I’ve waded through only half of the total posts in this thread and I’ve observed something: the conversation began and has continued for the last 4 months in a repeating pattern. This pattern seems cyclic and very mixed about Wallace Thornhill’s presentation on his theory of gravity. It also doesn’t sound like very many of those who’ve posted have come up with constructive criticism to his theory nor posited an alternate theory. That sounds harsh and I am willing to look at any theory that may have been submitted to this thread. Are there any?
When I watched his presentation (because I wasn’t privileged enough to have been present at the conference this year), I gathered Thornhill’s theory as a work in progress, with many details not worked out yet. From a light bit of research, Columbic force and other magnetic forces can and do work with the 1/r2 distance factor and can work through shielding material without induction. I could be wrong. It wasn’t that Thornhill made a detailed and illuminating discovery in the possible workings of gravity, it’s that he tried to show his musings of how an Electric Universe might evolve gravity. That is what I took from his presentation.
Trust me, I was put out when I went hunting for the formulas that someone in the EU groups might have come up with to replace Einstein’s elaborate, yet erred in parts, gravity formula and finally shed light on Newton’s missing revelations. I haven’t found one that wasn’t occulted in confusing presentation flow and omitted references to their highly technical (and sometimes newly created) terminology. Does anyone have a well-elucidated theory that is formed on credible logic and is fully formed? I do truly, as an earnest seeker, want to find one.
I will put my thoughts on gravity, to be fair, though with the understanding that I am not a highly educated person with a profile career. I am a naturalist at heart and do wish to attain a degree in Science, with hopes of finding a fulfilling career that helps us, Humanity, in our relationship and understanding of the Universe. That being said, here it is:
Without admitting to some form of Universal Medium, of which is the substrate of all substance and that fills all voids, galactic and subatomic, we will not truly find any satisfactory theory of gravity, much less a theory of Unity. Yes, friends, that which has been called Aether, Ether, Akasha, etc. We can’t understand material reality in it’s physics to the excruciating detail that we want without looking into the immaterial, as well. This is not pseudo-science, it’s Postmaterialism.
Einstein used in his Theories of Relativity, especially in parts associated with gravity, modified formulas from fluid dynamics physics and Euclidian geometry. In the fluid dynamics portion, he claimed that vacuum forces and effects worked as though “space” (the vacuum) acted as a supercritical fluid, one without viscosity. Let’s repeat that, as I understood from the material Einstein wrote, he treated the vacuum (“space”) as a supercritical fluid. This is contradictory to claims that the Theories of Relativity were devoid of references to the Aether.
Dr. Robert Moon (former professor of the University of Chicago) had voiced a theory of geometric nuclear arrangement of protons and neutrons in the nucleus of every atom. He went on to suggest that the same forces involved in the arrangement of particles in the nuclei were also at work in the macrocosmic arrangement of matter, even to the point of quantifying orbits and aligning material behavior in spacial movements. Why is this important in a theory of gravity? What if the mysterious forces that hold together nuclei also exert a more long-reaching force when coupled with a greater system of parts, like other matter and plasma?
Going further, other theorists, including Dr. Milo Wolff (Wave Propagation of Matter Theory), suggested that the Aether, and it’s activities, may be at the root of many of the mysteries that the contemporary scientific theories do not handle well. My thoughts are in agreement with them, and include ideas from many versions of the Aether Vortex theories (Oliver Lodge, Lord Kelvin, Renee Decartes to name a few contributors). That is not to say that I have the equations that would do justice, just the concepts.
With the flow of Aether through the protons (being micro-systems, perhaps toroidal in nature, that respire as a part of their existence and behavior), this creates the field of electrons (which could be seen as analogous to magnetic fields, rather than innate particles, perhaps) and neutrons are propagated through constriction of this duality (similar to a dormant state of a microbe). This set-up allows for the same sort of phenomena that we are familiar with, in regards to nuclear and quantum physics (at least the more experienced and less solely math-deduced). This also does away with the necessity for creating assumed particles (i.e. matter) like the gluon and such, just to “save appearances”.
Ironically, I’ll admit, I’m doing a bit of “saving appearances” to explain my hap-hazard theory of gravity, but, it has purpose. With Aether movement, we can say, like Conrad Ranzan’s theory, that “space” is cellularized. That is to say that the supposed vacuum is really cells of Aether, held loosely in those states by the forces at work in it. Wallace stated himself that he thought the Aether was just a sea of neutrinos, which were, in his opinion, a “dark” phase of matter, of which leptons were the smallest quanta of. This I’m not so sure of.
So, with Plasma being metabolized through cellular space, all other forces and phenomena, including light, are happening in the sea of Aether. This sea has, like water does, solid and liquid properties, when concerned with the forces of gravity and electromagnetism. If the pull of the tide of matter generates an induced side-effect (like water cooling as it flows quickly through a system) that charges attractive forces, any kind, then the “exhale” of Aether could be regionalized, giving way to structured and aligned properties of both matter and space. If a system of matter combined, as in a planet or other example large mass, is generating an attractive force to other matter, like two vacuums meeting or two energized nodes in a gap of a circuit, then gravity could easily be that force.
It’s the what of the difference between gravity and electromagnetism that is the conundrum, right? Gluons were thought, at one time, to be relative to unraveling the mystery of gravity, not finding the elusive Graviton. If Aether changes modes, like plasma, then perhaps the metabolizing process of Aether through Matter does this and takes a weak cellular force and converts it into the stronger electromagnetic force. Thus, the analogy that Thornhill made to a game of tug of war, in regards to gravity and intergalactic interconnectedness, could be found in the conductivity of the Aether to various forces, including gravity. The daisy chain then becomes focused, not on matter solely, but the cellular networks in the Aether, as well.
Once a person gets over trying to make the Aether material, the theory is digestible. Plus, the idea of non-locality and superposition becomes less “spooky”, as Einstein put it.
In any case, this was my thought, inspired by others. What are your thoughts and theories?
