# Directional Gravity

Newton assumes in his work that gravity is a monopole acting with equal force in all directions, regardless of intervening matter. These assumptions are central to his shell theorem which puts the center of gravity at the center of astronomic bodies regardless of the position of an observer.

However, this assumption is not well tested. While we observe gravity to be an attracting force wherever we look, it’s not a given that this force is without a directional component. For instance, gravity may act most strongly perpendicular to the surface of bodies.

## How directional gravity differs from directionless gravity

If gravity has a directional component the center of gravity for large spherical bodies will be dependent on the position of observers.

In the above example, observer A sees the center of gravity located at a. Observer B sees the center of gravity at b. Being farther away from the surface, he sees the center of gravity located closer to the geometrical center. Observer C sees the gravitational center at c, which is even closer to the geometrical center.

This makes gravity drop off more quickly at low altitudes than Newton predicted in his work. We get Newtonian results for our satellites and Moon, and we get Newtonian results at the surface. But we get a quicker drop off in gravity in between.

Any astronomic body with a directional component to its gravity would exhibit this non-Newtonian gravity near its surface. Orbits low enough to be affected by it will be faster than Newton predicted.

## Alternative explanation for the Mercury anomaly

This opens for an alternative explanation for the Mercury anomaly. It may not be due to curved time-space as Einstein suggested, or smaller clocks as I’ve suggested. It may instead be due to directional gravity. Mercury makes its rounds around the Sun faster than predicted by Newton because it’s close enough to the Sun to be affected by its directional pull. The Sun pulls harder on Mercury than Newton predicted, and is therefore moving faster than his calculations would suggest.

Earth, on the other hand, may have this anomaly limited to altitudes within its atmosphere, and the turbulence of our atmosphere has made this escape detection. However, a simple test can verify or dismiss this hypothesis. What’s required is a balloon or airplane capable of smooth flight, a precise altitude meter and a precise gravity meter. It’s so simple to perform that it must have been done many times already. Yet, results are strangely hard to find.

## Possible causes of directional gravity

As for the cause of this hypothetical directionality, there’s plenty of room for speculations. If matter has a shielding effect on gravity, we have directional gravity simply due to shielding. People like Peter Woodhead and Wal Thornhill have speculated that gravity is directional by nature.

I have suggested that charged matter has stronger gravity than neutral matter. If so, we can expect a directional component due to capacitance, because capacitance is a directional phenomenon.

When a capacitor is charged, as illustrated above, the dielectric comes under stress and we get a directional component. This will result in gravity being stronger straight up than to the sides.

When we apply this to astronomic bodies, which are charged spherical capacitors, they too will have this directional component. We get gravity acting with a directional component perpendicular to the surface of these bodies. The result is directional gravity due to electric charge.

### This Post Has 17 Comments

1. Steve Hathaway says:

Apparent Gravity exists because every whirling atomic dipole is pulling on every other object in the universe that has a higher relative permittivity (lower electrical impedance) than Eo vacuum. Then just sum the vectors. Works every time! Check out page 2 of CTG Capacitance Theory of Gravity By Mort Spears
OR page 531 of Fundamentals of Physics 2nd edition by Halliday and Resnick

Good day!

1. Steve Hathaway says:

That was CTG Book 1. CTG Book 2 pgs 16-17 are pretty good too.

2. Fredrik Nygaard says:

Dipoles that are whirling in all directions will produce no net directional component and can therefore be considered to be monopoles in the context of this article.

1. Steve Hathaway says:

ok. As a single dipole in an infinite volume, I get it. one pole.
But the introduction of any other volume of matter into this system would leave you with the original whirling electrical dipole as one pole of your “gravity dipoles” yes? That Gdipole would have a directional attractive force component between the Gpoles.

1. Fredrik Nygaard says:

By monopole, I mean that the force is attracting and equal in all directions. A dipole whirling in all directions will thus be considered a monopole at the macro level, because it will exert equal gravitational force in all directions.

When we have a large collection of dipoles whirling in this manner, and we add up all the vectors, we still get gravity acting with equal force in all directions.

This is Newtonian in the sense that it fits the requirements for his shell theorem. Newton didn’t care about the actual mechanism behind his monopole requirement. All that mattered to him was that every atom had to act with equal force in all directions.

However, if Morton Spears’ whirling atoms acquire overall direction under the influence of an electric field, we no longer have gravity acting with equal force in all directions, and Newton’s shell theorem no longer applies.

My point is that gravity that comes from atoms that act with a stronger force in one direction than another will produce a near surface effect on Earth that can be tested and verified because gravity will drop off in strength with altitude as described in my article.

1. Steve Hathaway says:

“By monopole, I mean that the force is attracting and equal in all directions. A dipole whirling in all directions will thus be considered a monopole at the macro level, because it will exert equal gravitational force in all directions. When we have a large collection of dipoles whirling in this manner, and we add up all the vectors, we still get gravity acting with equal force in all directions..” Ok. I’m with you.

Now, imagine at a large distance d>>>>>r there is another particle of Q=0. This particle will be drawn to the whirling dipole. Do you agree?

2. As I remember it, the atoms within the capacitor dielectric have their orbits distorted by the applied electric field. This means that it is a combination of all the atomic structure that contributes towards the charge effect, and thus the gravity effect (?).

1. Fredrik Nygaard says:

Atomic structure is key to understanding gravity.

I use Morton Spears’ model of the atom which has matter built up of vast quantities of positive and negative charge quanta. This means that a tiny imbalance in the electric force is sufficient to create a net effect between two neutral bodies.

I’m further suggesting that charged matter has stronger gravity than neutral matter. This is due to the distortion of the dielectric material that makes up the capacitor that holds the charge. In the case of our planet, the dielectric is the entirety of Earth’s rocky makeup.

Gravity has in this way two components. One is due to the dielectric itself which will have a gravitational field even if not charged. The other is due to the distortion caused by charge.

What I’m pointing out in this post is that gravity caused by distortion has a directional component. This is different from gravity caused by neutral matter, which acts with equal force in all directions.

Newton saw gravity as something that acts with exact equal force in all direction, so we should see a deviation from Newton’s prediction if there is a directional component to gravity. We can therefore make a simple experiment to check if there is in fact such a component to Earth’s gravity.

1. Steve Hathaway says:

Check out Browns work:

“How I Control Gravitation”
by
T.T. Brown
Science & Invention (August 1929) / Psychic Observer 37(1)

1. Steve Hathaway says:

2. Astronomers deduce the mass of a dwarf star but fail to realise that it can become a gas giant if it loses energy. So the mass value is proportional to Energy, and presumably any associated moon or planet would also be affected likewise?

1. Fredrik Nygaard says:

This looks similar to Brown’s work.

That being said, I find it interesting. The experiments show real result that need to be explained. However, I think the ion wind explanation is correct.

If we apply this to Earth, which I consider to be a giant capacitor, we can use the ion wind explanation to explain phenomena like sprites. They are discharges emitted by our highly charged planet.

But there’s more going on. Earth’s gravity seems to have increased since the time of the dinosaurs, and this has happened without any indication that there’s been a lot of matter added to our planet. My explanation for this is that gravity has been increased due to additional charge. I’m not dismissing the link between gravity and charge. I’m just not convinced that the experiments made by Brown and others are showing the effect I’m looking for.

None of this means that I’m dismissing the possibility that Brown was right in his interpretations, and I think his work is well worth looking into.

I agree with you and Morton Spears that a whirling dipole can explain gravity. But so can a tiny imbalance in the electric force. It’s not up to me to make a judgment about this on behalf of my readers. They should study the various explanations for themselves and decide for themselves.

1. Steve Hathaway says:

ok fine. Forget Brown. His self promotion is annoying.

“However, I think the ion wind explanation is correct.”

Don’t miss the best part.
From the paper:
“The forces created by the capacitors and ion grid were comparable in magnitude. The difference arose between the direction of movement of the capacitors and ion grid. The ion grid could be made to move in any particular direction, which was directly caused by the change of polarity and orientation; the capacitors were not. The force exerted on the capacitors was consistently repulsion from the earth whereas the ion grid always moved towards the emitter.” Doyle R. Buehler https://1library.net/document/zg341r2q-exploratory-research-phenomenon-movement-high-voltage-capacitors.html

So let’s go with your increase in electrical charge, Q

V=Q/C More Q gets more V
Buehler used 200kV the ionosphere is more like 400kV!! (Buehler Fig 5)
He used glass (Dielectric constant 4-6). Earth uses water which is MUCH greater in constant (https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/56/jresv56n1p1_a1b.pdf)

And like you say, the Earth is a spherical capacitor.
Might Earth appear to have less gravity force (macro) to other stellar bodies (as a pole) when the atmosphere is highly electrically stressed because of the increase in charge you propose?

He used glass (Dielectric constant 4-6). Earth uses water which is MUCH greater in constant.
Water dielectric constants over temp:
(https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/56/jresv56n1p1_a1b.pdf)
Gravity waves and thunderstorms:
http://wwlln.net/publications/blanc.JGRAtmos.Grav.Waves.2013.pdf

2. Steve Hathaway says:

yes

3. One from the back row:
Directionality helps clarify gravitic anomalies at certain locations on our planet. If we take Frik’s theory of capacitive gravity, and we add the proposed variations in crust thickness to explain lower gravity locations, then directionality will clean up around the observation that these gravitic anomalies are apparently very small, something unlikely in a gravity field that diffuses in all directions. A non-directional field will attract “around the obstacle”, if you get my drift.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.