Thoughts on Electric Gravity

[Brigit]

by mightyno17 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:15 pm

Anyway, I was thinking about Wal Thornhill's/Ralph Sansbury's model on dipole gravity. If that was the case, wouldn't objects fall at different speeds when in a vacuum? As in, wouldn't the speed at which they accelerate be proportional to the mass and charge they possess?

That's an old, famous experiment: to drop a feather and something heavier in a vacuum to showcase things accelerate at the same rate no matter how massive or not they are.

I think what you are referring to is the famous experiment carried out by Galileo, in which he demonstrated that two balls of different masses accelerated to the ground at the same rate. This was his test of a 2 millenia-old doctrine of Aristotle's, that lighter and heavier bodies fell at different rates.

All gone, at the drop of a hat.

Later, a hammer and a feather were dropped on the moon in Galileo's honor, and more recently, a bowling ball and a feather were dropped in what was supposed to be a perfect vacuum. There is a Conference presentation in which W. Thornhill shows this clip and discusses it, but I simply can't find it.

Electric gravity is an incredibly weak dipole force within the atoms and compounds of each planet, and this dipole is shared by everything on the surface of the planet. It cannot be shielded because for example if you stood on top of a stack of sheet metal on a flat bed truck, the sheet metal would also share the same dipole distortion.

[Brigit]

by mightyno17 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:15 pm

Anyway, I was thinking about Wal Thornhill's/Ralph Sansbury's model on dipole gravity. If that was the case, wouldn't objects fall at different speeds when in a vacuum? As in, wouldn't the speed at which they accelerate be proportional to the mass and charge they possess?

That's an old, famous experiment: to drop a feather and something heavier in a vacuum to showcase things accelerate at the same rate no matter how massive or not they are. Considering that objects are composed of matter, and matter is made of charge/charged particles, wouldn't it follow that, even in a vacuum, the more massive objects would fall/be attracted to a planet faster than a less massive object, by virtue of possessing more dipoles facing the planet than compared to a less massive object?

A cubic centimeter of Uranium is heavier than a cubic centimeter of Lithium, even though the atoms are largely made of of space, because the larger particles are more easily offset within the global field of the earth.


So for example, if you hung a small ball on a string next to a massive granite cliff face, it would not be attracted to the mass of the granite. Both the ball and the granite cliff share the orientation of their dipolar distortions towards the earth.

[Brigit]

The primal origin of the dipolar field arrangement, which is shared by the earth and everything on it, is imparted at the formation of the planet*. Planets and other celestial bodies are formed in powerful electrical z-pinches. There is nothing random about how the earth's matter is arranged at a molecular level. The technology that the Electric Universe to demonstrate this arrangement of matter is the electret. Electrets are formed within the presence of a powerful electric field, and it retains a permanent charge.

We were talking about electrets over here:
Cheap Infrasound Detection for Electrical Phenomenon
https://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum3/php ... ?f=4&t=156

[Zyxzevn]

If you accelerate a charged object, you get a resistance that is just like inertia of mass.
It does not produce waves, though.

It does. In fact, this is exactly how e/m waves are produced (e.g. radiowaves). And this is the source of "resistance" that you mention.

Writing mistake. I meant accelerating mass does not create waves.

[Brent72]

I think what you are referring to is the famous experiment carried out by Galileo, in which he demonstrated that two balls of different masses accelerated to the ground at the same rate. This was his test of a 2 millenia-old doctrine of Aristotle's, that lighter and heavier bodies fell at different rates.

All gone, at the drop of a hat.

Later, a hammer and a feather were dropped on the moon in Galileo's honor, and more recently, a bowling ball and a feather were dropped in what was supposed to be a perfect vacuum. There is a Conference presentation in which W. Thornhill shows this clip and discusses it, but I simply can't find it.

Electric gravity is an incredibly weak dipole force within the atoms and compounds of each planet, and this dipole is shared by everything on the surface of the planet. It cannot be shielded because for example if you stood on top of a stack of sheet metal on a flat bed truck, the sheet metal would also share the same dipole distortion.

Thanks for posting Brigit. This view implies that all of the atoms in an object, say a bowling ball, have electric dipoles, and all the dipoles align to give the ball an overall charge. And in this electric-dipole universe, is gravity simply the electromagnetic force acting between two charged objects, e.g. the bowling ball and the earth, each with opposite net charge?

The mass of the bowling ball must only exist in the form of inertial mass (sum of atomic masses or whatever inertial mass actually is). The ‘gravitational mass’ would just be a measure of the net charge relative to the net charge of the earth (or as you've said 'how easily the object distorts to form dipoles'). The strength of this ‘pull’ must be proportional to the product of the charges at distance r;

F = kQq/r^2

Also expressed as:

F = k (Q/r) (q/r)

But how can we make the leap so that electric gravitational acceleration is the same for the bowling ball and the feather dropped from the same height when they are subject to the same electromagnetic charge of the earth..?

[Brigit]

by Brent72 » Wed Feb 19, 2020 11:35 am

Thanks for posting Brigit. This view implies that all of the atoms in an object, say a bowling ball, have electric dipoles, and all the dipoles align to give the ball an overall charge. And in this electric-dipole universe, is gravity simply the electromagnetic force acting between two charged objects, e.g. the bowling ball and the earth, each with opposite net charge?

Hi Brent72. The gravitational force of the earth at the surface is still assumed to be the attractive force between objects made up of neutral matter.

The mass of the bowling ball must only exist in the form of inertial mass (sum of atomic masses or whatever inertial mass actually is). The ‘gravitational mass’ would just be a measure of the net charge relative to the net charge of the earth (or as you've said 'how easily the object distorts to form dipoles'). The strength of this ‘pull’ must be proportional to the product of the charges at distance r;

F = kQq/r^2

Also expressed as:

F = k (Q/r) (q/r)

But how can we make the leap so that electric gravitational acceleration is the same for the bowling ball and the feather dropped from the same height when they are subject to the same electromagnetic charge of the earth..?

No you won't need Coulomb's Law. It is true that the Earth is a charged object; and also, at a subatomic level, the atoms form very weak dipoles. So en mass the atoms that make up the planet are radially arranged with a slightly offset center and orbits. But it is such an infinitessimal dipole, that while it is significant at a global scale, and it is exhibited at a subatomic scale, the bowling ball is not itself charged but is plain neutral matter. It simply shares very small induced dipoles with the electret earth.

According to W. Thornhill, the force that is most similar to the electric dipole gravitational effects is the van der Waals force in chemistry, which describes the repulsion/attraction that allows some atomic and molecular bonds to work. I will give two examples of the van der Waals force.

[Brigit]

van der Waals force in molecular solids

"Rare-gas solids (such as argon, krypton, and xenon) and some molecular solids (eg methane CH4; hydrogen, H2; chlorine Cl2) exhibit weak van der Waals or molecular boding in the solid state. Since the bonding occurs between atoms that have completely filled outer electron shells or non-ionized molecules, the crystals are only weakly bonded and are stable only at low temperatures.

The van der Waals bonding results from the displacement of the atomic nuclei from the center of the electron charge distribution in each atom, the displacement resulting when neutral atoms or molecules are brought close to each other. This induced charge displacement creates and electric dipole (ie, a body with two poles oppositely charged) that interacts with the adjacent induced dipoles to reduce the energy of the crystal and provide a small cohesive energy. The attractive interaction energy between the induced electric dipoles is of very short range and varies as the distance between atoms to the -6 power(or 1/distance^6). It is balanced by the repulsive interaction that occurs as the filled electron shells of the atoms begin to overlap on bringing the atoms closer together, a consequence of the increase in energy due to electrons having the same energy....

The nature of this type of molecular bonding leads to electrons that are localized at each atom and therefore to molecular solids that do not conduct electricity. They are insulators. Very large amounts of energy are required to excite an electron in such a solid from a localized state to a nonlocalized one."

[Brigit]

van der Waals forces in gases

"A knowledge of the distribution function is essential for any microscopic theory of a gas; however, its determination involves postulating some mathematical description of a gas particle and how a gas-particle collision actually occurs. In any real gas, even a binary collision -- one between two particles only -- is a complicated process, because each particle is surrounded by a force field that varies in space. This force field is such that it tattracts another particle when that other particle is relatively far ways but repels it when the other particle comes relatively close. That these intermolecular forces exist is evident from the fact that gases do not condense into liquids, a phenomenon that cannot be explained except as a consequence of attractive forces at work between the particles. In addition, liquids strongly resist being compressed, which must be evidence of the repulsive forces.

The long-range attractive forces, called van der Waals forces, arise from the electrostatic interactions between the whole particles. Short-range forces arise when the electron clouds that surround the nuclei of atoms in a molecule overlap. These short-range forces are called valence forces, and they become stronger than the van der Waals forces when the two particles come sufficiently close together in a binary collision."

So if the tiny van der Waals forces are totally necessary and active in life processes, in gas molecule collisions, and in solids, then the similar dipolar force of gravity must be even smaller than these.

ref: Britannica 1988
ref: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity, @38:06 - 40:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

[Brent72]

Brigit thank you for taking the time to provide such a comprehensive answer.
I'll now spend a bit more time digesting the information and reading up on how Thornhill's theory of electric gravity actually works.

[crawler]

Van der Waals & other electric forces i dare say act at a slow speed of say no more than c in the far field.
Hencely Van Flandern would tell us that gravity cant be a slow (Thornhill) electric dipole gravity.
But it could be a (Sansbury) subtron dipole gravity, somehow acting at ultra-super speed.

And i doubt that we could have both kinds of gravity (ie partly the fast subtron & partly the slow electric) because a significant proportion of a slow electric gravity would still give unstable planetary etc orbits. No, gravity has to be ultra-super fast.

[nick c]

Hencely Van Flandern would tell us that gravity cant be a slow (Thornhill) electric dipole gravity.
But it could be a (Sansbury) subtron dipole gravity, somehow acting at ultra-super speed.

That is incorrect. You are missing Thornhill's point. In Thornhill's view; gravity is near instantaneous. He does not differ with Sansbury on the speed of gravity, but rather on the speed of light.

The real nature of light
However, it leaves the question of what the speed of light means. This is where I part company with Sansbury and others who explain it in terms of a delayed response to an instantaneous signal. In my view, the crucial difference between the near-infinite speed of the electric force and the relative dawdle of light on any cosmic scale is that the electric force is longitudinal while light is an oscillating transverse signal moving slowly through a medium.
[...]
The speed of gravity (the electric force) is almost infinite on our scale

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/

[crawler]

Hencely Van Flandern would tell us that gravity cant be a slow (Thornhill) electric dipole gravity.
But it could be a (Sansbury) subtron dipole gravity, somehow acting at ultra-super speed.

That is incorrect. You are missing Thornhill's point. In Thornhill's view; gravity is near instantaneous. He does not differ with Sansbury on the speed of gravity, but rather on the speed of light.

The real nature of light
However, it leaves the question of what the speed of light means. This is where I part company with Sansbury and others who explain it in terms of a delayed response to an instantaneous signal. In my view, the crucial difference between the near-infinite speed of the electric force and the relative dawdle of light on any cosmic scale is that the electric force is longitudinal while light is an oscillating transverse signal moving slowly through a medium.[...]
The speed of gravity (the electric force) is almost infinite on our scale

http://www.holoscience.com/wp/electric- ... -universe/

Ah yes i forgot. Sansbury reckons that light is instantaneous but that the arrival of light doesn't register until a threshold is reached. Whereas Thornhill doesn't believe in instantaneous action & reckons that longitudinal electric force is much faster than light.

But the more i re-read all of that the more i am convinced that Thornhill doesn't have to invoke any kind of longitudinal effect. His dipoles are subtronic, within the electrons & protons & neutrons. Calling micro-forces & dipoles within electrons "electric" is a mistake, too confusing. Subtronic forces within electrons must for sure (if they exist) be much faster than customary electric forces (ie faster than c)(a near-field thing). And subtronic dipole gravity could likewise act much faster than c in the far-field.

Thornhill's diagrams & descriptions seem to jump from perfectly sensible descriptions of subtronic dipoles within subatomic particles to suddenly be about atomic dipoles, with no explanation for the jump, & no explanation of why the subtronic dipoles were then totally ignored.

Electric dipoles are simply not needed. Subtronic dipoles can do the trick with no help. No atomic distortion needed. No longitudinal electric effects needed.

Whatever gravity is, i think that the speed could be calculated by assuming that it gives Mercury its 43 arcsec per century precession of perihelion.
But i don't know whether any of that would bring us closer to understanding falling feathers.

[Brigit]

by Brent72 » Thu Feb 20, 2020 8:53 am

Thanks Brent72 for putting up with my typos, and I really do enjoy a chat when I can use a few of my books. And I do have some weird ones. (: