+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 25

Thread: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

  1. Link to Post #1
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,579
    Thanks
    30,499
    Thanked 138,429 times in 21,488 posts

    Default Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Here is a delightful overview of the Electric Universe view of physics and cosmology, with a focus on what is gravity, by the leading researcher in that field at present, Wallace Thornhill.

    He's been refining his presentation of the topic, and improving his insights, for many years. He's getting to be quite a pleasure to listen to, and you'll have a better understanding of how the Universe of energy, mass, gravity, atoms, planets, and galaxies works after listening to this than after spending four years taking advanced science classes in college.

    From the Youtube blurb for this video:
    Quote In the theoretical sciences, it is commonly assumed that the role of gravity is settled. But as Richard Feynman observed, “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.” The problem is that mathematics will not account for the essential force in question. And yet, when theorists speculate about the big bang one conjecture is followed by another all building on the supposed supremacy of gravity as the driving force of cosmic evolution. In this talk at the EU2015 conference, Wal Thornhill takes us on a forty-year personal journey to understand the role of gravity in the electric universe.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  2. The Following 35 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Akasha (1st January 2016), Baby Steps (17th August 2015), Bill Ryan (17th September 2015), ceetee9 (17th August 2015), Deega (18th August 2015), Ewan (17th August 2015), Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Gardener (17th August 2015), genevieve (18th August 2015), Jake (17th August 2015), Latti (17th August 2015), leavesoftrees (18th September 2015), Lefty Dave (17th August 2015), Limor Wolf (17th August 2015), loveoflife (17th August 2015), M-Albion-3D (2nd January 2016), Magneticman (17th August 2015), Nasu (12th May 2016), Old Snake (19th September 2015), Operator (19th August 2015), ponda (17th August 2015), Reinhard (17th August 2015), Robin (17th August 2015), RunningDeer (18th August 2015), Selkie (17th August 2015), Snoweagle (17th August 2015), StandingWave (17th September 2015), Star Tsar (19th August 2015), TeXaR (17th January 2016), truthseekerdan (18th August 2015), Ultima Thule (17th August 2015), Violet (18th August 2015), WhiteLove (17th August 2015), william r sanford72 (17th August 2015), Wind (18th August 2015)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Retired
    Join Date
    7th December 2010
    Location
    Beyond
    Age
    50
    Posts
    3,689
    Thanks
    34,680
    Thanked 27,050 times in 3,027 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Thank you, Paul. Does this lecture by Wallace Thornhill falls into the basic old school notions of physics? Would the word 'Anti gravity' be acceptable by him?

    Not a long overview but making up my mind whether to watch

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Limor Wolf For This Post:

    Magneticman (17th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (17th August 2015), william r sanford72 (18th August 2015)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Finland Avalon Member Ultima Thule's Avatar
    Join Date
    30th January 2011
    Age
    47
    Posts
    875
    Thanks
    2,744
    Thanked 3,265 times in 683 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    I haven´t yet watched this video, but Wal Thornhills model is simple and beautiful - which sound like a good science to me. Off course it may (and propably does) contain flaws, but nonetheless is worthwhile to listen to!

    UT

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Ultima Thule For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Limor Wolf (17th August 2015), Magneticman (17th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (17th August 2015), william r sanford72 (18th August 2015)

  7. Link to Post #4
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,579
    Thanks
    30,499
    Thanked 138,429 times in 21,488 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Quote Posted by Limor Wolf (here)
    Thank you, Paul. Does this lecture by Wallace Thornhill falls into the basic old school notions of physics? Would the word 'Anti gravity' be acceptable by him?

    Not a long overview but making up my mind whether to watch
    Excellent question - encouraged me to explain what I should have said in the opening post. Thanks!

    If by "old school", you mean a century ago, yes, to a considerable degree.

    If you mean anything that has a chance in hell of getting a Nobel prize in this present world, not even close.

    If you prefer reading, here's an article covering similar material, from the same perspective: Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe, written by the same Thornhill, several years ago.

    If I had a very bright child ask me "Dad - what is gravity?", Thornhill's answer, involving massive numbers of the protons, neutrons and electrons in the Earth's atoms forming dipoles that are (at least slightly) aligned, creating weak electrostatic fields, would be more or less the only answer I can imagine giving. Other explanations, such as Newton's Law of Gravity, might mathematically model the strength of gravity in near earth conditions (but not universally), however nothing else answers the question "But what is it, Daddy ... not How does gravity behave, sort of, near us?"

    As Thornhill writes in the above linked article:
    Quote What is gravity?

    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.
    Thornhill addresses anti-gravity later in the same article I linked above. It's real, it's essential to reasonably explain the observed cosmology of our Universe, and Thornhill even shows a 1974 video of a Professor Laitwaithe demonstrating the gravity reducing effect of a gyroscope in a easy to replicate manner. The video of that lecture was originally not published with the other videos of the same series, on the grounds that the good Professor had come to a "false conclusion".
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 17th August 2015 at 08:03.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  8. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Baby Steps (17th August 2015), Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Limor Wolf (17th August 2015), M-Albion-3D (14th January 2016), Magneticman (17th August 2015), RunningDeer (18th August 2015), Selkie (17th August 2015), Snoweagle (17th August 2015), william r sanford72 (17th August 2015), Wind (18th August 2015)

  9. Link to Post #5
    Retired
    Join Date
    7th December 2010
    Location
    Beyond
    Age
    50
    Posts
    3,689
    Thanks
    34,680
    Thanked 27,050 times in 3,027 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Thanks Paul, he seems to fall in between two categories then, I asked because I was reminded of Wade Frazier's relations to Immanuel Velikovsky's challenging of the mainstream physics and the "Electric universe" model, and searching this, I found that Wallace Thornhill's work is indeed inspired by Velikovsy's.

    Wade's perspective that is based on the knowledge of the grander picture which includes Black projects and 'their' science (ET relations), but also relays on scientific foundation, is worth considering -

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post938488

    Quote Originally posted by Wade Frazier: "Twenty years after stumbling into the Velikovsky issue, I can respect, in a way, what Velikovsky was trying to do. I think that it was misguided to work backward from ancient texts to construct scientific hypotheses, but he let it rip. In the end, the entire wandering planets scenario does not pass muster in light of what scientists have discovered about the planets and solar system. Velikovsky also challenged basic notions of physics, such as gravity (he considered it an electromagnetic phenomenon), and some of his followers propose an "electric universe" model. From what I have seen, that model does not fare well in light of the evidence, and they have been accused of cherry-picking the data to support their views, and it seems to be the case. I regularly receive emails from Velikovskians that point to this or that scrap of evidence to support their views. It is really not how professional scientists approach such issues."
    ....

    Velikovsky and his followers could be considered part of the three-ring circus around this issue, and part of the free energy conundrum in their own way. So, I have some sympathy for them, but I never got the sense that the hoopla around Velikovsky had anything to do with the free energy/UFO cover-up. Again, there is a great deal of chaff on the fringes, and in the ideal world, hypotheses can be subjected to testing, to see if they are falsified or not. A great deal of evidence has falsified Velikovsky's hypothesis, but that does not mean that maybe, in some intuitive way, Velikovsky was partly barking at the right tree."
    And from Wade Frazier's 'A healed planet' website -

    Quote " I have encountered dozens of instances of scientists with theories that challenge the Standard Model of particle physics, and their primary upshot is a “new” energy source, which is often called zero-point energy.[26] But, black projects[27] and “leading edge” theory aside (theory that is far older than I am), technologies have been publicly available for many years whose operation upends some of science’s oldest theories.[28] “White science” (AKA "Establishment" or "mainstream" science) has great defects, especially when its pursuit conflicts with deeply entrenched economic and political interests."
    Last edited by Limor Wolf; 17th August 2015 at 09:04.

  10. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Limor Wolf For This Post:

    Akasha (1st January 2016), Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), M-Albion-3D (14th January 2016), Magneticman (17th August 2015), seko (18th August 2015), Snoweagle (17th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (17th August 2015), william r sanford72 (17th August 2015), Wind (18th August 2015)

  11. Link to Post #6
    United States Avalon Retired Member
    Join Date
    19th February 2015
    Age
    67
    Posts
    2,202
    Thanks
    7,544
    Thanked 9,600 times in 1,987 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Thanks for the link to the web article, Paul. I am one of those who prefers to read.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Selkie For This Post:

    ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015), william r sanford72 (18th August 2015)

  13. Link to Post #7
    UK Avalon Member loveoflife's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th February 2014
    Posts
    365
    Thanks
    1,010
    Thanked 1,227 times in 312 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Good thread, thanks. Good physics needs to be simple.

    This quote is inline with the theme of this thread.

    Quote Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.
    Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934
    US (Serbian-born) electrical inventor (1857 - 1943)

    You could say Tesla was old school, and yet if his science was not so suppressed we would be way ahead of where we are now.

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to loveoflife For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Satori (27th February 2017), Snoweagle (17th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015), william r sanford72 (17th August 2015)

  15. Link to Post #8
    Ireland Avalon Member Snoweagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th July 2010
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,128
    Thanks
    20,645
    Thanked 4,632 times in 1,021 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Quote Posted by Limor Wolf (here)
    Thanks Paul, he seems to fall in between two categories then, I asked because I was reminded of Wade Frazier's relations to Immanuel Velikovsky's challenging of the mainstream physics and the "Electric universe" model, and searching this, I found that Wallace Thornhill's work is indeed inspired by Velikovsy's.

    Wade's perspective that is based on the knowledge of the grander picture which includes Black projects and 'their' science (ET relations), but also relays on scientific foundation, is worth considering -

    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...l=1#post938488

    Quote Originally posted by Wade Frazier: "Twenty years after stumbling into the Velikovsky issue, I can respect, in a way, what Velikovsky was trying to do. I think that it was misguided to work backward from ancient texts to construct scientific hypotheses, but he let it rip. In the end, the entire wandering planets scenario does not pass muster in light of what scientists have discovered about the planets and solar system. Velikovsky also challenged basic notions of physics, such as gravity (he considered it an electromagnetic phenomenon), and some of his followers propose an "electric universe" model. From what I have seen, that model does not fare well in light of the evidence, and they have been accused of cherry-picking the data to support their views, and it seems to be the case. I regularly receive emails from Velikovskians that point to this or that scrap of evidence to support their views. It is really not how professional scientists approach such issues."
    ....

    Velikovsky and his followers could be considered part of the three-ring circus around this issue, and part of the free energy conundrum in their own way. So, I have some sympathy for them, but I never got the sense that the hoopla around Velikovsky had anything to do with the free energy/UFO cover-up. Again, there is a great deal of chaff on the fringes, and in the ideal world, hypotheses can be subjected to testing, to see if they are falsified or not. A great deal of evidence has falsified Velikovsky's hypothesis, but that does not mean that maybe, in some intuitive way, Velikovsky was partly barking at the right tree."
    And from Wade Frazier's 'A healed planet' website -

    Quote " I have encountered dozens of instances of scientists with theories that challenge the Standard Model of particle physics, and their primary upshot is a “new” energy source, which is often called zero-point energy.[26] But, black projects[27] and “leading edge” theory aside (theory that is far older than I am), technologies have been publicly available for many years whose operation upends some of science’s oldest theories.[28] “White science” (AKA "Establishment" or "mainstream" science) has great defects, especially when its pursuit conflicts with deeply entrenched economic and political interests."
    Am of the strongest opinion that of the the two highly repected sources "Wallace Thornhill" and "Wade Frasier" I recommend the former to focus your understanding of the natural world.

    I know Wade is Avalon "family" but from my perspective he is a physicist and therefore is following the pack of Einsteinian and Newtonian Victoriana Science. It hasn't matured since the water bath experiments. Yet the Electric Universe model is a direct access to solutions and is secretly the domain of emerging sciences and in fact CERN itself.

    If I had access to an Electric Universe group here in the UK I would actively support them and participate strongly with their message.

    So @Limor this my recommendation.

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Snoweagle For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015), william r sanford72 (1st January 2016)

  17. Link to Post #9
    Retired
    Join Date
    7th December 2010
    Location
    Beyond
    Age
    50
    Posts
    3,689
    Thanks
    34,680
    Thanked 27,050 times in 3,027 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Thank you very much, Snoweagle, we live in a world that is full of small nuances and delicates that are difficult at times to be detcted by everyone's senses and perceptions. I am personally (with my non physics orientation, but with other orientation at hand) in full alignment to a large percentage with many of the assassements, depth of thinking and aspirations Wade Frazier represents and aim for, not because of him being an 'Avalon family', but because of wider reasons almost difficult to detail. You can say it is a totally different genre.

    I can not agree (in my eyes) that Wade Frazier's work is falling into the 'victoriana Science' that has not matured much'. He is indeed laying his foundations on the basics of science (some of it is essntial building blocks) , but grows far from there by using comprehensive specs of glasses, thoroughly in depth examination and a bird's eye view which does not stick to this very limiting trail of old school science. His life is not about foundational science, but he is using the scientific tools of 'evidence' (very broadly defined, it may include personal experience sufficiently backed up with that of others that will actually not sit well with the scientific 'evidence').

    With every scientific theory there will always be those who are in in favor and those that oppose it, and so when someone is niether this or that, but uses a broader databases and a whole outlook of why it may or may not be this or that out of relative objectivity, then I chose to listen.

    This is no disqualification of the great information of the 'Electric universe model' theory, just paying attention to all angles and various opinions.
    Last edited by Limor Wolf; 18th August 2015 at 16:46.

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Limor Wolf For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Jake (18th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015), william r sanford72 (18th August 2015)

  19. Link to Post #10
    Ireland Avalon Member Snoweagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th July 2010
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,128
    Thanks
    20,645
    Thanked 4,632 times in 1,021 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Not a problem Limor, nice to hear you have an eye on both camps. Maybe one day we will see a merge of the two branches.

    Just to clarify, I am not, nor would I attack Wade but the promoted science of Physics. My comment was aimed at your earlier query. I merely highlighted my preference.

    I consider the two branches as we do for the clash between pharmaceuticals and homeopathy, we believe in both yet select our preference.

  20. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Snoweagle For This Post:

    Limor Wolf (18th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015), william r sanford72 (1st January 2016)

  21. Link to Post #11
    Retired
    Join Date
    7th December 2010
    Location
    Beyond
    Age
    50
    Posts
    3,689
    Thanks
    34,680
    Thanked 27,050 times in 3,027 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Hi Snoweagle, yes, I agree, learning about all 'offerings' out there is good and seeing where our hearts/minds/logic leads us, I appologise if this may sound a little tiresome, but I think that the comparison you made here (which may only be a matter of semantics) is not quite accurate. It may be that Walace Tornhill and Wade Frazier are two separate branches, but they are branches of the same tree (check out Wade's latest short comment or his massive work ). That is not main science, while pharmaceuticals and homeopathy are two different trees altogether, imo.

    I wouldn't like to wander beyond Paul's original topic of Wallace Tornhill lecture about what is gravity
    Last edited by Limor Wolf; 18th August 2015 at 17:37.

  22. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Limor Wolf For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Snoweagle (18th August 2015), ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015)

  23. Link to Post #12
    Ireland Avalon Member Snoweagle's Avatar
    Join Date
    8th July 2010
    Location
    Devon, UK
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,128
    Thanks
    20,645
    Thanked 4,632 times in 1,021 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    In light of the blurb associated with Thornhills presentation referring to Richard Feynmann's quote: “There is no model of the theory of gravitation today, other than the mathematical form.” there is coincidentally the release of Eric Dollards new publication, Aug 2015, which the attached blurb describes as: "Aether Is both mathematically and concretely engineerable by understanding the work of J.J. Thomson, which shows that there is an Aether and Matter Equivelancy. It is a mathematical reality that has remained hidden in plain sight for over a century."

    I consider this publication extremely important, enough to push up my wish list, as I believe it essential in the understanding of this very dichotomy discussed here between the Electric Universe and mainstream Physics, as Eric's blurb states:

    "Thomson came up with the dynamics of these Lines of Force, which he called Tubes of Electric Induction and this became an engineerable manifestation of the aether even though the aether itself remains an unknown. His most important concept is that the aether is the storehouse of momentum. This means that when the aether is electrified, it exhibits the properties of a substance with inertia and momentum that acts upon physics matter. This leads to an understanding that matter in and of itself is an accretion of the aether."

    By posting this I do assert there is a relationship between the Aether and Gravity, though I am running with my expectation on this point though I believe Thornhill et al will find this of value too.

    http://powerofaether.com/
    Last edited by Snoweagle; 18th August 2015 at 19:22.

  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Snoweagle For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), william r sanford72 (1st January 2016)

  25. Link to Post #13
    Avalon Member truthseekerdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th March 2010
    Location
    Unite and Love One Another
    Posts
    2,375
    Thanks
    1,591
    Thanked 4,616 times in 1,305 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Walter Russell a good friend of Tesla had his own theory way back...

    "Gravity and magnetism are not forces, they are DIRECTIONS.
    Gravity is the centripetal direction from rim to hub, while magnetism is the centrifugal direction from hub to rim.

    In a nutshell, positive electricity produces matter and form from space which looks like an effect of gravity, while negative electricity turns all expressions of positive electricity (matter and form) into space."

    http://walter-russell.com/documents/...magnetism.html

    Unity Consciousness
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    Free your mind, and open your heart to LOVE.
    You'll then become enlightened able to just BE.

  26. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to truthseekerdan For This Post:

    Baby Steps (1st January 2016), Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Gardener (2nd January 2016), nomadguy (9th January 2016), william r sanford72 (18th September 2015)

  27. Link to Post #14
    Belgium Avalon Member Violet's Avatar
    Join Date
    18th August 2011
    Posts
    1,877
    Thanks
    5,274
    Thanked 9,182 times in 1,657 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Interesting. And what he says about mathematics has not just affected physics and close neighbours, also language studies. This is an example of analysis taken from computational linguistics:



    (source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/co...al-linguistics)

    Though undoubtedly of inspiration, don't confuse with Chomsky's generative grammar, which appears to me a comprehensive way of establishing a visual overview of the sentence components and their relations.

    We weren't taught physics in the way Mr Thornhill supports it. Our physics classes felt overly mathematical at the time, they basically made you want to run the other way. And our physics teacher so often got lost in her own equations we could barely take the whole thing seriously anymore.

    As it happens I'm now reading a book passage by Zeillinger about light's wave-particle duality. When you close one slit during the movement of light, how does the light particle know where it should land?

    After watching part of the posted video I'm wondering: By the same token (?) how does mass one know about mass two?

    I'll put the vid on the watchlist for further viewing. Thanks for posting.
    Last edited by Violet; 18th August 2015 at 23:31.

  28. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Violet For This Post:

    ThePythonicCow (18th August 2015), william r sanford72 (1st January 2016)

  29. Link to Post #15
    Scotland Avalon Member Ewan's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th February 2015
    Location
    Ireland
    Age
    62
    Posts
    2,434
    Thanks
    51,873
    Thanked 18,949 times in 2,388 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Watched it last night and thought it was very good. Actually listened to it three times as it was on loop and I kept my headphones on as I worked on my 3d art. I first heard about the EU idea about 10 years ago and had read Velikovsky at least 15 years ago. It made more sense to me than mainstream thinking and I'm quite sure I always thought that 'Big Bang' was a ridiculously tenuous idea every since first hearing of it.

  30. Link to Post #16
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,579
    Thanks
    30,499
    Thanked 138,429 times in 21,488 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Quote Posted by Limor Wolf (here)
    Thank you, Paul. Does this lecture by Wallace Thornhill falls into the basic old school notions of physics? Would the word 'Anti gravity' be acceptable by him?
    On further thought ... I can now imagine how Edward Leedskalnin built his Coral Castle in Florida, single-handedly lifting rocks weighing tons into precise positions with apparent ease, but only when he was sure no one was around to see how he did it. He was a small man, but 5 foot tall and 100 pounds. He claimed to know the "secret" of the ancient Egyptian pyramids.

    By the model of gravity suggested by the Electric Universe, gravity is formed by the distortions caused in bulk matter (lots of neutral atoms, as in a planet) in the presence of strong magnetic fields (as in a solar system.) Such fields are not strong enough to tear the atoms apart, as when plasmas are created in stronger fields. Rather the fields merely distort the atoms, pulling the electrons a little bit off-center one way, and the protons the other way. This creates a binding force, from the attraction of the negative charges in one atom to the closer positive charges in an adjacent atom.

    Given that Electric Universe model of gravity, if one could apply some sort of vibration to a material of the right frequency, for that particular material, then perhaps that could cause molecular excitation's that happened to neutralize these usual off-center charge imbalances. That material, perhaps a 10 or 100 ton piece of granite, then would no longer present the imbalanced, off-center, charges that would be pulled toward the earth's charge field, and could be lifted and maneuvered easily.

    Likely only certain materials, such as perhaps uniform granite stones, could be manipulated this way. Most materials would not have a single frequency and some particular molecular structure that enabled nullifying the particular electrical field known as gravity in such a manner.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 2nd January 2016 at 06:38.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  31. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Baby Steps (1st January 2016), Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Mike (2nd January 2016), william r sanford72 (1st January 2016)

  32. Link to Post #17
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,579
    Thanks
    30,499
    Thanked 138,429 times in 21,488 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    By the model of gravity suggested by the Electric Universe, gravity is formed by the distortions caused in bulk matter (lots of neutral atoms, as in a planet) in the presence of strong magnetic fields (as in a solar system.) Such fields are not strong enough to tear the atoms apart, as when plasmas are created in stronger fields. Rather the fields merely distort the atoms, pulling the electrons a little bit off-center one way, and the protons the other way. This creates a binding force, from the attraction of the negative charges in one atom to the closer positive charges in an adjacent atom.
    The following image comes from 38m25s into the 1h1m59s Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity | EU2015, uploaded August 2015, in the portion in which Wallace "Wal" Thornhill is explaining how gravity might be formed in the Electric Universe model.
    As explained there, there appears to be a serious flaw. He says that gravity is created when gravity distorts atoms, displacing the protons off-center from the electronic orbits, creating an electric dipole, which dipoles then cause the effects we call gravity.

    This explanation has a serious chicken and egg problem -- explaining gravity as an electrical consequence of something gravity caused .

    I would like to give Wal the benefit of the doubt here, and suppose that he inadvertently over simplified for the purpose of a more succinct presentation.

    I currently presume that the distortion of the atomic structure, moving the proton off the center of the electron orbits, is indirectly caused by magnetic fields, such in the solar system, causing various positive and negative charge clouds in the gaseous and plasma regions, where ions are mobile and can form currents, which charge clouds can then generate more static electrical fields distorting the neutral atoms trapped in solid matter within the earth and moving near or above the surface of the earth.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 2nd January 2016 at 08:33.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  33. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), Mike (2nd January 2016), william r sanford72 (2nd January 2016)

  34. Link to Post #18
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,579
    Thanks
    30,499
    Thanked 138,429 times in 21,488 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    We have seen posted on Avalon (at least) three other attempts to explain the nature of the electrical/magnetic aether that main stream physicists over a century ago, and non-conventional physicists currently, presume underlay the physical nature of matter, light, energy, various sub-atomic particles, and gravity:LaViolette's Subquantum Kinetics may explain how the aether forms these the most basic self-organizing, self-perpetuating, dynamic aether vortices out of which all other physically manifest energy and matter, including photons and subatomic particles, are formed. Little has been done, other than some computer modeling of such aetheric vortices by Matt Pulver, since LaViolette published this work some time ago now. Project Camelot interviewed Paul LaViolette back in 2009: here.

    LaPoint's Primer Fields presented an intriguing model for the electro-magnetic fields that might form these most basic aetheric vortices underlying all other manifest energy and matter in a series of three Youtube videos, three years ago now. He had initially said he would be doing more videos, but then stopped. I've not seen anything more of this work since then.

    Kelvin Abraham just came to my attention in the last month or so, in the thread noted above. I was initially intrigued by his equilateral geometry model for these most basic aetheric quanta, but then ran into too many stumbling blocks and for now I've lost interest.

    I've come back to this Electric Universe thread, as the most active and promising work being done in this field that I know of.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  35. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), nomadguy (9th January 2016), william r sanford72 (2nd January 2016)

  36. Link to Post #19
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,579
    Thanks
    30,499
    Thanked 138,429 times in 21,488 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    Quote Posted by Paul (here)
    LaPoint's Primer Fields presented an intriguing model for the electro-magnetic fields that might form these most basic aetheric vortices underlying all other manifest energy and matter in a series of three Youtube videos, three years ago now. He had initially said he would be doing more videos, but then stopped. I've not seen anything more of this work since then.
    Aha - David LaPoint has resurfaced, on Twitter, Scribd, Google+, and Facebook, selling a $6000 revolutionary health enhancement medical device, the PrimerCube, offering better health, a longer life, and a better sex life.
    Last edited by ThePythonicCow; 2nd January 2016 at 07:38.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

  37. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ThePythonicCow For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), william r sanford72 (2nd January 2016)

  38. Link to Post #20
    Avalon Member nomadguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    28th July 2010
    Location
    Time Space
    Age
    44
    Posts
    1,102
    Thanks
    3,415
    Thanked 2,951 times in 812 posts

    Default Re: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

    The Primer Fields point out an interesting possibility that has always resonated with me.... That is that, electric forces and magnetism are inseparable. A sort of chicken before egg quandary emerges.... Except that in this case it is quite possible that both forces are one, but are manifesting as fractions of the initial force. The big bang for example is a sort of event horizon where this separation of the initial force splinters through a fractal pattern(perhaps modulated by varying magnetism) into a seemingly infinite iteration of patterns that emerged from the original cosmic soup. The pattern is so complex that it feeds energy and information back on itself, causing evolution. You might say that the toroid is an indicator of this mechanism in play-A perfect primer to all scalar dimensions.
    Why not now?

  39. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nomadguy For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (13th June 2016), StandingWave (17th January 2016), william r sanford72 (17th January 2016)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts