Gravity and the Solar System

[nick c]

I was wondering:

Can (or better, has) the acceleration due to gravity been explained in terms of an Electric Universe, or more specifically, the EM field of the Earth?

Thanks in advance,
Marnee

[junglelord]

When dealing with universal constants, like gravity, it has been established that gravity is a constant. This speaks at a fundamental level about the force of gravity. Having said that, gravity is a source of theoretical vs observable contradictions. We can not at present measure gravity waves, save for the work of Dave Thompson and his Magnetic Scalar Wave detector which seems to be detecting gravity waves.
http://www.16pi2.com/magnetic_scalar_waves.htm

Both Wal Thornhill, David Thompson, and others have made conjectures on gravity. Wal does have a electrical connection.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs
This thread here will help you with discussion in that direction.
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=870

[seasmith]

~

Another electrical connection has been made by a number of others, ( I'm thinking it was Ralph Sansbury or Ralph Juergens in an early edition of Kronos where first came across it)
whereby a changing electrical [space] environment would cause an acceleration (or slowing) of Earth's rotation;
as a spinning EM-charged object in a flux field.

Sounds reasonable to me...

[substance]

I was wondering:

Can (or better, has) the acceleration due to gravity been explained in terms of an Electric Universe, or more specifically, the EM field of the Earth?

Thanks in advance,
Marnee

I don`t think it has been, but I don`t see the need for it to be either. Space probes do use gravity acceleration, that`s a fact, but plasma cosmologists don`t deny gravity. Some try to explain it in electrical terms (see above link for Wal`s theory of gravity) and other simply leave it as it is.

[Marnee]

But of course!

The piece by Thornhill made much sense.

I didnt mean to imply that anyone was ignoring gravity. Quite the contrary. I was mostly thinking if gravity is really an aspect of electromagnetic forces then in a context such as Earth, using the principles of electromagnetism, one ought to find the acceleration due to gravity (or some kind of average acceleration making assumptions about charge). This especially would make any non-electric gravity theories obsolete, right?

The notion that mass is a function of charge is especially compelling given the results from experiments with charged magnets.

Cheers.

[webolife]

Obsoletion of a theory comes when the fundamental premises of the theory are found to be irreparably flawed.
Some of the fundamental premises behind gravity are:

There is a universal gravitational constant.
Gravity is an attractive force between masses.
Gravity is both an attractive and repulsive force.
Gravitons are particles inherent in the structure of matter.
Gravitational waves exist.
Gravitation and electrical fields are related.
Gravitation is the cumulative result of electrical fields.
Gravitation, electricity, magnetism, and light are all fundamentally related.
Gravitation is an instantaneous field pressure effect.
Gravity "moves" at the c-rate.

Mathematical systems used to describe the above premises or others result in a variety of conclusions that, while consistent within the respective system, fail to account for other phenomena or observations. Some of these premises fit well together, while others are mutually exclusive. Failure to examine the validity of a premise can lead to years of scientific confusion and, frankly, deception, as well as costly misdirection of funds. What I would like to see on this site is more dialogue directed at the premises of our theories, as well as serious critical review of the connection between the premises, the mathematical systems, and the conclusions derived thereby. I'm not all that smart a person, but I know smart when I see it.

[Marnee]

I couldn't agree more! Well said.

[tolenio]

Hello,

So you want to influence gravity with solar plasma, competing magnetic fields and a z-pinch?

Here is a good clue... Overlay the gravitational anomalies of earth and the magnetic field strength of earth's magnetosphere, while understanding solar plasma leaks into the magnetosphere over the Indian Ocean and begins discharging;

Note on the left side of the magnetic pinch you have a negative gravity anomaly, on the right hand side of the pinch you have a positive gravity anomaly.

All mappings of such anomalies follow the pattern.

The one over the Atlantic Ocean divides -/+ gravity at the Mid Atlantic Ridge tectonic fault where trapped solar plasma also finds a good discharge ground.

This makes me ponder the plasmoids being formed behind the planet, and if the negative gravitational anomaly associated with those immense plasma discharges influence earth's solar orbit. Does the planet follow a leading negative gravitational anomaly, always falling towards a weak gravitational anomaly, while the sun's gravity pulls the other way? This certainly balances the ying and the yang.

This would be like a surfer always travelling downhill on the amplitude of the wave. That would make planets gravitational surfers.

Tom

[amzolt]

I'm working on a novel that will feature Plasma as a "character"...

Considering this quote from Holoscience http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... rds=invers :
"If the mass of an inner planet is reduced by charge exchange with the next outer planet, which changes the subatomic dipole distortion, the orbital radius of the inner planet must decrease proportionally to conserve energy. Similarly, the outer planet must gain mass and its orbit expands to conserve energy. The closer the encounter between two planets the more substantial the charge exchange and the greater the resultant orbital adjustments. It seems a highly effective means for collision avoidance and for quickly spacing the planetary orbits to minimize interactions—provided the inner planet diminishes its charge polarization (reduces its mass) in the exchange and the outer planet increases its polarization (increases its mass)."...

Does anyone feel qualified to hazard an opinion on how much orbital change two planets would induce in each other if their close approach was 4.5 million kilometers?

[TalonThorn]

I don't have a strong background in astronomy or physics, but I've often pondered the discussions here, and the one that stands out to me the most is, what is gravity? Considering that question, and how gravity has to be near-instantaneous to make the planet system stable, I wonder if this conclusion is wrong, and actually it is the science that lead to this conclusion that is in fault.

If we are to consider a force-driven planetary system, then we have to have the near-instantaneous forces keeping things working. But what if instead of that it is an equilibrium that keeps the planets in place? That is, the planets stay their positions because they are balanced out in a fashion similar to how the electrons balance out in an atom. Now, I hear say that the electrical force is not powerful enough to explain the planetary system, but isn't it silly to talk about some force for which there is no evidence? It would seem to me that it would be more productive to dispense of "gravity" as a force, and move forward with what forces we do have concrete evidence of. Yes, we have evidence of apples dropping at a steady rate, but that isn't "gravity" but rather an unexplained event. Calling it "gravity" may be missing the point of why the apple falls in the first place.

As I understand, gravity was defined as a force, and then the planetary system was defined based on gravity as the mechanism, including deciding the mass of the planets, etc. Has anyone ever considered throwing out the whole thing and starting over? With the added discussion of mass being based (at least in part) on electrical charge, wouldn't it make sense to reconsider the simplistic view that planets work not too differently from electrons?

Maybe my naivety is now showing too much, but maybe it allows me to consider the unconsiderable or impossible. At any rate, I believe there is little reason to continue to use the term "gravity" which does little to benefit any discussion, even if it means we have to go back to the drawing board and start saying, "I don't know." It's ok to say, "I don't know," as long as it is followed by, "but I'm going to try to find out the answer."

[TalonThorn]

Let me put it this way:

When asking a question and you find you can't find a satisfactory answer after scouring all range of possible solutions, maybe the problem isn't in finding an answer, but that the question is wrong. You guys should be quite familiar with this concept, as you've seen mainstream science do this for years. Their solution is to come up with imaginary answers.

I'm not saying that the present theories are wrong, but rather that they can't give us the right answers because they don't ask the right questions. Certainly the equations for gravity are great for predicting and determining things, but they are not so good at explaining the makeup of the universe.

If you stand outside a house and describe it, and ask someone else to do the same, you may both end up describing the same thing but in different ways. Which one is correct? Both but neither. Each one has given a partial answer to the question and derived incompatible (but useful) answers. One was standing in front of the house and the other in back, so the answer for one is great for how to go into the front door but the second is much more qualified for access through the back. Due to our limited ability to describe things accurately and fully, we are stuck in this analogy, but we can benefit from it too. Realizing that there is more than one useful answer (even if incompatible) we can then begin to study the question to help get to the desired answers.

My challenge is to consider that instead of a universe based on force, construct a universe based on relationship. We are already familiar with electrical charge and how it attracts opposite charge and repels like charge, but where is the particle that carries this "force"?? Scientists look for the graviton but I've never heard of anyone looking for the "chargeton." Why is that? Seems to me that electrical theory is already based on a relational theory instead of a force theory (that is, it looks at how two things are related and does not try to find some kind of particle that transfers energy or interaction between the two).

With planets, instead of basing their movement on force, maybe it would be better to ask how the planets create an equilibrium between each other so as to follow set paths. To do this we'll have to dispense of a lot of old thinking, walk around the house to a new position, and begin describing it once again. It may be that the "physics" we see on the Earth does not apply strictly to the planets. It may be that we'll have to do experiments outside of the influence of the Earth to find out how the planets stay in balance on their paths in the solar system.

[Ion01]

I just started reading these. I think it is right along the lines you are thinking. I hope it helps.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

If you understand the principles of charge exchange and particularly the premis of the electric sun then everything begins to quickly fall in place.

[MGmirkin]

See here:

(Thornhill on Light & Gravity)
viewtopic.php?p=34713#p34713

About 3-5 posts pointing out Thornhill's model of light / gravity / atomic and sub-atomic "structure," electrical dipoles, etc.

Best,
~Michael Gmirkin

[kiwi]

Hi ... first post here at TBI .... great site, just reading through the archived topics and found this very interesting post, but am a bit suprised that no dialouge has followed? .... Is it a case of this being a dual topic, already posted here in another thread?, if so could some one provide a link to it thanks.....

[Sparky]

This overlay doesn't mean much to me...could you interpret what the relative differences of gravitational anomali are ?

Are there really enough of a difference to cause much of any effect.?

thank you