## Thornhill's gravity model

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

the only real problem i have with Mr. Thornhill's gravity model is that he doesn't account for the general orientation which is and has to be the general direction of the energy input.

that is, dipoles face away from the flow of incoming energy by default and hence gravity. There is no where on the earth you can shield anything from this flow since the earth itself is a net energy absorber by nature of its mass.

They don't point down, just away from the flow which happens to be toward the earth.

modelling the flow to the earth, which can be disrupted slightly as the moon flows through it and you easily see that it is only the energy input that matters. No mystical force.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman

Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

### Re: center of : Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote:A dipole gravity is necessarily directional, but the real gravity acts in all directions at once.

Dipole gravity is directional toward the compound center of dipole gravity in the outside environment.
"Real" gravity is directional toward the compound center of "real" gravity in the outside environment.

Only a twisted choice of words would make them appear different.

But if the dipoles in the two weight arranged horizontally are all pointing down, there would be no attraction between the weights. So I think dipole gravity would just be down and not towards the compound centre.

No matter how you try and twist things, you cannot make a directional dipole force attract in all directions at once. There are real differences with how gravity behaves that we can measure and experimentally demonstrate that dipole gravity does not hold together logically as a concept.

This must be about the 10th time I have pointed this out, mostly in the other thread. But I guess I'll just have to go on repeating myself for all you slow learners.
willendure

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Using isolated Sun; Earth System to describe forces (net sum to so called: gravity). Keep gravity complexity to simplified high level:

Energy of a system is mostly conserved. Sun energy depletion mainly due to non-curving radiation, net loss = Output - Return. Output guides Return flow. Output directly influences other object to self push/accelerate with vector ~1/2 lag toward originating object. Return pushes other object toward originating object with vector ~1/2 ahead (over steered/deflected by output) toward originating object. Tensor (pure math) direction is almost straight at each other.

Return Flow gave us clue via radioactive decay half-life variations, where decay is faster on Earth's dark side (away from sun).

Probably months before I can get to making video about Gravity (start with proton+proton, H+H, Solar System, Galaxy, etc..). At this point, easier for me to construct our 3BLY Resonance Universe using just H building block.

Video about Push Only Force Direction is coming within 2 days. It has simple/easy experiment to replicate - see/confirm for yourself.

jacmac wrote:...
I have often wondered how the pushing force of gravity knows which way to push ?
Jack
MotionTheory

Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
Location: Goleta, CA

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
querious wrote:
Aardwolf wrote: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.
So you still believe in your delusional universe that the experimental apparatus doesn't interact with Earth. Why am I not surprised, it seems to be central to the core of your belief.

Any thoughts on why big G periodically and predictably oscillates? Or is that revelation ostracised in your universe?
Aardwolf

Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:It might be worth mentioning that electrostatics deals with free but stationary static charges, the behaviors and characteristics of which are well known through laboratory experiments.
Gravity, i.e. Coulomb dipole gravity has its cause in dynamic, atomic nuclei and electron orbitals, both of which have spin making gravity the complex, electromagnetic phenomenon that it is.
The fact that there are charged particles involved at the bottom of both electrostatics and gravity does not justify thinking that the two are related, or should affect each other any more than expecting that electrostatically charging a permanent magnet would alter its magnetic properties.

Funny, this thread is about Thornhill's gravity model, and he doesn't say anything about all these added complexities that magically make dipole gravity work.
And Newton never said anything about added complexities like dark matter that magically make mass based gravity work.
Aardwolf

Posts: 1330
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

The basic theory of what gravity actually is which Wal thornhill and I advocate is that of Ralph Sansbury. The theory amounts to a claim that sub-atomic particles, particularly electrons, have sub-particles of their own (subtrons) and that common forces can stretch electrons from their normal spherical shape which don't represent electrostatic dipoles into ellipsoids which do represent dipoles. Thus a voltage drop across a wire will change all of the electrons in that wire into polarized dipoles and create an electrostatic field transverse to the wire and when the current is reversed, the field reverses.

Sansbury claimed that ordinary spinning motions would also turn electrons into radially aligned/polarized dipoles and that we call the cumulative effect gravity. Gravity is thus seen as a sort of a first cousin to gyroscopic force and to the forces which create sinkers and sliders in baseball.

Since the effect is electrostatic in nature, it answers the mail in allowing us to believe that gravity would have been attenuated in the recent past by the static charge of the ancient system, thus allowing animals much larger than could exist on our planet today.

www.bearfabrique.org
tholden

Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

tholden wrote:The basic theory of what gravity actually is which Wal thornhill and I advocate is that of Ralph Sansbury. The theory amounts to a claim that sub-atomic particles, particularly electrons, have sub-particles of their own (subtrons) and that common forces can stretch electrons from their normal spherical shape which don't represent electrostatic dipoles into ellipsoids which do represent dipoles. Thus a voltage drop across a wire will change all of the electrons in that wire into polarized dipoles and create an electrostatic field transverse to the wire and when the current is reversed, the field reverses.

Sansbury claimed that ordinary spinning motions would also turn electrons into radially aligned/polarized dipoles and that we call the cumulative effect gravity. Gravity is thus seen as a sort of a first cousin to gyroscopic force and to the forces which create sinkers and sliders in baseball.

Since the effect is electrostatic in nature, it answers the mail in allowing us to believe that gravity would have been attenuated in the recent past by the static charge of the ancient system, thus allowing animals much larger than could exist on our planet today.

http://www.bearfabrique.org

These literally spinning electrons sound a lot like they will produce magnetism. That could be blocked by an iron box or other material with high magnetic permeability - yet still the marble inside will be affected by gravity.

Not an anti-gravity machine: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/09/ ... tic-shield
willendure

Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Aardwolf wrote:So you still believe in your delusional universe that the experimental apparatus doesn't interact with Earth. Why am I not surprised, it seems to be central to the core of your belief.

Any thoughts on why big G periodically and predictably oscillates? Or is that revelation ostracised in your universe?

I said that getting big G doesn't depend on interaction with Earth. If I understand Cavendish correctly, the torsion experiment would give the same value for big G, even if done on the moon. It just measures the attraction between known masses, not the Earth and known masses.

If there really is an oscillation in big G, then I agree something weird is going on. I think it's just measurement error. We're reaching a state of tech where we can rule it out, or explore how it (surprisingly) varies.
querious

Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Gyroscopic forces demonstrate [perhaps magnify?] a basic concept about gravitation and all the other centropic forces, which is simply this:
All objects not only have mass, but are spinning, rotating, and/or revolving and are therefore are creating/coexisting with "position fixing" gyroscopic forces.

"Position fixing" may be the fundamental operater of magnetism. Together with the universal observation of centropic pressure we interpret as gravitation, EM force, the nuclear forces, and I include light -- we have the potential of a mechanically robust unification of all physics. In this unification, there is no dichotomy between "mass based" and "dipole based" gravitation. The electrical and gravitational [and light] fields are manifestations of the same universal centropic pressure, operating in the context of Galilean, not Newtonian, inertia. Why not Newton's "first"? Because, while it is elegant as an ideal statement, there is nowhere in the universe where we can observe motion in a straight line. Every [massive/charged] object's motion is moderated by a pressure toward's it's system centroid; whether electronic/atomic/molecular, torsion balance, terrestrial/planetary, solar/stellar, galactic, or super cluster, all things "gravitate" toward their local core, or "ground". Sansbury's subtron-based dipoles are his attempt to model the simple concept of periodic position fixing at the electron level. energetic forces that stretch or elongate electron's or more macroscopic bodies are always [by thermodynamics' "second"] overwhelmed by this universal tendency to rebound to the "lower energy state". Entropy is Centropy. "Position fixing" also characterizes periodicity, or what we try to conceptualize as "time".
The ultimate unification.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

webolife

Posts: 2537
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Some thoughts:

webolife wrote:"... energetic forces that stretch or elongate electron's or more macroscopic bodies are always [by thermodynamics' "second"] overwhelmed by this universal tendency to rebound to the "lower energy state". Entropy is Centropy. "Position fixing" also characterizes periodicity, or what we try to conceptualize as "time".
The ultimate unification.

Ah. Interesting choice of wording there “overwhelmed” and “rebound” as relates “position fixing” (periodic radial oscillations). Nice. Your approach still plays well with others that I peruse.

willendure wrote:
Note that I say above Cavendish experiment and its variations. Cavendish was just the first experimenter in a long family of experiments. For example, here is a modern variation on the experiment that demonstrates mass acting on light: https://phys.org/news/2015-01-gravity-c ... .html#nRlv

Thank you. That is nice experiment:

We present the first direct measurement of the gravity-field curvature based on three conjugated atom interferometers. Three atomic clouds launched in the vertical direction are simultaneously interrogated by the same atom interferometry sequence and used to probe the gravity field at three equally spaced positions. The vertical component of the gravity-field curvature generated by nearby source masses is measured from the difference between adjacent gravity gradient values. Curvature measurements are of interest in geodesy studies and for the validation of gravitational models of the surrounding environment. The possibility of using such a scheme for a new determination of the Newtonian constant of gravity is also discussed. - Measurement of the Gravity-Field Curvature by Atom Interferometry
G. Rosi, L. Cacciapuoti et al

Also plays well with others. Has implications for the illusion (or delusion) called "light bending". Light does not bend. This experiment reveals why via extrapolation. Some particles are emitting light. Particles entrained in a gravitational field will still emit light.

However, particle descends following curvature of gravitational gradient. For there is no such thing as falling "straight down". While particle is "falling" under gravitational curvature it will still emit light. The light being emitted during "falling" (which is actually the particle's curved orbital descent like when the Space Shuttle descends) will be emitted along the curving path of the particle's orbital decent.

It is not that the stochastic supposed "ray" of light is being "bent". It is more so that the emission of light is still occurring while the particle curves inward toward the gravitating influence.

The delusion of so called "light bending" works in the following similar manner: I have a clock. It has a spring that is wound with a key. As the spring looses its tension the rate of ticks will slow down. A theoretical physicist might instead look at the clock face and interpret the action as 'time slowing down'.

What is the fastest rate of descent? It is not a straight line. It is a curve:

4. Cycloids and gravity
In 1696 mathematician Jean Bernoulli offered a reward for the solution of the following problem: What shape is the curve on which a body subjected only to the force of gravity will slide (without friction) between two points in the least possible time? He and his brother Jacques, along with Leibniz, Newton, Huygens, and others, found the curve of fastest descent (or brachistochrone) to be part of an inverted cycloid, i.e. a curve generated by a point on the circumference of a circle that rolls along a straight line. -Aetherometry and Gravity: An Introduction

The curve is called a Brachistochrone

Okay. Bye now.
"Our laws of force tend to be applied in the Newtonian sense in that for every action there is an equal reaction, and yet, in the real world, where many-body gravitational effects or electrodynamic actions prevail, we do not have every action paired with an equal reaction." — Harold Aspden

Solar

Posts: 1360
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

An important aspect of the planetary dipole environment is that it is spherical, also called a divergent field, with an inverse square fall off (per planetary radii). Absolute and induced dipoles will always be pulled from a weak to a strong region of this global field, which is towards the planetary surface/centre. There are both electric and magnetic components to this, and sub atomic particles are free to move and allign accordingly, like tiny gyroscopes in response to external forces. Due to electrodynamic mechanisms this effect is additive regardless of initial polarization direction of test objects.

The presumably shielding objects in some thought experiments will merely take part in this. It is not unlikely though, that certain material types of presumably shielding objects will create small offsets or fluctations in measured weight of internal free-to-move objects. However, weights and voltmeters will become polarized in the same manner as what it's supposed to measure, so this may be hard detect.

Regarding horisontal attraction, especially between different sized objects, it can be argued that the dipoles of the upper hemisphere of object A «sees» some of the opposite dipoles of the upper hemisphere of object B, and the same for the lower hemispheres. This will add a horisontal component and affect the net force vector of electrogravity attraction. I'll try to make a visualization of this later on.

Siggy_G
Moderator

Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Siggy_G wrote: ...

Agreed.
By the way, as far as the question whether there is an active, quantitative contribution from possible sub-tron dipoles or magnetic contribution from particle spins including sub-particles and sub-trons, please see new and highlighted results in http://www.dipole.se
Bengt Nyman

Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Siggy_G wrote:An important aspect of the planetary dipole environment is that it is spherical, also called a divergent field, with an inverse square fall off (per planetary radii).

While a charge creates electric field and electrical force of 1/R^2 , adding an opposite charge
at distance D lowers this force to 1/R^3 over distances greater than D.
In short the attractive force is negated by the repelling force.
In my opinion this is a major problem with the dipole related gravity.

But there are other ways to create a 1/R^2 force:

1) Start with a strong positive charge at the Sun and have negatively charged planets.
This charge may be spread along the plane of the solar system.
This means no dipole in the planet or sun, but the solar system as a huge dipole.

2) Have force that is independent of the charge of the particles. Maybe you can think
of smaller sub-particles. Or maybe you can think of something like quantum entanglement.

3) Have mass/charge that spreads out some way. Maybe this causes some attraction.
The gravity based on heisenberg is based on that. Is it possible to do the same with EM-radiation?

4) Have conducting plasma that connects the Sun and the planets. There are certainly
Birkeland currents flowing. What force do they produce? Can the plasma decrease the
force distance? It could be with strength 1/sqrt(R) , which is much more than gravity
over long distances.

5) Do magnetic forces have any influence? Magnetic force depends on speed: V/R^3 for solar magnetism,
or V/R^2 for the whole planetary system.

And all this is only related to the 1/R^2 relationship of Newton's gravity.

Yet, on Earth, we see no relation between charge and gravity in experiments.
We also see a difference between mass and the amount of charged particles inside an object
(protons, neutrons and electrons).
So to get any of this working, you must also provide a new atomic model that is directly related
to the charged particles. While it is a lot of work, it is not difficult to test.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote:http://www.dipole.se

I see an error already on the first picture.
You list attraction twice and repulsion once.
You forget that electrons also create a repulsion.
So the total attractive force of 2 dipoles is not 1/R^2 but 1/R^4
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 995
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Zyxzevn » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:59 pm

Siggy_G wrote:
An important aspect of the planetary dipole environment is that it is spherical, also called a divergent field, with an inverse square fall off (per planetary radii).

While a charge creates electric field and electrical force of 1/R^2 , adding an opposite charge
at distance D lowers this force to 1/R^3 over distances greater than D.
In short the attractive force is negated by the repelling force.

Then you are not describing a 3D "Divergent Field".
Again you are thinking linearly, instead of volumetrically. Just drop the "quantum entanglement" hokey pokey, and try instead explaining how in the physical world a radiating electric 'field' emission can Pull on another object?
seasmith

Posts: 2815
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm

PreviousNext