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.