Thornhill's gravity model
- Brigit Bara
- Posts: 643
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
"That shouldn't be happening." (:
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer
~Homer
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
hi,Brigit Bara wrote:
Hi ja7tdo, I read your interesting link, thank you.
This is what I am referring to:
"Anti-Gravity Wheel?"
dur. 5:41
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo
yes, I know this video. also many anti gravity theory.
The gyro can not eliminate gravitational mass. It only makes it easy to hold a long stick with a weight.
Some videos are rotating the gyro on weight scale. Unfortunately the weight does not change.
there is 2 type gravity. gravity on Earth is same as EM drive.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Cavendish experiment has a mistake he made without knowing that lead is diamagnetic.willendure wrote:
Did you ever look at the set up for measuring G, the Cavendish experiment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment
The masses are arranged horizontally, but gravitational attraction between them is measured. So which way is it that the dipoles are oriented?
Faraday first noticed. Faraday was trying to prove that gravity is electromagnetic force until just before his death.
Cavendish measured the magnetic field lines of lead reacted in the earth's magnetic field.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Sure, gravity is a very weak force so calculating G with small masses in lab is always going to be a tough call.Brigit Bara wrote: So I think the answer to your question is that there are still random and systemic errors and inconsistent results with experimental set ups.
However, you dodge the question of which direction the forces are in? They may be somewhat small and hard to measure accurately, but they are not only in the vertical are they in this horizontal set up. So that rules dipoles out, if you are claiming that they are always oriented towards the center of the Earth.
Its just too easy to destroy the dipole idea with the application of a little bit of logic, I honestly don't know why you all persist with this nonsense.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Sure, but the experiment has been repeated many times with different materials. Once people found out about the diamagnetic lead issue, do you think they just went 'oh dear, well that must be wrong..'. No, they repeated the experiment with other masses, materials and experimental set ups.ja7tdo wrote: Cavendish experiment has a mistake he made without knowing that lead is diamagnetic.
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
yes, recent experiments use glass. but glass is also diamagnetic and dielectric. air is weak electric plus. What happens is obvious.willendure wrote:Sure, but the experiment has been repeated many times with different materials. Once people found out about the diamagnetic lead issue, do you think they just went 'oh dear, well that must be wrong..'. No, they repeated the experiment with other masses, materials and experimental set ups.ja7tdo wrote: Cavendish experiment has a mistake he made without knowing that lead is diamagnetic.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
In what way exactly does the Pound-Rebka experiment (which wasn't in a lab anyway and didn't have a control so dubious in the extreme anyway) test that mass is responsible for gravity? Try again. One with a significant use of dark matter would be nice as that's supposedly the reason galaxies exist in the form they do.willendure wrote:GR has held up well in lab tests, most famously Pound-Rebka, but there are many other experiments too. I agree there are still elements of doubt, but I don't think anything outright rejected GR. So it lives another day.Aardwolf wrote:I didn't realise that mass based gravity theory had passed al its lab tests. Which tests were they by the way?willendure wrote:Science: form a hypothesis, test it in the lab, did it pass the test? No, your idea is wrong. Yes, your idea may be right and lives another day.
Maybe those test are not possible on the surface of the earth within the field. However, as someone who places such faith in "proven" mass based gravity please provide the laboratory proof confirming such a mechanism.willendure wrote:Thornhill on the other hand can be disproved easily. Charge a foil and measure its change in weight. Build a Faraday cage and float inside it. Build other anti-gravity machines based on nothing more than overcoming the Thornhill field with a simple voltage. Also dipoles are directional, so bring two large masses together and measure their attraction, then introduce a third mass at a different angle and see how that changes the gravity measured. And so on. I await the results that those of you who are so convinced by this will be rushing out to demonstrate that they are geniuses of a higher order than even Einstein. My friends, a Nobel prize surely awaits you.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Actually it's quite accurate nowadays. And the laboratory experiments which you favour have proven it's actually variable.willendure wrote:Sure, gravity is a very weak force so calculating G with small masses in lab is always going to be a tough call.
https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita ... -vary.html
What's interesting is the correlation of the Length of Day and G. Even more interesting is the correlation of the troughs with the perihelion/aphelion of Jupiter's orbit;
Troughs in G measurement;
1987, 1993, 1999, 2005, 2010
Jupiters Perihelion/Aphelion;
1987, 1993, 1999, 2005, 2010
Which to me suggests gravity is more affected by the Sun's electromagnetic environment rather than it is a supposedly fixed mass of the planets.
The question is, now that "constant" G has failed it's lab experiments are you still going to persist with the nonsense that gravity is mass related?
-
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
- Location: Japan
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
hi,Aardwolf wrote:
https://m.phys.org/news/2015-04-gravita ... -vary.html
snip
The question is, now that "constant" G has failed it's lab experiments are you still going to persist with the nonsense that gravity is mass related?
thank you for good URL.
In my hypothesis, the electromagnetic wave generated by Schumann resonance is the identity of gravity. Schumann resonance is caused by rotation of a large amount of electrons existing inside the crust. It is related to LOD.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com ... 7-oWf5kccg
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
I didn't say it did. It was just an example of a test of GR that GR passed.Aardwolf wrote:In what way exactly does the Pound-Rebka experiment (which wasn't in a lab anyway and didn't have a control so dubious in the extreme anyway) test that mass is responsible for gravity? Try again. One with a significant use of dark matter would be nice as that's supposedly the reason galaxies exist in the form they do.
I don't think GR has so much to do with dark matter, you are confusing that with dark energy, which GR supposedly does have due to the cosmological constant.
I am not a believer in dark matter myself, because it has been ruled out of being so many things, there is nothing left that it can be.
So far there is no more fundamental explanation of mass based gravity, nor is there proof that it is not the case. Unlike Thornhill gravity which is easy to disprove.Aardwolf wrote: Maybe those test are not possible on the surface of the earth within the field. However, as someone who places such faith in "proven" mass based gravity please provide the laboratory proof confirming such a mechanism.
Why would a charged foil not float, for example?
Last edited by willendure on Wed Feb 07, 2018 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Actually, see the previous discussion:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15913
Save me going through the same arguments over and again...
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15913
Save me going through the same arguments over and again...
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
The thread is about an alternative to gravity based theory so why is referencing a GR test relevant in any way? The test is not a confirmation of mass based gravity, it's a test to ascertain the faster running of clocks in higher gravity. A totally irrelevant example as it doesn't attempt to find the cause of gravity. You need a better example. You said there were loads.willendure wrote:I didn't say it did. It was just an example of a test of GR that GR passed.Aardwolf wrote:In what way exactly does the Pound-Rebka experiment (which wasn't in a lab anyway and didn't have a control so dubious in the extreme anyway) test that mass is responsible for gravity? Try again. One with a significant use of dark matter would be nice as that's supposedly the reason galaxies exist in the form they do.
I know. You brought up a GR test. I know it's irrelevant but we're talking about gravity driven by mass and in that respect dark matter is a significant element.willendure wrote:I don't think GR has so much to do with dark matter, you are confusing that with dark energy, which GR supposedly does have due to the cosmological constant.
Well if you don't believe in dark matter you cannot believe in mass based gravity. If needs dark matter to survive.willendure wrote:I am not a believer in dark matter myself, because it has been ruled out of being so many things, there is nothing left that it can be.
You haven't quantified any of the elements of this test, so therefore, if I suspend a ton of lead above a foil I also cannot make it float, ergo, I have disproven mass based gravity.willendure wrote:So far there is no more fundamental explanation of mass based gravity, nor is there proof that it is not the case. Unlike Thornhill gravity which is easy to disprove.Aardwolf wrote: Maybe those test are not possible on the surface of the earth within the field. However, as someone who places such faith in "proven" mass based gravity please provide the laboratory proof confirming such a mechanism.
Why would a charged foil not float, for example?
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Nice try. Just do it without a ton of lead on top. Still can't? Ah well, looks like you are wrong.Aardwolf wrote: You haven't quantified any of the elements of this test, so therefore, if I suspend a ton of lead above a foil I also cannot make it float, ergo, I have disproven mass based gravity.
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
How would that be a test of mass based gravity?willendure wrote:Nice try. Just do it without a ton of lead on top. Still can't? Ah well, looks like you are wrong.Aardwolf wrote: You haven't quantified any of the elements of this test, so therefore, if I suspend a ton of lead above a foil I also cannot make it float, ergo, I have disproven mass based gravity.
You dispute electric based gravity by saying you cant offset it using electricity. I dispute mass based gravity because I can't offset it using mass. Mass based theory is just as disproven as Wal's by your reasoning.
- D_Archer
- Posts: 1255
- Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
- Location: The Netherlands
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
John Hutchison already proved you can levitate stuff with E/M.
When he turned on all his machines and flooded the room with E/M power, large metal balls levitated. Clearly an influx of charge does something to gravity.
The Earth is already charged, so its natural charge and whatever gravity is; are already linked.
Regards,
Daniel
When he turned on all his machines and flooded the room with E/M power, large metal balls levitated. Clearly an influx of charge does something to gravity.
The Earth is already charged, so its natural charge and whatever gravity is; are already linked.
Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests