The Nature Of Gravity: A New Steady State Theory
Abstract:This paper proposes a new form of Steady State for the universe involving a periodic rotation of mass, to energy as gravity fields, and back to mass again.
It explores the Big Bang theory and exposes several serious flaws, while suggesting alternate explanations. A theory is presented into the operation and function of black holes, with an explanation for red shifted stars, and dark matter.
1) Introduction:
Gravity is all pervading throughout our universe, but not fully understood. Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton both gave the subject considerable attention which included some famous statements:
“Einstein argued that gravity isn’t a force at all. He described it as a curvature of time and space caused by mass and energy,” and entanglement as “spooky action at a distance”.[2]
Newton’s remarks on gravity include: “Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” “Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” “No great discovery was ever made without a bold guess.”
Einstein’s 1915 general theory of relativity holds that what we perceive as the force of gravity arises from the curvature of space and time. The scientist proposed that objects such as the sun and the Earth change this geometry. Einstein’s theory is the best description of how gravity works, said Ghez, whose UCLA-led team of astronomers has made direct measurements of the phenomenon near a supermassive black hole — research Ghez describes as “extreme astrophysics.”.[8]
The star SO-2 obits the Milky Way black hole at the centre of our galaxy, and its light turns from blue to red light as it passes the highest gravity zone near to the black hole.
This evidence undermines the main Big Bang proposal that a red shifted spectrum is due to the Doppler Effect, but is silent on a stronger gravity field explanation.
2) Applicable Sciences:
Four forces govern the universe, in ascending order, are gravitational, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, and strong nuclear.
Gravity is often described as a weak force, and is one of the four fundamental force particles as tabulated: [10]
This statement can be regarded as an over simplification of the situation operating elsewhere in the universe. There are many comments which show gravity can be an overwhelmingly strong force near black holes, neutron stars, white dwarfs, etc.[11]
“A black hole is a place in space where gravity pulls so much that even light can not get out. The gravity is so strong because matter has been squeezed into a tiny space. This can happen when a star is dying. An artist’s drawing of a black hole named Cygnus X-1 shows it formed when a large star caved in. This black hole pulls matter from the blue star beside it. Credits: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss”
A strong gravity field will weaken as distance increases following the Inverse Square law: [12]
3) Black Holes.
Current thinking on the nature of black holes is usefully summarised:[13]
“The term ‘black hole’ is one used by space scientists to describe places in space where the force of gravity is so great that all matter in a region is squeezed into tiny spaces, to the extent that even light cannot travel! Black holes are often regarded as regions in space where virtually nothing can escape.
This common view fails to describe how gravity gets so strong, and why it has a physical effect on light which is regarded as massless, and thus should be unaffected by gravity.
My paper on black holes is available at,[14] and includes this summary diagram that proposes a black hole is a location where gravity is strongest through the formation of gravitons.
The graviton field at a black hole is sufficiently concentrated for the Gravitational force to overcome the Strong force. This affect is sufficiently powerful to eliminate time from the incoming mass, as evidenced by its atomic separation.
The Negatrons paper proposes that electrons can exist as positrons and negatrons. The negatrons convert to gravitons during their exit from a black hole. This transition occurs when the positron remains inside the black hole providing a positive charge which stabilises the free neutron, by converting it back to a neutron. However, the graviton remains entangled with its positron partner establishing a gravity field.
The Negatron paper calculates how far a black hole is from the solar system to provide the strength of gravity field we experience. This shows the black hole is 3,343 light years distant, which is also the distance to the largest black hole in our region of the solar system, V616 in the Monoceros constellation.
This is shown and described as a gravisphere:[15]
The relationship between distance and gravity as well as time is summarised in the following graph.
Gravity is a field structure and therefore has no velocity. However it does accumulate on mass objects in proportion to their size. This is illustrated in the following graphic: [17]
The black hole gravity field is primarily attracted to the largest sun mass in the solar system. Secondary, gravity fields attach minor orbiting masses to the central sun. In this illustration the different entangled particles are noted as EGS and egs.
4) Spiral arm anomaly.
The concept of ‘dark matter’ was introduced to account for an anomaly detected at spiral galaxies. Dark matter proposes that the universe is beset with matter which is not immediately visible, but which provides significant gravitational attraction to constrain the stars to cluster in the spiral arms of some galaxies. The conundrum arose because the spiral arms were operating like bicycle spokes, rather than orbiting planets, as discussed in:[18]
“Rotation curve of spiral galaxy Messier 33 (yellow and blue points with error bars), and a predicted one from distribution of the visible matter (gray line). The discrepancy between the two curves can be accounted for by adding a dark matter halo surrounding the galaxy.”
If stars are sited within a gravisphere structure, they can gravitationally attract between the gravispheres, forming a chain association. In this way they can stick together without the need to introduce the dark matter concept. However, the space between the spiral arms is expected to be regions of low gravity with a background hydrogen population not associated with the gravispheres.
5) Speed of light limitation.[19]
“The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant that is important in many areas of physics.
Massless particles and field perturbations such as gravitational waves also travel at this speed in vacuum. In the special and general theories of relativity, c interrelates space and time, and also appears in the famous equation of mass–energy equivalence, E=mc2.”
“The Shapiro time delay effect,[20] or gravitational time delay effect, is one of the four classic solar-system tests of general relativity. Radar signals passing near a massive object take slightly longer to travel to a target and longer to return than they would if the mass of the object were not present. The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation, which increases the time it takes light to travel a given distance from the perspective of an outside observer. In a 1964 article entitled Fourth Test of General Relativity, astrophysicist Irwin Shapiro wrote:
Because, according to the general theory, the speed of a light wave depends on the strength of the gravitational potential along its path, these time delays should thereby be increased by almost 2×10−4 sec when the radar pulses pass near the sun. Such a change, equivalent to 60 km in distance, could now be measured over the required path length to within about 5 to 10% with presently obtainable equipment.”
A critical statement in this article is ‘The time delay is caused by spacetime dilation’ which assumes our understanding, of how light travels, is correct.
My paper Photon Gravisphere Speeds[21] proposes that light operating as an electro magnetic wave transmission will require an ephemeral mass phase to transition between the two fields. This is illustrated in the paper:
It shows an ephemeral mass component to the light beam, which allows it to be affected by passing gravity fields. Further evidence of a mass component to light is deduced from the ‘radiation pressure’, ‘force of light’, or ‘electromagnetic momentum’ phenomenon reported at:[22]
This property of light causes the beam to slow when entering a field of increasing gravity, and to speed up when entering a field of reducing gravity. These effects appear as red and blue shifted light. However, the maximum possible speed is limited to c, as defined.
This effect simulated through a multitude of gravispheres will appear as blue and red light depending on the location of the gravisphere, as described in the Exposed Light report:
This diagram shows a small region Z where blue starlight arrives at the solar system from a low gravity location. The majority of other starlight has travelled through one or more high gravity regions thereby slowing the light to report as red shifted on spectral analysis.
The further the light travels, the more likely it is to be slowed, so the more distant galaxies show greater red shifted light than the nearer stars. Expanding movement of the stars is not required to explain this light shift.
6) LIGO Measurements.[23]
“The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) is a large-scale physics experiment and observatory designed to detect cosmic gravitational waves.”
By December 2019 50 detections of gravitation waves were recorded, an average of 12.5 per year. It seems a high number if we are recording black hole assimilations. The LIGO equipment may be recording more normal events than colliding black holes. These may involve a gravity wave surge associated with unusually large mass digestion occurring at our Gravisphere black hole, or at an adjacent Gravisphere.
7) Cosmological evidence for Big Bang.
Recent discussion supporting the Big Bang theory includes:[24]
“All science is based on evidence. So what is the evidence for the Big Bang?
- Redshift of Galaxies
The light we observe from galaxies has been stretched by the time it reaches us. It looks redder than it should. This redshift is the result of galaxies moving away from us. Observations show that pretty much everything in the Universe is moving apart. The redshift of distant galaxies tells us the Universe is expanding.
If you could wind time backwards, you would see galaxies getting closer together. If you could go back far enough, everything in the Universe would have been in one place.
- Microwave Background
A long, long time ago, the whole Universe was very hot. As it grew in size, the heat left a “glow” which fills the entire Universe. The Big Bang theory predicts this glow should still exist. It also predicts that we should be able to detect this glow as microwave light.
Scientist have found this Cosmic Microwave Background. They have accurately measured it using orbiting detectors. It is very good evidence that the Big Bang theory is correct.
- Mixture of Elements
Some chemical elements were created soon after the Big Bang. Elements like hydrogen and helium. The Big Bang theory predicts how much of each element was made in the early universe. When astronomers look at very old galaxies and stars, the amount of each chemical they see agrees with the Big Bang theory.
You cannot look for this evidence in new stars, like the Sun. This is because newer stars contain chemical elements made by older stars. So the chemical make-up of new stars is very different from stars which existed soon after the Big Bang.
- Looking back in time
There is an alternative to the Big Bang theory. It is called the Steady State theory. In this theory, the Universe does not change much over time.
Remember – light takes a long time to travel across the Universe. So when we look at galaxies which are very far away, we are also looking back in time.
This means we can see that very old galaxies are very different from newer galaxies. This shows the Universe has changed. This evidence fits better with the Big Bang theory than the Steady State theory.
History of the Universe.[25]
The Universe began with the Big Bang about 14,000 million years ago (14,000,000,000 years). When it was young, the Universe was very, very hot and dense. Since then, it has been cooling down and getting bigger. For the first tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang, everything was too hot for us to describe what it was like. It was not like any physics we see or experience now. But we can use science to work out what happened from as little as 10-43 seconds – or 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds! – after the Big Bang.
8) Cosmological evidence for Steady State.
The report “Big Bang or Steady State?”[26] outlines four concerns surrounding the Big Bang theory which include:
- Galaxies are moving apart which conflicts with our understanding of gravitational attraction.
- The start point involves elements of time, mass, and energy which are generally incomprehensible.
- The concept of “Dark Matter” is inferred to explain astronomical sightings of visible matter, but remains a hypothetical construct.
- Our understanding of gravity is quite deficient, yet gravity must represent a critical element for understanding any universe evolution theory.
We can enhance these comments by addressing the four paragraph headings from section 7:
- Redshift of Galaxies
This point is rendered moot now it is shown that “Star SO-2 obits the Milky Way black hole at the centre of our galaxy and turns from blue to red light as it passes the highest gravity zone.”
- Microwave Background
as reported:[27]
“You can’t see the CMB with your naked eye, but it is everywhere in the universe. It is invisible to humans because it is so cold, just 2.725 degrees above absolute zero (minus 459.67 degrees Fahrenheit, or minus 273.15 degrees Celsius.) This means its radiation is most visible in the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum.”
This is not compelling evidence, but may record expected minute background temperature variations occurring across our universe.
- Mixture of Elements
“Some chemical elements were created soon after the Big Bang. Elements like hydrogen and helium.”
Both of these elements have a very simple atomic structure which seems likely to develop randomly throughout the universe rather than only at the dawn of time. Cosmic rays have been detected emanating from a black hole at M87. When these combine with electrons they can form into hydrogen and larger atoms.
9) Proposed New Steady State Theory.
The original Steady State theory imagined an isotropic universe with homogeneous appearance in every direction. It now appears there is room for a theory which acknowledges the universe is not homogeneous, but cycles through stages of mass, energy as gravity and back to mass again. This is discussed at[28] and includes the exhibit:
The transfer from mass to gravity occurs at black holes, while the transfer from gravity to mass is seen recorded on Earth as the expanding earth theory and illustrated in the Mid Atlantic Ridge (MAR) expansion.[29]
11) Conclusions:
- Both Einstein and Newton were right to the extent that their areas of research covered.
- Newton is substantially correct when his work is restricted to the Solar System.
