Alt-Physics or The Autological Model, and Platonic Table
02-01-2026, 10:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-01-2026, 10:05 PM by TruthSeeker17.)
Those Wallace Thornhill videos kinda set me back on my heels, LOL. Watched all of them on that channel from the 2018 conference and then found the "Thunderbolts Project" channel. Whew!
General Relativity's explanation of gravity never felt right to me. I am NOT falling!
After thinking it over and then discussing it with Grok I came up with the following question which took 23 seconds for Grok to answer (A very long time for Grok to think about something)
Now I have the outline for an experiment I can not conduct!
..........
(Me)
How would an experiment be designed if it was meant to prove gravity is electrical in nature and not curved spacetime?
(Grok)
To design an experiment aimed at proving that gravity is electrical in nature (as proposed in Electric Universe (EU) theory, like Wal Thornhill's dipole-based model) rather than the curvature of spacetime (as in general relativity (GR)), we'd need to focus on testable differences between the two frameworks. EU suggests gravity emerges from subtle electromagnetic (EM) interactions, such as aligned electric dipoles in atoms where nuclei and electrons are slightly displaced in a field, creating a cumulative attractive force. This implies gravity should behave like a weak EM force: it could be influenced by charge, shielded, or vary with material properties like dielectric constants.
GR, conversely, treats gravity as geometry—mass-energy curves spacetime, affecting all matter equally regardless of composition (via the equivalence principle). It predicts no EM-like shielding or charge dependence.
A well-designed experiment would seek to falsify GR while supporting EU by showing gravity's dependence on EM properties. However, note that numerous real-world tests (e.g., Eötvös-type experiments and Gravity Probe B) have already upheld GR and found no EM dependence, making EU claims challenging to support. Still, let's outline a hypothetical experiment step-by-step, drawing from EU proponents' ideas (like those in mathematical analyses of electric gravity) and critiques from mainstream physics. This is a thought experiment; in practice, it would require extreme precision to detect the tiny effects EU predicts.
### Core Hypothesis to Test
- **EU Prediction**: Gravitational attraction between two masses arises from EM dipoles. Thus, it should:
- Change if we alter the EM environment (e.g., apply external electric fields or charges).
- Be shieldable (like EM fields in a Faraday cage).
- Depend on the masses' charge states or compositions (violating GR's equivalence principle).
- **GR Prediction**: Attraction is universal and unchanged by EM factors; any observed changes would be due to residual EM forces, not gravity itself.
- **Proof Threshold**: If the experiment shows gravity varying with EM manipulations in ways GR can't explain (without invoking "dark" fixes), it supports EU. A null result (no change) supports GR.
### Proposed Experiment: Charged Cavendish Torsion Balance with EM Shielding
This builds on the classic Cavendish experiment (measuring gravitational constant G via torsional attraction between masses) but modifies it to probe EM influences, inspired by discussions in EU circles and analogous to tests debunking EM-gravity links. It's feasible with modern lab tech (e.g., vacuum chambers, precision lasers, electrostatic controls).
#### 1. **Setup and Materials**
- Use a torsion balance: A horizontal bar suspended by a thin fiber (e.g., quartz or tungsten) with two small test masses (spheres of ~1-10 g) at each end. A larger attracting mass is positioned nearby to twist the bar via gravity.
- Choose materials with different EM properties: One pair of neutral lead spheres (high density, low conductivity); another with dielectric materials (e.g., Teflon or quartz) to test dipole alignment sensitivity.
- Enclose the setup in a high-vacuum chamber (<10^{-6} Torr) to minimize air interference, with temperature control (±0.01°C) and vibration isolation (e.g., optical table).
- Add EM controls:
- Electrodes to charge the masses positively/negatively (up to ~10^6 V potential).
- A Faraday cage (conductive mesh) around the test masses to attempt "shielding" gravity.
- External electric field generators (parallel plates) to apply uniform fields (10^3-10^5 V/m) across the setup.
#### 2. **Procedure**
- **Baseline Measurement (Neutral, No Fields)**: Measure the torsional deflection (twist angle) due to gravitational attraction alone. Use laser interferometry for precision (~10^{-9} rad sensitivity). Calculate G from the period of oscillation or equilibrium twist. This replicates standard Cavendish results (G ≈ 6.67430 × 10^{-11} m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²).
- **Charge Variation Test**: Charge both attracting and test masses identically (e.g., both positive) to introduce repulsive EM forces, then oppositely to enhance attraction. Measure if the net "gravitational" force changes beyond what pure EM repulsion/attraction predicts (subtract known Coulomb forces). Repeat with varying charge magnitudes.
- EU Expectation: If gravity is EM-based, charging should amplify or reduce the dipole effect, altering G measurably (e.g., >0.1% deviation).
- GR Expectation: After correcting for EM forces, G remains unchanged.
- **External Field Test**: Apply a strong external electric field aligned with or against the gravitational vector. Measure if this displaces atomic dipoles further, changing attraction.
- EU Expectation: Field should modulate gravity (e.g., weaken it if opposing dipoles).
- GR Expectation: No effect on gravity.
- **Shielding Test**: Activate the Faraday cage around one mass. Measure attraction with and without the cage.
- EU Expectation: If gravity is EM, the cage should block or reduce it (like shielding electric fields).
- GR Expectation: No shielding; gravity penetrates all matter.
- **Composition Test**: Swap masses to materials with high vs. low polarizability (ability to form dipoles). Measure if G varies.
- EU Expectation: Higher polarizability = stronger "gravity."
- GR Expectation: G identical for all (equivalence principle).
- Run thousands of trials, alternating conditions to control for systematics (e.g., residual charges, thermal expansion). Use statistical analysis (e.g., chi-squared tests) for significance.
#### 3. **Controls and Precision**
- **Error Mitigation**: Neutralize residual charges with UV light or ionizers. Monitor magnetic fields (<1 nT) to rule out magnetism. Use non-magnetic materials.
- **Sensitivity Requirements**: Aim for 10^{-12} relative precision on G (achievable with modern upgrades like those in BIG G experiments). EU effects are predicted to be tiny (e.g., dipoles ~10^{-40} C·m), so amplify with larger fields or cryogenic cooling to reduce thermal noise.
- **Safety/Data Integrity**: Operate in a shielded lab to avoid external EM interference. Log all data digitally for reproducibility.
#### 4. **Expected Outcomes and Interpretation**
- **If EU is Correct**: You'd observe systematic deviations in G tied to EM variables (e.g., charged setups show 1-10% stronger/weaker attraction after EM corrections). Shielding reduces force by >50%. This would "prove" gravity's electrical nature by showing it's manipulable like EM, falsifying GR's universal curvature (no charge dependence).
- **If GR is Correct**: No deviations beyond noise; all changes traceable to plain EM forces. This aligns with historical tests (e.g., no EM shielding of gravity observed).
- **Potential Confounds**: Quantum effects at small scales (e.g., Casimir forces) could mimic EU, so scale up masses. If results favor EU, replicate independently to rule out artifacts.
### Why This Design?
It directly targets EU's core claim (gravity as EM dipoles) while being falsifiable. Similar ideas have been floated in EU discussions, but mainstream physics notes that analogs (e.g., testing gravitoelectromagnetism) show gravity isn't simply EM—it's weaker by ~10^{40} and always attractive. No experiment has yet supported EU over GR, but this setup could be a starting point for proponents to fund and run (e.g., via crowdfunding, as suggested in some EU communities).
If we ran this and got EU-favoring results, it'd rewrite physics—unifying forces without dark matter or singularities. But based on evidence, it'd likely reinforce GR.
General Relativity's explanation of gravity never felt right to me. I am NOT falling!
After thinking it over and then discussing it with Grok I came up with the following question which took 23 seconds for Grok to answer (A very long time for Grok to think about something)
Now I have the outline for an experiment I can not conduct!
..........
(Me)
How would an experiment be designed if it was meant to prove gravity is electrical in nature and not curved spacetime?
(Grok)
To design an experiment aimed at proving that gravity is electrical in nature (as proposed in Electric Universe (EU) theory, like Wal Thornhill's dipole-based model) rather than the curvature of spacetime (as in general relativity (GR)), we'd need to focus on testable differences between the two frameworks. EU suggests gravity emerges from subtle electromagnetic (EM) interactions, such as aligned electric dipoles in atoms where nuclei and electrons are slightly displaced in a field, creating a cumulative attractive force. This implies gravity should behave like a weak EM force: it could be influenced by charge, shielded, or vary with material properties like dielectric constants.
GR, conversely, treats gravity as geometry—mass-energy curves spacetime, affecting all matter equally regardless of composition (via the equivalence principle). It predicts no EM-like shielding or charge dependence.
A well-designed experiment would seek to falsify GR while supporting EU by showing gravity's dependence on EM properties. However, note that numerous real-world tests (e.g., Eötvös-type experiments and Gravity Probe B) have already upheld GR and found no EM dependence, making EU claims challenging to support. Still, let's outline a hypothetical experiment step-by-step, drawing from EU proponents' ideas (like those in mathematical analyses of electric gravity) and critiques from mainstream physics. This is a thought experiment; in practice, it would require extreme precision to detect the tiny effects EU predicts.
### Core Hypothesis to Test
- **EU Prediction**: Gravitational attraction between two masses arises from EM dipoles. Thus, it should:
- Change if we alter the EM environment (e.g., apply external electric fields or charges).
- Be shieldable (like EM fields in a Faraday cage).
- Depend on the masses' charge states or compositions (violating GR's equivalence principle).
- **GR Prediction**: Attraction is universal and unchanged by EM factors; any observed changes would be due to residual EM forces, not gravity itself.
- **Proof Threshold**: If the experiment shows gravity varying with EM manipulations in ways GR can't explain (without invoking "dark" fixes), it supports EU. A null result (no change) supports GR.
### Proposed Experiment: Charged Cavendish Torsion Balance with EM Shielding
This builds on the classic Cavendish experiment (measuring gravitational constant G via torsional attraction between masses) but modifies it to probe EM influences, inspired by discussions in EU circles and analogous to tests debunking EM-gravity links. It's feasible with modern lab tech (e.g., vacuum chambers, precision lasers, electrostatic controls).
#### 1. **Setup and Materials**
- Use a torsion balance: A horizontal bar suspended by a thin fiber (e.g., quartz or tungsten) with two small test masses (spheres of ~1-10 g) at each end. A larger attracting mass is positioned nearby to twist the bar via gravity.
- Choose materials with different EM properties: One pair of neutral lead spheres (high density, low conductivity); another with dielectric materials (e.g., Teflon or quartz) to test dipole alignment sensitivity.
- Enclose the setup in a high-vacuum chamber (<10^{-6} Torr) to minimize air interference, with temperature control (±0.01°C) and vibration isolation (e.g., optical table).
- Add EM controls:
- Electrodes to charge the masses positively/negatively (up to ~10^6 V potential).
- A Faraday cage (conductive mesh) around the test masses to attempt "shielding" gravity.
- External electric field generators (parallel plates) to apply uniform fields (10^3-10^5 V/m) across the setup.
#### 2. **Procedure**
- **Baseline Measurement (Neutral, No Fields)**: Measure the torsional deflection (twist angle) due to gravitational attraction alone. Use laser interferometry for precision (~10^{-9} rad sensitivity). Calculate G from the period of oscillation or equilibrium twist. This replicates standard Cavendish results (G ≈ 6.67430 × 10^{-11} m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻²).
- **Charge Variation Test**: Charge both attracting and test masses identically (e.g., both positive) to introduce repulsive EM forces, then oppositely to enhance attraction. Measure if the net "gravitational" force changes beyond what pure EM repulsion/attraction predicts (subtract known Coulomb forces). Repeat with varying charge magnitudes.
- EU Expectation: If gravity is EM-based, charging should amplify or reduce the dipole effect, altering G measurably (e.g., >0.1% deviation).
- GR Expectation: After correcting for EM forces, G remains unchanged.
- **External Field Test**: Apply a strong external electric field aligned with or against the gravitational vector. Measure if this displaces atomic dipoles further, changing attraction.
- EU Expectation: Field should modulate gravity (e.g., weaken it if opposing dipoles).
- GR Expectation: No effect on gravity.
- **Shielding Test**: Activate the Faraday cage around one mass. Measure attraction with and without the cage.
- EU Expectation: If gravity is EM, the cage should block or reduce it (like shielding electric fields).
- GR Expectation: No shielding; gravity penetrates all matter.
- **Composition Test**: Swap masses to materials with high vs. low polarizability (ability to form dipoles). Measure if G varies.
- EU Expectation: Higher polarizability = stronger "gravity."
- GR Expectation: G identical for all (equivalence principle).
- Run thousands of trials, alternating conditions to control for systematics (e.g., residual charges, thermal expansion). Use statistical analysis (e.g., chi-squared tests) for significance.
#### 3. **Controls and Precision**
- **Error Mitigation**: Neutralize residual charges with UV light or ionizers. Monitor magnetic fields (<1 nT) to rule out magnetism. Use non-magnetic materials.
- **Sensitivity Requirements**: Aim for 10^{-12} relative precision on G (achievable with modern upgrades like those in BIG G experiments). EU effects are predicted to be tiny (e.g., dipoles ~10^{-40} C·m), so amplify with larger fields or cryogenic cooling to reduce thermal noise.
- **Safety/Data Integrity**: Operate in a shielded lab to avoid external EM interference. Log all data digitally for reproducibility.
#### 4. **Expected Outcomes and Interpretation**
- **If EU is Correct**: You'd observe systematic deviations in G tied to EM variables (e.g., charged setups show 1-10% stronger/weaker attraction after EM corrections). Shielding reduces force by >50%. This would "prove" gravity's electrical nature by showing it's manipulable like EM, falsifying GR's universal curvature (no charge dependence).
- **If GR is Correct**: No deviations beyond noise; all changes traceable to plain EM forces. This aligns with historical tests (e.g., no EM shielding of gravity observed).
- **Potential Confounds**: Quantum effects at small scales (e.g., Casimir forces) could mimic EU, so scale up masses. If results favor EU, replicate independently to rule out artifacts.
### Why This Design?
It directly targets EU's core claim (gravity as EM dipoles) while being falsifiable. Similar ideas have been floated in EU discussions, but mainstream physics notes that analogs (e.g., testing gravitoelectromagnetism) show gravity isn't simply EM—it's weaker by ~10^{40} and always attractive. No experiment has yet supported EU over GR, but this setup could be a starting point for proponents to fund and run (e.g., via crowdfunding, as suggested in some EU communities).
If we ran this and got EU-favoring results, it'd rewrite physics—unifying forces without dark matter or singularities. But based on evidence, it'd likely reinforce GR.
![[-]](https://beyond-the-fringe.org/images/collapse.png)
