Thornhill's gravity model

[Aardwolf]

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.

Really? A drive by criticism without content from someone who stated that the Cavendish experiment didn't measure density even though his paper is called "Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth" and then insisted even after that revelation that there was no interaction between the aparatus and Earth even though as I just said, his paper is called "Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth". You seemed to think he did this without interacting with it.

I'm not sure you're in any position to attempt to critique anyone's take on the Cavendish experiment, which is probably the reason why your post didn't have any content.

[willendure]

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.

Sure. Gravity Probe A!

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

[willendure]

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.

I agree. This thread is about Thornhill's model and whether or not it is correct. Proving other models correct or not is actually irrelevant.

I hope I am showing that Thornhill is wrong, it does not seem hard to disprove it.

[Aardwolf]

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.

No, but as the shielding expert I assumed you knew what mechanism was in action and how you were going to go about shielding it. I guess you don’t and you’re just repeating what you have been told or what you expect to happen.

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).

Again you invoke your shielding expertise but still can’t define what mechanism you are shielding and how you are going to do it. Your thought experiment is developing into an increasing empty phrase. Why not just say what you clearly just want to say; “I am right…because I said so”

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.

Describing something over and over is not explaining it. Let's try and break it down for you. What mechanical effect is causing the positive things to be attracted to the negative things?

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.

Wal might not be correct but you’re undefined thought experiments do not disprove his theory.

[Aardwolf]

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.

What rubbish. You can electrostatically stick something to a metal object, grounded or not. And it stays there long after any equalisation of electrons.

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.

Until you can tell us what is causing a positive object/particle to attract to a negative object/particle your attempts to offer a comprehensive method of shielding is based on wishful thinking.

[JHL]

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.

You're going to have trouble with that statement until you write some obvious parameters into it (at the least). Is the internal body unipotential with the external and if not, is there an atmosphere between them? Is so, what kind? In this model, is vacuum an atmosphere?

As you've written it one could be inclined to take your formulation as naivety on as elemental a principle as dielectrics but while you troll a lot, I don't really suspect you're ignorant of that. So why the obviously faulty premise?

[querious]

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.

Really? A drive by criticism without content from someone who stated that the Cavendish experiment didn't measure density even though his paper is called "Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth" and then insisted even after that revelation that there was no interaction between the aparatus and Earth even though as I just said, his paper is called "Experiments to determine the Density of the Earth". You seemed to think he did this without interacting with it.

I'm not sure you're in any position to attempt to critique anyone's take on the Cavendish experiment, which is probably the reason why your post didn't have any content.

Nice try, Aardwolf. The key insight of the Cavendish experiment was figuring out an ingenius way to measure big G without using the Earth's mass at all. Being able to measure to Earth's mass using the newly-gotten big G was a side bonus. Don't try to use that fact, and yes, the title, as a way to weasel out of your ignorance.

[willendure]

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.

You're going to have trouble with that statement until you write some obvious parameters into it (at the least). Is the internal body unipotential with the external and if not, is there an atmosphere between them? Is so, what kind? In this model, is vacuum an atmosphere?

As you've written it one could be inclined to take your formulation as naivety on as elemental a principle as dielectrics but while you troll a lot, I don't really suspect you're ignorant of that. So why the obviously faulty premise?

I don't actually know what you mean by "faulty premise", do please explain?

[Siggy_G]

From the perspective of an electric gravity, a planet has a gradient of charge and polarization radially away from the surface; from the surface and upwards if you like. This is a result of the spherical geometry of the massive object and hence the collective radial allignment of dipoles. The global field* and its fall-off is equal to a charged sphere; inverse square:



Every subatomic particle, atom and molecule are affected by this field and will allign accordingly. (A polarizable aether would be affected accordingly, which may better explain the effect and its energy carrying process)


(Made with the PhET Interactive Simulation)

In this illustration the dielectric "marbles" or particles reallign towards the underlying (global) dipoles.



(Made with 3D modelling software)

Therefore, attempting to shield this effect makes little sense, because whatever the shielding object is, its atoms are affected by and alligned with the global planetary polarization. The intial object will be attracted to both, additively. Like this:



A charged object is a relative measurement. It is the object's induced dipole charges at its location + internal charge. The former would be observed as gravity and the latter as electric charge. Internal charges will affect polarization locally, but will have to be significant to overcome the entire global polarization. (Maybe the internal charges reallign local dipoles accordingly, cancelling out any effect in the direction of electric gravity)



An induced electric gravity must interestingly have a magnetic (unshieldable) component, especially for subatomic charges in motion, but I haven't yet seen this being elaborated by Thornhill or Bengt Nyman. This would be the Laplace force.

* I agree with Bengt that the use of «field» is an abstraction and a backward description of cause and effect, but it's a term and visualization that physicians prefer without getting into a terminology derail.

[Bengt Nyman]

Correct. Dipole gravity has nothing to do with electrostatics in form of free electrons or lack of electrons. Dipole gravity occurs because each atom forms a dipole where the atom nucleus no longer resides in the center of the electron orbital. Two atoms, or two bodies, form opposite polarity Coulomb dipoles pulling toward each other.
Three bodies in line form a Coulomb dipole gravity chain where 1 is pulling toward 2+3 and 3 is pulling toward 1+2. The reason why you can not shield dipole gravity is that in this chain body 2 acts as a mediator, or a gravity link, porting gravity between 1 and 3, rather than acting as a shield.

[Brigit Bara]

Bengt Nyman says, "Dipole gravity has nothing to do with electrostatics in form of free electrons or lack of electrons. Dipole gravity occurs because each atom forms a dipole where the atom nucleus no longer resides in the center of the electron orbital."

Siggy G says, "An induced electric gravity must interestingly have a magnetic (unshieldable) component, especially for subatomic charges in motion..."

The nucleus of the atom is offset toward the center of the planet or moon. As an overall effect, the planet has a positive charge towards the center, and a negative charge toward the surface.

But that does not mean that EU Gravity is just an efield, or that it can be shielded. It cannot.

The reason is "the origin of gravity is almost entirely in the heavy nuclei which are electrically shielded inside atoms."

ref: "What's Inside Jupiter? | Space News" at 5:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvfFJiUWuDk

(But at the same time, gravity can vary with the charge stress of the planet or comet. And this is demonstrated with change in LOD during a CME, or the unexpected variations in the velocities of the Voyager 1&2 space craft, etc.)

Hollow planets? Not a problem. Solid bodies? Not a problem.

[querious]

The global field* and its fall-off is equal to a charged sphere; inverse square

So you say, but you haven't given a bit of justification for it. Just because there are lots of dipoles, an entire planet of them even, doesn't make the inverse cube law of dipoles go away. And yet you misleadingly used a diagram that shows the inverse square fall-off of a monopole field.

[querious]

The nucleus of the atom is offset toward the center of the planet or moon.

Why?

[Siggy_G]

The global field* and its fall-off is equal to a charged sphere; inverse square

So you say, but you haven't given a bit of justification for it. Just because there are lots of dipoles, an entire planet of them even, doesn't make the inverse cube law of dipoles go away. And yet you misleadingly used a diagram that shows the inverse square fall-off of a monopole field.

I have given a justification and visualization for it, and there is nothing misleading in saying that global dipoles are arranged into a collective geometry like that of a charged sphere and gets the fall-off of: a charged sphere. You automatically assign negative intentions to others.

There is a difference between the field of one dipole and the collective field of a plenum of dipoles: it depends on the bulk geometry. Also, there are formulas that point to a dipole having an inverse square fall-off:



Regardless, alligned side-by-side their individual fields overlap, surely a much denser field than when separated:



In a shell (or sphere) the collective field is that of the bulk geometry. All dipoles are distributed spherically, with their poles alligned radially, like visualized in my previous post. Furthermore, the internal mechanisms of interacting dipoles are more complex than the overall global effect of them, as Bengt has pointed out earlier.

[Bengt Nyman]

The nucleus of the atom is offset toward the center of the planet or moon.

Why?

Excuse me for jumping in here Brigit. I want to save you from giving the wrong answer. I do not believe that Ralph Sansbury meant this, but in translation from Sansbury dipole gravity to Thornhill dipole gravity a misunderstanding or error might have occurred. In case of the Earth, it may be that Brigit is correct, however, querious is right (for a change) in asking why. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO with the nucleus being heavier than the electron. It could go either way and it is more a question of the chicken or the egg. Imagine two equally sized steel balls hanging in long pendulums to demonstrate gravity between the balls. They obviously would not demonstrate gravity between them if they were both outwardly negatively charged and subsequently negatively charged toward each other. It is more complicated and as Siggy-G pointed out, more dynamic and situational than so.