Wal Thornhill's theory for gravity

[david barclay]

I think Wal and many others are missing the whole point in respect to gravity.

Gravity is considered a force, a weak force, but is it a force? And while we're at it is electromagnetism actually a force?

Here we are so many years later and gravity still remains a mystery. Shouldn't this tell us something?

I can see why Wal Thornhill's theory would be of interest in relation to EU, but perhaps an elementary element of universe has been overlooked.

I would not suggest the universe to be non-electric because it most certainly is electric, but it is also gravitational.

Perhaps what is missing here is the space between the dots, the aspect of universe we take for granted but are reluctant to consider. Because if there is an underlying force both gravity and electromagnetism can be viewed as dynamic responses, where gravity is nothing more than a condition of field associated with mass.

Certainly there is a charge involved, but isn't it a bit like a flea on a dog? Everywhere the flea looks it can see dog hair, but can't see a dog.

And in terms of gravity we're in a similar situation, yes there's charge, but to consider gravity the result of charge leaves us no further ahead. We're back to gravity being proportional to mass with no idea of what gravity might really be.

Without getting into a lot of speculative ideas I think it reasonable to consider the possibility that we might be forced to reconsider the basic nature of mass and it's relationship with energy, as without a clear understanding of the dynamics affecting the form and function of mass it is doubtful we are going to make much progress with gravity.

[substance]

I agree that we have to at least try to re-explore the basic nature of matter, but there is also the option that we might never find out, what gravity really is. We might someday just agree that it is a property of matter and that`s that.
Yes, people do consider it a force, but I like to to think of it as a property.
That reminds me of a very silly, but pressing question: If you build a big enough thing, let`s say 10 000km. in diameter and place it in orbit around Earth or even around the Sun, would it have it`s own gravity?

[junglelord]

What is APM?
We might not find any time soon a better definition for mass than Newtonian ideas, but still Einstein`s relativity and explanation of gravity is seriously flawed and no wonder they are not finding any gravitational waves, nor will they ever. That`s what I think at least, the idea of gravitational waves is absurd in my opinion.

APM stands for the Aether Physics Model, by Dave Thompson.

[rangerover777]

What if gravity, electricity, magnetism, atom and matter structure are made by
the same building blocks ? Would not be easier to ties them together as
different manifestations of the same basic particles ?

If gravity is affected by electric charge and electricity by magnetism and the mass
by gravity, and mass made of matter that made of atoms that made of…..

Would not it be more organic / natural / organized / logical that all these phenomenas
have the same roots ? So why not looking for the building blocks instead of trying
to tie together the seemingly separated phenomenas ?

Nature does not have to be complicated as our mind...

Cheers

[junglelord]

I love the way you said that. I guess thats why I apprciate the way that APM has taken a close look at the way we define dimension, constant, unit, measurement. We have all the data, we just need to reorganize the information. Ultimately APM recognizes three fundamental forces, each is a dipole. Two charges and gravity. Dave Thompson says that matter and antimatter should repel.

[rangerover777]

Einstein for instance viewed gravity as a result of masses influencing one another,
which is partially true, but unfinished, since he left several open questions :
How this force forming within the mass in the first place ?
What this mechanism looks like and who are the players ?
Why this force is not made from the same building blocks of the atoms it attract or repel ?
Einstein was not the first or the last to fail to start with the right players. It’s the accepted
scientific system of exploration which in error. It’s flagship of observations, tests,
calculations and conclusions - must use accepted scientific terminology in order to explain
the results. As radical as they maybe, still it have the limitation of communicating the
community in order to be accepted. But what if the most basic particles or energy were
never found ? Or found but not considered basic enough to be the fundamental building blocks,
but just another region of nature.

Then the only “way out” is to chase the isolated natural phenomenas by keep trying to tie them
together while on the other hand “discover” newborn solitary ones. This close circle (circus) fate,
is to go forever without reaching anywhere… The irony, is that does not prevent technology to
keep advancing, which means being advance, you don’t necessarily have to understand nature…

These are some scientific discoveries that strongly suspicious of being one and the same,
under different conditions and different combinations :
1. The four fundamental forces : The strong nuclear force. The weak nuclear force.
The electromagnetic force. The gravitational force.
2. The atom structure : protons, electrons, neutron, quarks, gluons, bosons (and more will be found).
3. Waves : UV, Micro, Beta, Gamma, Alpha, X-ray, radio, sound, light (which is a bit different),
Infrared, Electricity, Ultraviolet, etc.
4. States of matter : solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma.
5. Matter & energy.
And more.

Nature is about constant transformations, taking matter into it’s basic elements and build it again.
To accomplished that, not many fundamentals are needed - eventhough it wear many faces…

My point is not find new “Theory of Everything”, but go back in time from observations
to conclusions, not based on accepted theories, models and terminology, but literally from scratch.
Some courage needed here.

Cheers

[StevenO]

I love the way you said that. I guess thats why I apprciate the way that APM has taken a close look at the way we define dimension, constant, unit, measurement. We have all the data, we just need to reorganize the information. Ultimately APM recognizes three fundamental forces, each is a dipole. Two charges and gravity. Dave Thompson says that matter and antimatter should repel.

Looks like APM is moving into the same direction as the Reciprocal System of Dewey Larson, which also recognizes these forces and exactly explains the role of anti-matter. It is not repelling but reciprocal (anti = not -X but 1/X). It moves in three dimensional time (the 2 extra APM frequencies?). Matter/anti-matter are two reciprocal worlds that together perpetuate an endless cycle in the Universe.

[StefanR]

First I would like to say that I liked the article very much.

These are some scientific discoveries that strongly suspicious of being one and the same,
under different conditions and different combinations :
1. The four fundamental forces : The strong nuclear force. The weak nuclear force.
The electromagnetic force. The gravitational force.
2. The atom structure : protons, electrons, neutron, quarks, gluons, bosons (and more will be found).
3. Waves : UV, Micro, Beta, Gamma, Alpha, X-ray, radio, sound, light (which is a bit different),
Infrared, Electricity, Ultraviolet, etc.
4. States of matter : solid, liquid, gaseous, plasma.
5. Matter & energy.
And more.

Nature is about constant transformations, taking matter into it’s basic elements and build it again.
To accomplished that, not many fundamentals are needed - eventhough it wear many faces…

My point is not find new “Theory of Everything”, but go back in time from observations
to conclusions, not based on accepted theories, models and terminology, but literally from scratch.
Some courage needed here.

I think this a very good point here.
But I think Thornhill did a nice job in his introduction by stating some history involved in the formulation of the notion of gravity. There also seem to be quite a bit different approaches presented in this thread for resolving it in a more fundamental "electric" or "magnetic" way. What I find interesting is that certain approaches, although seemingly different, are very related in hinting at a certain "mechanism" only the solutions are different.
But I have to come back to this a little later. I do wish to say in relation to the statement of rangerover777 that some courage will be needed indeed, as that a lot might be lost in such "going back in time" and a lot could be gained too. Lost as some particles and forces could be done away with, but a more comprehensive view could be won by it.
Indeed, maybe not much fundamentals will be needed.
But as I said I will have come back to this later.

[rangerover777]

Mr. Wallace Thornhill wrote a very profound and encompassing article, which describe
the approach to gravity over the years and I personally thanks him for his courage, curiosity
and understanding.

This is what he wrote about Faraday :

Electric Gravity
In 1850, Faraday performed experiments trying to link gravity with electromagnetism that
were unsuccessful. However, his conviction remained: “The long and constant persuasion
that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather
being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the
possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity
…no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.”[12]

Faraday’s estimate of the importance of such a connection still stands. Today, there are a
number of scholars pursuing this obvious line of inquiry. After all, the electrical and
gravitational forces share fundamental characteristics—they both diminish with the inverse
square of the distance; they are both proportional to the product of the interacting masses or
charges; and both forces act along the line between them.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That was a close call by Faraday, but not on target. And the reason for that is that Faraday
“missed the junction” between magnetism and matter by “bridging” it with Electricity.
In other words, it was and it still today very difficult to find the direct relation between
magnetism and matter. On the other hand Electricity or Charge are much more “user friendly”
for scientists, to perform tests, since the effects of electricity on matter are much more easy
to detect then magnetism. Also electricity could be made to run as a stream in a wire or
in the air and through other materials and it’s much more manageable then magnetism (which
can “hardly be controlled”). And the short cut was to turn magnetism into electricity, so further
tests could be done and conclusions could be drawn easily..

In order to respect magnetism, Faraday called it Electromagnetism, since he could not
separate between the two (which no one could do so far). And because of this “bridge” over
this "junction" between magnetism and matter, Gravity remained a mystery until today.

Even more courage required here, “to be the one before Faraday”.

Cheers

[rangerover777]

Insights & questions about gravity :
1. At what point a body (in space for instance), starts to poses it’s own gravitational force ?
2. Does any mass, anywhere, at any state of matter develops independent gravity once it’s
atoms starts to form the object ?
3. Is there a critical mass (combined with the compositions) of an object, where magnetic
field is develops, and that have to do with gravity ?
4. In a case of a planet orbiting a star, is the combined forces of their gravities responsible
to keep the orbit as is ? Or it’s only the star’s gravity only that keeps the planet in orbit ?
5. Gravity can attract matter, but is it able to attract gravity from another object ?
6. Why gravity is attracted to matter ? And if it attract why it passes through it and not stopped ?
7. If gravity passes through the atoms of an object, it pulls them down as a unit or individually ?
8. If it pass through an object/s, pulls it vertically down and continue further where the inverse
square law fits in ? Does the medium composition which it passes through , play a role ?
Or it’s more matter of distance from it’s origin ?
9. Evidently centrifuge force and angular laws plays a role in gravitational orbit systems.
On the other hand some orbiting particles may not need gravity in order to perform angular
motion (like magnetic field for instance). Is it possible that we misinterpret angular motion
that caused by naturally orbiting particles as gravity, somewhere on the way ?
10. Is centrifuge, centripetal, inertia, momentum are also some type of gravity ?

I enjoy much reading Mr. Thorhill article, yet it surprised me the way he took electricity and
the atom structure as a fact, or a starting point. While being curious to find how gravity works,
one would expect Mr. Thornhill to treat these items equally as he did with other theories and
models and to pursue them down to their foundations, and then accept whatever results he
find there, or not find.

I hope these questions are not much for one time, yet there is a long waiting line of them.
Maybe someone can give his / her thoughts and possible answers.

Cheers

[StevenO]

Insights & questions about gravity :
1. At what point a body (in space for instance), starts to poses it’s own gravitational force ?
2. Does any mass, anywhere, at any state of matter develops independent gravity once it’s
atoms starts to form the object ?
3. Is there a critical mass (combined with the compositions) of an object, where magnetic
field is develops, and that have to do with gravity ?
4. In a case of a planet orbiting a star, is the combined forces of their gravities responsible
to keep the orbit as is ? Or it’s only the star’s gravity only that keeps the planet in orbit ?
5. Gravity can attract matter, but is it able to attract gravity from another object ?
6. Why gravity is attracted to matter ? And if it attract why it passes through it and not stopped ?
7. If gravity passes through the atoms of an object, it pulls them down as a unit or individually ?
8. If it pass through an object/s, pulls it vertically down and continue further where the inverse
square law fits in ? Does the medium composition which it passes through , play a role ?
Or it’s more matter of distance from it’s origin ?
9. Evidently centrifuge force and angular laws plays a role in gravitational orbit systems.
On the other hand some orbiting particles may not need gravity in order to perform angular
motion (like magnetic field for instance). Is it possible that we misinterpret angular motion
that caused by naturally orbiting particles as gravity, somewhere on the way ?
10. Is centrifuge, centripetal, inertia, momentum are also some type of gravity ?

I enjoy much reading Mr. Thorhill article, yet it surprised me the way he took electricity and
the atom structure as a fact, or a starting point. While being curious to find how gravity works,
one would expect Mr. Thornhill to treat these items equally as he did with other theories and
models and to pursue them down to their foundations, and then accept whatever results he
find there, or not find.

I hope these questions are not much for one time, yet there is a long waiting line of them.
Maybe someone can give his / her thoughts and possible answers.

Cheers

Here is some answers I can give readily:
1. A 'rotating' photon displays mass. Gravity is a property of mass.
2. See 1
3. Electric and magnetic field are no result of gravity, though the effects of aggregating matter through gravity can lead to ionization. Since there are limits to ionization this can finally lead to the destruction of atoms.
4. Every graviting object has gravitional range and all objects within that range will aggregate into the largest gravitional object. Since gravity cannot be shielded it acts as a slow but unremitting force.
5. Gravity is an instrinsic property of matter. Graviting objects seem to attract eachother because the gravitional motion counteracts the natural motion of space (which is lightspeed).
6. See 5
7. The aggregates of matter show additional effects through their relative motions.
8. Atoms cannot pass through eachother, there is a minimum distance of about 3 Angstrom.
9. Angular motion of aggregate matter is something else than gravity.
10. Centrifugal and centripetal force can best be described as artificial constructs since rotation cannot be described in the 4D spacetime reference system very well. Inertia equals mass. Momentum is the energy of moving matter.

[webolife]

StevenO,
It is interesting to see your answers in "soundbite" form... I think about things rather simply myself, and a lot of [valuable] speculation on this website gets lots in overmuch verbiage. I'd like to comment on a couple of your "ready answers" and challenge a couple others.
1. "Photons" [not the particulate vision of them], mass and gravity are all manifestations of the same primal centropic forces that I refer to as the unified field.
2&3. In "my" unified field, electrical potential [voltage] is a manifestation of that same primal force/field, and magnetism is the related orthogonal field of force generated around the electrical field carrier/current.
4. The gravitational field operates from the outside in [centropically] therefore its effects are most pronounced on the center of greatest "polity" [call it mass] or centroid, which therefore "overcomes" or absorbs the fields of smaller related centers/centroids... a little different way of saying the same thing as you.
5. Gravity is not "intrinsic" to matter [IMHO], rather gravity produces matter, or better, gravity is one of the aggregating force effects of the unified field, resulting in the measure we call mass at the centroid of the field.
6. The balancing motion to gravitation is not [IMHO] your "motion of space", which I have never understood any time you have tried to describe it, nor do I think it has much to do with "lightspeed". SImply visualized, the balancing vector for gravitation [or more generally aggregation] is angular momentum, whether it is manifest as spin, rotation, or revolution of the given centroids/bodies, "electrons", or galaxies.
7-10. Agreed, centrifugal force is an artifact of relative motion/observation [of angular momentum], but centripetal force, or what I call centropic force [or more accurately pressure] is the result of the fundamental universal system, the unified field everywhere and at every scale acting to hold the universe together, and defying any justification for a big bang.
Gravity is one basic and easily visualized manifestation of this centropic pressure in the macroscopic scale.

[MGmirkin]

Insights & questions about gravity :
1. At what point a body (in space for instance), starts to poses it’s own gravitational force ?
2. Does any mass, anywhere, at any state of matter develops independent gravity once it’s
atoms starts to form the object ?
3. Is there a critical mass (combined with the compositions) of an object, where magnetic
field is develops, and that have to do with gravity ?
4. In a case of a planet orbiting a star, is the combined forces of their gravities responsible
to keep the orbit as is ? Or it’s only the star’s gravity only that keeps the planet in orbit ?
5. Gravity can attract matter, but is it able to attract gravity from another object ?
6. Why gravity is attracted to matter ? And if it attract why it passes through it and not stopped ?
7. If gravity passes through the atoms of an object, it pulls them down as a unit or individually ?
8. If it pass through an object/s, pulls it vertically down and continue further where the inverse
square law fits in ? Does the medium composition which it passes through , play a role ?
Or it’s more matter of distance from it’s origin ?
9. Evidently centrifuge force and angular laws plays a role in gravitational orbit systems.
On the other hand some orbiting particles may not need gravity in order to perform angular
motion (like magnetic field for instance). Is it possible that we misinterpret angular motion
that caused by naturally orbiting particles as gravity, somewhere on the way ?
10. Is centrifuge, centripetal, inertia, momentum are also some type of gravity ?

1) Gravity and mass are "somehow" linked. If it's got mass it exerts gravity. So, things "gravitate" at all levels. An electron and another electron both have mass, so they feel a gravitational force between them. However, the electrical force between them is umpteen times [orders of magnitude] stronger and overrules the mutual gravitation between them to keep them apart.

2) Don't know what you mean by "independent gravity." Question doesn't make sense to me. Sorry.

3) Magnetic fields =/= gravity. Magnetic fields are a byproduct of electric currents (net motions of like charged particles in the same direction). Be the currents in macroscopic wires / plasma or in the electrons orbiting the nuclei of atoms. So, no magnetism isn't a gravitational force. It's a force between electric currents.

Please read the following:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hb ... agfie.html
http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/Education/wmfield.html
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_field
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_c ... omagnetism

4) It would undoubtedly be an interaction between the two objects. Both have mass, both exert mutual gravitational forces. So, it would be the sum total of all objects masses, velocities, momentums, inertias that determine the orbits and/or whether such a system is stable.

5) Again, question doesn't make sense. You seem to be treating "gravity" as a thing of its own that can be divorced from the entities involved. As I think about it, it seems like much the same relationship between electric currents and magnetic fields. You can't have a magnetic field without an underlying electric current (in a conductor or at the sub-atomic level). In much the same way you can't have a gravitational field without the mass of some object(s). Though what EXACTLY mass is happens to still be up for debate. Thornhill has, I think, offered his opinion in due course. So, no , gravity can't "attract gravity" since gravity isn't an entity separate from the entities involved in the gravitational interaction(s). Gravity is essentially a physical relationship between two or more masses and how they effect each other. The mechanism of gravity is still not understood completely. Again, Thornhill has offered his interpretation about the actual physical mechanism of gravity... Take it for what it's worth.

(Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe)
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

6) Again, gravity is not a separate "entity" from matter. It's a function of its mass. Still not wholly understood. Again, Thornhill endeavors to explain why gravity cannot generally be shielded (with the exception of possible antigravity effects of a spinning superconductive disk [for example]).

7) Being that all the atoms would be in appx the same reference frame and exposed to the same force. Each feels appx the same pull of gravity as the rest. So, one could say that gravity affects each individually identically, thus one could say it affects the whole, as well since each would be accelerated in precisely the same manner in light of the same gravitational field (with perhaps negligible fractional differences based upon negligible fractional distances between the atoms closest and the atoms furthest away; for all intents and purposes, no difference for small objects and probably relatively minor differences for large objects).

8) I think Thornhill addresses the inverse 4th power versus inverse 2nd power issues and from whence it arises in his model. Granted I don't entirely conceptually understand the explanation. But it's there for those who do.

9) The force of electromagnetism is much stronger than the force of gravity where significantly exerted on charged particles / bodies. So, in those cases, it would seem to take precedent. Charged particles spiraling in magnetic fields give off synchrotron radiation. Is it possible that electric forces or magnetic ones could contribute to orbits if bodies are charged? Or rather, is that how the bodies got their angular momentum and orbits to begin with? That would probably be something to ask Wal.

10) No, no, no, and no... Approximately in that order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuga ... nce_frame)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifuga ... ar_motion)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centripetal_force
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertia

Velocity is a measure of the speed at which something changes position. Acceleration / deceleration is the increase / decrease in velocity. Momentum is the velocity times the mass of the object. A larger object at the same speed would have more momentum (if I recall correctly), likewise an object of the same size traveling at a higher velocity would also have a greater momentum. Inertia is, more-or-less, the resistance of a body to a change in velocity. Or, in absence of an outside force acting upon it, the object will tend to remain moving at the same speed forever.

Hope that all sort of helps?
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

That reminds me of a very silly, but pressing question: If you build a big enough thing, let`s say 10,000km. in diameter and place it in orbit around Earth or even around the Sun, would it have it`s own gravity?

Of course... Even an electron has its own gravity, because it has mass and it's the mutual interaction of masses that gravity is concerned with. Granted it's vanishingly small, but it's still there... And granted nobody still quite knows for certain what the actual MECHANISM of gravity is (how, by what and through what it is transmitted; I highly doubt there are little equations running around in space carrying "gravity" back and forth between objects, though it makes for an amusing picture).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

Without getting into a lot of speculative ideas I think it reasonable to consider the possibility that we might be forced to reconsider the basic nature of mass and it's relationship with energy, as without a clear understanding of the dynamics affecting the form and function of mass it is doubtful we are going to make much progress with gravity.

I believe that's one of the things Wal tried to explain in his recent news & views piece on Holoscience (link provided a post or two ago). IE, give an actual MECHANISM for what mass is and how gravity works rather than simply describing its effects and the work it does. It's one thing to assert that it does something, it's another completely to say how and why and with what it does it. Wal tries to provide the what, why and how, whereas most theories are simply content to describe effects without care of the details of how it all works (preferring a black box that "just works" to actually peering inside to see how and why it works).

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin