Ray Gallucci: Electric Gravity – A Mathematical Analysis | Space News

Ray Gallucci: Electric Gravity – A Mathematical Analysis | Space News


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 responsive 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.

100 Replies to “Ray Gallucci: Electric Gravity – A Mathematical Analysis | Space News

  1. "My background is as a nuclear engineer, I'm not up too much on electromagnetism." Does that mean he has no interest in the charge of atomic nuclei?

    The atoms composing the moons and planets consist of numerous figure 8 electron orbits

  2. ….this is a typical 'Atomists' viewpoint – he is stuck in a [not even wrong] mindset and is struggling with describing reality let alone explaining it…..it is only an attempt at 'describing' reality…..the Aether [Field] is the only way to explain instantaneous 'Action At A Distance' and Magnetism.
    …..don't forget describing reality with Math is only a pathway to 'explaining' reality…..Math has NEVER explained reality…..that is [should be] the difference between Mathematicians and Physicists……do not forget Einstein [who incidentally stole his main ideas from Poincare] was a Mathematician NOT a Physicist……Tesla was a Physicist.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RapupcqYMc

  3. A double Doughnut in a Moebius Loop one always on the "opposite" side of the same surface.
    Energy is dark/black and needs to be fractalised to be acknowledged by the observer.
    Best done with a resonant Vibration – like Bubbles in liquid performing geometry in "quasi crystalls" making
    any "particle" in the Universe even Light. The "information" is Sound……OM…. instant and spooky at a distance.

  4. But what was worked out on paper does not take in constant flux of every other force so using real word , apple falling from tree how does this work the Apple has a charge that sticks to Earth's electrical field, or what , what makes the apple go toward the earth and not space??

  5. Hence – here we are… just gonna throw what may be old terminology around… M theory which(if I recall correctly) will show more of an ecliptic tendency in modelling, or should at least. ?? do we even use these terms anymore??… which came first – string or the oscillating Manifold?? Wheres Witten When WE Want him???… I have this uneasy feeling that I'm gonna have erase this brain and start ALL OVER AGAIN… Looks like this POST-CONCUSSION with a side MS IS A GOOD THING… ya got me trying at least. Blessings ALL ROUND

  6. I wonder if there is also some automatic syncronisation going on of the orbits. Cause should there not also be resonance and or dampening going on? And if so, wouldn't that make the force a tiny bit bigger?

  7. But in reality … that center atom, would also have two atoms to its right, and two to its left. And to its above, and diagonal, and every which way. And not just two atoms, but … millions? Billions? I get the idea here is to give the basis for the presentation but in a working system this would just make … I guess … it would make something like gravity appear to be a real force.

  8. As I listen to the presentation I would like to play some with the spreadsheet he said he used for calculations. That way all people could play with it those smarter and lesser than me and well maybe find some new realms

  9. Explanation of the Universe.
    The relationship between electromagnetic fields and gavitation is well shown in the quantum theory of spacetime.

    https://ru.calameo.com/read/0033783564a96e15b646e

  10. Do you realize the implication of this? This gives a new definition and completely changes the space as we understand it since Newton's time. If we apply the same to the scale of the solar system or the galactic scale, a couple of things are presented to us, example: Time as we know it does not exist. Basically every distortion / movement is a vector that is constantly looking for balance or "time" is a compensation value (variable) of that vector, creating a frame of reference. This may well banish the relativism of spacetime. Imagine even that knowing the orders of magnitude of the electromagnetism and the interaction by these vectors, if you can calculate the energy-vector, it is even possible to "jump" from one frame of reference to another. Yes. SPACE TRAVEL.

  11. Why would a jet pilot be pinned into the aircraft seat, during an acceleration.?? If your thinking about gravity, why not talk about centripedal force, and acceleration of a mass too? The gravity, effect, or "symptom" of gravity can be artificially induced by a fast car. Jet, or a whirling carnival ride

  12. I'm stuck in the frictionless Aether with the crazy idea that it pushes everything (including orbiting subatomic electrons) back together very gently if traveling below the speed of light. Aether's gentle pushback from all directions is called gravity.

    All matter displaces and distorts the Aether's tiny structure as it yields very slightly and then pushes back (below light speed, without any friction). That slight distortion in the Aether's otherwise uniform density can be observed in the refraction of light waves from distant starlight passing close to the surface of the sun during an eclipse.

    Aether also provides the speed limiting force when it suddenly behaves as a frictionless (lossless) solid as it propagates lightspeed energy along in a straight line, forever. This can be demonstrated by briskly rubbing hands together to emit some IR light waves. Sound frequency, "Cavitation Bubble" experiments can also emit a tiny flash of light when the fluid slams back together again.

    Somehow it also allows extremely high voltage plasma electricity to travel (conduct best) through a vacuum over great distances and it offers an environment for an occasional spectacular Z-Pinch to form new stars. Not sure why some common materials or extremely strong magnetic fields can bend, pass, stop, or change (alter wavelength of) light waves propagating through those various materials. It appears that the propagation speed of light somehow changes and then resumes again upon exit.

    Could all this be tied together to help explain the Electric Gravity and predict a gravity speed limit?

    Maybe the Michelson–Morley "orientation" experiment would begin to show its anticipated results if the entire apparatus was actually moving along much, much closer to the speed of light. Also, the quantum detection, "light sometimes behaves like a particle" energy measurement experiments may just be observing electrical amplitude properties within the lightwave-sensitive detection material.

  13. I like what he is trying to say, but he said it himself, he is using the classical model, which is wrong. He is doing the same thing as today's physicist by using a false theory (Atoms don't actually look as so), and adding math. I think we need to create a completely new atomic model if we truly want to make a change. I believe in the electric universe, but you're doing the same thing they are! I hope we can all change.

  14. I'm rather naive as to the "analysis" presented here, but just a few days ago I had an epiphany that gravity can be explained within the electric universe theory. Da da…here is the precise mathematical analysis of my theory! The connection between minds/thoughts continues to amaze me! Thank you for your timely video.

  15. Makes me think of the sling that David used against Goliath. David no doubt knew how to give the sling a whip action, just prior to release – sound like artificial gravity to me. So if in the atom these electrons that cannot collide will duck and dive to avoid a collision that's gravity done and dusted.

  16. Excellent, and I particularly liked the long introduction because I found it to be the best explanation of Wal's small-dipoles-generating-gravity theory.

  17. The of center factor of 0.02-0.1 made me think of a book I read on Crop Circles. One of the key factors was an off center equation in a lot of the circles most researchers missed or thought was a mistake, it was 0.0216 if I recall.

  18. : ) micro and macro is the same for sure no doubt, then gravity well I have a different outlook for that. I always enjoy Thunderbolt Project talks.

  19. I confess I get lost with abstract explanations and a lot of equations, even though I did them at University. My only problem with this model is it still adheres to the Bohr model of the atom (orbiting electrons), which I am persuaded is not a viable explanation. Larson (1963) showed the innate problems with the orbital model, and no one seems to have successfully explained the problems he raised, in the intervening 57 years. His book can be found here http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

  20. Hi, my name is Neil Tyson Chicken De GrAss and I’m here to tell you that electric gravity is nonsense unless you grab a bare wire that’s energized with 120 while standing in a puddle of water. I know that gravity bleeds through to our dimension from either the 4th or 5th dimension, just trust me, I’ve got a gazillion hours of me on the internet.

  21. Gravity is neither a force nor a field. It is incoherent dielectric acceleration, so called "magnetic attraction". Masses move toward counterspace, or the #ether, because of field pressure mediation.

  22. This is just the mechanism how electron distortion works, it doesnt explain the direction or the source, for that you need to underatand subatomic particles are going through the earth and gravity is the imbalance of what comes down and what goes through the earth.

  23. Wouldn't the pronton's increased mass also mean an increased magnetic field strength and hence increased pull from the 2 adjacent protons? Nice to see EU getting further supporting evidence…compliments to you Sir.

  24. This mathematician ie. non-scientist, condemns himself out of his own mouth.
    At the 6.30 mark:"……I have taken what's a dynamic situation, I've tried to make it static so I could do some calcs……….."
    This is exactly one of the fundamental problems which has bedeviled conventional so-called science since Einstein et al.
    To rightly criticize Einstein etc and the role of mathematical based theories/fantasies in modern physics/astronomy and then to allow the same grossly simplistic approach in the EU paradigm is a fundamental error, imo.
    Perhaps Steve Crothers should have a look at the maths used in this video.
    Allowing this type of approach into the EU world will inevitably lead it into the same nonsensical absurdities that Wal and others are so rightly critical of.
    I suggest that this video be withdrawn and whoever is responsible should apologise for their mistake.

    Apologises for the bluntness of my comments.

  25. Seems to me that somehow the ORMUS is going to have to be incorporated in the atomic structure description. No bonding and lighter than air seems a genuine problem for atomic theory.

  26. so what if I am a capacitor and the space ship will be the negative pole and I am the + pole will I stick to the ship ?!, I say yes, or the ship + pole and me – pole because space is + charged , and we can test this on the iss !
    if I place a magnet in space will it form an atmosphere on a smalle or big scale, if yes we can simply plant plants or algae on Mars with a smalle magnet below terraforming Mars

  27. The vortex model of matter developed by Freerks and Schumacher (vortexmodelofmatter.com) proposes that the Bohr model is incorrect and that the electron is stationary.
    Assuming the vortex model is valid, does this analysis still apply? Would the individual atoms with their stationary electrons simply adopt positions of greatest symmetry and lowest energy level?
    Before anyone scoffs at this model, inform yourself and realize that it was developed by two Monsanto PhD chemists in the 60s and was used to guide efforts in developing commercial manufacturing processes. Real world stuff in other words.

  28. Then you can also wonder if this can explain some other phenomena like spin. Perhaps things aren't as "strange" as they first seemed.

  29. I don't understand this type of math…I wonder what Ray Galluci's equation would look like in 'vortex math diagram?…(this sounds like a case for the "3,6,9.. 😉

  30. Wal's theory on gravitational force was a huge "AH HA" moment for me. So many questions I'd had my entire life were answered in that moment. I'm forever grateful.
    I'm glad it has grabbed other's and propelled them to dig deeper. 😉
    Nicetameetcha Mr. Gallucci!

  31. Ray, I love Thornhill's idea about polarised matter creating a sort of VanderWall effect that creates gravity. That is very intriguing. From an engineering perspective – exciting!

    However, I would expect that anyone calling themselves a nuclear physicist to be able to START with a sensible description in terms of Quantum Theory. I am not being critical. I haven't done it yet myself! haha – When I reach out to Walt for help I am asked to mindlessly abandon what I think I know – haha – Of course when I mention Quantum Theory and have Walt roll his eyes I get the impression he's thinking – Jewish science! – haha – as he roundly ignores the polite question I wonder if he understood what I'm asking as I get gaslighted by the true believers – and ultimately shown the door haha.

    That doesn't win EU any friends unfortunately.

    So, all the work of Heisenberg Schrodinger and DeBroglie mean nothing? That's what I'm thinking. I understood all that crap in school – at least I think I did – and I'm not going to abandon it without an equally profound explanation as to why. haha – At the very least anyone challenging existing theory has to demonstrate they understand the flawed theory inside and out and tease out the little experimental observation that tips the whole thing over.

    Haha its like fixing a car. You've got to know every little detail in order to diagnose the problem..

    Now, I'm not that good – I will admit – otherwise I would be writing a paper myself – though I understand what you're getting at here – and like I said polarised electric particles can have long range effect – VanderWalls proved that – haha – and the history of the neutron is interesting in this context – yet I do know what a sensible analysis should look like – and anyone that doesn't start with Heisenberg and Young and explain crystallography of x-rays and electron scattering in the process – in a new way – and in fact readily prove Walt's thesis without having to demonise Einstein and Heisenberg and Schrodinger. haha – THAT would be something! When it happens – all hell will break loose! lol. That will be so much fun!

    I always liked science because it subsumes – it does not attack. Einstein's corrections to the rest mass energy of a particle became Newtonian at slow speeds. Newton's relativity wasn't wrong – Newton wasn't a bad guy – everything he did was right- Newton was a low speed approximation – and Einstein wrote the correction.

    I would expect that a Thornhill Polar theory of gravity will look very Einsteinian under low e-field conditions and then show some weird effect at high e-field conditions – like gravity being less on asteroids or something – and that implies some other weirdness in the way neutrons diffract through a piece of graphite or something haha..

    Fact is you me and Thornhill don't know enough quantum physics to properly disprove it. That to me seems to be the first step. A good resource here – particularly chapter 3.

    https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/

    By the way the neutrons changing their wavelength based on where you measure them in a shaped piece of graphite as they are conducted out of an atomic pile was outlined by Feynman in his lectures – this was a sort of hint he gave that not everything is well understood and closed form and boring. It's quite exciting in fact – notwithstanding the concerns of those who worry about the spread of nuclear weapons and such – and yes those who take those legitimate concerns and illegitimately constrain scientific and engineering advance for selfish interest. All that is happening – good science is beyond all that idiocy though.

    Haha – I guess all I'm saying is – please learn the Schrodinger equation good enough to prove Walt's idea – and save us who are waiting for that the trouble of doing it ourselves – because while we're good enough to solve wrote problems – we're not good enough to do real work in the field. haha – that's what I was hoping for anyway as I watched this.

  32. Ray's calculations are more complicated than needed to convince skeptics. Thornhill's description is sufficient and convincing.

  33. basically, the asymmetry of "more atoms on one side than other" gives rise to the overall electrostatic asymmetrical dipole effect, which is how we experience that slight asymmetrical weak effect as "gravitational-effect"

    thus, it takes a lot of whole-earth worth of atomic mass to have such a tiny "gravity" effect on us
    while other forces, like electromagnetic forces, affect us much more

    perhaps both the strong nuclear forces and weak nuclear forces, are merely tighter quantum dipole versions of electromagnetic-forces, too; but harder to analyze than the simpler Hydrogen Atom for the electrostatic dipole phenomena that gives us the very weak gravity effect.

    regarding today's Year-2020 (lightspeed) that has seemed to be settled down to oscillating very mildly, little changed in the last few decades (half century), almost as if on a temporary plateau of sorts, we get the Years-1970-2020 version of lightspeed determining the Years-1970-2020 version of proportionate ELECTRON ORBITAL SPEEDS, and ELECTRON ORBITAL DIAMETERS, and thus, we get the current Years-1970-2020 version of Atomic Dipole Asymmetry, giving rise to the current Years-1970-2020 version of "gravitational effect" we experience now, in 2020 (same as back in 1970).

    However, farther back in the previous timespan, of Years-1920-1970, were the years where intense Atomic weapons development was happening, and physical variables like lightspeed and planck's variable were examined in hopes of better understanding atomic nuclear reactions. Sometime in the mid-1940's, all open academic discussions about physical variables were decreed forbidden (effectively classified), and declared invariable and constant. This permitted researchers to keep secret the sliding inconstancy nature of so-called physical variables as "physical constants". It allowed atomic weapons researchers an exclusive insight to reaching the "working atomic fission reaction" as well as the "working atomic fusion reaction" later on, for both types of nuclear weapons. Thus, keeping rivals off-track, in the dark.

    Prior to 1920, all physical variables were of keen interest, and most measures, such as lightspeed were significantly higher, and were changing more markedly, in particular, it was DECREASING, for many decades, as if lightspeed were incredibly many magnitudes faster, but only in our last Century, 1920-2020, it has for the first time "settled down" on a mildly oscillating plateau.

    Unfortunately, anyone who uses the artificially imposed moratorium on open examination of physical variables as if "really" physical "constants", will undermine any cosmological model that purports to address our Universe's presumed "state + processes" in its past, ending up incorrect at inception.

    Such cosmological models must include the FACT of physical variables like both lightspeed and planck's variable, to better understand possible past "states + processes" that covers Electromagnetic forces, and Electric Atom, Electric Sun/Star/Galaxies, Electric UNIVERSE, and Electric "gravity".

    Otherwise, any contrived assumptions (decided by decree) for physical variables as "constants" will output an incorrect "state + process" of the Universe (skewed "vast-ages-needy") older than ACTUAL, such as the Gravitational-based big-bang cosmological model suffers badly.

  34. What would your calculations show if you consider the electrons traveling around the nucleus of each atom at just under 5 times the speed of light. Would this give you even larger distortions?

  35. Buoyancy and density explain every aspect of the made-up/fictional gravity >.< Period. The fiction of gravity was invented to explain the fiction of orbiting fictional planets and moons. However, inside reality and inside the real and enclosed earth which we all, in truth, inhabit…everything that happens is explained with Buoyancy and Density. This is because inside of earth we have reality…inside the minds of the mind controlled we have fantastical and fictional physics/math envisioning a totally imagined and nonexistent earth/world. Mathematics is nothing more than another language. As with all languages, we can write fiction or non-fiction with it.
    Thank you for your consideration.

  36. Ray, thanks but this analysis does not show how dipoles align to create an attractive force. If all matter behaves similarly, it appears the force would be net slightly repulsive. Also, if 'gravity' is at its root electromagnetism, it would be influenced by stronger focused electromagnetic fields. In other words, if you have a static two magnetic object field in place and a third non-magnetic object, say a weakly paramagnetic object periodically intersects the field, the third object should affect the magnetic field. And if you have a measured 'gravitational' force acting on two static net non magnetic masses, bringing a magnetic field into position between those masses should affect the 'gravitational' force.

  37. So in a nutshell, "gravity" is a kind of Van der Waals force on a macro scale? It makes sense to me. It also makes sense to me that ultimately there is only one subatomic force that all other kinds of energy have the appearance of being different in terms of appearance or mathematical expression in a larger scale / manipulation….but all forces must be at the smallest scale only the same force and this encompasses strong nuclear and weak nuclear as well.

  38. This is the kind of in-depth analysis we've been lacking… I'm so glad that we're attracting more and more reputable scientists and engineers to test and analyze our hypotheses. The more analysis of evidence we perform, the better our models get, which leads to a more accurate representation of our universe.

  39. The paper was done on Hydrogen the…."lightest" mass element. I wonder what kind of dipole / atomic distortion might look like in a much "heavier" element?

  40. When a person accidentally comes into contact with high-voltages, they are instantly drawn in and can’t let go of the source. If you try to release a person stuck to high-voltage, you too will be instantly drawn in and unable to release from the source. The current is passing through both persons in a completed circuit to the ground. IMO this serves as a good example of electricity’s pull power to the ground, or in the direction of our round planet Earth. On a lower scale, this electromagnetic pull power is, as Wal Thornhill says, why our round planet Earth “pulls us to it.” Anti gravity, on the other hand, can be achieved by using dielectric currents that are capable of reversing the gravity’s pull power. The bottom line is gravity being defined as a positive (+) and negative (-) pull and repulsion electromagnetic force, makes perfect sense.

    Sources: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0mEPAnICgc

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubZuSZYVBng

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjNFrYCrx8I

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv__Zln-h5Q

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkWiBxWieQU

  41. I don't mean to be rude and I don't want to be arrogant but this explanation is leaving out some big, important and undeniable parameters.

    First and foremost is the understanding that the Earth is a charged body within the Suns electric field. You cannot have atomic structures measured accurately without taking this into account. The way any two charged bodies act within the field of a substantially larger amount of charge is commanded and controlled by the larger difference of potential and so any hydrogen atoms within the Earths Electric field (which is approx 100Vdc per Meter) would be drawn by attractive field affect to the Earth but repelled by any atom with the same relative charge. This means the hydrogen atoms would diffuse until equilibrium is reached but still be attracted to the commanding body of charge.

    This is exactly what we find in our atmosphere and it also explains why different gasses settle into different layers within our atmosphere. Take this into consideration when working with gravitation vs electric forces and you will get a better, clearer and more defined answer to your question.

  42. Guys if you wanna know why mainstream is still rejecting and denying the connection between gravity and electromagnetism here it is.
    Yes it is a conspiracy theory. But it is super obvious when you connect the dots.

    Mainstream science is controlled by the "deep state" or military industrial complex and they know that gravity can be manipulated by electromagnetic forces.
    Decades ago Lockheed corporation(now Lockheed Martin) discovered this and they crated first anti gravity flying machines called "flux liners".
    These vehicles can fly and hover in mid air without wings or propeller. They can move at hyper-sonic speeds or more in almost total silence. Obviously they don't use oil. That technology would totally revolutionize the way of how we travel around the world.
    Not only it would eliminate the use of kerosene as a fuel but it would increase the speed 10 fold or more. From 600 Mph to 6000 Mph(or more).
    10 fold increase is on the lower side. It can be 100 fold increase.
    So it is quite obvious to understand why they will do anything to block this idea from spreading. They don't care about gravity, Einstein or Nobel prizes. They care about money and power. Current status quo – the use of oil and other fossil fuels must be preserved as long as possible.

  43. I like this guy. Confirmed. Let’s clone him. Push and Pull dipole gravity! Boom! I just felt the earth crack! Definitely clone him! Even nailed the hydrogen proton minus neutron causing electron distortion in the EM field! Jackpot! Now to just switch the numbers on the diagram to 3,9,6 and 6,9,3 then re-crunch those numbers doctor, make polarity on the right negative and the polarity on the left positive for the orbital mechanism to activate the synchronization to the fields geometric toradial shape and cause for the base resonate vibration in the movement from polarity reversal with 9 powering the physical Representitives of 1,2,4,5,7,8. Through the movement of 3 and 6. We are so close! Don’t mess this up Leroy Jenkins! We loves You! We might just find us that hobbit with the one ring aftersall’ yall’

  44. LOL Propaganda much YouTube? Neil Degrasse ad on this video. Too funny! That guy's the biggest bad science shill ever..

  45. Antigravity is simply a region of space that has less charge than an adjacent region (weak vacuum vs. Strong vacuum) . And is why the accelerating universe hypothesis is wrong.

  46. A consequence is that interstellar plasma – which consists of isolated protons and electrons, not atoms – is not affected by gravity but ONLY by the electric force. I mean it's obvious, a charged particle reacts to electric forces which are 37 orders of magnitude larger than gravity anyways, but, it means that gravitational collapse of interstellar "gas clouds" is a completely absurd notion: Any ATOM in space is quickly ionized by some X ray photon; the ions rarely ever recombine, the "gas clouds" are in fact plasma, and that plasma does not play ball with gravity AT ALL.

  47. I must also say that thee calculations and postulations are not easy for me to follow completely. My question is, that given the mathematical calculations are valid, does the different value of gravity for bodies of different sizes and / or density follow some consistent formula, and how does the general field electrical charge the body is in affect the bodies gravitational strength?

  48. Brilliant video as always.

    So, gravity is just a residual attribute of the atomic orbitals inside a single atom and between molecules. So much for astrocomicals bragging that gravity is a constant force .

    More like constant farce.

  49. This is an interesting concept. It explains why gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass, since the former is derived from the latter. The notion that gravity is due to a small-scale dipole would also eliminate the problem that there can be no gravitational shielding, as there is for Coulombic force. This model of Dr. Gallucci could be easily improved by using spherical coordinates to describe the orbit of an electron, since the probability of it being a given distance from the reference proton differs as the azimuthal angle changes, because the rings of equidistance to the reference proton are of different sizes. I would like to see the inverse square law derived mathematically in a like manner, because we all know that dipole-dipole interactions do not have an inverse square behavior.

    However, one serious issue I may have with the electrical model of gravity is that it always demands a dipole of this sort, which means that gravity would not exist between particles that have no internal charge distribution. If I replaced the central hydrogen atom with its isotope, Deuterium, I should expect the same gravitational force to result from the electric model of gravity, since the extra neutron in its nucleus would not in any way influence the orbit of the electron in the outer atoms. Standard gravitational theory would say the force between the atoms approximately doubles, since the mass of Deuterium is almost twice that of the standard Hydrogen isotope. Yet (I presume) we do in fact observe a greater gravitational attraction between Deuterium atoms than between standard hydrogen. So, if this dipole principle is indeed in operation, it cannot be operating at the level of atoms, but at a lower level. Yet we have no evidence that electrons, protons, or neutrons have any internal structure of this sort.

    Plasmas would also behave gravitationally differently than gases, I would think, since electrons do not have regular orbits about the positive ions in the plasma. If one could show that a plasma (as a whole) exhibited somewhat different gravitational behavior than the same substance in gaseous form, then I would know you had something.

  50. I wonder if this ties in with Kaal’s Structured Atom Model of the nucleus concept (see etherealmatters.org ). In that model, neutrons are replaced by proton-electron pairs that are packed like a stack of oranges at the nucleus leaving the unpaired electrons outside the nucleus to form chemical bonds with neighbouring atoms. ( There is a good YouTube video on this) The nucleus assumes a fixed shape, based on efficient close packing of spheres, which explains its position on the periodic table, the stability/ instability of isotopes and its valence number. The shape is also related to the Platonic solids.
    It occurred to me that a stable electron/ proton pair might behave in the way described by a notional hydrogen atom in your model and be deformed in shape to be slightly egg-shaped rather than spherical, so the SAM becomes an exercise in close packing eggs rather than oranges.

    I am hopeful that Thunderbolts/SAM/ Safire projects in combination are on the verge of providing a rigorous explanation that unites nuclear structure, the periodic table, transmutation of elements and plasma physics.

  51. Incidentally, from your table of forces, it seems that gravity is only(!) 10 to the 37th power stronger than electromagnetism, not 10 to the 39 quoted in the text of your paper. The Structured Atom Model does away with the strong nuclear force required by quantum mechanical explanations of proton and neutron binding.

  52. The fundamental mechanism property of universal is motion force. The motion force is made of invisible force and visible force + undetectable force and detectable force.
    if any single atom is absolutely isolated + symmetry then it collapses and big bang. If it is absolutely isolated + closer symmetry then it is no charge. If it is absolutely isolated + none symmetry then it generates and forms a charge with di to quart charge and so on.
    there is general isolation spacetime.
    in small scalar it is atomic space it has no charge. if you force to knock out its electron by any force then it auto general charge (charge is the force when (time) electron moves in or out from center its nuclei.).
    Here we go:
    A very main principal misunderstanding happens:
    First half stage:
    when (time) electron moves ONLY OUT from ordinary shell toward outer in space then a + charge is generated due to its nuclei proton return force by pull electron back into the ordinary shell.
    Second half stage:
    when (time) electron moves ONLY IN from outer shell toward ordinary shell in space then a – charge is generated due to its nuclei push electron back into the ordinary shell.
    It only happens in the natural world.
    ——————————
    Where is Artificial man-made????
    Here we go:
    Another very main principal misunderstanding happens on the anti-atom matter.
    First half stage:
    when (time) electron moves ONLY IN from ordinary shell toward inner in space then a + charge of anti-matter is generated due to its nuclei proton return force by push electron back into the ordinary shell.
    Second half stage:
    when (time) electron moves ONLY OUT from inner shell toward ordinary shell in space then a – charge of anti matter is generated due to its nuclei pull electron back away the ordinary shell.
    That why in natural never has any planets orbit a sun or a start with symmetry circle but only in unsymmetry eclipse.
    If the sun only pulls and gravity the planets then we can see the earth will orbit around the sun in sysmmetry circle. but the planets also pull and gravity the sun then we can see the earth will orbit around the in the shape that we called:
    Outernal eclipse that nowaday everybody do know by visible eyes that the earth orbits around the sun but
    Internal eclipse that futureday people will do know by the intellectual mind that the sun has inner orbited around the planets.( it will violent if 1 object only gravity or one way force to another object)
    Final the earth orbits around the sun in Outernal eclipse shape from 147 to 151 mil km and the sun also instantaneous orbits on internal eclipse shape from a few hundred km depend on position of planets on the linear or variant spacetime.
    Imagine you hold a iron ball and rotate around you, the more weight of ball will get more eclipe space, more clearly intenal your body eclipe space.
    Because we live in a single energy resource the only hydrogen has a single electron, single charge or we called dipole but how about a parallel charge or we called syspole.
    when you look a galaxy you can see a parallel charge at the same time that generates ordinary matter which 2 + charge and generates particle which 2 – charge.

  53. We need to reinvent a higher level of wheel.
    What is the charge, are we misunderstand or not.
    So we think we all do have all the information.
    does an electron interact in a direct way or in an indirect way?
    by a direct way in colliding or in a touching way?
    by the indirect way in something or through intermedium??
    the question now is the same as the answer.

  54. Gravity is electrical but not as described in the video. Wal's theory can be summarized as short range van der Waals forces causing gravity, which does not work because they are too short range and don't adhere to the inverse square law.

  55. I have two questions. Can anyone explain, or has explained, the electromagnetic process in nuclear fusion and fission? Second: Is it a possible atomic model that the electron orbit doesn't just remain outside the necleus but transits through the nucleus at one point?

  56. What lead me to the discoveries is Linda Moulten Howe has a piece of "UFO" wreckage that was obtained by a soldier involved in the cleanup of the wreckage in White Sands NM in the 1940s. The bottom of the craft glowed for 3 hours after it wrecked. When it stopped glowing, the soldier broke pieces off and pocketed them. In 1996 they were sent to Art Bell. He gave a piece to Linda. She had them analyzed. Their Ion levels were 60 percent higher than they should be, and upon further analysis it was discovered they were subjected to terahertz frequencies approaching the speed of light. She doesn't know what that means. I do. 

    The high Ion levels were due to the metals being turned to a plasma state. Her metal was made up of micron layers of magnesium, zinc and bismuth. ALL diamagnetic elements. Which means REPEL magnets. How were they turned to a plasma state? 

    Here is an experiment done with a homemade ham radio. It's receiver was way too small to handle the High Frequency waves, and the Stainless Steel rods bypassed the liquid state of metal, and instantly turned to plasma. 

    https://youtu.be/4yLbYlyT7wM

    Linda's metal was turned to plasma using even HIGHER frequency. Terahertz. 
    This is a Nikola Tesla plasma ball being spun at 4000 RPMS. Once it reaches high velocity spin, the tendrils are no longer free floating. They take order. Notice how hard the south pole tries to form despite the post powering it being in the way? Once they put a tinfoil hat on it, it tries to draw energy from it at the pole, causing the tinfoil to glow vibrantly. Northern lights. 
    https://youtu.be/Wis_HEa3X84
    That was just basic neon gasses creating that, powered by 2 AA batteries. It creates its own magnetic field. If you performed that exact same experiment with magnesium, bismuth and zinc, you wouldn't get a magnetic field. You'd get a DIAMAGNETIC field. ALL the incoherent dielectric acelleration would be pushed away, causing levity. 
    There are hundreds of "UFO" cases involving ION residue left behind, electromagnetic radiation, molten magnesium drippings from crafts malfunctioning then crashing, as well as plant growth being permanently affected by landing crafts. See "Magnets and seed propagation".
    Let's go further. Bob Lazaars claim of Element 115. Unumpentium. Now known as Moscovium. It's used to make Element 113, Nihonium, by smashing Zinc and Bismuth nuclei together. Both DIAMAGNETIC elements. Which means repels magnetism. Let's look at Bob Lazars claim light was bending around the craft. What's bending that light in the Ferrocell?? Hint. It's NOT gravity, or the bending of Space time. Remember Bob Lazar also claimed while the craft was functioning, he could hear the men inside it talking, as if they were on a loudspeaker. The ham radio experiment you seen? The man was talking THROUGH the plasma because the High Frequency waves were converted into Very low frequency waves. JUST like a bass speaker functions.
    It's becoming obvious, government funded mainstream science is lying to us too. They keep parroting what they're told to parrot, or funding of billions STOPS. Gravity as it's own seperate force, is BS. Oliver Heavyside, Charles Proteus Steinmetz, NIKOLA TESLA. "Gravity is nothing more than incoherent dielectric acelleration". It's a attribute to magnetism, just as ice and steam are an attribute of water. Ever see the way EXTREMELY light dust accelerates towards your old tube television due to the static "raygun" inside it??? We're all just dust, accelerating towards an extremely large source. Government told us "Gravity is not related to magnetism" 60 years ago. Can we trust what they're saying????

  57. Self confirming buckets of equations and gibberish, serve to help no one. A large portion of the electric universe theory appeals to people because they can understand it.

  58. Does anybody else sense a shift recently in the EU model 'schooling'? It appears to me the 'Old School Establishment' who happily misled society for so flipping long are deliberately making this science too difficult to for the likes of You and I, just like they always tried before? Ray Gallucci – You Sir have the unenviable claim of being the first 'Guest' to ruin a Thunderbolts Project EU post by boring your otherwise excited audience to death! No offence but don't come back y'hear!

  59. lo eléctrico nace en forma lineal , el magnetismo no es lineal en su origen , es 4-dimensional , la gravedad también es lineal en su origen y es independiente de lo eléctrico

  60. Gravity is the convergent lines of force of the dielectric of all matter particles. (Not imaginary particles). These lines of force converge into the center of every atom by centripetal motion. Moreover the dielectric lines of force are attracted to counter-space which is the region of low pressure.

    Every particle is attracted to the center of all other particles counter-sink into counter-space. This is gravity.

  61. I think there are a number of flaws in this theory. I do believe gravity is fundamentally an electric force, but not in this way. I think Tesla was onto a better explanation and I believe it involves different densities of what Tesla referred to as "the medium" (which is not the ether).

  62. That's using the simplistic planetary model I learned in school when I was a kid, which is conceptual, and adding a little math and geometry to it. That's not science. Just no.

    Gravity is an electrostatic acceleration indeed, but Wal Thornhill's childish planetary atom and dipole model will not cut it. The so-called ‘electrons’ are not particles, not objects or subjects, but are the dynamic principle of discharge, and are certainly not charge carriers. Fields are not particles, nor “electrons”. Tesla himself did not believe in the electron particle nor the photon.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *