FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Newton's Electric Clockwork Solar System





SonLight
aka "Electric Gravity". I found this on the site:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm

This mentions some strange ideas like "radially bipolar" electric fields. The explanation seems to require only positive on the inside, and negative on the outside, but of course all atoms are like that, and we generally assume the forces are balanced. This might be related to Ocalhoun's post at http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-96882.html , but I'm not sure. In Ocalhoun's case, the "unbalancing" mechanism was apparently expansion.

Here's a sample from the site. I'm not sure this gives enough context to give him a fair hearing. I know I've heard similar yarns two or three times before. It smells like pseudo-science to me, but I wondered if anyone could comment further on it. He doesn't seem to speak in precise scientific terms, but confused doesn't always mean completely wrong.

Quote:
To provide clockwork stability there must be a feedback mechanism to control orbital spacing. That requirement can be met if the gravity (mass) of a planet is variable. I have argued in Electric Gravity that this is possible by changing the electrical charge state of a planet. In summary, the Earth's gravity and surface charge causes radially oriented electrostatic dipoles to be formed by most atoms inside the Earth with the inner pole positive and the outer pole negative.

This effect is due to the almost 2,000-fold more massive nuclear particles compared to the orbiting electrons. If all subatomic particles are composed of a resonant system of positive and negative charges they are also subject to distortion in the radial electric field to form an electric dipole. Since the particles are free to rotate, their dipoles will line up and the weak dipole force of each particle will add up to produce the effect of gravity.

If the electric field within the Earth changes, the amount of this dipolar distortion will change and the force of its gravity will change. Charge exchange among planets is the key to the orbit stabilizing mechanism in an electric solar system. The 'clockwork' of the solar system is governed by gravity and its stability provided electrically.

What we need to find is a means of transferring charge between planets that may provide an orbit stabilizing influence.



I'm more sure this is pseudo-science than when I started the post. I am concerned because there are a lot of scientifically clueless people for whom this technobabble seems plausible, and I wonder if there's a good way to reach them short of a few semesters in science classes.
ocalhoun
Wouldn't that make anti-gravity as simple as applying an electric charge to something though?
Bikerman
It is jibber-jabber and not to be taken seriously. The whole thesis is that subatomic particles are compressed to form di-poles - even point particles such as the electron. This leads to the conclusion that gravity is nothing more than electrostatic force between atoms. It is bunk.

If you read the article on 'electric gravity' you will see that the author makes reference to 'anti-gravity' experiments which cannot be explained by science. What experiments? There is no reference, so we cannot see any details of these so-called experiments and what they are supposed to have demonstrated. The author invents a whole new sub-class of particles (subtrons) with no empirical basis, simply to provide a mechanism for his 'theory' (very bad science indeed). He then goes on to reinstate the notion of an 'aether' supposing that it consists of a sea of neutrinos. To support this he quotes experimental results from Dayton Miller in the early 20th century which apparently repeated the famous Michelson-Morley experiment but produced a non-null result. Most scientists think these results were dodgy - nobody has ever been able to repeat the large drift figures which Miller claimed to have observed.
supernova1987a
sounds intersting! the sky is a clock whose battery never wears out!
tennisniper
Yes, pseudoscience does distract from actual scientific exploration, but every eventual scientific conclusion, except for those discovered by accident, did at some time come from some scientist's free-thinking regarding the topic they specialized in. If brainstorming is bad science, then what is good science. No attempt to push the realm of understanding with supported conclusions?
DoctorBeaver
tennisniper wrote:
Yes, pseudoscience does distract from actual scientific exploration, but every eventual scientific conclusion, except for those discovered by accident, did at some time come from some scientist's free-thinking regarding the topic they specialized in. If brainstorming is bad science, then what is good science. No attempt to push the realm of understanding with supported conclusions?


That isn't really how things work, is it. The heliocentric solar system idea didn't conflict with any existing empirical science. The geocentric hypothesis was created by religionists who believed we had a special place in creation. There was never any real science to it. The planets were assumed to do strange whirly dances in their orbits around the Earth to fit with observation. Yes, I agree that it took free-thinking to say "Hold on, there must be a better explanation", but there was no contradiction of proven laws involved.

Newton, possibly the greatest thinker of all time, looked at the by-then confirmed orbits of the planets and wondered what kept them stable. He was therefore building on existing science.

Similarly Einstein with relativity and, later, Max Planck et al with quantum physics. In those instances problems with existing science were looked at and explanations (or better explanations) put forward. Even string theory, which is about as hypothetical as it's possible to get, doesn't contradict existing science. It is an attempt to bridge the gap between relativity and gravity. Likewise Loop Quantum Gravity.

Any new hypothesis has to take into account science that has already been proven. We know for a fact that not all particles carry electric charge. A hypothesis of gravity that says they do is absolute bunkum. And, as bikerman asked, what anti-gravity experiments were these that couldn't be explained? Anti-gravity can be simulated by electro-magnetism, but that doesn't mean that gravity is caused by it.

I remember there is someone who claims to have induced anti-gravity by spinning a metal plate very quickly but, to the best of my knowledge, no-one else has re-created his results. It's possible it was just a hoax created for YouTube.
_AVG_
According to me, Anti-Gravity cannot exist unless between two objects : one with a positive mass and one with a negative mass. Since, there doesn't seem to be anything that has a negative mass, it throws Anti-Gravity out of the window ... for now at least ...
ocalhoun
_AVG_ wrote:
Since, there doesn't seem to be anything that has a negative mass,


Shocked

Particles with negative mass... That would explain the accelerating expansion of the known universe!



*new topic time!*
Related topics
Aliens - Myth or reality?
Funny little problem
Yahoo Widgets!!
Evolution
Time Travel: Is it Possible?
How many planets are there in our solar system?
Proof god exists
Free Solar System Widget!
The Universe Big Bang is wrong
Universe is an Atom
Green Comet Approaches Earth
Climate change and politics
Tyche the largest planet in our solar system
Solar bonus rebate scheme by the Queensland government.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Science -> The Universe

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.