The Juicee Free Fall (To Gravity or not to Gravity)

The big question, of course, is “Why”. Why did any, or all, of this happen? Why did a cosmic ballet of buzzing particles and exquisitely balanced forces conspire to produce this swirling domain of stars, planets and mysteries?
For that question, scientists have no answer.
Ultimately, we do not have an idea of why the particles are the way they are.

More tomorrow after work :slight_smile:


Why does there have to be a “why?”

Any answer would be a guess, we can’t know why. We can delude ourselves and claim, we know why though.

The one thing scientists throughout human history have in common is that the vast majority have been proven wrong. Those who haven’t been proven wrong probably will be at some point.

The problem is that science as practiced is fundamentally flawed. The flaws run from the way research is funded to the peer review system, and all points in between. Max Planck said it best, “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”

So when Higgs suggests the existence what is now called the Higgs field in 1964, he is told that his work is "fantasy, not physics."It takes 48 years to register, and it still isn’t accepted by everyone.

Juice, if you have an hour to spare, watch this…


I will watch after work SPG.

I woke this morning with this stuck in my head. I would like any and everyone to offer their thoughts and opinions. And please use any math calculations that you can think of.

Imagine a pin ( the kind you see in a pin cushion with the ball on a spike) Now where the ball connects to the shaft place ball bearings (or anything that can let 1st ball spin freely, and, any & every material you can think of) The ball must be able to freely spin. Also imagine that the ball is completely see thru. And as big as needed to hold a car.
Now place another clear see-through ball over it like a bubble so that the 1st ball can not be effected by wind or elements, but still moves freely, regardless of what happened to the 2nd ball.

So this pic would have a clear see thru case around it.

Now we place these pins into the earth at 1037.5 miles apart all the way around the earth ( you can use the equator, or sun line, or any path you like) as long as they meet back where the 1st ball is placed.
Now as we place these pins at each location add 25 miles in height to the next one, So the 1st one would be ground level, the 2nd would be 25 miles up, 3rd would be 50 miles, etc… We are just wanting to go to the Ionosphere that NASA says is 600 miles up from surface.
Now do the exact same thing at a 90 degree connection of your 1st line, so that it goes north and south if your 1st line is east and west. (So 24 pins one way and 24 the other like you are quartering and orange)

Inside these 1st clear balls attach 3 camera’s at fixed directions of up, down and 90 degrees in between, these must be fixed to the 1st bubble, so that if the bubble moves so will the camera.

I think that if we can get the results of my question, that we can figure out everything about the earths spin, speed, velocity, trajectory, inertia, movement and if gravity is real or just acceleration. We would also get info on the Sun moon & other planets. This test seems logical to me, but I have no way of testing.
If anyone knows a site or program I can get or go to, please let me know.

1 Like

This is interesting. Maybe develop a bit if you don’t mind? Are you treating space and time separately? 3-dimensional Euclidian space, with a 4th dimension of time added as an imaginary coordinate or 4-dimensional Minkowski space where space and time are treated equally and both real?

Curses to everyone who got me thinking about these things on a nice weekend day :slight_smile:


Another way to think about the universe, and therefore about gravity, is to imagine all of spacetime as a perfect fluid that conducts electromagnetic energy without any loss to heat. When energy is introduced to this “bulk”, say in the form of photons, the only limitation to the movement of the photons is the available space. When you add matter in to the mix, you are essentially adding in resistance. Matter is not perfectly conductive so this creates distortions to the flow of energy. These distortions are what we describe with the concept of gravity.

Added: If you make gravity a force and then model the universe, the models don’t describe what we observe in the form of structures (stars, galaxies, …). There isn’t enough matter to create as much gravity as necessary to form them. So, to force the models to conform to observations, they had to add in dark matter. Now we can have all the pretty things we see in the sky. Sadly, once they added in the dark matter, the universe no longer moves the way we observe it. Ack, what to do, what to do? Ah, we can add in some anti-gravity “dark energy” to explain the motions we see. To make this work, dark energy had to be smaller at first and then grow in strength as time went on. No one has bothered to explain how or why this would happen. We’ll just create an ever-increasing force from whole cloth and hope no one will ask too many questions.

Most truths are elegant. If you have to start adding hypothetical forces and matter just to make your theory work, it becomes sloppy and inelegant. This is a good indication that you are not on the right track. Just my 2-cents worth on the subject.

One more thing: If gravity was a force, then there would be a force-carrying particle needed to transmit that force over distance. We have not observed any particles like this so far. Moreover, the effects of gravity are instantaneous over distance. That means the effects are transmitted faster than the speed of light. Since nothing can travel through spacetime faster than the speed of light, this would indicate that the effects are being transmitted within spacetime, not through it. There is no limitation on the speed spacetime itself can move, only on how fast things can move through it. I think this adds to the theory of gravity as a property of spacetime rather than a force.


No need for that! Anti-de Sitter space just suggests a negative cosmological constant. It doesn’t play well with gravity as described in general relativity, but that’s the bit I think Einstein got wrong. I think mass does curve space, but it’s not as simple as gravity as a force or gravity warping spacetime, it might be both.

We have detected gravitational waves, which strongly suggests that gravitons are a thing. It’s true that gravity based models of galaxy formation don’t work, but why limit this to one thing or another? Gravity, whether a force or not, can play some part, even if it isn’t the sole driving force.

Dark matter started as a very reasonable thing. It was just non-luminous material. Without our sun, the solar system would be dark matter because it doesn’t produce light. Since then, it has morphed into some kind of magic pixie dust, which there is no evidence for except that their math doesn’t work without it and dark energy.

My Big-ish Kersplay hypothesis suggests that spacetime can not only be curved, but can be twisted. A massive rotating object like a black hole can produce spiral space. All matter entering this black hole moves straight through spiral space, which means it can only impact from one direction. Each new bit adds a little “kick” to the system, making it rotate faster. Eventually, the system’s spin overcomes gravity, and the thing kersplats apart.

Most galaxies we can see are planer spirals. We also see some dust globs, which are baby galaxies that have recently kersplatted. We also see globular galaxies, which are the result of co-mingling of 2 or more spiral ones.

The cosmic background radiation is so uniform because it’s the result of our last localized galactic kersplat, not some universal big bang. We are close enough to the center of the galaxy that it should be uniform-ish.

So my universe is eternal, it just always was, and cyclic. Galaxies kersplat, are gradually pulled back together, a black hole forms at the center once it accrues enough mass, it spins, creates spiral space, spins faster, then eventually kersplats again.

Our sun doesn’t have enough mass to ever create anything heavier than oxygen. How then can one explain the presence of much heavier elements like plutonium? One would expect any star massive enough to create these heavy elements to have a much longer lifespan than our sun. The fact that they did form and they are here suggests that the universe if much older than they say, and this fits well with a cyclic universe.


I think they are going to sit there and do nothing. They are going the same speed as anything they are attached to, so unless acted upon by some external force, they just sit there.

We are Stardust. We are Golden.


I’m already in the garden, brother. :v:

1 Like

This is all to deep space for me…I’m still trying to figure out “WHY?”

1 Like

Started with the mention of a Flat Earther… Blossomed from there…

1 Like

I like this Logic, And I often have thought very similar thoughts. Everything IS perspective…
But, What about false information, We are all fed this kind of crap daily, News, Religion, Science, Friends, Family, Strangers and on & on & on…

Example: How many know that all the picture we take in space have no color?, they are black, white, and shades of grey.

This is the published picture of the Carina Nebula, all color has been added based purely on what scientists think are the elements and quantity each.
A quote from Hubble:
“We colour the images as accurately as possible to correspond with the filters, but sometimes this is not entirely possible. For example, we can not accurately represent those colours invisible to the human eye, such as infrared and ultraviolet light. Therefore, in this case, the filters are represented by colours we can see — though the final image does not represent what the human eye would see if it looked upon the subject in the night sky. Data from Hubble is also contaminated with defects, such as bright pixels.” ( note how they spell color)
What if we changed the color scheme a bit? Just a tad to suggest different amounts of each element.
Does it mean something different? Anything clearer? Less clear? closer? farther away? Etc…

Why can’t we use the real picture Hubble took? Not media friendly enough? No Excitement or sales value?

Plus it changes everything about where things are, closer, farther, shape, position & more. How many things appear or disappear in these different points of view? Theirs & yours? I prefer the real picture because it can be me observing it & not someone else’s perspective.

So you don’t think the ones closer to the ground will have the weight of the camera’s pull the middle one to bottom center? Making the other 2 left and right?

Yes, Gravitational waves as originally predicted can always existed.
Unfortunately for those scientists who have tried for over 40 years to detect them, the Theory of General Relativity had an ability via mathematics to postulate their existence, but was unable to provide the required physical details to enable a delineation of them.


The recent detections at LIGO were not true gravitational waves. The detections were the results of large amounts of matter being phase changed into heat, and magnetic pulses in the form of Gamma Rays, that traveled spherically outwards from the source of mass destruction.
The ESA missed a physical advancement when the spacecraft Rosetta provided an example of mass phase conversion while it investigated Comet 67/P. The unexpected heating at long distance from the Sun and the gradual appearance of a increasing magnetic field around the Comet, was a micro example of the event that resulted in the LIGO detection.
Both LIGO and Rosetta detected a Gravitational Thermodynamic Effect (GTE)
To detect rapidly occurring gravity waves, the experiment would need to be made at the microscopic level of physical reality.

In order to directly observe gravitons, we would need a detector with 100% efficiency and the mass of a large planet. Even if we had such a device, it would be impossible to distinguish gravitons from neutrinos unless it was shielded to exclude neutrinos. The mass required for this would cause the whole thing to collapse and become a black hole, so I don’t see this happening any time soon.

I’m probably not understanding this whole experiment. If the balls are free to rotate and unbalanced, yes, they should spin to produce the most stable equilibrium possible. So one would be pointed down and the other 2 pointed left/right or front/back, or somewhere in between. I would expect them all to do this, no matter how high they were, within reason.

Some of my problems with big bang involve the initial set up, So there was this infinitely dense, infinitely small singularity. There was no spacetime yet, so where, exactly, was this singularity? Without at least a 2 dimensional space, what do “density” and “small” even mean?

What was before that? Well, time didn’t exist yet! Ummm, ok. Then something changed and the thing exploded. Doesn’t change imply time?

Yeah, but M-theory! So OK, now you have managed to push all of the hard questions to another universe that is like an infinitely thin sheet that’s infinitely tall and infinitely wide and covered with little n-dimentional strings we can’t see because like, other dimensions and stuff.

So then this other magic sheet waves in some unknown cosmic wind and bumps into our clean magic sheet, and somehow the matter stain jumps from one sheet to the other. Instead of making a soft rustling noise, makes a huge bang that can’t be heard because like, space and stuff. What made this other sheet blow around? No idea, it happened in another universe, where things like that happen all the time.

OK, so then this matter stain inflates faster than the speed of light because speed limit laws weren’t invented yet. Then it somehow slows down and stops inflating so fast, and now it’s accelerating again. How did all these speed changes happen? Dark energy, which we have never seen and never will because it’s dark and doesn’t interact with normal matter anymore. Well OK, it probably does, but not while anyone is looking.

Yes, this all seems perfectly reasonable to me!


Frame dragging is something that makes sense and fits with much of the math around black-holes. Same with angular momentum. I have to think about whether rotation can ever become so strong that it overcomes the warping of spacetime in a gravity well. May be beyond my pay grade by a good bit but still worth some time to think about.

OK, it doesn’t matter what elements our sun can or cannot make because anything it does make will remain captured within it until and unless it explodes. The elements we observe that are heavier than iron came from the collapse and explosion of massive stars that existed before our solar system formed. Massive stars, other than red giants, have extremely short lifespans - 10’s of millions of years instead of billions. Therefore the presence of heavy elements would not in of itself suggest an older universe.

I am not sure about this. Do you have a source? The original work by Kip Thorne in 2015 was pretty solid and as far as I know, there has not been a refutation of his teams’ observations that has been accepted. If I missed something, I’d like to know. It is my understanding that there have now been multiple detections of probable gravitational waves from LIGO.

For what its worth, gravitational waves would not be an indication of a force carrying particle, like a graviton. @SunPowerGuru would be right about this and a different type of detector would be required - like neutrino detectors but even more sensitive. Particles going through space vs space itself reacting to a black-hole merger.

And now it is time to go hit a little ball, chase after it and repeat for 4 hours.

If you are at an orbit height of 408 km and travelling at 17,150 mph (27,580 km) you match the curvature of the earth, so as you fall you get no further, or closer to the earth. (you are in orbit.) Different heights, mean you have to travel at different speeds.
So geostationary orbits require you to be a good distance away from the earth, so the stable speed (without getting closer or further away from earth) matches up with the rotation of the planet, in order to be stationary to a particular point on earth.
In terms of linear speed on the surface, it depends on your latitude - the equatorial circumference of the Earth is (about) 25000mi or 40000km, so about 1000mph/1600kph on the equator, closer to 700mph/1000kph at 45 degrees latitude.
So 0 to 600 miles up things react the same?