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 » Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:47 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote: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.


It was in the original description of the experiment that I posted:

"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."
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:03 am

Aardwolf wrote: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.


The Cavendish experiment and its numerous variations are sufficient, in my view, to demonstrate that gravity is mass based and not electrical or magnetic.

I called you out on the "word salad" because I asked you to explicitly name the scientists and experiments that prove the opposite - and you avoided that question. Since I have now given my answer, please do give yours.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:01 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote: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.


It was in the original description of the experiment that I posted:

"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."
That's just a description. What mechanism "draws out some of the electrons from the wall"? Expectation? Magic? Faith? Love? Do the electrons holler out? How/why does is stick? Specific mechanisms please. This should be easy for a shielding expert, after all you devised the shield, you must know what part of the process you have blocked/circumvented etc. and how you have done it?
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:28 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.

The Cavendish experiment and its numerous variations are sufficient, in my view, to demonstrate that gravity is mass based and not electrical or magnetic.
You don't even know what the Cavendish experiment does. As explained before, it measures the attraction between the Earth and a suspended weight and says absolutely nothing about the cause. And ultimately if fails anyway because if it were mass it was measuring, G would be constant. Which it clearly isn't, it oscillates over time. Ultimate fail. Of course we discussed at length previously so you know all this but as is very clear, your support of this theory is faith based, not scientific, which is why even knowing it doesn't support mass based gravity nor does it even attempt to, you still fall back on it as support. Sad.

So, next scientist/test please. It's like shooting fish in a barrel because they all failed.

willendure wrote:I called you out on the "word salad" because I asked you to explicitly name the scientists and experiments that prove the opposite - and you avoided that question. Since I have now given my answer, please do give yours.
That's not Word Salad. Word Salad is an unitelligible mixture of words and phrases which I didn't provide so I think an apology/retraction is in order. What you describe is ambiguiity or avoidance but I have done neither. I already pointed out a long list of the failures and you just ignored or hand waved away as if unimportant or the favoured response regarding these matters "We'll discover what the anomalies are one day. After all it's only been 300 years. Give us a chance! Just give us enough cash for a super-de-dooper computer and we'll solve all the mysterious anomalies, although we reserve the right to ask for a super-super-de-dooper-dooper computer as we may realise it just isn't powerfull enough. In the meantime anyone else that wants funding for their pseudoscientific garbage just needs to shut up because they are wrong, we said so..."
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 08, 2018 3:26 pm

Aardwolf wrote:You don't even know what the Cavendish experiment does. As explained before, it measures the attraction between the Earth and a suspended weight and says absolutely nothing about the cause.


Yes, but it also measures the force between two weights, neither of which is the earth. This confirms that mass is the source of gravity.

Moving on, the gravity probe B experiment detects frame dragging and confirms the predicted curvature of space time around the Earth. GR is founded on the idea that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. Acceleration and gravitational fields can only be equivalent if and only if gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. This also confirms that mass is the source of gravity, and any experiment that supports GR adds 'weight' to this argument.

The trouble with the 'anomalies' is that they mostly occur in low accelerations and are very small effects. For example, does the voyager probe experience gravity anomalies, or is it due to heating effects on its antenna? Small effects could easily be covered by other sources of error.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby querious » Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:52 pm

Aardwolf wrote:You don't even know what the Cavendish experiment does. As explained before, it measures the attraction between the Earth and a suspended weight and says absolutely nothing about the cause.


Aardwolf, you have a lot of gall, since you're obviously the one who doesn't know what the Cavendish experiment does.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby webolife » Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:47 pm

The Cavendish experiment showed that two suspended masses were observed to hang ever so slightly out of plumb, such that the distance between them was slightly decreased. The only measurable force in the system was that of the gravitation of both bodies toward the center of the earth. It can be contested that the observed effect was the slight difference in the angle of "down" for both pendula, their "strings" suspended toward the common centroid of the earth's center of mass. Errors could be contested to include or involve the electrical environment within the lab and relative position of the moon at the time of measurement. I'm not contending the veracity of Cavendish, just saying that the observed minuscule effect doesn't amount to a hill of beans. I do contend that we are using a variety of words to describe a single unified action or effect, which we think of as the universal "stickiness" of matter. "Mass" is one of those words, along with "charge", "weight", "gravitation", "electrical potential", "nuclear force", "dipole", "magnetism", "Casimir" effect, etc... all of which are effects measured in the "field[s]" of matter [material objects], by noting changes [or in some cases the lack thereof] in their relative positions. To date no experiment has demonstrated that any inherent property of matter, or any observable "particle" carrying such a sticky force exists. Gravitation or mass [and/or any of the other terms used to describe the accumulation or aggregation of matter] is apparently an action upon matter, not from within it. Newton's gravitational formula calculates a pressure dependent upon the masses of two given objects across space; this does not lead us to conclude that gravitation is "based" upon mass, in fact the formula can be read to show that the accumulation or interaction of masses is caused by gravitation. This conclusion is further justified by the easy construction of macro-systems in which no matter exists at the centroid of a system, Bucky fuller's geodesic dome prime example among many. I frequently cite a basketball as a model -- the ball behaves as though all its mass were located at its sparsely inhabited center. Likewise the heavy accumulation of mass at galactic centers attributed to black hole singularities may be indicators of no particular material at the center, as actual observations attest. Black holes may indeed be holes.
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: 2498
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:38 am

Aardwolf wrote:
willendure wrote:It was in the original description of the experiment that I posted:

"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."
That's just a description. What mechanism "draws out some of the electrons from the wall"? Expectation? Magic? Faith? Love? Do the electrons holler out? How/why does is stick? Specific mechanisms please. This should be easy for a shielding expert, after all you devised the shield, you must know what part of the process you have blocked/circumvented etc. and how you have done it?


Why are you talking about shielding? There is no shielding here.

Gravity is acting on the mass of the balloon. The balloon is sticking to the wall electrostatically, sufficiently well that friction with the wall provides enough force to prevent the balloon slipping off and falling under gravity. Gravity is not shielded - it cannot be shielded (but Thornhills proposed dipole force can be shielded).

The electrons are attracted out of the wall by the positive charge on the balloon - by the coulomb force. The positive balloon surface and negative balloon surface experience a force of attraction - the coulomb force.

The point of this experiment though, was to demonstrate that such a force requires sufficient static electricity that it is easily detectable. If Thornhill's dipole idea is correct, the soles of our feet would crackle with static as we walked about.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:46 am

webolife wrote:The Cavendish experiment showed that two suspended masses were observed to hang ever so slightly out of plumb, such that the distance between them was slightly decreased. The only measurable force in the system was that of the gravitation of both bodies toward the center of the earth. It can be contested that the observed effect was the slight difference in the angle of "down" for both pendula, their "strings" suspended toward the common centroid of the earth's center of mass.


Erm... no. Perhaps its best if some of you actually read about the Cavendish experiment instead of just imagining what it is then making stuff up.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:53 am

Having stuck a balloon to a wall, I would also suggest that you try and stick one to your refrigerator. The refrigerator door is (presumably) made of metal, and the fridge is also earthed. When the positive balloon draws electrons out of the fridge door, more will rush in to replace those lost to the pull of the balloon, since the metal of the fridge is a good conductor. Enough electrons will flow to the balloon to replace those originally lost when it was rubbed on your jumper. The result will be that you cannot get the balloon to stick on your fridge door.

This illustrates well another problem with Thornhill's dipole concept - conductors will allow electrons to flow and in such a way the charge imbalances in across the conductor will be eliminated. So when a marble is inside a metal box, it will be surrounded by the metal all at an equal potential. How then can there be an electro-static force on the marble that Thornhill claims is gravity? It is a nonsense.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:59 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.


The Cavendish experiment and its numerous variations are sufficient, in my view, to demonstrate that gravity is mass based and not electrical or magnetic.


Note that I say above Cavendish experiment and its variations. Cavendish was just the first experimenter in a long family of experiments. For example, here is a modern variation on the experiment that demonstrates mass acting on light: https://phys.org/news/2015-01-gravity-c ... .html#nRlv
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Metryq » Fri Mar 09, 2018 6:08 am

willendure wrote:Note that I say above Cavendish experiment and its variations. Cavendish was just the first experimenter in a long family of experiments. For example, here is a modern variation on the experiment that demonstrates mass acting on light: https://phys.org/news/2015-01-gravity-c ... .html#nRlv


The Sun bends starlight, too, ostensibly due to spacetime curvature. Some EU advocates suggest the bending is simple refraction through the plasma of the Sun. As noted up-thread, gravitational mass and inertial mass are indistinguishable. Is it possible that the Cavendish experiments are failing to distinguish between spacetime curvature and some kind of "refraction"?
User avatar
Metryq
 
Posts: 490
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2012 3:31 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:13 am

Metryq wrote:The Sun bends starlight, too, ostensibly due to spacetime curvature. Some EU advocates suggest the bending is simple refraction through the plasma of the Sun. As noted up-thread, gravitational mass and inertial mass are indistinguishable. Is it possible that the Cavendish experiments are failing to distinguish between spacetime curvature and some kind of "refraction"?


Gravity Probe B. Frame dragging is not just refraction. There is some controversy here too, I dare say...
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:17 am

willendure wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:You don't even know what the Cavendish experiment does. As explained before, it measures the attraction between the Earth and a suspended weight and says absolutely nothing about the cause.


Yes, but it also measures the force between two weights, neither of which is the earth. This confirms that mass is the source of gravity.
Wrong again. It measures the pull of the Earth on object 1 and compares that to the pull of object 2 on object 1. It is then ASSUMED that because object 2 weighs x, the Earth weighs y. It still says absolutely nothing about the cause of that attraction. Oh, and by the way I know you like to keep ignoring it but even though the apparatus is of fixed nature and objects 1 and object 2 are of a fixed nature, and we know this because its specifically designed in laboratory conditions, the “weight” of the earth oscillates in a very measured and predictable way!

willendure wrote:Moving on, the gravity probe B experiment detects frame dragging and confirms the predicted curvature of space time around the Earth. GR is founded on the idea that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable. Acceleration and gravitational fields can only be equivalent if and only if gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass. This also confirms that mass is the source of gravity, and any experiment that supports GR adds 'weight' to this argument.
So you are using one theory to prove another theory and using circular reasoning to confirm both. I’m sure that somebody will be impressed. Provide evidence that acceleration and gravity are indistinguishable and we’ll discuss.

willendure wrote:The trouble with the 'anomalies' is that they mostly occur in low accelerations and are very small effects. For example, does the voyager probe experience gravity anomalies, or is it due to heating effects on its antenna? Small effects could easily be covered by other sources of error.
The n-body problem, galaxy rotation curves, oscillating weight of Earth are not small error. They are fundamental. And the fact that the pioneer anomalies, horizon etc. are all in the same direction, so clearly not engineering issues. There isn’t a single test that doesn’t display an anomaly of some sort. Like I said, due to personal bias you’re just making excuses for the theory you know has failed, whereas a single unscientific thought experiment has you convinced Wal's theory is garbage. I only ask you apply the same objective reasoning to failed experiments of any theory but you clearly won't/can't. For you they get a free pass based on "something we've missed". Nothing has been missed. They are all evidence of failure.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1255
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:27 am

willendure wrote:Gravity Probe B. Frame dragging is not just refraction. There is some controversy here too, I dare say...

Probe B gave a null-result: No frame-dragging.
But by assuming that the gyroscopes are electric charged, they could find a way
to fit the curve that they wanted.

For now I have only seen flawed evidence of space-bending and light-bending.
Clock-speeds do seem to change. I personally think that we need to scrap
general relativity and replace it with something else that does match all observations.

A good video on this is:
Einstein was wrong: Falsifying Observational Evidence Presented (with pictures and cigarettes)
Related web-page

willendure wrote:Here is a modern variation on the experiment that demonstrates mass acting on light: https://phys.org/news/2015-01-gravity-c ... .html#nRlv

..the team created three plumes of ultracold atoms..

They demonstrate effect of gravity on mass, not the bending of light.

The plasma around the sun is much more dense and expands much more than mainstream wants to
admit. See Robitaille's channel for details.
Image
It seems to me that there is not much empty space around that sun.

Lets add more "evidence":
The LIGO is discussed in another thread, and it is now clear that the instrument is a receiver of
low frequency electromagnetic waves. They can build antennas in the same way.

Image
We also have the Apsidal precession. Which is hard to explain with Newton's gravity only.
General relativity explains this by having some extra force, which kind of matches with the precessing of Mercury.
If mercury is electrically attracted by the sun, it might also add some force. So this can also cause precessing.
This still needs more research, but it affects mass not light.

Conclusion
I have not found any experiment consistently proving the bending of light due to gravity.

Gravity discussion
For me gravity is directly related with the Wave Nature of Matter.
See: On Gravity and the Uncertainty Principle.
So instead of being in conflict with QM, the most accurate theory ever, gravity is actually caused by QM.
This model still needs improvements to match with the clock-change observations.

It is just sad that this important discussion is under Thornhill's gravity model,
because I don't agree with that either.

People seem to forget that you can't proof that you are right,
by proving that others are wrong.
You can only proof you are right by showing that your model
can be tested and matches with all observations.

So: ALL listed gravity models are wrong, including mine.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron