## 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

Siggy_G wrote:There is a difference between the field of one dipole and the collective field of a plenum of dipoles: it depends on the bulk geometry.

Just another hand-waving attempt to dismiss the inverse cube fall-off of dipoles.

Siggy_G wrote:Also, there are formulas that point to a dipole having an inverse square fall-off:

Why did you show a diagram for the fall off the POTENTIAL of a dipole? Do you think there's no difference between a POTENTIAL and a FIELD? Here's your potential formula, preceded by the correct formula for the field of a dipole...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/dipole.html#c1
querious

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

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote:
Siggy_G wrote:There is a difference between the field of one dipole and the collective field of a plenum of dipoles: it depends on the bulk geometry.

Just another hand-waving attempt to dismiss the inverse cube fall-off of dipoles.

The handwaving is on your side. As described, when dipoles are arranged into a bulk geometry, the field reflects the geometry and allignment of poles, not merely that of a single dipole.

querious wrote:Why did you show a diagram for the fall off the POTENTIAL of a dipole? (...)

I stand corrected in regards to the difference between the formulas. However, and again, the formula is for a single dipole and not descriptive for the bulk geometry of, say, a planet.

Siggy_G
Moderator

Posts: 501
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:05 am
Location: Norway

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Siggy_G wrote:

This shows voltage (relates to energy), not electrical field (relates to force).
To convert Voltage to Force we need to multiply it by q and differentiate it.
So: V= kq*cos(a)/R² == 1/(r*r)
becomes: F= -2k*q²*cos(a)/R³ == 1/(r*r*r)

The amount of q does not matter. At ranges >d the dipole is always 1/r^3.

But let's look at the forces in another way:

Electrical attraction

Here is an example of real electric attraction:

The pen is charged, and the water forms a dipole.

I think electrical gravity is based on this principle.
But there is much more:

Electrical repulsion

We can also do the opposite.

We can lift small charged objects with charge:

See video

Electric charges react to magnetic fields..

..and masses do not.

Additionally we have the Lorenz force when a charge or dipole is moving in a magnetic field.

A vertical dipole caused by gravity will notice a torque when moving through a magnetic field
(if oriented in the right direction).
This already happens when you lift or drop any object in the Earth's magnetic field.
But we never noticed this torque.

Experiment is everything

We can demonstrate the electrical forces.
It is actually very easy to do that.

And for now all experiments show that gravity and electricity are DIFFERENT forces.

Electrical forces can be added to gravity, but not replace it.
I think it can explain Saturn's rings or alignment of the orbits of the planets, but can
not be used as the main force.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Zyxzevn wrote:... If gravity was caused by gravity induced dipoles, he would not accelerate...

The dipoles are NOT gravity induced.
Gravity induced dipoles would make it a circular argument. This is an error in the Ralph Sansbury's dipole gravity theory.
The dipoles are not induced by the weight of the nucleus. They are induced exclusively by the Coulomb forces between charges in atoms and bodies involved. The dipole polarity toward another body becomes a result of the initial geometry which is easy to show when you study dipole gravity between three or more bodies inline, in the lab, or on the computer.
Bengt Nyman

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

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Brigit Bara wrote: The nucleus of the atom is offset toward the center of the planet or moon.

querious says, "Why?"

Bengt Nyman says, "Excuse me for jumping in here Brigit. I want to save you from giving the wrong answer. I do not believe that Ralph Sansbury meant this, but in translation from Sansbury dipole gravity to Thornhill dipole gravity a misunderstanding or error might have occurred."

The way a planet is formed affects everything downstream and all of its properties, including its molecular arrangements.

All of these celestial bodies are formed in powerful z-pinches, not by slow accretion.
Therefore, there are remnant fields and atomic arrangements that are not at all chaotic but aligned, among other things. We are all aware that the presence and strength of an efield totally changes the way crystaline structures assemble themselves.

And many of these bodies are hollow.

Spherules created by a lab in Texas by running electricity through various types of sands were often hollow.
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Brigit Bara

Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote:
Zyxzevn wrote:... If gravity was caused by gravity induced dipoles, he would not accelerate...

The dipoles are NOT gravity induced.
Gravity induced dipoles would make it a circular argument. This is an error in the Ralph Sansbury's dipole gravity theory.

Yes, we are discussing Sansbury's gravity indeed.
But I removed the topic in my original post to focus on the more general issues.

It appears to me that the showed experiments do not support any kind of dipole gravity.

And in electrically induced dipoles (like the circling water experiment),
we have a problem:
the dipoles depend on the material used.
Water creates a dipole, and is always attracted.
Aluminium has no dipole.

In the second video (floating object),
we can even lift Aluminium by electrically charging it.

Third video: Falling person. We see again an object falling.
But he does not react to the Earth's magnetic field.
A dipole is affected by Lorentz forces.

Dipoles are also affected by materials in different ways.
A dielectric can the increase attractive force between two objects.
That is why dust clings together.

This is the real-world effect of electrical attraction.

Conducting materials can remove the effect of dipoles.
Even water is conductive.
They either remove the charges (short-cut)
or build up opposite charges (shielding effect).

But better: We can make any electrical fields visible.
Video with 10 ways. part1, part2

We can make dipoles visible, if any are present.

Almost every experiment shows that gravity is different from electrical forces.
We also do not detect any electrical dipoles around big objects (yes, we can detect them).

You will need to add other things to make it work.
Some are working on entanglement or very small particles.
Even mainstream have their Higgs-field or gravitons.
More ** from zyxzevn at: Paradigm change and C@

Zyxzevn

Posts: 991
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:48 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Obviously conducting materials allow charges to move through them.

Likewise, iron atoms in iron filings allow the movement of charges because of their crystal structure. This is why it can be magnetized and have a magnetic field. Once the metal is heated past a certain point, the atomic structure is lost and the charges no longer move.

It is very easy to overcome gravity using electricity and magnetism. That is not even a question.

***ref: When your tin foil hat attacks you. (:
https://youtu.be/gAN7fLMXYeY?t=7m16s

In EU gravity, the positive dipolar nucleus is shielded by the electron orbits. It is a dipolar structure within the atom of neutral matter. With marvelous mass effects. (:
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Brigit Bara

Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Zyxzevn wrote:It appears to me that the showed experiments do not support any kind of dipole gravity.

Hi Zyxzevn,
I know willendure and I have mentioned this a hundred times in theses discussions, but don't you agree with the logic that if gravity was due to dipoles, then a charged foil would behave vastly differently than it does? The simple fact that charging a foil has NO DISCERNABLE EFFECT on it's weight in the proposed dipole field renders the entire discussion pointless. I really don't understand why it's so hard to see that this simple fact doesn't utterly destroy the argument for any critically thinking person on this forum.

Querious
querious

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

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Aardwolf and Bengt,

Does querious/willendure not think foil can be levitated by charging it?
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Brigit Bara

Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Brigit Bara wrote:Aardwolf and Bengt,

Does querious/willendure not think foil can be levitated by charging it?

Any answer had better not involve levitation due to ANOTHER NEARBY CHARGED OBJECT causing said levitation.... That said, give it your best shot you 2.
querious

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

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

It is correct that the charge state of matter is a variable, and that is why gravity is variable.

APOD: Why do some places on Earth have higher gravity than others? Sometimes the reason is unknown. To help better understand the Earth's surface, sensitive measurements by the orbiting satellites GRACE and CHAMP were used to create a map of Earth's gravitational field.

EU Gravity: "If gravity is an electric dipolar force, we can understand why the so-called “universal constant of gravitation” is so infernally inconstant. There is no reason to assume it is universal. Changes in charge distribution within the Earth contribute most of the variability in gravity."

(This is not an endorsement of all GRACE readings. BB)
“Oh for shame, how these mortals put the blame upon us gods, for they say evils come from us, when it is they rather who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given…”
~Homer

Brigit Bara

Posts: 585
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 1:37 pm

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Willendure called me on not understanding the Cavendish torsion balance experiment and he is correct.
I should have gone to bed instead of posting an ignorant comment. My apologies to serious readers of this thread.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.

webolife

Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

It might be worth mentioning that electrostatics deals with free but stationary static charges, the behaviors and characteristics of which are well known through laboratory experiments.
Gravity, i.e. Coulomb dipole gravity has its cause in dynamic, atomic nuclei and electron orbitals, both of which have spin making gravity the complex, electromagnetic phenomenon that it is.
The fact that there are charged particles involved at the bottom of both electrostatics and gravity does not justify thinking that the two are related, or should affect each other any more than expecting that electrostatically charging a permanent magnet would alter its magnetic properties.
Bengt Nyman

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

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

Bengt Nyman wrote:It might be worth mentioning that electrostatics deals with free but stationary static charges, the behaviors and characteristics of which are well known through laboratory experiments.
Gravity, i.e. Coulomb dipole gravity has its cause in dynamic, atomic nuclei and electron orbitals, both of which have spin making gravity the complex, electromagnetic phenomenon that it is.
The fact that there are charged particles involved at the bottom of both electrostatics and gravity does not justify thinking that the two are related, or should affect each other any more than expecting that electrostatically charging a permanent magnet would alter its magnetic properties.

Funny, this thread is about Thornhill's gravity model, and he doesn't say anything about all these added complexities that magically make dipole gravity work.
querious

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

### Re: Thornhill's gravity model

querious wrote: ... Thornhill's gravity model, and he doesn't say anything about ...

He will.
Bengt Nyman

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

PreviousNext