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

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Fri Mar 16, 2018 4:40 pm

Zyxzevn wrote: ...

You are wrong, look again. There are four forces in total, two attract (+- and -+) and two repel (++ and --).
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Fri Mar 16, 2018 8:58 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote: ...

You are wrong, look again. There are four forces in total, two attract (+- and -+) and two repel (++ and --).


NO, force is only electric force. The other three forces are variants of electromagnetic force.
What seems to be gravity in outer space is electromagnetic force and there is repulsion force. Gravity on the ground is a very complicated mechanism and is related to rotation and magnetic field. For details, please look at my website.

https://translate.google.co.jp/translat ... edit-text=
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Fri Mar 16, 2018 9:40 pm

ja7tdo wrote: ...

You are not even addressing the same subject. Start a different thread and try to sell your ideas there.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Fri Mar 16, 2018 10:43 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
ja7tdo wrote: ...

You are not even addressing the same subject. Start a different thread and try to sell your ideas there.


Thank you for admitting it is worth selling to my theory.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby nick c » Sat Mar 17, 2018 7:13 am

ja7tdo,
Postings here should be on topic. This subject of this thread is dipole gravity.
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2464
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sat Mar 17, 2018 6:34 pm

nick c wrote:ja7tdo,
Postings here should be on topic. This subject of this thread is dipole gravity.


If you read this thread from the beginning, you can see that I am posting topics along dipole gravity.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:32 am

ja7tdo wrote: ... I am posting topics along dipole gravity.

Yes, but you are also posting brief and scattered thoughts on half a dozen other subjects. My advice to you would be to learn all present, mainstream physics that you can, then concentrate on one subject at a time and follow your intuition to try to advance that subject. There is no lack of opportunities in physics because of the complexity of reality compared to the limited comprehension of the human mind.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Zyxzevn » Sun Mar 18, 2018 2:24 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote: ...

There are four forces in total, two attract (+- and -+) and two repel (++ and --).


Ok, I missed the one on the top in your picture.

But do you know how much force that gives, related to distance R?

Let me show that for you.

I start with with 2 charges:
(+)---------<-R->-------(-)

It gives force:
F= k*q*q/R^2 Coulomb's law

Let me use Siggy's quote here:
[quote=Siggy_G] .. it is is spherical, also called a divergent field, with an inverse square fall off .[/quote]

Now what happens if you put a dipole at one side?

(-)-(+)--------<-R->-------(-)

We have two forces:
F(+-)= k*q*q/R^2 (attracting force)
F(--)= k*q*q/(R+d)^2 (repelling force)

The charge on the right will get both forces, so we have to subtract the forces.

F(1 dipole)= F(+-) - F(--) = k*q*q* [ d( d+2*R)/(R*R*d*d+ R^4) ]
Wolfram Alpha link

look: we now have R^1 on the top and R^4 on the bottom.
When d is much smaller than R, which is almost always true,
the R becomes dominant, and we get.....

F(1 dipole)= k*q*q*[ d*2*R/ (R^4) ]= k*q*q*[ d*2/ R^3 ]
Of attractive force (as long the charges are in this order)

Look in the formula:
We got a R^3 there, not a R^2 or R^4 any more.
The d^2 is also in the top, so if d is very small, the attraction is very small too.
If d would be zero, we would have no force, which is logical.
And if d<0 then the force will be repelling, also logical.

Now what if we have two dipoles instead of the charge at the right side.

(-)-(+)--------<-R->-------(-)-(+)

For the dipole on the right: One charge will get attracted and one will get repelled.
Because I assume the dipoles are connected, we have to add the forces for both charges.

As Bengt already stated, we have 4 forces.

F(+-) = k*q*q/R^2
F(++) = k*q*q/(R+d)^2
F(--) = k*q*q/(R+d)^2
F(-+)= k*q*q/(R+2*d)^2

So the force on the right dipole is:
F= F(+-) - F(++) - F(--) + F(-+)
F= k*q*q* [ 4d^4 + 12 d^3*R+ 6 d^2*R^2 ]/[ R^2*(d+ R)^2(2d+R)^2 ]
Or F= k*q² [ 4d^4 + 12d³R+ 6d²R² ]/[ R²(d+ R)²*(2d+R)² ]
Wolfram Alpha link

Now we have R^2 divided by R^6

So when we assume the normal situation in which d is significantly bigger than R we get:

F(dipole)= k*q² [ 6d²R² ]/[ R²( R)²*(R)² ]
Which gives:
F(dipole) = k*q*q* [ 6*d^2 / R^4 ]

So as I stated the force between 2 dipoles is indeed 1/R^4
And with a small d it gets very small due to the d^2

So with this basic maths explanation I have shown that the force between dipole and any charge
is always in the order of 1/R^3
and the force between two dipoles is in the order of 1/R^4

This makes dipoles worthless as a replacement of gravity,
which in the solar system works with the force of 1/R^2

So I look at dipole.se what in the heck is wrong, where I see that
Bengt has no distance between the dipoles in his gravity, but calculates the
force when dipoles are next to each other.

So instead of gravity bengt calculates forces similar to the vandewaals-force.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force
Or electrostatic force. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatics

This force can indeed overcome gravity, as we can see with water drops
that sting to surfaces. Or insects that stick on the ceiling.
The funny thing, is that they still only work at close distances, as
anyone who has seen drops falling from a glass can confirm.

I think this picture says enough:

Image
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
User avatar
Zyxzevn
 
Posts: 992
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Sun Mar 18, 2018 3:00 pm

Siggy_G wrote: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.


How very convenient; dipole gravity permeates everything and is therefore impossible to shield or even detect. Yet you are certain it is there.

Are you just making this stuff up for fun?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby ja7tdo » Sun Mar 18, 2018 5:01 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:
ja7tdo wrote: ... I am posting topics along dipole gravity.

Yes, but you are also posting brief and scattered thoughts on half a dozen other subjects. My advice to you would be to learn all present, mainstream physics that you can, then concentrate on one subject at a time and follow your intuition to try to advance that subject. There is no lack of opportunities in physics because of the complexity of reality compared to the limited comprehension of the human mind.


sorry, It seems this forum is a religious sacred place. I respect your faith.
ja7tdo
 
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 7:36 am
Location: Japan

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Sun Mar 18, 2018 6:08 pm

Zyxzevn wrote:
Bengt Nyman wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote: ...

There are four forces in total, two attract (+- and -+) and two repel (++ and --).

Ok, I missed the one on the top in your picture.

NEVER use 1/r^3 or 1/r^4, they are special case approximations.
ALWAYS go back to each individual charge and use Coulombs Law with 1/r^2 on ALL vectors involved, because Coulombs Law ALWAYS holds true.
The dipole to dipole forces are extremely small, on the order of 10^-18 of the charge to charge forces, so the slightest approximation totally invalidates your calculations.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Webbman » Mon Mar 19, 2018 5:41 am

what about the original position of the dipole?

the problem i have with most of these solutions is that there is no accounting for the stream. The stream is the default condition. You can only overcome it. You cant reverse or negate it.
We shall know them by their works
Webbman
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Siggy_G » Mon Mar 19, 2018 6:52 am

willendure wrote:How very convenient; dipole gravity permeates everything and is therefore impossible to shield or even detect. Yet you are certain it is there.

Are you just making this stuff up for fun?


Finding and measuring the inner workings of gravity has been a challenge in physics till this day, whether it is hypothetical warped space, gravitons or other proposals. It is mostly the effect of gravity that can be measured, and even that isn't settled science. It is a reason anti-gravity is a (speculative) field of science and engineering, and a reason why anti-gravity devices aren't around yet. It's not easy to do an autopcy on an effect that is omnipresent and always additive, and figure out how to shield or counter it. Of course, further work and attempts must be done to achieve this.

The main criteria for a scientific model is that it is internally consistent and that one can empirically verify mechanisms from observation, extrapolation and interpolation. Dipole electrogravity, and its variants, is in my view scoring high in this regard.

A neat contribution to electrogravity theory has been done by the Norwegian physician Nils Rognerud. In his paper «Free fall of Elementary Particles» (1989/1994) he summarizes:

«We have seen how it is possible for two hydrogen atoms to generate a non-shieldable force of similar magnitude to gravity. This effect is due to the motional electric field produced by each atom. The dielectric hydrogen atoms will attract towards each other because of the divergent electric fields, produced by each atom. The dielectric force equation in Eq. (5.5) between two hydrogen atoms has a similar magnitude to that of gravity and follows the same inverse square law of force
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Mon Mar 19, 2018 7:11 am

Webbman wrote:what about the original position of the dipole? ...

Agreed. It has not been much talked about because of the complexity involved.
All dipoles in all materials have original positions including original directions of their dipole axes dictated by atomic and molecular bonds in the material. This pattern can appear scattered or random.
If you start with the directions of these original dipole axes without the influence of gravity, and add the influence of external gravity you will see a slight shift in the direction of these axes, not all the way toward the new source of gravity but in favor of it. The amount of angular shift is the result of the ratio between the dipole moments exerted by internal bonds and the added dipole moments from external gravitation.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby querious » Mon Mar 19, 2018 9:37 am

Siggy_G wrote:The main criteria for a scientific model is that it is internally consistent and that one can empirically verify mechanisms from observation, extrapolation and interpolation. Dipole electrogravity, and its variants, is in my view scoring high in this regard.milar magnitude to that of gravity and follows the same inverse square law of force.


What about the fact that only the Earth's dipoles that are in the correct orientation, namely, the ones JUST under an object, are the only ones that can attract the object? All of the Earth's dipoles which form the hemisphere *diametrically opposite* a gravitating object will *repel* the object , not attract it.

Honestly, this is getting to be like arguing about whether the earth is flat.
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests