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 Cargo » Sat Mar 03, 2018 11:32 pm

Let me try to further expand what I mean.

Supposedly, the gravity of the Moon pulls on the Oceans, but nothing else? Not people, nor clouds, nor anything else.
The gravity of the Sun pulls on the Earth, but not the Oceans, or anything else.
The Moon is attracted by Earths gravity, but nothing on the Moon's surface is 'pulled' by this gravity.

Is anything lighter when on the sunny side of Earth and heavier on the night side?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:21 am

Cargo wrote:Is anything lighter when on the sunny side of Earth and heavier on the night side?

I already answered you Cargo; YES.
By 0.0000616% or 0.006 grams per 100 kg of body weight.
It has nothing to do with bodies shielding each other. It has to do with addition versus subtraction of gravitational pull from Earth versus from the sun. It is pure and undisputed Newton and NASA math.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:36 am

webolife wrote: ...

Hi webolife,
Please keep in mind that everyday words can mean different things to different people.
I especially discourage the use of the word field or fields since they physically do not exist, and since they only insinuate a potential effect without specifying the cause or the result.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Mar 04, 2018 5:56 am

querious wrote: Thorhill's theory IS garbage, because the field from a dipole falls off with the inverse cube of distance, not the inverse square. querious

The inverse cube:
1. Is applicable only along a line through the center of and perpendicular to the axis of the dipole.
2. Is an approximation.
Coulombs law (inverse square) is ALWAYS true and is used to derive the special case (approximated inverse cube) on a line through the center of and perpendicular to the dipole axis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wjy5qXtxc
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 563
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:07 am

Take a child's balloon and rub it on a woolly jumper until it crackles with static electricity. What you have there is a load of dipoles, because you wiped off some of the electrons from the surface of the balloon, giving it a more positive charge on its surface. Hold this up to a wall, and that positive charge draws out some of the electrons from the wall, creating a complementary set of dipoles on the wall. Now the balloon sticks to the wall.

Even the small force required to stick to the wall needs an amount of static electricity that is easily detectable by a human. You can hear it crackle. If you turn off the lights you can see small blue flashes as you rub the balloon on your jumper. If you hold it to your face, you can feel the static on your sensitive lips or nose.

If dipole gravity was what holds everyday objects onto the surface of the earth, why isn't everything crackling with static?

Again, simple and obvious experiments can demolish this pitiful dipole gravity hypothesis.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:10 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: Thorhill's theory IS garbage, because the field from a dipole falls off with the inverse cube of distance, not the inverse square. querious

The inverse cube:
1. Is applicable only along a line through the center of and perpendicular to the axis of the dipole.
2. Is an approximation.
Coulombs law (inverse square) is ALWAYS true and is used to derive the special case (approximated inverse cube) on a line through the center of and perpendicular to the dipole axis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wjy5qXtxc


On your dipoles.se site, you use dipoles to explain the strong nuclear force. But this force does not even follow an inverse square law :o
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:59 am

Cargo wrote:We on the planet Earth are not heavier when on the far side of the Earth from the Sun.


Us and planet Earth are both in free fall around the Sun. Therefore the Sun does not accelerate us relative to the Earth, so we weigh the same on both sides on the Earth. However, there is a small stretching effect see below about the Moon and tides.

We are not in free fall around the Earth, which is why we feel our weight on its surface.

Cargo wrote:There must be boundary layer where the Gravity inherit within a body does not influence anything within another external body.

Is there a better reasoning for the tides besides the Moon's Mass/Gravity 'pulling' on the Oceans?


The conventional explanation is that the Moon stretches the Earth because one side is nearer. It pulls harder on the nearer side resulting over-all in a stretch across both sides. This gives a tide on the opposite side too, since water there is being stretched out away from the planet by the stretching force. This has been debated on these forums many times.

However, Charles Chandler has a lot to say on this from an Electric Universe perspective:
http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/9925.html
I feel Chandler gets a lot closer to truly understanding the source of our double tide, well worth a read.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Cargo » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:48 pm

That is a very interesting paper. Thank you.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
Cargo
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Tue Mar 06, 2018 6:28 am

willendure wrote:Now the balloon sticks to the wall.
Yes, a clear and simple demonstration that obviously gravity just cannot be shielded or offset in any way whatsoever...

