Just saw this, Will get you some info when I get back home from work.
Well, I think gravity is usually taken to act from the center of mass. Since the earth is 8.000 miles in diameter, we are already “up” 4,000 miles, so a few more don’t make a huge difference. Gravity follows the inverse square law, so you have to go twice as far to feel 1/4 the gravity.
Actually, the effects of gravity are slightly less when you’re on top of a mountain. Not much, but a little, so yes, your higher balls would “feel” less gravity, but they would still rotate to the same orientation unless there is a lot of friction in the system.
@1Warlock, travel time!
Heavly elements either formed semi-locally, which suggests cycles, or they came from far away. If from some past distant super star, said star could have a short life, but still take a very long time to form, and once it explodes, the material has to travel vast distances in order to be here now.
Look at structures like the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall. Billions of galaxies forming a wall over 10 billion light years long. Wouldn’t these galaxies have to be moving at nearly the speed of light to spread that far in 13.8 billion years?
Then you have stuff like the “Methuselah star.” (HD 140283) Which was originally estimated as 15 billion years old. Opps! The science said it was that old, but they eventually “fixed” it so now it’s listed as 14.5 billion +/- .8 billion. They just change the data to ft their theories, and they do stuff like that all the time.
They did the same with the speed of light. From 1920 to the early 50’s, the measured speed of light decreased. Not by a lot, but by a statistically significant amount. It stayed stable for a decade or so, then started moving up again. How was this explained? It wasn’t, they just hid the data, and in 1979 (I think) they “fixed” the problem by defining the meter in terms of light speed. Now when the speed changes, the ruler changes too, and it looks constant. Haha, cute trick, that.
So yeah, I have real problems with he way science is done these days. Science is a religion, and I have no faith.
Most of what I think is probably wrong, and I’m ok with that. If I see something that is convincing to me, I will think new stuff. I am not convinced by the arguments made in support of big bang, especially when they keep adding layers of muck to their mud foundations.
You might want to read a short-ish book called “Kicking the Sacred Cow” by James P. Hogan. It points out a lot of inconsistent and inconvenient facts about various theories and backs those facts up with respected published and easily accessible work. I think it’s available online as a free PDF, but can’t find a good link. A used printed copy likely sells for about $1 at Amazon or Ebay. It will reinforce the idea that a lot of what we think we know is no more than our “best guesses.”
2 Likes
Ice, dust and gas particles
electromagnetic emission
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-019-0740-0
These are the same things LIGO detected
Hope you see it too. P.S. I love Chen, She is a sharp girl, just needs more data to prove or disprove.
1 Like
I see your point, but I think the failure in Science is that they don’t re-test their laws & just ASSume nothing has changed.
True scientists should be agnostic to everything but the data. I myself am an objectivist. If something I think is true turns out not to be, there is no emotional element for me. This makes considering competing theories enjoyable. Debates are based on merits and logic rather than on emotions or affiliations. Its all good to me, so long as the arguments are based in logic and objective reality. I have yet to meet the person who has ever won an emotional argument.
As to the heavier elements traveling great distances or coming from stars that took a long time to form, I don’t think either is necessary. Larger stars take no longer to form than smaller ones. Its simply a factor of the quantity of available gas in the area that can be captured. In the earlier universe there should have been denser pockets of gas available and therefore larger stars on average. These stars explode, release the elements they have created and the process begins again. If I recall correctly, based on the elements they observe in our sun, they think it must be a 3rd generation star - formed after 2 previous iterations in the general area. I believe they came to that hypothesis based on the amount of oxygen they see, which would be far too much for the sun to have produced itself.
@JuiceeLoot - along the same line, I look forward to reading through the material you provided links to. Always happy to expand my horizons. Thanks for compiling it for me.
2 Likes
The modern science, relativity, quantum mechanics, particle physics, particles etc, are one side of the story. These particles, basis for most of the concepts, are split from a parental substance. Their behavior can be explained by the other side, substance from they split. Explanation of quantum mechanics doesn’t lie within quantum mechanics, its in the other side, the rest of the substance from which they were split. The question should be what is this substance. Then every problem reduces, if not the dynamics, but the reason for the dynamics.
Since WWI Science has become conspiracy, control and politics, for good or bad I don’t know.
2 Likes
Here is a PBS series on Gravity & Space-time. enjoy. Just click on the white letters at top of each video to open.
Sure hope the government does raid PBS for not believing in gravity!
WOW, are you a philosopher too? How can I miss this, you are smart as hall!
I will be honest, you now sound like a scientist… Now I am actually afraid of you, you might be too smart for me!!!
1 Like
2 Likes
There seems to be a lot of philosophy mixed in with the science here.i will comment further when I get more net time because phone typing is a drag
1 Like
Wow, where to begin. I know that scientists tend to over use train models, but imagine that you are in space, You have a big box of ENERGY, and a funnel that lets you force this energy into a train. The train will go faster and faster as you keep pumping energy into it, until it reaches the speed of light squared, which is the speed limit of the universe. At this point the train cannot accelerate, and if you keep pumping ENERGY into it, it will increase in mass until it collapses in on itself and becomes a black hole. This is basically the form of the equation E=mc2, Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared. Einstein’s field was gravity, so how did he get involved with the Manhattan project? Because if you reversed this model, and before the train collapsed and became a black hole you caused it to shed half the mass of it’s nucleus, all this ENERGY would be released
Instantly, in the form of heat and light. Thus the reversal of gravity becomes fission, controlled or other wise. The sun has often been referred to as a huge atomic reactor, but we don’t know how it is kept from exploding like a Hydrogen bomb. (God uses carbon control rods?) Between the Sun being a reactor and having the most gravity of anything in our solar system, I’m still not smart enough to have all the answers. But I deny the existance of a gravity particle, because i think it would be a superstring instead
Sorry I’m late getting back to you, I would like to hear about your take on this subject, I forget what we were going to chat about from the other night at the table, but feel free to remind me, Either here or PM me, since we are on each others friends list.
The subject was gravity as a force, I believe that gravity is a property of rotation of a body, a planets for example. Einstein’s theory provides the hinge on which gravity becomes energy, or energy applied in large quantity becomes mass and has gravitational force. The planets orbit the sun because the huge mass has the pull to alter their course.Each planet has it’s own gravity, which is why some of the planets have moons. This can be exhaustive, but mass and rotation is my understanding of where gravity comes from.
Einstein said there is no such thing as a gravitational force. Mass is not attracting mass over a distance. Instead, it’s curving space-time. If there’s no force, then how do you explain acceleration due to gravity? Objects should accelerate only when acted upon by a force; otherwise they should maintain a constant velocity.
The Sun’s mass is the biggest contribution to bending in our solar system. So much so, that it dwarfs the bending of space-time by the Earth to the extent that to a very good approximation, we can just consider the Earth to be massless as it travels around the Sun (call this the test particle limit). So, it’s like when you’re standing on the Earth, the Earth’s mass dominates the bending of space-time over your own, and so you can treat yourself as a massless test particle for all intents and purposes. However, you warp the space-time around you just a teensy tiny bit, and that does have an impact upon the earth in response.
General relativity says that energy (in the form of mass, light, and whatever other forms it comes in) tells space-time how to bend, and the bending of space-time tells that energy how to move. The concept of “gravity” is that objects are falling along the bending of space-time. The path that objects follow is called a “geodesic”.
scroll down to “Affine geodesics”