Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

[electricgravity1]

Though it looks cool, there is no need to get fancy with the planets.

Yes, I forgot to give reason for bringing attention to the detail of planetary electron layering \ double layers :
a planet's electron layers confuse attempts to measure gravity as a straight electro-static attraction

But they don't interfere with the effect of the planet's ion core on all near atoms : atoms exhibit internal di-pole distortion in response to a celestial ion core . Hence they are attracted to the core. Hence gravity is proportional to mass.

[Bengt Nyman]

Like I said, proposed planetary anatomy is not necessary to derive gravity from Coulomb forces and subsequent charge posturing.

[electricgravity1]

Well now we've got gravity nailed down at last, after 320 years, shall we do a video? I'm ok with making one

[electricgravity1]

Like I said, proposed planetary anatomy is not necessary to derive gravity from Coulomb forces and subsequent charge posturing.

well I think an ion core is necessary, and that needs explaining, but its fairly easy to explain.

[Bengt Nyman]

Not necessary.

[upriver]

The electric force is diminished by matter and the gravitational force is not...
How does that work?

Are you actually saying that there are real "quark" particles or are they standing waves or what...

So you have shown how particles moving around causes changes in electrical attraction and have interpreted that as gravity.
That doesnt not explain what the electrical force is and how it causes particles to move..

[Bengt Nyman]

The electric force ...

Define "electric force". If you mention the word "field" you have not answered.

[upriver]

The electric force ...

Define "electric force". If you mention the word "field" you have not answered.

Thats what Wal calls it.

To me the electric force is the Coulomb force which is a superluminal, massless transfer of energy via the aether(electric field).
Forces do work, i.e Transfer energy.
This extends outward from "particles".

An electric field is the same as the medium that transmits the force, i.e. transfers kinetic energy, does work.

I believe that this is a standing wave structure in the background(field, aether) that causes particles to move by phase shift(beat frequency modulation). So if you have an aether wave that connects 2 particles like electrons, the aether electric field is slightly out of phase causing the particles to move..

I dont know if this is how gravity operates but I think its something close because its a known mechanism.....

[electricgravity1]

@Bengt

If you don't think a celestial ion core in necessary for gravity, do you at least see it
- as an consequential state?
- a state that increases the strength of gravity?

I would think celestial gravity strength would be much lower without an ion core.

[Bengt Nyman]

@Bengt
If you don't think a celestial ion core in necessary for gravity, do you at least see it
- as an consequential state?
- a state that increases the strength of gravity?

As far as pure coulomb gravity is concerned I do not think that the number of protons/neutrons in each nucleus matters. Gravity predicted by mass depends on the two masses and 1/(distance)^2. Each coulomb force vector contributing to gravity depends on the two charges and 1/(distance)^2.
In regards to earth's magnetic field and its effect on bodies with electrically induced or permanent magnetism it is a whole other chapter.

[electricgravity1]

that didn't really answer my questions head on. No need to look at magnetism. Would it help if I rephrased them?

If a body is allowed to settle under gravity, will its core tend to become ionized, while its outer part becomes electric?
Will this increase gravity?

You mention gravity's proportion to mass, which reminds me of some other crucial questions.
Do you think big G is a constant? If not, what is it dependant on? Do you expect it to be different on worlds, and space?
Are you aware of a Cavendish experiment performed off Earth?

[Bengt Nyman]

... under gravity, will its core tend to become ionized, while its outer part becomes electric?

NO! Electrons are NOT leaving their orbits in core atoms to move to the surface! All that happens is that atoms and hadrons adjust their dipole-directions to reflect what they perceive as their external center of coulomb gravity.

[electricgravity1]

... under gravity, will its core tend to become ionized, while its outer part becomes electric?

NO! Electrons are NOT leaving their orbits in core atoms to move to the surface! All that happens is that atoms and hadrons adjust their dipole-directions to reflect what they perceive as their external center of coulomb gravity.

Well, there ya go. We're different. Electric planet theory need different theories at this point. So the more the merrier.

Now, what about big G? Do you think its a universal constant? Are you aware of any Cavendish experiment performed off Earth?

[Bengt Nyman]

Are you aware of any Cavendish experiment performed off Earth?

The equipment required and the experiment would be much simpler outside planetary gravity, but should give you the same result. If the formula for mass gravity was missing a term for home sickness I believe that NASA would have noticed by now.

[electricgravity1]

Are you aware of any Cavendish experiment performed off Earth?

The equipment required and the experiment would be much simpler outside planetary gravity, but should give you the same result. If the formula for mass gravity was missing a term for home sickness I believe that NASA would have noticed by now.

No way. The possibility of different big Gs for each world has been hidden behind the mass of each world. NASA and the space science community have been habitually exploiting this since Cavendish, and arguable even before that.
big G is always paired with M the mass of a celestial object - GM in gravity calcs, to give the standard gravity parameter for each world - this value was made a standard simply because GM are immutable and inseparable for each world. Its allowed space science to attribute all variance for gravity on each world to the mass, while asserting G is a universal constant with no evidence, other than measurements for Earth.

That's why we get bizarre densities for some celestial objects. Jupiter with a density of 1.3g/cm^3. Saturn less than 1.0g/cm^3 , comets less than 0.6g/cm^3 !! Yet they look like rocks.

It really needs testing. As far as I'm aware its never been done. I wonder if its a conspiracy. So much of conventional space science is built on the universal G constant assumption, it would be more than embarrassment of the century if G turned out to be different off Earth. Seems to me conventional scientists have been avoiding testing their convictions.