+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Wallace Thornhill: The Long Path to Understanding Gravity

  1. Link to Post #21
    Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    15th January 2016
    Location
    Near St. Charles, MO (in Illinois)
    Posts
    14
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 37 times in 9 posts

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

    I found Thornhill's subtron atomic model of gravity interesting at first, about 15 years ago, which model he borrowed from Ralph Sansbury basically. But after further thought it seemed to me that basic attractive forces are unrealistic (except for the force of love = caring) and more akin to magic. So I now favor push-gravity. I also liked Thornhill's Electric Universe theory at first, but it never seemed to bring much clarity, like how are electric currents in the universe generated. In 2012 I got a few smart guys on the Thunderbolts.info forum to discuss Electric Sun models. I invited Thornhill and other proponents of his model, like Don Scott et al, to join in the discussion, but they declined, even though it's their forum. The member who ultimately was able to come up with the clearest and most thorough model of the Electric Sun and Electric Universe, especially after 2 years or more of work, was Charles Chandler. Our discussion started at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/p...hp?f=10&t=6124 and Charles' site now has a lot of papers he wrote on Astrophysics and Geophysics at http://qdl.scs-inc.us/2ndParty/Pages/6031.html.

    Charles hasn't gotten around yet to explaining gravity or the microcosm very much, but he has a very good handle on the macrocosm, I believe. The Natural Philosophy Society has a lot of members, including scientists, who discuss gravity, antigravity, aether etc. They're at http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/.

  2. Link to Post #22
    New Zealand Avalon Member
    Join Date
    20th April 2016
    Age
    83
    Posts
    11
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 25 times in 9 posts

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

    Re gravity. Here is my "take" on it. I also believe that gravity is a PUSHING force, not an attracting force. For me, a force can only be a positive effect, not a pulling-sucking force.
    A vacuum cleaner works on PRESSURE difference. Dirt particles are PUSHED up into the inlet pipe from lower PRESSURE generated.
    What is gravity? well we need to go back to the aether again. This has gone in and out of "fashion" many times.
    Here is a possible explanation.
    Imagine that throughout space, there are zillions of sub, sub atomic particles streaming everywhere in all directions like a chaotic hailstorm.
    These impinge on all matter so that so called solid objects are put under pressure.
    When standing on planet Earth, why do we weigh say 12 stone?
    Well the particles hitting us from North, South, East and West are equal, so cancel each other out, but the gravity particles hitting us on the head PUSH us down onto the Earth.
    There are even some gravity particles that manage to make it through the 8,000 miles of Earth beneath us and hit us on the soles of our feet.
    Now it is the DIFFERENCE between the force hitting us on the head and that hitting the soles of our feet, that cause our particular weight.
    A simple experiment you can do to see gravity in action:
    In your bathroom, onto a basin part filled with still water, place several empty peanut shell pods as boats.
    Make sure that the window is closed to exclude any air draughts that may influence this experiment.
    You will see two pods come together after a while.
    Why is this?
    Well, the gravity particles are bombarding everything, but between the two pods, a small shading effect of gravity is occurring.
    This then produces a lower pressure between them, so they get pushed together.
    Come back half an hour later and you will see that ALL of the pods have drifted to the side of the basin.
    Why is this?
    The sides of the basin cause some shading of the gravity particles due to its solidity, whilst above, the basin is wide open and gravity particles are entering the area mostly unimpeded.
    So we have a lower pressure close to the basins walls where the pods get pushed to.
    If you watch a pod arriving close to the basins wall, you will observe the inverse square law in operation.
    That is, the pods really speed up over the last small distance to the basins wall.
    Hang part of a face flannel into the water. Water now rises UP, apparently AGAINST gravity!
    Why is this? Well directly underneath the flannel, this area is shading to a small extent, the gravity particles penetration, so here the pressure is lower than outside the flannel, so the water gets PUSHED up into the flannel.
    Hold the bottom end of a thin bore glass tube, open at top and bottom, (like a thermometer tube) into the water. You will see the water rise ABOVE the surface of the basins water level!
    Why is this? Again, directly underneath the end of the tube, gravity particles are excluded to some extent, so there is a lower pressure here that causes the water to get pushed up into the tube.
    When two objects in space are in proximity to each other, they apparently attract. This is termed "cohesion". It is a handy word, but explains nothing.
    As previously mentioned, the area directly in a line between both objects, causes a shading of gravity particles and so a lower pressure between them, so they get PUSHED together.
    The larger the body, the more apparent gravity it displays. This is simply because a large body blocks more gravity particles.
    There are many more examples I could give, but this should impart my theory enough to understand.
    I have not gone into what these particles are composed of, where they originate from, their actual size or their speed, however, simply to understand WHAT gravity does, should be adequately covered.

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to stebra For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (23rd February 2017), KiwiElf (13th May 2016)

  4. Link to Post #23
    United States Avalon Member Foxie Loxie's Avatar
    Join Date
    20th September 2015
    Location
    Central NY
    Age
    79
    Posts
    3,078
    Thanks
    67,683
    Thanked 17,639 times in 2,960 posts

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

    Thanks Paul for helping me to "catch up"!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Foxie Loxie For This Post:

    ThePythonicCow (13th June 2016)

  6. Link to Post #24
    Wales Avalon Member meat suit's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st January 2012
    Location
    on the coast
    Language
    German
    Age
    58
    Posts
    983
    Thanks
    5,737
    Thanked 5,006 times in 904 posts

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

    its amazing how far away we are from understanding gravity.. here is the latest video by the thunderbolts project
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to meat suit For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (23rd February 2017)

  8. Link to Post #25
    United States Administrator ThePythonicCow's Avatar
    Join Date
    4th January 2011
    Location
    North Texas
    Language
    English
    Age
    76
    Posts
    28,581
    Thanks
    30,501
    Thanked 138,437 times in 21,490 posts

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

    Quote Posted by meat suit (here)
    its amazing how far away we are from understanding gravity
    Indeed, we are.

    Besides these efforts by those working on "The Electric Universe" model, others are also working the question of what is gravity.

    I discussed two other such efforts in a post three months ago: The physics of atomic nuclei, chemical bonding, light, gravity, electromagnetics -- Post #22.

    In that post, I noted that I liked Robert Distinti's explanation of gravity, as the "force" created by an accelerating aetheric wind, coming inwards toward mass.

    I still prefer Distinti's explanation, over the alternatives that I've seen.
    My quite dormant website: pauljackson.us

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

    Foxie Loxie (27th February 2017), meat suit (27th February 2017)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

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