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 Siggy_G » Wed Mar 21, 2018 3:16 pm

querious wrote:
Siggy_G wrote:The Cavemdish experiment should be set up in a way to avoid Earth's rotation interfering with the sphere rod's motion, and I gather G would be calculated a different constant.


Said as if nobody since Cavendish has figured out a way to improve on his crude Victorian era methods. Check this out . . . https://asd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Stephen.Merkowitz/G/Big_G.html


Sure, but references in previous posts were made to the traditional twisting torsion set up, right?

Regardless, the modern apparatus has eliminated noise from surrounding gravitational sources, and is more accurate, but says nothing about excluding Earth's rotation from affecting the rod's rotation. It says a computer controlled turn table rotates simultaneously as to compensate and avoid torsion twisting, but that doesn't seem to eliminate one of the factors that make the rod rotate.

Further discussion about this experiment ought to be done in a new thread/subject, as it derails from this one.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Aardwolf » Wed Mar 21, 2018 6:02 pm

querious wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:
querious wrote:
Aardwolf wrote:The torsion force is balancing the attraction between the earth and the second weight. If you took this to the moon and it gave the same answer for G then you would have a serious problem. Of course you know the apparatus would need to be calibrated and then what does that tell you about "independently" measured G? It's B******t.


Guess you've never heard of torsion coefficient. Oh well. In case you're interested in ACTUALLY learning about how the Cavendish works, try this . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish ... rth's_mass
Perhaps you are able to, in your own words, describe why that is relevant instead of just posting a link and stating you know what you are talking about? If that's too difficult perhaps just answer this; will the experiment give the same result for G on the moon without any adjustments to the apparatus?

querious wrote:And anyway, are you actually suggesting there's a massive conspiracy, and we don't really know what G is?
Why would there need to be a conspiracy? We know what G is as measured on Earth. That's all we have. Plus the fact that it oscillates in an 11-year cycle over time. An undisputed and predictable fact, even though you want to desperately believe it can't be true.
Aardwolf
 
Posts: 1326
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby celeste » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:23 pm

Solar wrote:This is the third thread on this topic:

Ralph Sansbury's Model 2008

Clarification Request for Wal Thornhill 2015

(...)

For those interested in this idea have you found ANY experiments that answer some of the points in either of the above threads and/or lend support to Thornhill's idea(s) on what (supposedly) causes gravity?


Solar, Just to put this out there:
There are a number of arguments that the Universe is in fact infinite in scale. I’m not arguing for it here, but merely pointing out that IF the universe turns out to be infinite, then we can’t get away from what appears (on any finite scale), to be circular reasoning. In other words, it’s been beaten into our heads to laugh at the idea of “ turtles all the way down”, but in a universe infinite in duration, size, and scale, we do end up exactly there.
Last edited by Siggy_G on Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Reduced lenghty quote-in-quote
celeste
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby celeste » Wed Mar 21, 2018 9:33 pm

A little more here:
You may be familiar with early ideas on “ pushing gravity”. The idea of these LeSage type gravity models did not address this point: What caused the small scale particles themselves to be “slamming into” matter in order to push it together?
celeste
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2011 7:41 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Siggy_G » Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:24 am

Zyxzevn wrote:
Siggy_G wrote: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 uses TWO logical fallacies. (...)


Not quite convinced, but I need to spend time looking further into this and respond later.

Zyxzevn wrote:
Siggy wrote:Another point is that a planetary dipole model, simplified, becomes like a charged sphere


Here is another logical fallacy:
First you say that you can not shield gravity forces, but at the same time you claim that the negative charges inside the sphere are shielded somehow. In common electromagnetism, the negative charges inside the sphere are not shielded by positive charges around the sphere.


Not my point, really. Outside the charged sphere there is a surplus of one charge, as the previous illustration shows. The internal charges reduces (but doesn't cancel) the absolute value of the surface charge, compared to if the sphere theoretically consisted of only one charge. Inside it, an internal shell of negative charges would assert no net force on a charged particle located within, so the E-field inside it is described as being zero. As a side note, one could argue that the shell has a repelling/expanding effect on itself though, which makes an interesting case for the central interior of a planet.

Zyxzevn wrote:And because electrical fields are additive and 1/R^2 the total effect of the electrical field of the sphere is ZERO.

The electrical field of the inside negates the electrical field of the outside. This works even at close distances, because the 1/R^2 field is exactly the opposite of the area that the charge is distributed over. As long the charges are evenly distributed.


You now seem to claim what you just opposed, by saying that the inside zeros out the field of the outside (although that wasn't my point). The important part is that there is a difference in distance. The more distant opposite charges (of equal amount) of the inside won't subtract the closer charges at the surface down to zero or below. The absolute E-field value will always be above zero. This is why it is called a charged sphere, because the exterior has a measured E-field.
User avatar
Siggy_G
Moderator
 
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:45 am

Aardwolf wrote:We know what G is as measured on Earth. That's all we have. Plus the fact that it oscillates in an 11-year cycle over time. An undisputed and predictable fact, even though you want to desperately believe it can't be true.


You have a handful of data points over about 2.5 such cycles, I hardly call that indisputable. It is very suggestive, yes, but you are really exaggerating here.

The mass in newtons formula (GMm/r^2), when taken into GR is replaced with the relativistic mass. If the earth is changing velocity over a 5.9 year cycle, could this be enough to account for this effect?
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 22, 2018 4:49 am

Solar wrote:For those interested in this idea have you found ANY experiments that answer some of the points in either of the above threads and/or lend support to Thornhill's idea(s) on what (supposedly) causes gravity?


No. Those who support Thornhill's ideas always seem to carefully side-step the issue of proposing experiments that would demonstrate it to be true, or engaging with discussing in detail the mechanisms and meaning of experiments that demonstrate it to be false. There have been many experiments proposed that demonstrate it to be false, and those challenges mostly go unanswered.
willendure
 
Posts: 605
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:03 am

Solar wrote:For those interested in this idea have you found ANY experiments that answer some of the points in either of the above threads and/or lend support to Thornhill's idea(s) on what (supposedly) causes gravity?

If we broaden the question to Dipole gravity in general, without any specific brand names attached, the answer is YES. Thomas Townsend Brown, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown, performed the first experiments that support Dipole gravity. He coined the name "Electrogravitics", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics, but he did not know or understand the physics showing itself in his own experiment. The subject goes outside the Ralph Sansbury/Thornhill gravity model and is described at http://www.dipole.se. I am presently working with Nils Rognerud and others to replicate some of the experiments.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby willendure » Thu Mar 22, 2018 7:59 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:Thomas Townsend Brown, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown, performed the first experiments that support Dipole gravity.


http://www.antigravitytechnology.net/th ... brown.html

"The Biefeld–Brown Effect is an effect that was discovered by Thomas Townsend Brown (USA) and Dr. Paul Alfred Biefeld (Switzerland). The effect is more widely referred to as electrohydrodynamics (EHD) or sometimes electro-fluid-dynamics, a counterpart to the well-known magneto-hydrodynamics. Small models lifted by this effect are sometimes called 'lifters'.

The effect relies on corona discharge, which allows air molecules to become ionized near sharp points and edges. Usually, two electrodes are used with a high voltage between them, ranging from a few kilovolts and up to megavolt levels, where one electrode is small or sharp, and the other larger and smoother. The most effective distance between electrodes occurs at an electric field gradient of about 10 kV/cm, which is just below the nominal breakdown voltage of air between two sharp points, at a current density level usually referred to as the saturated corona current condition. This creates a high field gradient around the smaller, positively charged electrode. Around this electrode, ionisation occurs, that is, electrons are stripped off the atoms in the surrounding medium, they are literally pulled right off by the electrode's charge.

This leaves a cloud of positively charged ions in the medium, which are attracted to the negative smooth electrode, where they are neutralized again. In the process, thousands of impacts occur between these charged ions and the neutral air molecules in the air gap, causing a transfer in momentum between the two, which creates a net directional force on the electrode setup. This effect can be used for propulsion (see EHD thruster), fluid pumps and recently also in EHD cooling systems."

Which demonstrates not that gravity is electrical, but that ions have mass and that applying a force to an ion in an electrical field produces an opposite reactive force, as per Newtons laws.

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

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Mar 22, 2018 8:09 am

willendure wrote: ...

The rest of us are talking about Electrogravitics.
The Biefeld–Brown effect is an ionic drift or ionic wind effect of zero significance or interest when it comes to Dipole gravity.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby neilwilkes » Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:12 am

The Biefeld-Brown effect has absolutely nothing at all to do with Ionic Wind. All you are doing is copy/pasting from Wikipedia in an effort to make it look as if you understand what he was up to. I assure you that you do not.
Oddly enough, Brown considered this possibility & took steps to eliminate this from consideration, mainly by re running his experiments in an oil tank as well as in a specially constructed chamber that ruled out Ion Wind altogether and what Corona Discharge has to do with it is beyond me but not Wikipedia.

Brown also did some very interesting stuff along the lines of the Cavendish experiment - I shall look these out (I have the details somewhere) as it is relevant. The BB effect is very relevant to this discussion
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 359
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Bengt Nyman » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:07 am

neilwilkes wrote: ...

Because of a lack of clarity in Wikipedia, which is spreading to the readers, let us agree on not using names which can be misassociated.
1. Ionic winds have nothing to do with Dipole gravity.
2. The large, standing capacitor experiment performed by Brown in vacuum as well as in oil showing a change in the "weight" of the capacitor has everything to do with Dipole gravity.
Neil, please feel free to comment.
Bengt Nyman
 
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
Location: USA and Sweden

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby querious » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:17 am

Aardwolf wrote:will the experiment give the same result for G on the moon without any adjustments to the apparatus?


Absolutely. Why wouldn't it?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby querious » Thu Mar 22, 2018 10:19 am

Bengt Nyman wrote:
neilwilkes wrote: ...

Because of a lack of clarity in Wikipedia, which is spreading to the readers, let us agree on not using names which can be misassociated.
1. Ionic winds have nothing to do with Dipole gravity.
2. The large, standing capacitor experiment performed by Brown in vacuum as well as in oil showing a change in the "weight" of the capacitor has everything to do with Dipole gravity.
Neil, please feel free to comment.


Got a reputable paper about 2?
querious
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm

Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Unread postby Solar » Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:17 pm

Bengt Nyman wrote:If we broaden the question to Dipole gravity in general, without any specific brand names attached, the answer is YES. Thomas Townsend Brown, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Townsend_Brown, performed the first experiments that support Dipole gravity. He coined the name "Electrogravitics", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrogravitics, but he did not know or understand the physics showing itself in his own experiment. The subject goes outside the Ralph Sansbury/Thornhill gravity model and is described at http://www.dipole.se. I am presently working with Nils Rognerud and others to replicate some of the experiments.


Perhaps the following docs might be useful in those efforts:

Electrodynamic Origin of Gravitational Forces Charles W. Lucas, Jr.

The Electrodynamic Origin of the Force of Gravity—Part 2 Charles W. Lucas, Jr

We present a generalized Weber force law for electromagnetism including terms of fourth and higher order, in v/c. We show that these extra terms yield an attractive force between two neutral dipoles in which the negative charges oscillate around the positions of equilibrium. This attractive force can be interpreted as the usual Newtonian gravitational force as it is of the correct order of magnitude, is along the line joining the dipoles, follows Newton's action and reaction law, and falls off as the inverse square of the distance.
Assis, A. K. T. (1992). Deriving Gravitation from Electromagnetism


We present a generalized Weber’s Law for electromagnetism including terms of fourth and higher order in 1/c. These extra terms when applied to eh force between two neutral dipoles yield an equivalent to Newton’s law of gravitation as a forth order electromagnetic effect.
Assis, A. K. T. (1995). Gravitation as a Fourth Order Electromagnetic Effect in Advanced Electromagnetism


According to Faraday’s law of induction, when we change the current intensity in a primary electric circuit we can induce a current in a secondary circuit under appropriate conditions. An electric current means charges in motion. Microscopically we can express Faraday’s law by saying that when we accelerate charges in the primary circuit, a force is exerted on charges of the secondary circuit which can accelerate them. A similar effect also exists in gravity with accelerated masses but of course with much less intensity. The phenomenon is called frame dragging and can be derived from general relativity theory. Here we present an alternative way to calculate such gravitational induction forces based on Weber’s law which only involves simple mathematics and incorporates other fundamental concepts such as Newton’s third law and Mach’s principle as the origin of inertia. It therefore summarizes all low velocity gravitationally relevant effects into a single equation. – Gravitational Induction with Weber’s Force: M. Tajmar & A. K. T Assis


We propose a modified Weber's potential for gravitation that takes into account the influence of intervening matter. Then we obtain equations of motion similar to Newton's first and second laws, and derive the proportionality between inertial and gravitational masses. We conclude that the gravitational absorption coefficient should be proportional to the square root of the density of the intervening medium, and that for solids its value is approximately 10-11 m-1 . All of this is accomplished supposing a limitless, homogeneous and stationary universe. – On the Absorption of Gravity: A.K.T Assis
"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
User avatar
Solar
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:05 am

PreviousNext

Return to Electric Universe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests