Thornhill's gravity model
-
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
- Location: USA and Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
MotionTheory: Yes, atomic clocks run slower in gravity because of the dipole elongation of the electron path. You also mentioned a submarine, please specify.
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
- Location: Goleta, CA
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Gravity (mass/electric/etc model) is strongest at object/earth surface however clock runs slower and slower below the surface all the way to center. Regardless the actual causal/reason for clock slowing down, this influence is backward according to these gravity models. Thus, can't construct a correct gravity model using backward pointing force!
Bengt Nyman wrote:MotionTheory: Yes, atomic clocks run slower in gravity because of the dipole elongation of the electron path. You also mentioned a submarine, please specify.
-
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
- Location: USA and Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
"But in fact, the Earth's core is substantially more dense than the outer layers (mantle and crust), and gravity actually increases a bit as you descend, reaching a maximum at the boundary between the outer core and the lower mantle, (57% down). Within the core, it rapidly drops to zero as you approach the center, where the planet's entire mass is exerting a gravitational pull from all directions."MotionTheory wrote:Gravity (mass/electric/etc model) is strongest at object/earth surface however clock runs slower and slower below the surface all the way to center.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... nderground.
So, there is no conflict between observations and dipole gravity.
Even in stationary relativity calculations the difference in clock frequency is attributed to real and measured differences in gravity. SpaceTime is just an illustration, not the cause of gravity.
You made a good point, MotionTheory.
Welcome to dipole gravity.
- Zyxzevn
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
I agree that electrical fields can effect atoms and such, but it is not that simple.Bengt Nyman wrote:because of the dipole elongation of the electron path.
You should have a look at the Stark effect, which describes frequency changes due to an electric field.
The electrical field changes the frequencies of light, it even splits them.
I don't know how that would work for atomic clocks and
the effect is different from a simple frequency change as is described for gravity.
But we should certainly test it.
Additionally we have the Aharonov–Casher effect.
Generally it changes the phase. Maybe it can change the frequency of clocks too.
The amazing thing of this effect is that shielding does not work. It reacts to the potential [V] not
the strength of the electrical field [V/m].
A nice thing to test too.
These effects can also be used to measure the Electric field [V/m] or the electric potential [V].
And I don't think those tests show strong electrical fields [V/m] present on the surface of earth,
which I would expect with a dipole field.
(Just like all the other examples that I posted).
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:26 pm
- Location: Goleta, CA
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Umm... is this mean, earth isn't hollow? or it only applies to Thornhill's assertion?Bengt Nyman wrote:"But in fact, the Earth's core is substantially more dense than the outer layers (mantle and crust), and gravity actually increases a bit as you descend, reaching a maximum at the boundary between the outer core and the lower mantle, (57% down). Within the core, it rapidly drops to zero as you approach the center, where the planet's entire mass is exerting a gravitational pull from all directions."MotionTheory wrote:Gravity (mass/electric/etc model) is strongest at object/earth surface however clock runs slower and slower below the surface all the way to center.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... nderground.
Force direction is still backward becauseSo, there is no conflict between observations and dipole gravity.
Even in stationary relativity calculations the difference in clock frequency is attributed to real and measured differences in gravity. SpaceTime is just an illustration, not the cause of gravity.
You made a good point, MotionTheory.
Welcome to dipole gravity.
1) pull/attract force doesn't exists.
2) earth orbit is always looking at sun at current/real time not 8+ minutes lagged, i.e. pull/attract will lag, even at speed n times more than c.
3) in a few days, I will post a video show a scientific experiment proving 1),
Edit: instead of me saying stuff. If you and anyone don't mind, please construct a pull mechanism to move an object (put it in motion). An impossible task!
Last edited by MotionTheory on Mon Mar 12, 2018 5:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Zyxzevn
- Posts: 1002
- Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Here we have a big disagreement.Bengt Nyman wrote: So, there is no conflict between observations and dipole gravity.
In all experiments that I mentioned there is a difference between
electric field and gravity.
So there is a clear difference between observations and dipole gravity.
There is another general conflict.
The amount of charged particles, electrons and protons (neutrons= proton+electron) do not
match with mass. There is a slight loss of mass. Gravity is directly related to mass.
Electric fields are related to charged particles. So there is a clear difference.
Something that is very difficult to explain.
Unless you use Occult Chemistry of course, but you have not mentioned that.
Electric fields also have very specific effects.
But somehow you hand-wave those away.
As if your dipole-gravity is something abstract and untouchable.
That is why I ask for an experiment that shows the dipole-gravity effect in detail.
Like a spinning disk or something.
This would really look different in an electrical (dipole) field.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@
-
- Posts: 2815
- Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 6:59 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
I think that is a true statement.MotionTheory wrote:
Force direction is still backward because
1) pull/attract force doesn't exists.
Even scaling up to say, the molecular level, a 'vacuum' does not pull stuff into it. Venturis don't suck things in, things are pushed into the vacated space by external pressures.
Looking at gravity, it is only consistent with reason and intuition that it too is ultimately the result of a "pushing force", though at aetheric scale.
It will most problably at some point be described in electrical terms, although perhaps not in the Maxwellian terms being bandied about in this thread.
Looking forward to your video.
,
-
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
I don't know if this can be related, but sometime last year when I was looking about for 'detecting gravity' I found this paper which uses a disk spinning at 20K rpm to stimulate a sensor with gravity. (I think).
Search for "AN EXPERIMENT TO DETECT GRAVITY AT SUB-MM SCALE WITH HIGH-Q MECHANICAL OSCILLATORS"
Search for "AN EXPERIMENT TO DETECT GRAVITY AT SUB-MM SCALE WITH HIGH-Q MECHANICAL OSCILLATORS"
The wheel is made of a high strength aluminium alloy and is provided with 15
equally spaced holes. These are filled with small platinum disks, that have the same
thickness as the wheel. Both wheel surfaces were machined flat, in order to minimize its
interaction with residual gas molecules. The platinum masses produce a gravitational
attraction at the oscillator resonance frequency when the wheel is rotated with a rotation
frequency equal to the 15th subharmonic of the oscillator frequency, corresponding to
about 20500 rpm.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
-
- Posts: 564
- Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:29 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Ah, the hammer and feather. And here I was wasting time arguing about charged foils.Zyxzevn wrote:This would really look different in an electrical (dipole) field.
Nicely done, Zyxzven
-
- Posts: 1330
- Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 7:56 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Misrepresenting another experiment I see. This does not measure the effect on light, its measuring the effect on ultracold atoms. Do you even read this stuff? And it still says nothing about the cause of the attraction.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#nRlvwillendure wrote:The Cavendish experiment and its numerous variations are sufficient, in my view, to demonstrate that gravity is mass based and not electrical or magnetic.Aardwolf wrote:No mass based gravity tests, laboratory or otherwise, have been passed in over 300 years. The idea is wrong. Continuing to support it is based on belief, and that's not science, that's religion.
-
- Posts: 596
- Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:36 pm
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Talking about force direction...
seasmith:
Unless there is a significant imbalance.
This topic is about THE dominant force for balance in matter, that is the electric charge.
Plus or Minus, .... actions......discharges.....POWER...
The dominant force also organizes the very structure of matter.
It creates proper behavior of atomic level structures.
Neutrality is a more quiet and stable situation; the result of the balance of the dominant force, the balance of electric charges. It is sort of a leftover...the like likes like of neutrality.
When Charge is finished balancing, there they are..... all the stuff.....organized, standing in line like soldiers.
What effect does the THE ORGANIZED STRUCTURE ITSELF have on things; especially other similar things ?
If there is no Charge around, creating havoc, two organized structures will join up if they can.
These attractive forces are NEUTRAL OF CHARGE.
How do they work.?...I DON'T know !
Is this the basic bias of neutral matter, to be attractive to other matter? I don't know !
I have often wondered how the pushing force of gravity knows which way to push ?
Jack
seasmith:
There is always a sucking/pulling force acting with a pushing force.Venturis don't suck things in, things are pushed into the vacated space by external pressures.
Unless there is a significant imbalance.
This topic is about THE dominant force for balance in matter, that is the electric charge.
Plus or Minus, .... actions......discharges.....POWER...
The dominant force also organizes the very structure of matter.
It creates proper behavior of atomic level structures.
Neutrality is a more quiet and stable situation; the result of the balance of the dominant force, the balance of electric charges. It is sort of a leftover...the like likes like of neutrality.
When Charge is finished balancing, there they are..... all the stuff.....organized, standing in line like soldiers.
What effect does the THE ORGANIZED STRUCTURE ITSELF have on things; especially other similar things ?
If there is no Charge around, creating havoc, two organized structures will join up if they can.
These attractive forces are NEUTRAL OF CHARGE.
How do they work.?...I DON'T know !
Is this the basic bias of neutral matter, to be attractive to other matter? I don't know !
I have often wondered how the pushing force of gravity knows which way to push ?
Jack
-
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
- Location: USA and Sweden
- Contact:
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
Agreed. It is amazing to read some of the comments above. It strengthens my impression that:Zyxzevn wrote: ... but it is not that simple ...
Reality is not simple.
It is magnitudes more complex than what any human mind can handle.
Individually we can only retain one little part of the puzzle and are prevented from seeing the overall picture.
I appears to be human nature to say NO to things that we do not understand, rather than to say maybe.
I am guessing that my little description of Coulomb Dipole Gravity might cover a few percent of the electromagnetic puzzle. The effects that you refer to are probably evidence of other aspects of a very complex reality.
The whole point of trying to advance science is not to find an ultimate truth, but to replace Oden, Thor and SpaceTime with pieces that better fit the overall puzzle, even if none of us will ever be able to see the whole picture.
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
For those interested, the Eotvos experiment (and variations), demonstrates the equivalence principle:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv ... experiment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B6tv ... experiment
-
- Posts: 605
- Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am
Re: Thornhill's gravity model
The problem with a global polarization around the Earth, is that is only allows for gravity to pull downwards and not in any other direction.Siggy_G wrote: All objects and mediums within Earth's environment are subject to a global polarization on atomic level, including the relatively charged or presumable screening objects. This is their rest state before taking relative charges into account. If an object rotates, its atoms realign according to the global field and as a domino effect within the internal structure.
When you look at the Cavendish experiment, the weights are positioned horizontally relative to each other, yet experience a gravitational attraction towards each other.
A dipole gravity is necessarily directional, but the real gravity acts in all directions at once.
-
- Posts: 567
- Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:39 pm
- Location: USA and Sweden
- Contact:
center of : Thornhill's gravity model
Dipole gravity is directional toward the compound center of dipole gravity in the outside environment.willendure wrote: A dipole gravity is necessarily directional, but the real gravity acts in all directions at once.
"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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests