus operates in the same way, so that quantum tunnelling effects and nuclear interactions can be understood in resonant terms rather than simplistic coulomb barriers. The nuclear force is then another manifestation of the electric force between resonant subsystems within the nucleus. “Cold” fusion is possible in such a resonant system and radioactive decay has an electrical cause and can therefore be modified. It seems that electrons in composite (more than one proton) atomic nuclei are essential for resonant stability. When they leave a nucleus in the company of a proton we call the pair a neutron. Oddly enough, that resonant system is unstable, with the result that it has a lifetime outside the nucleus measured only in minutes.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:10 pm

I am done interrupting. Thank you (:
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Tue Feb 20, 2018 1:21 pm

Brigit Bara wrote: ...

Excellent summary, thank you Brigit Bara.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:48 pm

Thank you Bengt Nyman. You have an interesting website on gravity and atomic structure!

For me, the simplest example of antigravity is actually totally mundane.
Image
anvil cloud via images gawker com

The water molecules, free to rotate in an e-field, align with other dipolar water molecules.

Image

This results in a charge separation within the cloud and a very wide, half-mile e-field surrounding some clouds.

Some of them exhibit enormous power when they punch through the atmosphere.

Image

An explanation from "Electric Weather" follows:
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Tue Feb 20, 2018 2:51 pm

In an electric field, the water molecule will rotate to line up with the field. When it condenses in a cloud the average electric dipole moment of a water molecule in a raindrop is 40 percent greater than that of a single water vapor molecule. This enhancement results from the large polarization caused by the electric field induced by surrounding water molecules. In the atmospheric electric field the water molecules will be aligned with their dipoles pointing vertically and in a sense that is determined by the charge polarization in the cloud. It is interesting to note that the tops of storm clouds are positively charged and the base is negative. That is the reverse of the radial charge polarization within the Earth itself. And it is this charge polarization that gives rise to the low-order attractive force we call gravity. So it is proposed that water droplets in clouds experience an antigravity effect. It appears to be related to the ‘Biefield-Brown Effect,’ where a charged high-voltage planar capacitor tends to move in the direction of the positive electrode. That effect may explain how millions of tons of water can be suspended kilometres above the ground, when cloud droplets are about 1,000 times denser than the surrounding air.


Of course, this raises the issue of charge separation in clouds. The conventional ‘isolated Earth’ view is that positive and negative charge is ‘somehow’ separated by vertical winds in clouds and that this process in thunderstorms is responsible for charging up the ionosphere and causing the atmospheric electric field. But this begs the question of cause and effect. Recent high-altitude balloon flights find that charge is not built up in the cloud, it already exists in the ionosphere above. In January 2002 I argued the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® model:


“Thunderstorms are not electricity generators, they are passive elements in an interplanetary circuit, like a self-repairing leaky condenser. The energy stored in the cloud ‘condenser’ is released as lightning when it short-circuits. The short-circuits can occur either within the cloud or across the external resistive paths to Earth or the ionosphere. The charge across the cloud ‘condenser’ gives rise to violent vertical electrical winds within the cloud, not vice versa.”


This view accords with a recent report (17 November 2003) in Geophysical Review Letters by Joseph Dwyer of the Florida Institute of Technology, which says that according to conventional theory electrical fields in the atmosphere simply cannot grow large enough to trigger lightning. “The conventional view of how lightning is produced is wrong.” And so “the true origin of lightning remains a mystery.”

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric-weather/
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
User avatar
Brigit Bara
 
Posts: 601
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:08 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:N-body problem

Not sure what this is? The fact that you cannot analytically solve an n-body problem under Newtons laws?
Yes. It's unsolvable under any laws. Ultimate fail and the more bodies you add the worse it gets. Ergo, the theory is wrong.


Lack of an analytic solution just means that the solution is complex, and cannot be described with simple formula. What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:11 am

Brigit Bara wrote:For example, John Hutchison was discussed as having potential supporting experiments for EU Gravity.


The man is clearly a fraud.

That is actually what I am complaining about - there are too many interested in EU that believe quackery like this - that is why the 'mainstream' mocks you. It doesn't matter if the EU is right about anything, if they can be so simply dismissed.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:13 am

Aardwolf wrote:And I'm not on here particularly to defend Wal's theory as I'm potentially not entirely in agreement with his proposed mechanisms.


Finally, we're getting somewhere...
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:16 am

Brigit Bara wrote:For me, the simplest example of antigravity is actually totally mundane.
The water molecules, free to rotate in an e-field, align with other dipolar water molecules.
This results in a charge separation within the cloud and a very wide, half-mile e-field surrounding some clouds.


That must be why I float away on sunny days.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron