Welcome to Space News from the Electric Universe,
brought to you by The Thunderbolts Project™
at Thunderbolts.info
The Electric Universe theory proposes that electromagnetism, not
gravity, is the predominant organizational force in the cosmos.
In the Space Age, countless discoveries; from the networks of filaments connecting
objects across vast cosmic distances, to the pervasive magnetism seen at all
scales in the universe, to the structure and motions of galaxies themselves; are
all better explained from an electrical, rather than gravity-centric, viewpoint.
However, this is not to say that the Electric Universe denies gravity's existence.
For more than 40 years, the leading proponent of the Electric
Universe, physicist Wal Thornhill has worked on an explanation for gravity
that actually links gravity and electromagnetism.
In recent years, retired nuclear engineer Dr. Raymond Gallucci
discovered Thornhill's electrical theory of gravity.
Today, Dr. Gallucci presents the simple mathematical modelling he has
performed to test the theory's plausibility.
I first came across the EU Theory back in 2011 and I don't recall
if I first came across the electromagnetic gravity theory at
one of the early conferences or via the website but it doesn't really matter
because I did come across Wal Thornhill's theory, I know he's presented
it at the conferences and there's some videos of it.
And given that there's 39 orders of magnitude between the
strengths of electromagnetic and gravitational forces, it makes one wonder
just what's going on, plus the fact that electromagnetism can have a
repulsive aspect as well, at least with coulombic forces.
So EU Theory has asked the question: is it even conceivable that
these two could somehow be related given such vast differences in their strengths?
And the EU theory says yes.
And so, my background is a nuclear engineer, I'm not up too much on
electromagnetism so what I try to do with my papers is, I tend to take other
people's theories and I try to look at them for plausibility from an independent aspect.
And so I figured that maybe this electromagnetic gravity is
something I could tackle without having, you know, too much electrical background.
So I went ahead and gave it a try, and I'll just read, this is from the
Holoscience.com website--Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe, and this is
Wal's theory that gravity is due to radially oriented electrostatic dipoles
inside 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 of
gravity for extended bodies. The gravitational and inertial response of
matter can be seen to be due to an identical cause. The puzzling extreme
weakness of gravity, and again we're talking about 10 to the 39th power with
electromagnetism or electrostatic force, is a measure of the minute distortion of
subatomic particles in a gravitational field.
And there's that nice diagram on the Holoscience and the Thunderbolts
website, that shows the three atoms in a vertical line and the slight off-center
of the charges of the protons and electrons which, EU Theory alleges, may be
what gives rise to gravitation.
Continuing with the EU theory on gravity, the 2,000-fold difference in
mass of the proton and neutron in the nucleus versus that of the electron
means that gravity will maintain charge polarization by offsetting the nucleus
within each atom. And that's what's shown on the diagram. The mass of a body is an
electrical variable--just like a proton in a particle accelerator. Therefore, the
so-called gravitational constant, the G, with the peculiar dimensions of length
cubed over mass times time squared is a variable!
That's why G is so difficult to pin down.
And so, that's just the background which I guess, anybody can find if they look
under the electromagnetic gravity, slides from Wal Thornhill.
So what I tried to do, and it's shown in my paper, is I took the
diagram from the Electric Universe theory of the three atoms, I took three
hydrogen atoms for simplicity and they're shown vertically on the EU website.
I turned them horizontal, so I put them, I spaced them, I said: three
hydrogen atoms of radius R are aligned and equally spaced, at distance of three R,
R being the radius of the hydrogen atom from center to center.
We are interested in a distortion on the leftmost, which is
the reference atom, due to its two neighbors; that is the net electrical
force from each neighbor's proton which is shown in the diagram as a gray circle,
and the electron which is shown as a dotted orbit.
This is a classical representation of the atom, it's not a
quantum representation, it's the Bohr atom with the electron orbiting.
On average, the electron spends half its time in each hemisphere, as it's going
around in its orbit, in each of the neighbors, with the average position
being along the alignment and it turns out, if you do the math, the distance is
0.6366 R, so it's about almost 2/3 along the radius, i.e. it’s the
average position when it's in each of these hemispheres.
And again, that can be seen on the diagram.
Both the reference proton and electron will be subject to
six forces: attractive one of opposite charge, repulsive one of the same charge,
and that's because on the diagram, you'll see that relative to the reference atom,
I have two atoms that are to the right of it and each of those atoms has a
proton, so that's two of the other forces, and then I've shown the average position
of the electron in each hemisphere on those two atoms, and that comprises the other four positions.
So I'm basically looking, I've taken what's a dynamic
situation, I've tried to make it static so I could do some calcs.
And I'm showing the reference atom, its electron, its proton being
affected by basically, six other charges, two of those
being the stationary protons, the other four being the average position of the
rotating electrons in each hemisphere on the other two atoms.
The vector sum of these six forces will constitute the net electrical force on
the reference proton and electron and indicate the degree of distortion
imposed on the reference atom from its two neighbors.
Remember that the EU theory is that there is a distortion due
to the presence of other atoms, and this very slight distortion is what accounts
for the gravitational force.
Based on symmetry, the center atom should experience no distortion, that's the atom,
the hydrogen atom in the middle, it has two, one on each side of it, so it's a
symmetric position, so it wouldn't experience anything in this diagram that I'm showing.
The rightmost atom should experience the exact opposite distortion
to the reference atom, my reference atom is the one in the far left and so the
one on the far left and the one on the far right, I can analyze for
either one of them being affected by the other two, and just for convenience, I worked on the left atom.
So I did some trigonometry and I came up with this
formula that shows the distance between the electron's position and
the reference electron position and the position of each of the other average
positions of the electrons in the other atoms.
And after I've worked out that formula, and I had to do some
calculations, and I set up a spreadsheet to analyze each of 360
degrees as the electron on the reference atom goes around in its orbit at each of
those three hundred and sixty degree positions, I calculated the distance
between it and the other reference electrons and protons, and knowing those
distances, I was then able to calculate the net force on that electron from each
of those positions and do an averaging over time in order to get the, you know,
the average net force on that electron to show whether or not there would be
the distortion that is part of the Electric Universe theory.
And I have a graph that shows this in the paper, after one performs all the
calculations to derive the net force on the reference electron, which is a vector,
so direction must also be addressed, it is, fortunately it's, I'm dealing in two
dimensions, not three dimensions, I'm not looking at an electron cloud, I'm looking
at electron in a circular orbit, again, the classical view.
The results can be plotted as shown, they are presented in
terms of the near, the closer hemisphere to the middle atom and the far sides, the
farther hemisphere from the middle atom.
For the electron as it circles the proton, to simplify the presentation, I
scaled the results by 4 pi epsilon 0 over q squared, which I put everything relative
to that and I set the radius of the atom equal to 1 for the purposes of scaling,
so I could do my diagrams, and what I have here on the figure on the
paper, it shows that when theta equals 0
when the electron is in the same line as the three protons
from its reference atom and the other two atoms, we have the reference electron
at both the farthest and nearest positions to the neighborhood atoms.
Here, the difference between the net forces, which is shown as a solid line in the diagram,
is maximum and it's labeled there as the maximum location.
This is also the only position where the directions of the two
force vectors are exactly aligned.
This difference decreases as the electron positions get closer, until they are
equal at theta equals 90 degrees where the near and far side positions coincide.
So on my diagram, if you put the electron that's orbiting the reference proton at
the top or the bottom, it's the same distance from the other six electron
positions and the two protons in the neighborhood atoms.
I observe that the difference between the net force peaks
at around theta equals 45 degrees, so when the reference electron is about 45
degrees, either upwards or downwards from its nearest, nearest position to the
other atom(s), that's when the difference between the net force directions is peak.
Having said all this and shown the diagrams again,
which one needs to look at to really understand this, the key observation is
that over the entire orbit of the reference electron, the net force from
the neighboring atoms is repulsive.
This means that the electrons in the neighboring atoms push more on the
reference electron than the protons in the neighboring atoms pull, so you
don't have symmetric forces between pulling by the protons, the attractive
forces between proton and electron, and the repulsive force between the other
electrons and the reference electron, there is a difference between those two
forces, and the net force is a repulsion.
As a result, there should be some displacement of the electron orbit and
distortion given the asymmetry between the forces acting on the two hemispheres
away from the neighboring atoms and opposite to the direction in which the
reference proton is pulled.
The figure again, shown in the paper, this illustrates the effect on the orbit of
the reference electron and what's shown in that figure where I had to
scale it up because the distortion is very, it's on the order of like
0.01% so I scaled it up a little so you could see it, it shows that the
circular orbit of the electron and the reference proton actually gets pushed
inward a little bit on the right side which is the side nearest to the other two atoms.
So it's not a pure circle, it's a slightly flattened circle.
Now, I also looked at the effect on the reference proton, because now we see that according
to EU Theory, we're talking about a dipole being set up, so the electron is
being displaced slightly in its orbit.
Does the proton also get displaced a little bit?
The net force from its neighbor atoms for the proton on the
scaled metric is a pull, an attraction of about 0.02 scaling to a value of one.
This exceeds the push on the reference electron over the entire
far side of its orbit, but remains less than that over most of the near side of
its orbit, with the amount by which the exceedance over most of the near side
exceeds that over the far side, being greater.
So while the reference electron has its orbit pushed away from the
neighbor atoms, the reference proton actually experiences a pull towards them.
So our reference, as shown in the diagram that Wal presents, clearly not only do
we have the reference electron being pushed away slightly from its other
atoms, we have the proton on the reference atom being pulled a little bit,
so we have kind of a double distortion, in the setting up of the dipole, that
might account for the gravitational force due to electro-magnetism.
And so, it's not only the distortion of the electron but there's a slight
distortion of the proton position, not as much because the proton is more massive.
The reference hydrogen atom no longer is symmetric with a circular electron orbit
about a centered proton; that thereby suggests the creation of an electric
dipole which is what was postulated by Electric Universe theory.
So I do have a caveat that I put in here, and the caveat basically is in my
calculation, this is a very simple model, I assume that the electron's orbital
speed is that of light.
There are some references that show electron orbital speed dropping might be maybe 10% or 1%
that of light, I don't think anybody really knows how fast the electron goes,
certainly not in a quantum mechanical model; I mean, it's just a probability state, anyway.
So this is again talking about the Bohr type of
atom where you have the classical but, if the electron slows down enough, like down
to 1% that of light, then the distortion would be off-scale in my model.
So my simple model is valid so long as the speed of the electron is very close to that of light.
So after injecting some mathematics, and this is my conclusion,
greatly simplified--I have to admit, into EU Theory that gravity can be attributed
to an electromagnetic effect, although almost inconceivably smaller, again, we're
talking about that 10 to the 39th due to the distortion of atoms by their
neighbors into electric dipoles.
The possibility of an electromagnetically induced distortion to create an atomic
dipole appears plausible.
So again, my goal was to take the EU theory and try to do an independent math-
physics calculation to see if it was at least plausible, and it turns out that
it certainly is plausible, and that's what I was trying to show in my paper
and I also was able to show the ratio of the displacements between the
electron and proton around the orbit of about 1 to 10,000.
So again, you've got much more distortion on the
electron than the proton, but the distortion is about 1% of the Bohr
radius itself, so the electron doesn't get distorted very much, and the proton
is about a factor of 10,000 smaller, so we do have this very very small
distortion that is postulated, but it may be enough to actually give rise to the
gravitational force being the result of electromagnetic electrostatic forces in
atoms themselves.