willendure wrote:Even the small force required to stick to the wall needs an amount of static electricity that is easily detectable by a human. You can hear it crackle. If you turn off the lights you can see small blue flashes as you rub the balloon on your jumper. If you hold it to your face, you can feel the static on your sensitive lips or nose.
If dipole gravity was what holds everyday objects onto the surface of the earth, why isn't everything crackling with static?
http://www.weatherimagery.com/blog/lightning-facts/
Around the world there are about 8 million lightning strikes each day.
A lightning bolt is anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 volts and between 10,000 and 200,000 amps.
Yes, clearly no static effects at all on Earth...

willendure wrote:Again, simple and obvious experiments can demolish this pitiful dipole gravity hypothesis.
Far better to define detailed and complex experiments as mass based gravity proponents have done for centuries. Yet they all failed also. It doesn't matter I guess when it's the theory you like even if it's demonstrably and indisputably proven to be garbage by every scientist for over 300 years...
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Tue Mar 06, 2018 2:53 pm

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:Now the balloon sticks to the wall.
Yes, a clear and simple demonstration that obviously gravity just cannot be shielded or offset in any way whatsoever...


Try putting the balloon in a tin, then sticking the whole tin to the wall...

Aardwolf wrote:Around the world there are about 8 million lightning strikes each day. A lightning bolt is anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 volts and between 10,000 and 200,000 amps. Yes, clearly no static effects at all on Earth...


But lightning does not cause gravity. Where I live for example, we only get about 1 lightning storm a year. Yet for the other 364 days I am able to walk around, on the ground, without floating away. I'm just not sure why you are talking about lightning in this context..?

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:Again, simple and obvious experiments can demolish this pitiful dipole gravity hypothesis.
Far better to define detailed and complex experiments as mass based gravity proponents have done for centuries. Yet they all failed also. It doesn't matter I guess when it's the theory you like even if it's demonstrably and indisputably proven to be garbage by every scientist for over 300 years...


So you keep saying. But if you don't describe the experiments, name the scientists, you are also just talking "word-salad". So which experiments? What were they testing? How were they set up? What did they measure?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby neilwilkes » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:37 am

querious wrote:
neilwilkes wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote: 4. Is there a better reason for the tides than the influence of the moon ? No, I don't think so.

There must be.
The Moon takes a day to orbit the earth, so if tides are just the moon's influence then why do we get 2 high tides a day instead of just one? (and I accept completely that I may be in ignorance of a very simple explanation, but I have thought Centrifugal force might play a part too)


Oh my goodness, the moon orbits the earth in a day? Try 28 days (or something like that). The tides are due to the earth's rotation under the moon.


:oops:
Thank you for the correction - boy do I feel stupid.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 258
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:00 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:Now the balloon sticks to the wall.
Yes, a clear and simple demonstration that obviously gravity just cannot be shielded or offset in any way whatsoever...


Try putting the balloon in a tin, then sticking the whole tin to the wall...
Moving the goal posts I see...although as the resident expert in shielding perhaps you can tell us the specific mechanism that causes items to stick to other items electrostatically? You must know otherwise how can you devise a shield?

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Around the world there are about 8 million lightning strikes each day. A lightning bolt is anywhere from 1,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 volts and between 10,000 and 200,000 amps. Yes, clearly no static effects at all on Earth...


But lightning does not cause gravity. Where I live for example, we only get about 1 lightning storm a year. Yet for the other 364 days I am able to walk around, on the ground, without floating away. I'm just not sure why you are talking about lightning in this context..?
You seemed convinced about the absence of static on Earth. Just pointing out your error.

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:Again, simple and obvious experiments can demolish this pitiful dipole gravity hypothesis.
Far better to define detailed and complex experiments as mass based gravity proponents have done for centuries. Yet they all failed also. It doesn't matter I guess when it's the theory you like even if it's demonstrably and indisputably proven to be garbage by every scientist for over 300 years...


So you keep saying. But if you don't describe the experiments, name the scientists, you are also just talking "word-salad". So which experiments? What were they testing? How were they set up? What did they measure?
I've given you ample opportunity to provide an experiment or observation that supports mass based gravity and you can't. Every significant anomaly discovered is a fail of the theory. I already gave you a list. Did you forget already? Is your cognitive dissonance that powerful?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:42 am

Aardwolf wrote:Moving the goal posts I see...although as the resident expert in shielding perhaps you can tell us the specific mechanism that causes items to stick to other items electrostatically? You must know otherwise how can you devise a shield?


Sure, the coulomb force.

Aardwolf wrote:I've given you ample opportunity to provide an experiment or observation that supports mass based gravity and you can't. Every significant anomaly discovered is a fail of the theory. I already gave you a list. Did you forget already? Is your cognitive dissonance that powerful?


Whatever.... Word Salad!
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby webolife » Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:39 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
webolife wrote: ...

Hi webolife,
Please keep in mind that everyday words can mean different things to different people.
I especially discourage the use of the word field or fields since they physically do not exist, and since they only insinuate a potential effect without specifying the cause or the result.

I am well aware of the difficulties encountered when "reifying" a field. I was thinking of this when I responded that there are no boundaries that define where two objects are not interacting -- across any given distance. For a "field" to be "physically objective", such boundaries must be definable, so would claim the objectivists...
But is that perhaps just an artificial objection? Much[all?] of physical reality is describable by looking at the geometric relation of material objects. Objects in fact cannot be defined or distinguished without a clear description of the spaces that surround them or in which they exist. In those spaces are measured gravitational and electric [and light pressure] gradients of force which can be represented by drawings of vectors, radiation about foci, reflections, refraction, Poynting vectors about electrical conduits, magnetic directional pressures [referred to as field lines, like it or not], and the list goes on. While it is the physicists' right to claim that their geometry is not "real", yet it is equally their right to invent imaginary/immeasurable corpuscles to carry out the geometrically described effects, effects you refer to as mere "insinuations". We're all familiar with these inventions: WIMPS are the popular DM rascals, but also quarks, gravitons, photons, wavefronts, electrons, muons, gluons, neutrinos, and a couple dozen other "particles", various aethers, and even the concept of charge "carriers" in general, neutral or otherwise. These corpuscles are attempts to model wholly invisible causes for effects we can fully observe and measure. What is "real"? The imaginary corpuscles of our plethora of hypotheses, or the observable and measurable quantities derived from the spaces in which and across which objects interact? So, I say, these "fields" you are wont to dismiss may hold the key to understanding the "actuality" you want to describe.
My preferred tool to describe physical actions, ie. quantities of pressure and motion applied in a direction toward/between objects, thus remains "vectors" or the commonly understood term "rays". Now mathematically, a "ray" is dimensionless, infinitesmal, and therefore non-phenomenal; but a physical action must be finite, therefore a force or compendium of forces of some "smallest" dimension, call it a planck dimension if you will. And for shape, being radial, it must be in the most primitive sense conical, albeit virtually cylindrical, hence a "beam". A mathematical ray has one endpoint projected from which is an arrow pointed away from that locus. By stark contrast, a physical ray may be shown to be pointed toward the centroid [phenomenal center point, eg, center of mass, or electrical "ground", etc.] of a system. In this shifted paradigm, it is seen that the "tail" of the vector belongs to a universal field, or, disliking that term, it originates at the periphery of the universe. I have no problem then describing all phenomenal fields as unified manifestations of a universal field, a "centropic" pressure field. Newton thought only of gravitation, and wondered whether some aetheric particles might be involved in its application. But it has never been "gravity only" -- in my vision, all the forces will be shown to be unified manifestations of a single universal centropic pressure field. Time itself, "entropy's arrow", will be included as the outworking of universal centropy.
Someone will probably call that "word salad". :o But if you must... taste first, and throw out the raisins if you find them not to your liking! ;)
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2444
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:35 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:Moving the goal posts I see...although as the resident expert in shielding perhaps you can tell us the specific mechanism that causes items to stick to other items electrostatically? You must know otherwise how can you devise a shield?


Sure, the coulomb force.
Quoting the name of a force is not the same as describing the mechanism that underlies our observation of it. What mechanical interaction causes the attraction / repulsion of the forces? You should know, you're the shielding expert.

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:I've given you ample opportunity to provide an experiment or observation that supports mass based gravity and you can't. Every significant anomaly discovered is a fail of the theory. I already gave you a list. Did you forget already? Is your cognitive dissonance that powerful?


Whatever.... Word Salad!
The favoured response when you won't/can't answer. I didn't realise my question was so immersed in convoluted terminology that you can't fathom what I asked for, nor decipher my point that I already gave a list of anomalies, ie tests and observations that fail to support mass based gravity. Most reasonable people would accept the games up and abandon such a poorly supported theorem just as you clearly stated below. For Wal's theory according to you this test is fundamental. Why not be objective and apply to all theories.
willendure wrote:Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong.
No mass based gravity tests, laboratory or otherwise, have been passed in over 300 years. The idea is wrong. Continuing to support it is based on belief, and that's not science, that's religion.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1236
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests