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.
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.
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.
