Calculations showing that large dinosaurs could not function in present gravity strongly indicate that gravity cannot be a basic force in nature and must in fact be an electrostatic effect of some sort:
The best candidate available for a rational theory as to what gravity actually is, is that of the late Ralph Sansbury.
Thunderbolts (www.thunderbolts.info) has recently released a video interview with a gentleman named Gallucci who was talking about atoms serving as electrostatic dipoles; that is definitely not what Ralph Sansbury was talking about. I have watched Wallace Thornhill’s video from EU 2015 and it contains a great deal of good information with little to carp or complain about, but it still is not clear that he totally understands what Ralph Stansbury was trying to say. I may have missed something somehow but he doesn’t seem to be saying much about what actually turns ordinary electrons into electrostatic dipoles.
In my estimation, completely understanding that book of Ralph Stansbury’s would require an advanced degree in physics which I don’t have, but I believe I could provide somebody with a very reasonable executive summary of what he was trying to say.
He was talking about electrons becoming electrostatic dipoles, and not atoms and he was talking about ordinary forces including such things as voltage drops and spin forces turning those electrons into dipoles. One of the things I like about Sansbury’s analysis is that it does not begin with any kind of a back of the book type search for what gravity or light might amount to. It begins with a very mundane study of electrostatic fields being created by currents in a wire in such a way that the field reverses when the current is reversed. That effect is not supposed to be there and it is a relatively tiny effect, but it definitely is there.
Ralph reasoned that an electron at rest was spherical and did not represent any kind of a dipole but that the voltage drop in the wire was turning the electrons in the wire into dipoles. He reasoned that the electrons themselves (which we had viewed as point particles for the last century or thereabouts) actually consisted of ungodly tiny orbital systems themselves with minimally a central particle and an orbiting particle, the charges of which summed to that of an electron. He reasoned that those tiny orbiting systems were being pulled into elliptical shape by the voltage drop, at which point they represented dipoles, and that the voltage drop was orienting all such dipoles the same way so as to create a electrostatic field transverse to the wire. Naturally when he reversed the current, the field reversed.
He reasoned that gravity could be explained as electrons being similarly made into dipoles by spin forces. This would appear to make gravity a first or second cousin to things like gyroscopic force or the forces which create things like sinkers and sliders in baseball. I have always thought the standard explanation for that kind of thing was pretty lame (seams of the baseball biting into the air). The seams of a baseball don’t really seem to amount to enough of anything to cause those kinds of effects.
In fact, there is still that fascinating experiment at the Australian University involving the steel rod and the flywheel. I do not see how that could possibly work unless the weight of that flywheel was actually being reduced. Somebody really needs to conduct that experiment while standing on an industrial scale.
There is an aspect of this business which Ralph Stansbury may not have totally thought through. You would think that if the spin of the earth on its axis was the only thing generating gravity that gravity would be substantially less at the poles than at the equator. I would guess it to be likely the case that you need to consider all of the spin forces which we are subjected to: the rotation of the earth on its axis; the revolution of the planet around the sun; and finally the vastly greater motion of our entire system around the center of the Milky Way galaxy. That may be what is causing gravity.
Ralph had done calculations showing the necessary velocity of a sub electron particle (which he called a subtron) to be somewhere in the neighborhood of here to Andromeda in a second or two. He believed (from his laser/Pockel cell experiment) light to be an instantaneous force between points; I cannot picture any kind of force operating across intergalactic distances in such a way that we would see distant galaxies. Funny thing, I can't picture any sort of a wave ever getting here from distant galaxies either...
What I CAN picture would be energetic processes throwing off streams of such sub electron particles at the kinds of velocities that Ralph described, and such streams creating sequences of bow waves in our local environment.
I call that the machine gun analogy, or the redneck theory of light. That would indicate that light coming to us from distant galaxies may be taking seconds and minutes to get here, and not untold ages. The mistake which we might have been making all along would be similar to somebody pulling targets at Quantico thinking that the sonic crack of the bullets flying overhead had taken several seconds to cross the distance from shooters 600 m away at the speed of sound when, in actual fact, those bullets were traveling at 2700 ft./s and the sonic cracks were being generated locally.
Light has properties of both waves and particles (wave/particle duality); the simplest explanation there could possibly be for that is that both waves and particles were present.
One way to visualize this...
Picture Teddy Roosevelt out on safari on the Serengeti. He calls one of the new guides over to a place where dung of both elephants and lions is to be seen and asks him what he makes of that; there is only one right answer: "Well Bwana, it looks as if some lions have been by here, and some elephants have been by here too..."
The WRONG answer, unacceptable if the man means to keep his job, would go more like "Well, Bwana, it looks as if some MAGICAL ANIMAL with properties of both lions AND elephants has been by here..."
Isn't that, however, exactly what you see when you open a physics book to the page on "photons(TM)"?
