## Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

willendure wrote: 1. Now if atoms are all arranged in this world to pull downwards, how can they also be arranged to pull sideways, or upwards?
2. Then there is the issue of the charged foil. Just connect a foil up to a suitable voltage, and it should float away. Nope, doesn't work either.
1. You are thinking about Wal's model of dipole gravity. There I agree with you.
2. You are borrowing from Querious, or vice versa, but you are both wrong. Changing the surface charge of a foil does not alter its attraction to the earth, unless you also change the surface charge of the earth. C*0 = 0
Gravity is something else.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote: 1. Now if atoms are all arranged in this world to pull downwards, how can they also be arranged to pull sideways, or upwards?
2. Then there is the issue of the charged foil. Just connect a foil up to a suitable voltage, and it should float away. Nope, doesn't work either.
1. You are thinking about Wal's model of dipole gravity. There I agree with you.
2. You are borrowing from Querious, or vice versa, but you are both wrong. Changing the surface charge of a foil does not alter its attraction to the earth, unless you also change the surface charge of the earth. C*0 = 0
Gravity is something else.

1. Applies equally to your unworkable theory.
2. Dipoles would still create an ELECTRIC field. A charged foil most certainly would respond to such, and there's no way around that.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

querious wrote: 2. Dipoles would still create an ELECTRIC field. A charged foil most certainly would respond to such, and there's no way around that.
You're not thinking.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Bengt Nyman wrote:
querious wrote: 2. Dipoles would still create an ELECTRIC field. A charged foil most certainly would respond to such, and there's no way around that.
You're not thinking.
Applying logic to a problem fits into MY definition of thinking.

nick c
Moderator
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

To all concerned,
Let us keep our responses civil.
Questions or challenges to posted statements are welcome and expected, however there is such a thing as legitimate questions and "good faith" in posting.

The question to Bengt Nyman:
"Is this your explanation of how the earth attracts the moon?"
It appears to me that he took offense to the obvious insincerity of the question.
I would say, the answer is simple: "GRAVITY is the reason the Earth attracts the Moon."
Of course that does not tell us anything about what is gravity?
That is the whole point of this thread...to explore this little understood force (if I may use that word).

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

nick c wrote: That is the whole point of this thread...to explore this little understood force (if I may use that word).
Indeed, there is reason to question if gravity is in fact a force...

http://www.universetoday.com/108740/how ... t-a-force/

perpetual motion
Posts: 154
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 9:04 pm

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Okay now, they are saying that two atoms can occupy the same space, I don't
think so. Thats an impossibility that could never happen. Who's wild dream
came up with that one. I can't believe that the more that is spoken about
something, that physics just follows right behind in their foot steps. Not very
much is changing!
Gravity, thats like saying that the human brain and eye was programed to perceive four dimensions. It's hard enough for it to make out 3D.
And these animations that our space agencies put out don't even look at these
because they are drawn out on computers with the 'old physics' numbers programed
into them.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Bengt Nyman wrote:
willendure wrote: 1. Now if atoms are all arranged in this world to pull downwards, how can they also be arranged to pull sideways, or upwards?
2. Then there is the issue of the charged foil. Just connect a foil up to a suitable voltage, and it should float away. Nope, doesn't work either.
1. You are thinking about Wal's model of dipole gravity. There I agree with you.
2. You are borrowing from Querious, or vice versa, but you are both wrong. Changing the surface charge of a foil does not alter its attraction to the earth, unless you also change the surface charge of the earth. C*0 = 0
Gravity is something else.
1. It is the same with your dipole model. The fact is, that the dipole has a direction, and that direction needs to be oriented correctly to apply a force in the direction you want. Dipoles create an electrical field which is oriented in a particular direction, that is, we can identify a vector along which the voltage gradient runs. Gravity would appear to not have a direction of orientation; its a monopole, always attracting toward some 'centre of gravity'.

2. Its not C*0 = 0. Is the different between the charge on the foil and the charge on the earth times C. If earth is neutral, and the foil has a negative charge, and the difference between those is some amount of coulombs, then that would amount to a repulsion between the foil and the earth.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

nick c wrote: Of course that does not tell us anything about what is gravity?
That is the whole point of this thread...to explore this little understood force (if I may use that word).
Something else to bear in mind. Suppose you could explain away gravity as an electric attraction - that still leaves you with the mystery of how electrical forces work. Why do a positive and negative charge attract each other? Its just as much a mystery as to why two masses attract by gravity.

At what speed does gravity propagate across space? Is it faster than light? That is, if I could make the sun suddenly vanish, would the earth continue to orbit it for a while before 'noticing' that it had gone, or would the effect be instantaneous or felt faster than light can travel?

What about electrical charges? Electromagnetic 'waves' travel at the speed of light, but does electrostatic force travel faster?

What I'm saying is, explaining gravity away in terms of electricity doesn't help with these other questions around its properties. I think there is a temptation to believe that reducing everything to electricity would simplify physics and thereby make it easier to understand, but it does not, so why do we need to try and do that?

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

"willendure" ... explaining gravity away in terms of electricity doesn't help ...
It is not an attempt to "explain it away" it is an attempt to point our attention in the right direction to further explore and understand it. Mankind learns by observation. Events with large and visible outlines are easier for us to see and accept. We are presently comfortable with the idea of planets and particles, however these seemingly mechanical objects are merely concentrations and outlines of complex, "non mechanical" processes under the surface. The question is how far the intelligence of mankind will be able to probe into these complexities without resorting to purely mathematical misguidance and demagoguery.
Do you expect your dog to ever be able to understand and repair your car ? I think your answer will be; no, of course not, he is not smart enough.
Will mankind ever be able to understand all the intricacies of the universe ? By the same reasoning my answer is; no, we are simply not smart enough.
How far will we get ?
Time will tell.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

I think EU ideas are going to make inroads into explaining a lot of things in the universe that we see and fail to explain otherwise. The sun and dark matter being two prime areas for electrical explanations of our observations.

The trouble with these dipole ideas, is that they make EU proponents look like crackpots. We'll just be dismissed off hand, throwing the good ideas out with the bad, if we persist with dealing in science fantasy such as these dipole models of gravity.

I frequently read on here that what people call the 'lamestream' is peddling non-science - building mathematical models without reference to reality. But if you want to claim that _everything_ is electrical, including gravity, you also need back you model up with science, experiments and real observations, and unfortunately these dipole models just don't stand up to experimental testing. All you are doing is creating an even lamer fringestream; bad theories and no funding, forever consigned to some obscure corner of the internet along with the conspiracy theorists. Thornhill has provided no real science at all to back up his claims, kind of ironic then that the conference subtitle from 2014 was "all about evidence". Did they just decide to ditch the inconvenient need for evidence in 2015?

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Bengt Nyman wrote: ..without resorting to purely mathematical misguidance and demagoguery...
Might I suggest that you take a look in the mirror?

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

"willendure"
Agreed.
However, it also makes me suspect that you have not been able to, or taken the time to, follow the geometry in my dipole gravity hypothesis.
If you expect to find simple, verbal explanations to complex processes, the process first has to be understood and later simplified into a user friendly context.
So you think you understand your computer, because you know how to use it.
Think again.

Webbman
Posts: 533
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2014 10:49 am

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

your model is based on quarks, which I have some difficulty with since I don't believe anyone has ever destroyed a proton. This is why the LHC needs an upgrade in energy. It cant seem to destroy one no matter how hard it tries.

im sure they will do something theatrical with it though.
its all lies.

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

### Re: Thornhill's Latest Gravity Presentation

Bengt Nyman wrote: However, it also makes me suspect that you have not been able to, or taken the time to, follow the geometry in my dipole gravity hypothesis.
In that case, please enlighten us. How does the geometry work, so that the hydrogen atoms you are modelling attract one another, no matter what their orientation?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests