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 Brigit Bara » Wed Feb 21, 2018 1:54 pm

When a poster responds with ad hom & guilt-by-association arguments and with killing straw men, you have to wonder if they have read or understood the primary published material. Two threads for the same personal mission seems a bit redundant, since objections have been refuted here by showing that G is not a constant and Cavendish's experiment does not yield the precision claimed. The CERN experiment is still running.

The fact is, we are all funding CERN because mass and gravity are not understood. We also put up with insult upon injury when these arrogant academics go way out of their way to mock any one who works on an alternative. Not only that, but the experts appear to reserve their deepest contempt for any one who wants more for their billions than a "god particle" winking in and out of existence where required, and a fresh new army of PhDs handed out for processing noise. We are expected to know our place and be thankful for useless philosophical revelations in glossy magazines that have no application. Meanwhile, all active sciences and technologies are being attacked and outlawed. This is not a good trajectory.

In the past, people from all walks of life developed chemistry and technology for use in every day life by every day people, and the theoreticians were left dealing with the fait accompli. That is what really happened. These academics think too much of their role, and while the public loves to trust experts, even that weakness can only be exploited so far.

And by the way, is spending billions on experiments and processing noise replicable science?

It could be more simple than this.
“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: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:58 pm

willendure wrote:
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.
Rubbish. 3 bodies, 1 force and the result is chaos. What's left to work out? What are the other variables in this complex solution?

willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
I'm expecting what is observed in reality. Millions of years of stability. unlike any models no matter how complex (although they shouldn't be complex with only 1 force).

Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:00 pm

willendure wrote:
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.
Comical considerering the quackery you are wilfully ignoring.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:01 pm

willendure wrote:
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.
Millions of tons of liquid water happily does.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:16 pm

The supporting experiments referred to are those of Eugene Padkletnov, not Hutchison.

Superconductor research, another third rail. (:

And the RI lecture on gyroscopes by Professor Eric Laithwaite.
“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: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Brigit Bara » Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:31 pm

By the way, it is wrong to say that no one has found weight reduction in spinning gyroscopes. Isn't it.
“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: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:25 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:
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.
Millions of tons of liquid water happily does.


We are 4/5ths water.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:26 am

Brigit Bara wrote:When a poster responds with ad hom & guilt-by-association arguments and with killing straw men, you have to wonder if they have read or understood the primary published material.


I have to wonder if you have 'read' the primary material being discussed here? Likely not since you describe it as being 'read', when in fact it is a video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:50 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
I'm expecting what is observed in reality. Millions of years of stability. unlike any models no matter how complex (although they shouldn't be complex with only 1 force).

Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.


The planets do not follow simple elliptical trajectories, they do veer off a bit. The sun is massive enough to dominate though, and that keeps things stable.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 7:54 am

Think about this. If gravity was due to charge and out planet is charged, what charge would a space craft leaving our planet have? And how would that effect its interaction with other planets and moons? We use Newtons laws to calculate gravity sling-shots and take no account of charge, but it still works out close enough to what Newton predicts. All bodies fall the same, regardless of charge.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:18 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:
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.
Millions of tons of liquid water happily does.


We are 4/5ths water.
And clouds/fog are 5/5ths water. Your point?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:23 am

willendure wrote:If gravity was due to charge...

Gravity is not caused by surface charge, like free electrons or lack thereof on the surface of an object. Gravity is caused by internal, atomic particle charge polarization in reaction to external bodies.
As shown by others on this thread the effect of surface charge on massive objects is negligible compared to gravity.
Last edited by Bengt Nyman on Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:24 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:What were you expecting? That multiple bodies interacting will still follow simple paths?
I'm expecting what is observed in reality. Millions of years of stability. unlike any models no matter how complex (although they shouldn't be complex with only 1 force).

Accept it. By any measure of observational evidence, it's a failed theory.


The planets do not follow simple elliptical trajectories, they do veer off a bit. The sun is massive enough to dominate though, and that keeps things stable.
Agreed. However the theory is there is only one controlling attractive force and it can't replicate those motions without resulting in chaos. By applying the theory the veering off a bit accumulates and result in ejected bodies in a relatively short amount of time.

Therefore, it's a failed theory.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:51 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote:If gravity was due to charge...

Gravity is not caused by surface charge, like free electrons or lack thereof on the surface of an object. Gravity is caused by internal, atomic particle charge polarization in reaction to external bodies.
As shown by others on this thread the effect of surface charge on massive objects is negligible compared to gravity.


Right, so how is the effect of that internal charge polarization within the atoms of two adjacent bodies transmitted between the two bodies?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:58 am

willendure wrote:Think about this. If gravity was due to charge and out planet is charged, what charge would a space craft leaving our planet have? And how would that effect its interaction with other planets and moons? We use Newtons laws to calculate gravity sling-shots and take no account of charge, but it still works out close enough to what Newton predicts.
Slings shots take account of attraction which says nothing about the cause of the attraction. We don't know what the cause is, we're just reacting to observations. Also, you haven't defined what you mean by charge nor quantified exactly what or how much charge an object needs to have any effect.

willendure wrote:All bodies fall the same, regardless of charge.
No they don't. They fall depending on the calculated attractive force which we then use to infer what the density of the attracting object is. This is why we have moons & satellites in space with stupidly low densities when they are clearly solid rock.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests