Thunderbolts Forum v3.0

[quote=Brigit post_id=11030 time=1730852769 user_id=724]
Halton Arp addressed these questions once in a letter response to astronomer Amy Acheson in the late 90s. I think you might enjoy it
[/quote]

Thanks. That letter is definitely worth reading. And he's absolutely right that the mainstream is part of the scam.

Here it is!

[size=150]“Gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems.”
– Hannes Alfvén.[/size]


3/3

BeAChooser says » [i]"We're not going to get a serious look at alternatives to the mainstream's gnomes until taxpayers cut the gnomists off from the government trough. That's why I recommend we call a hiatus on all research into dark matter and other astrophysics gnomes...Furthermore, they need to show there is an urgency to finding/understanding those gnomes. They are spending like there is an urgency, but there isn't"[/i]

Halton Arp addressed these questions once in a letter response to astronomer Amy Acheson in the late 90s. I think you might enjoy it :

Response to Amy,

Probably anger is evolutionarily useful. So I am glad that I
am not the only one that gets angry about official disinformation.
...

The miracle of my getting papers published in the Astrophysical
Journal, however, is tempered by the fact that certainly most
professionals will not read this article and, of course, only the
professionals see the journal. I am setting up a web site and can
put some of this material on it. But it will be hard to compete
with the Penn State news release which apparently is supported by
the English magazine "Astronomy Now" on their website "Space
Flight Now". This means there are more loose cannons rolling
around besides the NASA website.

The current version of Astronomy Now is a for-profit scrambling
outfit which would only react they saw a possible financial
advantage. Maybe they would go for the controversy angle if they
realized their audience was much more informed than the
professionals. NASA might react if they thought some congressmen
were getting pressure about their overhyping their data. Possibly
some energetic, objective people could set up a rival news service
that would win the hearts (and financial support) of the
interested public. (Margaret Burbidge is writing up a paper for
the January AAS meeting announcing a devastating new pair of
quasars across Arp 220.)

[Ed note: you can find Arp 220 in Halton Arp's Atlas of Peculiar
Galaxies, at this website:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/Arp55.html ]

Maybe we should support more the existing alternative journals
like Journal of Scientific Exploration and Tom Van Flandern's Meta
Research Bulletin (and website). Maybe we should do all of the
above while not forgetting to celebrate the new, paradigm busting
results which are relentlessly rolling in.

Halton Arp

jacmac says »[i] 'This topic is very important to the EU model as it is often used to discredit the EU model. AS IN ... "gravity causes gravity"'[/i]

The truth is, Wal Thornhill used the phrase "You're using gravity to explain gravity" to criticize the rubber-sheet visualization of Einstein's GR.

We have all seen professors setting bowling balls in the center of a trampoline, and then releasing smaller balls to roll around and toward the larger and heavier ball. This is [b]the real origin and meaning[/b] of the saying, "That's using gravity to explain gravity."



jacmac says, [i]"So, In my opinion, the PROBABILITY that gravity will be understood as a VERY small side effect of the electromagnetic force is MUCH greater than the PROBABILITY that dark matter will eventually be found"
[/i]
A good and proper use of probabilities in science ! Yay.

It is true, no one here wants to buy the dark matter lotto ticket with the 1 x 10^-39 chance of winning.

https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2016/10/01/the-gravity-mystery/
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2016/02/12/the-dipole-model-of-gravity-and-the-expanding-earth/
https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2016/02/28/universal-gravity-based-on-a-dipole-model/

[quote=jacmac post_id=11001 time=1730436030 user_id=6230]
So, In my opinion, the PROBABILITY that gravity will be understood as a VERY small side effect of the electromagnetic force is MUCH greater than the PROBABILITY that dark matter will eventually be found, or that any real progress will be made in astrophysics until they pay more attention to the space plasma out there, everywhere.
[/quote]

We're not going to get a serious look at alternatives to the mainstream's gnomes until taxpayers cut the gnomists off from the government trough. That's why I recommend we call a hiatus on all research into dark matter and other astrophysics gnomes until they can demonstrate that finding or understanding them will actually have a beneficial effect worth the cost (now tens of billions of dollars) on the lives of tax payers. Furthermore, they need to show there is an urgency to finding/understanding those gnomes. They are spending like there is an urgency, but there isn't as far as I can see. Let's stop wasting money, folks. It doesn't grow on trees. And it's not incumbent on us to pay the mortgages etc of all these ... well ... LEECHES. Just saying ... :x

This topic is very important to the EU model as it is often used to discredit the EU model. AS IN ... "gravity causes gravity", as mentioned above.
(good question Sferios)
To take the first step to sort this out myself I would need to experience more "science" learning than I have time left on the planet to accomplish.
We have a little problem..... On one hand gravity, on the other hand electromagnetic something.....???
NO NO NO !!!!!!!
ON one hand gravity, on the other hand something 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than gravity.
You only need 12 zeros to take that $35 dollars in your pocket up to the size of the NATIONAL DEBT of the US.
There are still 24 zeroes to go folks.

So, In my opinion, the PROBABILITY that gravity will be understood as a VERY small side effect of the electromagnetic force is MUCH greater than the PROBABILITY that dark matter will eventually be found, or that any real progress will be made in astrophysics until they pay more attention to the space plasma out there, everywhere.

Electromagnetic forces are everywhere and very powerful; yet all the mainstream talks about is gravity.
Gravity causes the sun to shine......really ?

Jul 01, 2024 Sferios says »
[i]"In their book, "The Electric Universe," on page 77 (third paragraph) Talbott and Thornhill say, "The electrical model . . . sees gravity itself as an induced subatomic dipolar electrical force." However, on the same page just a few paragraphs earlier, they say, "Atomic nuclei, many thousands of times heavier than their orbiting electrons, are offset by gravity away from the center of each atom toward the center of the star. So each atom forms a tiny dipole." .[/i]..If the nuclei of atoms inside a star align slightly towards of the center of the star, creating tiny electric dipoles, why does this happen? You can't say, "gravity causes it" if this is your explanation of the cause of gravity."


The passage you quote is from Chapter 3, entitled "Electric Stars." This entire chapter discusses major characteristics of the Sun that are not natural consequences of the thermonuclear model, but are well able to be described in terms of an electrical discharge.

One of the main problems with the mainstream model is the fact that stars jump from place to place on the Herzsprung-Russel diagram (see page 73). Stars do not have the life cycle indicated by that diagram, and Wal Thornhill is giving an example of this in his book, which was written in 2002.

On page 77 we pick up on this subtopic, where gravity is mentioned in passing. He is analyzing red giant stars and white dwarf stars, on opposite sides of the diagonal HR scatter plot. This is an incidental description of gravity, and one that is valid[i] after [/i]the subatomic, dipolar electric field has been set up within a star:

on page 37 it says, "Gravity can take over only as the electromagnetic forces approach equilibrium." Or, as is often said in Space News, gravitational systems are the ashes of electrical discharge events.

So how is the electric dipolar structure set up? In the Electric Universe, stars form along snaking Birkeland currents in powerful electric Z-pinches, which scavenge and compress matter into a highly charged object, like beads along subsiding lightning bolts. The creation of stars along plasma filaments in space is often spoken of in Electric Universe publications. It is at this time that an electric field is set up within the matter that makes up the electric star. It is based on a well-known industrial application in the manufacturing of electrets.

The take home point is that Wal Thornhill has discussed gravity as an [i]after-effect[/i] of the electric discharges that form not only stars, but also planets and comets. In all of his presentations and publications on gravity he uses the electret to describe the subatomic electric dipoles within celestial objects.

Over the last few days, I have been researching an article on the subject of gravity for my website and came across the exact same question as ‘Sferios’: Wal Thornhill seems to explain gravity in terms of gravity.

The alignment of dipole moments seems logical and comprehensible to me. However, I don't understand why the plus poles point ‘inwards’ (towards the centre of the earth)? Does it have something to do with the external field? There is a strong electrical field between the ionosphere and the earth's surface. Is this field responsible for the dipole alignment so that the negativ side faces outwards?

Thank you very much for your ideas.

Thank you galaxy12. I've read Arp's book "Seeing Red" as well other books he wrote about redshift anomalies. I did not know he was a proponent of Le Sage's theory of gravity.

Like you, I resonate more with the Le Sage theory. I wouldn't say I have come to a conclusion about it. But "curved space" is certainly absurd (and I don't think even Einstein himself took it as anything more than a descriptive analogy).

The problem, of course, is that gravitons have never been detected. This does not invalidate their existence (and at least they are not absurd), but it does leave me open to other possible explanations.

And this is why I was intrigued by Thornhill's "subatomic electrical dipole alignment" theory, which I recently learned Thornhill attributes to Velikovsky, and later fleshed out by Ralph Sansbury.

At this point, however, I don't feel the claim has enough logic or explanatory power, and I'm letting it go.

You might check out this Thunderbolts video at about 14:28 mark. Thornhill eventually agreed with Halton Arp about gravity being a repulsive force. In the video, Thornhill suggested that Arp was more of a proponent of Le Sage type repulsive gravity. Thornhill described gravity as a dipole similar to a spherical magnet with the entire surface one polarity facing outwards and the other pole facing inwards. I agree with Arp regarding a repulsive Le Sage type gravity myself since it is more applicable to cosmology in my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_4rO7iqxFE

So apparently Ralph Sansbury says it's spin that causes the alignment of subatomic particles into dipoles. Check out the first listed review of this book by a reviewer named Theodore Holden. And note that Wal Thornhill references Sansbury in a number of his talks

https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Light-Relativity-Reconsidered-ebook/dp/B00LQT8056

Now, in his review Holden mentions gyroscopes as kind of anti-gravity devices, and points to this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo

Thornhill also shows a guy doing a demonstration with a gyroscope in this video (at 54:54 minutes in) and claims that it was suppressed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeyDf4ooPdo

In each of these videos, the spinning object apparently becomes lighter, and Sansbury and Thornhill claim this is because the subatomic particles inside the object realign themselves in the new direction of the object's spin, and no longer in the direction of the center of the earth. Ostensibly (according to Thornhill) this makes the object more electrically attractive to the cosmos than to the center of the earth, since gravity is a function of the dipole alignment.

But there are two problems with this. First, in both videos, the object does not become lighter. It only appears to become lighter when it is rotated on a central post in one direction. In other words, it's an effect of torque (and therefore demonstrates nothing about subatomic dipoles).

Here is another video that explains clearly how this is only a torque effect (and shows with a scale that spinning objects do not actually become lighter):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwx12kwgOAM

The other problem is that the force of gravity is just as strong at the poles of the earth as they are on the equator, but if spin caused the dipole alignment, then one would expect different alignments at these different locations.

Take note that Thornhill does not say that spin causes the dipole alignment. Only Sansbury says that. Thornhill does not mention a cause for the supposed alignment, only that it happens and that it is functionally gravity. He also shows the gyroscope video as if it demonstrates something about this theory, which it doesn't It's simple torque.

So I'm still stuck where I have been, wondering if there is any experimental evidence for the theory.

Well I'm just trying to understand gravity. :)

While it might not explain the chicken or the egg aspect, I think that what I wrote, explains the intent of the specific quotes from the book.
Incidentally, I think the egg must have come first. :)

Thanks Nick, but that just begs the question of why the original group of dipoles aligned themselves. If it is an electrical activity of plasma, it should be reproducible in a laboratory (though measuring gravity effects in a lab would very difficult).