Thoughts on Electric Gravity

[mightyno17]

Hello forum!

First I want to say that, while I'm interested in things like science, I'm by no means a professional, and lack formal, advanced mathematical training. I don't think I'm dumb, but, lacking the required training and the time to pursue it, I can't express my thoughts on physics with mathematical rigor.

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?

I don't doubt Mr. Thornhill's experience as a physicist, he has had many insights whilst piecing things together, and just recently the Thunderbolts YouTube channel uploaded a video featuring Ray Galluci reviewing the theory and considering it plausible. So it's hard to believe this vacuum experiment was unknown to any of them, but I don't recall seeing an explanation, so how does this uniform acceleration happens if gravity is as described by Sansbury/Thornhill?

Thanks in advance.

[Aardwolf]

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.

Not true.

Attraction is mutual. Therefore the planet you are standing on performing the experiment is also falling toward the feather and something heavier at different rates.

[mightyno17]

Oh, I'd completely forgotten the planet also gravitates towards the objects. That is true, the planet is definitely moving towards the dropping objects, but at a very slow speed, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that would mean the feather and the other heavy object would indeed fall at different speeds in relation to each other, but this difference is so small that's hard to detect. If that's what you mean, then some sort of experiment could certainly be conducted to determine that, right? Perhaps very long tubes, vacuumed, and spheres of same dimensions but different materials, to make one denser than the other, and let them be dropped at the same time. Or to extend the traveled length, maybe they wouldn't even need to be dropped vertically but at an angle and on rails so they could roll down freely on this slope. I think with modern electronic and sensor technology such an experiment could be done, or am I wrong?

[Aardwolf]

That is true, the planet is definitely moving towards the dropping objects, but at a very slow speed, but (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that would mean the feather and the other heavy object would indeed fall at different speeds in relation to each other...

No, because how would you detect the planet moving toward the objects at different speeds?

However, experiments have already been analysed which show that objects made of different materials do have differing attraction.

http://nautil.us/issue/46/balance/the-f ... y-a-thread

Of course they speculate a "fifth" force because to falsify Newtons Laws (and subsequently every physicist incl. Einstein for 350 years since whose theories are based on them) is clearly unpalatable. The article also suggests the particles responsible are the baryon counts but this could just as easily be the electron count and as such possible to manipulate by altering charge.

[mightyno17]

Huh, I never once suggested detecting the planet's attraction, even though I don't think it's a permanently impossible thing to do.

But anyway, thanks for the link, that was an interesting read, which apparently confirms the intuition that yes, the speed at which something falls depends on its materials, even if their different accelerations are impercetible. I also believe a part of the article may be significant for Edwin Kaal's SAM, but that would require its own thread.

[Brent72]

The article also suggests the particles responsible are the baryon counts but this could just as easily be the electron count and as such possible to manipulate by altering charge.

Yes. If I can just quickly review Newton’s gravity for a minute and compare it to electric gravity:

From Newton, the force ‘F’ on a mass ‘m’ can be calculated as:

F = ma = GMm/r^2

=> solving for a (acceleration due to gravity):

a = GM/r^2

So that acceleration doesn’t depend on the object’s own mass m, only the mass of the earth.

If we instead want to calculate the force between two charges, (attractive or repulsive), we can use Coulomb’s law:

F = kQq/r^2.

And this formula follows the same ‘inverse square law’ as the one for gravity. But then can this be solved for F such that it is independent of ‘q’?

Please correct me if this is wrong; in electric gravity, an object’s ‘weight’ is not due to it’s mass as such, but due to it’s overall charge being attracted to the charge of the earth.

Ray Gallucci gives a talk on how the electric dipole for each atom can be explained (mathematically) by distortion of the electron’s orbit due to neighboring atomic nuclei, which gives an object it’s overall charge.

[crawler]

That article in the above link is very interesting. My thoughts on gravity etc.
(1) There is no such thing as true mass. Or, there is, but it is merely a count of various kinds of elementary particles (which is unlikely to be of much use).
(2) What we call mass is only inertial mass. What we measure is inertial mass. We cant measure (true) mass (except perhaps by counting elementary particles).
(3) There is only one force, & this is gravity. But gravity acts differently at short range. And differently if the elementary particle etc is say vibrating or spinning or orbiting.
(4) There is a possibility that the inertia of an elementary particle etc is affected by velocity. In a sense this would mean that the concept that energy is equivalent to mass has a little truth to it (very little)(& it is also only a pseudo-equivalence).
(5) If there is a fifth force then it is due to my own centrifuging of aether by spinning objects. This is a pseudo-gravity. On Earth it must add to g near the Equator, but i am less certain re how it affects g near the two Poles (it might add or subtract, but is more probably weak or neutral). In fact i think that centrifuging of aether deserves to be called the second force, after gravity. And in an atom it is stronger than gravity. But in our macro world it is weaker than gravity.
(6) Re weak equivalence, it might be true, or not. Chemical composition, & size, might affect small g & big G.
(7) And everything in our quantum world has mass (free photons)(confined photons), because mass is the ability to annihilate aether, & everything annihilates aether. If it hasn't got mass then it doesn't exist.

[Brent72]

...There is only one force, & this is gravity
...If there is a fifth force then it is due to my own centrifuging of aether by spinning objects. This is a pseudo-gravity
...Re weak equivalence, it might be true, or not
... mass is the ability to annihilate aether, & everything annihilates aether. If it hasn't got mass then it doesn't exist.

Do you mind not ambushing people's posts with your unsubstantiated dribble?

[crawler]

...There is only one force, & this is gravity
...If there is a fifth force then it is due to my own centrifuging of aether by spinning objects. This is a pseudo-gravity
...Re weak equivalence, it might be true, or not
... mass is the ability to annihilate aether, & everything annihilates aether. If it hasn't got mass then it doesn't exist.

Do you mind not ambushing people's posts with your unsubstantiated dribble?

Yes i should not have posted that, as it doesn't directly refer to dipole gravity at all. I was aiming to say a bit about the weak equivalence issues (the baryon stuff in that link was very interesting), but then didn't even do that.

[crawler]

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?

I don't doubt Mr. Thornhill's experience as a physicist, he has had many insights whilst piecing things together, and just recently the Thunderbolts YouTube channel uploaded a video featuring Ray Galluci reviewing the theory and considering it plausible. So it's hard to believe this vacuum experiment was unknown to any of them, but I don't recall seeing an explanation, so how does this uniform acceleration happens if gravity is as described by Sansbury/Thornhill? Thanks in advance.

Thornhill says that the mass of a body is an electrical variable. This obviously means that the mass of a feather changes from day to day, depending on perhaps internal electrical factors, &/or depending perhaps on external electrical factors.
Thornhill doesn't say whether in vacuum (a) a say feather's falling changes (from day to day), or (b) a feather's falling doesn't change ((b) accords with the weak equivalence principle).
Does anyone know where Thornhill says that (a) applies. I dont mean to imply that (a) is wrong in any way. Me myself i would be happy to find that (a) is true, within Thornhill's theory or without.

Thornhill says that because of electric gravity big G is difficult to pin down. This obviously means that the strong equivalence principle (that inertial mass equals ordinary mass) is not true (within electric gravity). And i think that this also means that Thornhill believes that the weak equivalence principle is not true (ie Thornhill agrees with (a), which means that a feather's falling changes from day to day).

However, even if Thornhill agrees with (a), it doesn't necessarily mean that Thornhill reckons that (c) different objects fall at different rates. Because there is a possibility that Thornhill reckons that whatever it was that affected the feather's falling (from day to day) might do exactly the same to the other object's falling.

Thornhill says that the size & shape of an object affect its falling (in vacuum here), hencely i guess that that means that Thornhill agrees with (c).

I think that Thornhill mentions two kinds of dipole, (1) due to distortions of atoms, & (2) due to distortions of elementary subatomic particles (eg electrons & quarks). Sansbury reckons that electrons & quarks are made up of very small orbiting subtrons. But Thornhill attributes electric gravity to only (1). Why not (2)?

(2) would involve Sansbury's subtrons, & would involve a new kind of force which travels much faster than light (Sansbury reckoned much faster than Van Flandern's "over 20 billion c"). Yes, (2) makes more sense than (1). The dipole forces in (1) would only be as fast as light, much too slow for a proper gravity.

There appear to be three problems with electric gravity (actually i fear that Brent72 might call it unsubstantiated dribble).
Firstly electric gravity has a speed of only c (in the far field), too slow for a proper gravity, unless we opt for (2).
Secondly the theory is that gravity distorts the atom, & then the distortion gives us gravity. A circular argument. This problem would apply likewise to (2).
Thirdly, how can electro gravity work in a Faraday Cage? What Thornhill needs is a magnetic-electric gravity (which would work in a cage). This would i think need an alignment of electron spins. But anyhow a magnetic gravity theory would i think suffer from its own problems.

[Brent72]

Secondly the theory is that gravity distorts the atom, & then the distortion gives us gravity. A circular argument. This problem would apply likewise to (2).

Although Thornhill seems to have used that circular argument in his EU2015 talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU -watch from 38.00 to 40.00 min), my understanding of the Gallucci paper - https://principia-scientific.org/electr ... se-theory/ is that the atom is distorted because the negatively charged electrons are repelled by positively charged protons in the neighboring nuclei, i.e an electromagnetic force only. This is what causes the paths of orbiting electrons to be asymmetrical and creates the dipole.

[crawler]

Secondly the theory is that gravity distorts the atom, & then the distortion gives us gravity. A circular argument. This problem would apply likewise to (2).

Although Thornhill seems to have used that circular argument in his EU2015 talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU -watch from 38.00 to 40.00 min), my understanding of the Gallucci paper - https://principia-scientific.org/electr ... se-theory/ is that the atom is distorted because the negatively charged electrons are repelled by positively charged protons in the neighboring nuclei, i.e an electromagnetic force only. This is what causes the paths of orbiting electrons to be asymmetrical and creates the dipole.

Here is what Thornhill said in answer to the circular argument criticism raised in the comments of the youtube video WAL THORNHILL'S ELECTRIC DIPOLE GRAVITY (Nov 11 2019)(2791 views)(253 comments).............

Electric Universe3 months ago
Hi Gareth (is it?). It's a pity you didn't pose these questions directly to me earlier. I acknowledge that I didn't make it clear in my EU 2015 presentation how the gravitational polarisation is established initially. It only got an oblique mention at the very end when I said stars AND PLANETS are formed initially by powerful long-range electromagnetic Marklund Convection in molecular clouds. Only after that birth process does gravity assert itself between the stars and planets.
As Alfvén said, "gravitational systems are the ashes of former electromagnetic systems."

The electrogravity model has nothing to do with electrostatics. Electrostatic forces in space are shielded by plasma sheaths or double layers. Electrogravity is fundamentally an electric dipole model in neutral matter. The use of + and - symbols does not represent bulk charge separation.

All celestial bodies have the same pole facing radially outward, which means cosmologically that gravity is a repulsive force, something that Newton also considered. We are held in orbit by all the matter in the rest of the universe pushing us toward the Sun.
Repulsive gravity was a puzzle facing Halton Arp, based on his detailed observational research into quasars. It is a requirement to explain the balanced, steady state of the real non-expanding universe.

My electrogravity model applied to the solar system requires the mathematics of Weber's electrodynamics, since celestial bodies can be treated as like-charged particles of differing masses.

I plan to address this issue with an expert on the subject to see if we can explain stable many-body orbits. Regards.

I dont understand Thornhill's above explanation, that the gravitational polarisation is established initially during the birth of stars & planets. In his paper Gallucci says that......
........ This paper examines the EU conjecture about an electromagnetic basis for gravity based on simplified mathematical analysis for an idealized arrangement of three hydrogen atoms. Results suggest that the possibility of an electromagnetically-induced distortion of a hydrogen atom to create an atomic dipole is at least plausible.........
....... gravity can be attributed to an electromagnetic effect ................ due to the distortion of atoms by their neighbours into electric dipoles........
So Gallucci reckons that an electromagnetic distortion makes an electromagnetic gravity. This is circular, unless it means two different kinds of electromagnetic effect, eg an electric effect making a magnetic effect. Gallucci says that electrical forces tween electrons & protons create distortion......
..........Both the reference proton and electron will be subject to six forces, attractive when of opposite charge, repulsive when of same charge. The vector sum of these six forces will constitute the net electrical force on the reference proton and electron and indicate the degree of distortion imposed on the reference atom from its two neighbors...........
So, how many kinds of forces operate tween electrons & protons in an atom & tween atoms -- are they charge or electric or electromagnetic or magnetic or what?
And what kind of gravity force(s) acts tween atoms -- are they charge or electric or electromagnetic or magnetic or what?

Gallucci quotes Thornhill as saying......
.............Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons. The force between any two aligned electrostatic dipoles varies inversely as the fourth power of the distance between them and the combined force of similarly aligned electrostatic dipoles over a given surface is squared. The result is that the dipole-dipole force, which varies inversely as the fourth power between co-linear dipoles, becomes the familiar inverse square force of gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field. Celestial bodies are born electrically polarized from a plasma z-pinch or by core expulsion from a larger body. The 2,000-fold difference in mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus the electron means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting the nucleus within each atom (as shown). The mass of a body is an electrical variable — just like a proton in a particle accelerator. Therefore, the so-called gravitational constant — ‘G’ with the peculiar dimension [L]3/[M][T]2, is a variable! That is why ‘G’ is so difficult to pin down..........

So here Thornhill says that....... Celestial bodies are born electrically polarized from a plasma z-pinch or by core expulsion from a larger body........

Also Thornhill says that.......Gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles inside the Earth’s protons, neutrons and electrons....... So here the dipoles are inside the electrons & protons & neutrons, ie the dipoles are due to distortions of subtron orbits (or subtrons themselves). What kinds of forces are involved here. Surely they cant be ordinary charge or electric or electromagnetic, but they might be magnetic. Surely they are a different (subtron) force, a different kind of (subtron) dipole, a different kind of (subtron) electromagnetism. And there might be (indeed must be)(within the theory) different kinds of subtrons.

........The puzzling extreme weakness of gravity (one thousand trillion trillion trillion times less than the electrostatic force) is a measure of the minute distortion of subatomic particles in a gravitational field......... Once again we have mention of the distortion of subatomic particles, not atomic particles. So, we have a subtronic dipole gravity, not an electric dipole gravity.

Once again subatomic particle, not atomic particle. .......... Every subatomic particle is distorted by the presence of others to form a tiny electric dipole....... Like magnets that are free to rotate, all the electric dipoles in protons, neutrons & electrons line up to produce – GRAVITY. No they cant be electric dipoles, they are subtron dipoles.

Elsewhere i saw mention that the subtron dipoles distort the atom thusly giving atomic dipoles. And that both kinds of dipole contribute to gravity. In that case gravity can be called a subtronic-electric-dipole-gravity. Anyhow its difficult to know how all of this might affect a falling feather (ie the weak equivalence principle).

[paladin17]

The electrogravity model has nothing to do with electrostatics. Electrostatic forces in space are shielded by plasma sheaths or double layers.

Sorry for offtopic, but it's peculiar how he still supports Juergens' solar model after statements like that.

Returning to the topic, his explanation doesn't really make sense anyway. It looks like a terrible mess of different concepts and yes - more internal contradictions and circular reasoning. E.g. we have on one hand

Electrogravity is fundamentally an electric dipole model in neutral matter

and then on the other hand

celestial bodies can be treated as like-charged particles of differing masses

etc.

[Zyxzevn]

Gravity and electric forces are not the same.
Here is a test with a charged Aluminium object.
This shows that electric forces and gravity are different.


Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch6jti8i6u4
A test that is easy to do by yourself.

Yet, there is a similarity between gravity and electric forces.
The attraction is very similar, but between positive and negative.
If you accelerate a charged object, you get a resistance that is just like inertia of mass.
It does not produce waves, though.

[paladin17]

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.