Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[Bengt Nyman]

I suggest that Wilhelm Weber(1804-1891) supports the ideas of Bengt Nyman.
Weber’s determination of a minimal distance below
which the Coulomb force, the repulsion of
like particles, must reverse and become attractive.
Thus the strong force comes from the natural repulsive force of like charged particles, that attract at VERY CLOSE distances, according to Weber.
Jack

Thank you Jack !!
Weber is and was completely right. In Webers days we did not know about quarks (1945). This made the force reversal somewhat of a mystery.
Today quarks, simple geometry and Coulomb's law resolves the question. Two protons, each consisting of 2 positive and 1 negative quark can position themselves in such a way that the two positive quarks in one proton huddle the one negative quark in the second proton. Distances between them become so short that this intense double attraction outweighs the remaining four repulsive forces between the four positive quarks trying to push the two protons apart.
If you force these two protons apart by just a short distance, the 1/r^2 differential diminishes and the two protons repel each other.

Again, thank you Jack.

[willendure]

Read the whole thing about strong force, figures and all !

Ok, read it all. Its far too hand wavy to really conclude anything from.

Also, I think a hydrogen atomic clock does not work as you describe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_maser

[willendure]

Although most of the discussion on this topic is above my physics knowledge level I would like to share this bit of history.
I suggest that Wilhelm Weber(1804-1891) supports the ideas of Bengt Nyman.

Exactly what I was thinking; Bengt's model would have had relevance in the 19th century and been held up as a candidate theory of matter. 20th century physics made it irrelevant.

[querious]

Thus the strong force comes from the natural repulsive force of like charged particles, that attract at VERY CLOSE distances, according to Weber.

No, the strong force comes from QCD, QEDs more complicated cousin.

See QCD Made Simple

[jacmac]

The notion that the electromagnetic force might be responsible for the VERY MUCH WEAKER force of gravity seems to me to be possible if not outright probable. The proposals from standard model astronomers that events in space clearly of a powerful electromagnetic nature (such as light year long jets of plasma) are the result of gravity, make no sense to me. There is an expression in the New York area; If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you !
Jack

[Bengt Nyman]

In regards to charging an aluminum foil thinking that it should fly:

Dipoles in aluminum foil and in earth are primarily oriented as a result of atomic bonds in the materials.
Dipoles in both foil and earth are however affected by each other and adjusting slightly toward alignment with each other.
Due to preexisting bonds these dipoles have a very limited degree of freedom why some of the dipoles in the foil will adjust their positive pole toward earth while others will adjust their negative pole toward earth. If you could measure it without disturbing them you would find areas on the foil somewhat positive and others somewhat negative.
A similar but opposite realignment occurs in earth.
Like in the mechanism which forms dipoles, attraction means pulling closer together while repulsion means pushing further apart, always resulting in a net force of attraction.

Back to the original question about why an aluminum foil does not fly when you charge it:
If anything, charging the foil will attract opposite charges in earth adding electrostatic attraction on top of coulomb gravity. Unless of course you also charge the entire earth sufficiently with the same polarity as the foil to make the two push apart.

[querious]

Back to the original question about why an aluminum foil does not fly when you charge it:
If anything, charging the foil will attract opposite charges in earth adding electrostatic attraction on top of coulomb gravity. Unless of course you also charge the entire earth sufficiently with the same polarity as the foil to make the two push apart.

Kudos on your honest attempt to tackle this.

I do have to say that I never said a foil will "fly", I've always said it should react. React could be down, as you've rightly explained.

The reason I've never focused on downward-only attraction is because in Wal's theory, the "skin" of Earth has a negative charge, because the more massive protons sink further than the lighter electrons. In that case the polarity of the foil matters.

And, as I've said previously on this thread, I agree that charged objects attract neutral objects, commonly known as electrostatic induction.

Now, please tell us why you think a charged foil doesn't react the way you yourself have (finally) correctly described, and which I've been bugging you about for almost 2 years.

Specifically, no matter where this extra charge happens to be located on the foil, it will easily swamp whatever delicate alignment the dipoles have managed to establish with the Earth's dipoles.

So, if it's a negative charge on the bottom, it will reorient the foil's dipoles to make their electrons as far from it as possible, thus ruining whatever delicate balance it had established with Earth.

Putting any charges anywhere does the same thing.

[Bengt Nyman]

Free electrons placed on the foil will try to avoid each other by dispersing around the edges and to a lesser extent to the surfaces of the foil. Free also means that they have no anchors from which to exert a force.
If you want the electrons floating around the edges and surfaces of the foil to redirect the dipoles inside the foil for take off, don't forget that the dipoles in the earth will most likely readjust and maintain attraction no matter what you want. Just turn the foil over, and you will see.
"But what would happen if you charged the foil with even more electrons ?" I have not bothered to calculate how many electrons, what charge or what voltage it would take before something extraordinary happens, but feel free to try.

For your free electrons to counteract Coulomb gravity, GR gravity, SR gravity, ST gravity, Quant-gravity or any other future gravity, earth must be charged with the same polarity as the foil so that the free electrons trapped on the foil have like charges on earth to repel from.

[querious]

If you want the electrons floating around the edges and surfaces of the foil to redirect the dipoles inside the foil for take off, don't forget that the dipoles in the earth will most likely readjust and maintain attraction no matter what you want.

Huh? "will most likely readjust"? Based on what exactly?! There's no magic genie always trying to ensure that all the dipoles are oriented so that the force of gravity stays the same, no matter how much surface charges are scrambling up the gravity-based orientations.

And, that still doesn't deal with key point your yourself raised...

If anything, charging the foil will attract opposite charges in earth adding electrostatic attraction on top of coulomb gravity.

You kind of skated right past your own objection.

[Bengt Nyman]

Charging the foil with electrons would attract a few positive ions in earth adding marginally measurable electrostatic attraction to coulomb gravity. That does NOT involve changing or affecting gravity, it merely superimposes electrostatic attraction to gravity, and it certainly does not make the foil fly as claimed.

I am with coulomb strong force and coulomb dipole gravity pointing out a mechanism which has not received enough attention in the past. Compound coulomb interactions demystify and eliminate the need for fictitious particles like gluons and gravitons. They also eliminate the need for the standard model in mainstream physics to try to reconcile various advanced tools and theories with each other in terms of strong force and gravity.
I am convinced that my simplistically described discovery in no way paints the full picture of the real intricacies of how these mechanisms work in the real world and on a larger scale.
However, I am also convinced that the mechanism shown on my website is physically and mathematically indisputable, is likely to retain effect on a larger scale and should be further developed and better understood for its roll in the bigger picture.

[querious]

Charging the foil with electrons would attract a few positive ions in earth adding marginally measurable electrostatic attraction to coulomb gravity. That does NOT involve changing or affecting gravity. ...

But it does involve changing the foil's gravity because the charges on the foil would scramble the dipole orientations. We can do this all day, Bengt. Are you going to address my posts, or just make baseless claims like above? You're slipping back into your old way again.

[Bengt Nyman]

The dipole operations do not get confused or scrambled, they DO NOT make the foil go flying off. If you insist on flying a foil for a short distance put down an insulator, lay a conductive plate on the insulator, lay the foil on top of the plate and charge the plate and foil.

If you make the foil lighter by cutting a hole in it, coulomb gravity knows how to handle that as well. If you put a steel plate on top of the foil, gravity handles that as well. You must have noticed in your own lives how smart and reliable gravity is. Thanks to Coulomb, you no longer have to worry about gravity.

[willendure]

The notion that the electromagnetic force might be responsible for the VERY MUCH WEAKER force of gravity seems to me to be possible if not outright probable. The proposals from standard model astronomers that events in space clearly of a powerful electromagnetic nature (such as light year long jets of plasma) are the result of gravity, make no sense to me. There is an expression in the New York area; If you believe that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I will sell you !
Jack

I don't see why you link these 2 things: gravity as possibly being electrical in nature, and events in space that are obviously electrical to the EU eye. I do not think gravity is electrical, but I do think there are a great many obviously electrically influenced things that we can see in space - from craters to nebula - that established science seems almost desperate to explain by any means other than electrical. In some situations gravity may be the dominant force, as in crater formation by meteorite impact. In other situations electrical may be the dominant force, as in hex crater excavation by electricity.

[willendure]

If you want the electrons floating around the edges and surfaces of the foil to redirect the dipoles inside the foil for take off, don't forget that the dipoles in the earth will most likely readjust and maintain attraction no matter what you want.

Huh? "will most likely readjust"? Based on what exactly?! There's no magic genie always trying to ensure that all the dipoles are oriented so that the force of gravity stays the same, no matter how much surface charges are scrambling up the gravity-based orientations.

So here is the experiment.

Ground. On the ground sits some scales, with an apple resting on them. Above the scales is the infamous charged foil. We charge it up, but it does not go flying, because a balancing charge is induced in the earth. Why does the apple not register a noticeable change in weight?

Seriously, all we have to do is measure the earths voltage gradient above the ground, and see that it is not large enough to account for inducing dipoles that give rise to large enough forces to explain gravity.

Why do electricity substations not cause things to float away, or be slammed into the ground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_potential_rise)? Why do lightning strikes or thunderstorms charging the ionosphere up to 1/2 million volts, not cause vast shifts in the weights of nearby objects?

[querious]

Why do electricity substations not cause things to float away, or be slammed into the ground (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_potential_rise)? Why do lightning strikes or thunderstorms charging the ionosphere up to 1/2 million volts, not cause vast shifts in the weights of nearby objects?

You should know the answer by now, Will! The dipoles will magically rearrange themselves to keep the weight the same. Problem solved!