- Einstein is correct in wider areas of the universe, and crucially identified time dilation.
- Newton correctly identified a gravity constant, without suggesting it could be a vector variable operating beyond the solar system.
- Neither Einstein or Newton correctly identified the variable nature of regional gravity, the importance of Black Holes, or mass recycling.
- We can deduce that a weak gravity field will be associated with a large distance from a source of gravity where the gravity field (G) is numerically larger.
- The new Steady State theory concludes that Black holes appear to be a critical, but poorly understood component for the universe.
- Black holes may be the source of gravitons which in turn generate gravity fields that form numerous gravispheres throughout the universe.
- Gravity fields transfer energy across the universe and restrains orbiting objects within their orbits.
- Stars sited within the confines of gravispheres may gravitationally group together in a form appearing in spiral arm galaxies.
- Gravispheres associated through gravity will not follow the Kepler Laws of planetary motion.
- This new Steady State theory concludes that electromagnetic transmissions, such as star light, include an ephemeral mass state which makes light subject to gravity field influences.
- Light entering higher gravity fields will result in light mass retardation, and resulting in a chromatic red shift.
- Repeated transmission through gravity fields appears to have a cumulating affect on light speed and is consistent with distant stars showing extra red shift.
- Light coming entering a lower gravity field will result in light mass acceleration, but limited to a maximum speed of c, and appearing as a chromatic blue shift.
- The LIGO equipment may be recording more normal events than colliding black holes. These may involve a gravity wave surge associated with unusually large mass digestion occurring at our Gravisphere black hole, or at an adjacent Gravisphere.
- Red Shifted galaxies as observed, appears to have explanations other than the Doppler effect following star SO2 observations. The Big Bang theory is fundamentally based on the red shift observation and the Big Bang theory must now be regarded as suspect.
- The universe microwave findings do not categorically support the Big Bang theory, because the results do not show a recognisable wave pattern and could be regarded as normal minute temperate variations throughout the universe.
- Both hydrogen and helium have very simple atomic structures which seems likely to develop randomly throughout the universe rather than only at the dawn of time.
- Cosmic rays with a preponderous of protons have been detected emanating from black holes. When these combine with electrons they can form into hydrogen and larger atoms.
- Looking back in time is an ongoing astronomical challenge. Current observations support a form of Steady State universe rather than the Big Bang theory.
- The modified Steady State proposal accommodates geological subductions as well as earth expansion with the net effect being a periodic expansion of the earth’s mass, as evidenced by the parallel ridge structures along the MAR fracture.
- New definition. “Gravity is a visceral property of mass endowed through it’s entangled association with a black hole.”
- New definition. “Time is a property of mass dependant on its viscous association with gravity.”
12) References.
- https://www.bosmin.com/PSL/NatureOfGravity.pdf
- https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2017/03/16/what-is-spooky-action-at-a-distance
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Rees
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IxuXuLbMoQ
- https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-to-understand-einsteins-theory-of-gravity
- https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/einstein-showed-newton-was-wrong-about-gravity-now-scientists-are-ncna1038671
- https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/einstein-general-relativity-theory-questioned-ghez
- https://relativity.astro.ucla.edu/
- https://www.space.com/four-fundamental-forces.html
- https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/teachers/activities/3012_elegant_02.html
- https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/stories/nasa-knows/what-is-a-black-hole-k4.html
- http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/isq.html
- https://eartheclipse.com/space/black-holes-facts.html
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/NEGATRONS.pdf
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/GRAVISPHERES.pdf
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/InterstellarGravity.pdf
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gataxy_rotation curve#
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_time_delay
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/ExposedLight.pdf
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_pressure
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIGO
- https://www.uwa.edu.au/science/-/media/Faculties/Science/Docs/Evidence-for-the-Big-Bang.pdf
- https://www.schoolsobservatory.org/learn/astro/cosmos/universe/hist
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/BigBangOrSteadyState.pdf
- https://www.space.com/33892-cosmic-microwave-backgound.html
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/GRAVIMASS.pdf
- http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/InterstellarGravity.pdf
A publication version is available at https://www.bosmin.com/PSL/TheNatureOfGravity2cPSI.docx and designed for paper review purpose.
There is a pdf version of the complete paper posted at https://www.bosmin.com/PSL/NatureOfGravity.pdf
Header image: NASA
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
The statement that the Big Bang theory is silent on the red shift of stars near the galactic center is irrelevant. There are two causes of red shift. Motion away from the observer, and time dilation, (either inertial or gravitational). Nothing contradicts the Big Bang theory at present.
Reply
Si
| #
Or three…. Light speed is not a constant.
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
Absolutely wrong.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Light speed has a constant upper limit as defined by Einstein, but it is shown to be influenced by ambient gravity field strength, and the optical transparency through which it passes.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The recent observations of the SO-2 star by UCLA categorically show that red shift is associated with a high gravity field, does it not?
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
The statement that gravity decays with distance from a black hole in accordance with the inverse square law, is incorrect.
The decay curve is given by the Schwarzschild metric.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
That is to say, that time decays in accordance with the Schwarzschild metric. Gravity is the curvature of time, (and the associated “curvature” of space), so the causality of gravitation decays in accordance with Schwarzschild.
Gravity as a phenomenon, is a figment of our limited imaginations, that’s why they will never find the graviton.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The Schwarzschild metric is a very detailed calculation which includes some assumed factors. In summery the Schwarzschild radius is given by r=2GM/c2 where G is the gravitational constant assumed to exist throughout the universe. IMO a most unlikely event, given astronomical sightings where regions of much higher gravity field apparently exist.
I see gravity as a field similar to a magnetic field. The difference being a magnetic field can be caused by electrical flow or particular molecules. Gravity is associated with mass of all descriptions and appears to be embedded through an entangled union with a central black hole.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
You are placing Schwarzschild’s opinion above that of Isaac Newton, who showed the inverse square relationship was real in solar system practice. I support Newton on this issue.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Newton’s first law: An object will travel in a straight path unless a force acts upon it, is unsupported by observation since nothing in the universe travels in a plain geometry theoretical straight line. Not even light, so how do you determine what a straight line is? The premise should be that an object will maintain its energy unless energy is added to it or lost by it. This explains why objects in equilibrium with the energy field of another object (orbit) do not need an expenditure of energy (work) to maintain their orbits and why when energy is added to them, they move into a weaker energy field and actually end up with less energy (less velocity) than they had before the energy was added.(Or if energy is removed they end up with more energy.)
As to the Newton’s formula (F=GM1M2/d^2) I have an experiment for you to do using magnets (same basic formula). Build a model of a permanent magnet. Use a round disc magnet to represent a metal molecule producing a magnetic force and attach it (I glued a brass nut into the center hole) a brass all thread rod about an inch from the end of the rod. Next attach a similar sized steel disc (representing a non-magnetic molecule to the rod (I used a threaded center hole) and rotate the steel disc up to the bottom of the magnetic disc. Attach another magnetic disc to the bottom of the rod making the model. Hang your model over another permanent magnet resting on an electric scale so you have a reading on the scale denoting the force between the magnets in grams. Holding the top magnet dis in place (I used a lock nut) rotate the steel disc down the rod towards the bottom magnetic disc and see what happens to the force being measured on the scale between the model and the magnet resting on the scale. I think the results will surprise you.
Herb
,
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, you will have to do your surprising experiment on Youtube as I cannot understand it from your description.
Your Newton quote “An object will travel in a straight path unless a force acts upon it” raises an critical point. A planet orbiting also has a force operating on it. Professor Samuel Carey spent a lifetime lecturing on the expanding earth theory. The Mid Atlantic Ridge image illustrates this which suggests to me that the force comes from energy in the form of gravity converting back into mass.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
You should read, this paper;- “On the gravitational deflection of light and particles”, by C.S.Unnikrishnan – Current Science, Vol.88 No7 10th April 2005.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
This paper concerns the equivalence principle which is a component of Einstein’s theory of relativity, and is a detailed account of a suggested variance to that principle. It is worth noting that Einstein eventually admitted defeat when it came to understanding gravity detail.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
“Time is a property of mass…………………………”
Time passes, (it’s process) everywhere, irrespective of whether there is any mass present. Therefore it cannot be a property of mass.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
This raises the question of how do we know the time without any mass being present? The same question applies to the presence of gravity. IMO both are present when mass is present.
Reply
Charles Higley
| #
I stand pat on the contention that, until they show that electromagnetic (EM) effects do not constitute gravity, they cannot pretend there is a 4th force.
It is impossible to have a mass that does not contain the charges of quarks that make up protons and neutrons. This represents a lot of charge. All chemists know of the short distance effects of London dispersion or van deg Waals forces, which are strong enough to allow bilayer membranes to be stable and for life to exist. And these forces are due to the proximity of other atoms.
Meanwhile, gravity is 10^34th weaker than EM. How is it not possible that gravity is simply a much weaker effect of London-type dispersion forces? Until they figure out how to show that EM is not responsible for gravity, a 4th force is mythical. Occam’s Razor has not been satisfied.
Reply
MattH
| #
It is compelling to suggest that gravity is the cumulative effect of forces already known to exist.
Nature is often a number of simple manifestations layer upon another, upon another, thus appearing more complicated and chaotic then it actually is.
As always, Charles’ observations are appreciated.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Charles,
You believe that the electromagnetic force is one force because of their interaction. When you examine the nature of electrical interaction and magnetic interaction you see that while they behave in a similar manner they behave oppositely.
When opposite poles of magnets come together they combine to form a larger magnet with a grater magnetic field. When opposite electrical charges come together they mask each other and reduce the positive and negative electric fields producing a neutron.
When similar magnetic poles are forced together the magnetic attractive forces and fields decrease while when similar electric charges are forced together the size and strength of the electric field increases.
The electromagnetic force is two forces, one (electric) coming from matter and the other (both gravity and magnetism) coming from energy.A moving electron produces a changing electric which produces a changing magnetic (energy) field.
The force of energy is greater than the electric force and energy is attracted to positive matter and able to displace negative matter (electrons). ( It is the motion of a neutron (electron-proton molecule) through a magnetic/energy field that causes it to split (when not in a nucleus) into an electron, proton, and gamma ray in about ten minutes.
It is the attraction of energy to the protons in a nucleus that holds the nucleus together ( a compression force rather than a binding force) and radiates as gravity and magnetism. It is the power of this force that when an electron in the nucleus is exposed at the surface it causes the nucleus to split or eject the electron (beta decay) from the nucleus. How much force does it take to overcome the attractive force between an electron and multiple protons with the small distances in a nucleus? The attraction between protons and electrons is the weak nuclear force while energy is the strong nuclear force, gravity, and magnetism (a directional attractive force formed by orbiting electrons) are the energy force being radiated from the nucleus.
It is the opposite behavior of the two forces that causes electromagnetic radiation. When an increase in energy (attraction) between two objects pulls them together it results in an increase in the repelling force between the electron’s electric field (which keeps them separate) to push them back apart producing an oscillation in the energy and electric fields (light).
Herb
Reply
MattH
| #
Hi Herb and readers I have not yet offended.
I gave you argument some consideration before posting my above comment.
If the attracting force was not greater than the repelling force you would not have solids.
Your good mate. Matt
Reply
MattH
| #
Which taken further. I have been wondering why clouds exist rather than be an even mist across the sky?
It is because the water droplets gravitate towards each other. A little like how the gas giants, Jupiter and Saturn, cause the orbital eccentricity of the earths orbit around the sun. Gravity.
Reply
Whokoo
| #
Gravity from gasses?
Moffin
| #
Gravity from all matter. The greater the mass, the greater the cumulative effect.
Biggest, most accumulative, dominates, just like BlackRock and VanGuard.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
When the fragments of the Shoemaker-Levy comet crashed into Jupiter they produced a recoil ejection of matter above the atmosphere. How is this possible if they were passing through gasses? Those ejection of debris indicates to me that the fragments hit a solid surface.
The reason Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are thought to be gas planets is because when you use Newton’s formula of gravity to determine the mass of the planets and divide that mass by their volume their density is so low that they must be composed of gases.
If you use Newton’s formula for gravity on binary asteroids where the orbit speed of the orbiting asteroid, its distance from the other asteroid and its mass are measured you will find that the central asteroid is so dense (its volume is known) that it cannot be made from known matter.
Gravity does not come from the mass of an object but from the energy associated with that mass and the amount energy associated with a mass depends on the energy field it is in. In the case of the binary asteroids the energy field coming from the sun has decreases enough that the energy fields of the asteroids have expanded allowing them to orbit each other as objects equalize with the energy field they are in.
Herb
MattH
| #
Hi Herb.
Thank you for contributing time and input.
There are a few fundamentals I will ponder and audit.
Charles’ explanation for gravity is the only explanation I have encountered that has any credence and simple potential without the need for human sacrifices and sun worshipping.
My understanding is the sun and stars are accumulated gas and emit or produce a powerful attractant force called gravity.
There is a saying! Something like, “the art of politics is to do that which is possible”. Blend that with imagination and we are back at the start.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Matt,
Yep. That’s what happens. You add energy to the nucleus, it pushes the electrons out increasing the repelling force between objects and a solid becomes a liquid. Add more energy, viola a gas.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and PSI Readers,
Because this comment is not brief, I place it here so the lines are longer.
I once reasoned as Herb has when he wrote: “The reason Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune are thought to be gas planets is because when you use Newton’s formula of gravity to determine the mass of the planets and divide that mass by their volume their density is so low that they must be composed of gases.”
However, then I began reading that some authors considered at some elevation, above these planets’ centers of mass, that these planets had a SURFACE. Which caused me to question what these authors were stating.
And I finally saw, based upon what has been observed about the atmospheres of the dense planets of Venus, Earth and Mars, that at some point the gas atmospheres the ‘gaseous planets would become condensed by these planet’s gravity to the density of liquid hydrogen and helium at very cold temperatures.
However, we also observe in the case of the dense planets that their natural atmospheric temperature increases as the atmosphere’s distance from their center of mass decreases. Hence, it is difficult to imagine that this compress to the density of the liquid hydrogen and helium is because of very low temperature.
I believe we understand that existence of a gaseous phase of matter is because the atoms and molecules of a gas and no attracted to each other. Actually, that is an assumed condition of an IDEAL GAS. Hence, I understand that in the ‘condensed’ phase of hydrogen and helium in Jupiter, that and the gaseous planets beyond it, there is no attraction between the molecules of hydrogen, or the atoms of helium, as they randomly move as the molecules of other liquids move, due to the liquid’s temperature.
Of course, what I believe could be wrong. However, I have cited evidence which supports, but doesn’t prove, that which I believe. Hence the word BELIEVE instead of KNOW.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Good points Charles. I see two issues. One is Waals forces are on a micro scale whereas gravity operates predominantly on a macro scale. Two is we know gravity is weaker than EM where we live. It is a big assumption to assume that state is universal – particularly near black holes. Having said that, I agree that EM (or gravity) forces do play a part in cosmology in that there appears to be a dipole to dipole type interaction between gravispheres which keep them tied together along the spiral arms of a galaxy.
Reply
Silvio
| #
Here’s a new idea. Humans are destined to perceive through a specific shape which is the framework of quantum and relativity phenomena.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
I would need a lot of time to follow this line of thinking, but keep developing it.
Reply
Joseph Olson
| #
“Shift on Shift” interview in Time magazine, Dec 14, 1936 by the father of the big bang hoax
“Mysterious Dr X says, Universe is NOT Expanding” at CanadaFreePress.com
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Interesting interviews Joseph. Especially the comment “When even deeper space light was showing even greater ‘apparent acceleration’ the mathematical cosmologists descended on the witless bureaucrats at the NAS for an ever expanding list of fanciful solutions, including dark matter, invisible universes and vacuum energy.” Sounds a lot like ‘climate change’.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Anything based on the particle nature of light (photon) and a maximum or constant speed of light in a vacuum is nonsense relying on pure conjecture not evidence.
The photon is based on a negative belief (that it would take time to transfer enough energy to an atom by waves to dislodge an electron) which is unjustified. In crystals and metals (where the photoelectric effect occurs) electrons are already disassociated from atoms and held in place by ionic bonds.All that is needed to cause electrons to flow is enough energy to distort a bond and change the balance between attractive and repelling forms. In the piezo electric effect this is done by mechanical pressure while in the photoelectric effect it is done by a changing of the magnetic and electric field of the right wavelength.
Einstein once said that no amount of experiments could prove him right bot one experiment could prove him wrong. He was wrong about this also. No amount of experimental evidence or intrinsic contradiction will shake the faith of the believers.
When the measuring of the energy given off in radioactive decay didm’t match that expected by special relativity it didn’t disprove the theory but gave birth to a new undetectable particle with no mass or charge (neutrino) that contained the missing energy and preserved the faith. Gamma radiation, given off when a neutron split into an electron, proton, and gamma ray, is radiation without charge or mass but is easily detected. Why is the neutrino undetectable when it more energy splitting a neutron in a chlorine atom producing gamma radiation and converting the chlorine into radioactive argon? The fact that the experiment produced an equal amount of non-radioactive argon was unexplainable and ignored. Since even the chosen results didn’t meet expectation the amount of neutrinos needed to be tripled to have the experiment confirm beliefs. Now instead of one undetectable neutrino there were two undetectable neutrinos and one that could be detected. The neutrinos could change from one type to another which meant that it could not be traveling at the speed of light (no time to change) so the neutrino need to have mass, yet still be undetectable and this mass would result in the expected energy to decrease. This was a absolutely horrible experiment (how could you construct it and run it excluding all radioactive isotopes?) with choosing supporting evidence, ignoring evidence, and changing the expected results to preserve the faith. Of course it won a Nobel prize because it re-affirmed orthodoxy.
Einstein’s contention that in a closed container there is no way to distinguish between a gravitational field sand acceleration is wrong. You can do it yourself. Construct two mirrored walls opposite each other. Mount a laser at one end and adjust the beam so it reflects between the walls in a zigzag path maintaining its height from the floor. If you can do this you are in a gravitational field. If, no matter how you try, the light moves down the walls it is because you are in an accelerating container and the walls are moving up as the light travels between them.
Einstein changed physics to religion necessitating th complete need for reason and evidence and an invisible reality (dark matter, dark energy, and quantum physics) that allowed for the creation or any experiment and the acceptance of any hypothesis that supports the faith
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
HerbPhysics is only recognized and understood by Herb. Even Electro-Universe has more followers than HerbPhysics. Many scientists have tried to prove Einstein wrong…and many continue…it would certainly mean fame and a Nobel.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The key seems to be ‘keep an open mind’.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
The speed of light was initially measured by observation of the Jupiter satellite orbits, and since refined in accuracy.
You are correct in highlighting the difficulty science is finding when isolating a neutrino.
Your laser light experiment relies on the laser reflecting from wall to wall, so the beam will show no measurable movement. However, if you measure the same effect over interstellar distance, we get a measurable effect, as per the Shapiro Effect when laser light is reflected off Venus and the Sun moves close to the line of sight.
Einstein gave of his very best and succeeded in making huge strides in cosmology which we repeatedly benefit from. He did not provide answers to all our questions, but left some major issues to work on requiring open minds.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Entropy for the entire system – the universe – must increase – not decrease. It appears this steady state thing which is hard to understand must have entropy decreasing and then increasing over and over. No one knows the insides of a black hole so it is convenient for these guys to speculate in a way favorable to their theory.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Entropy is difficult to quantify on a universe basis, but mass interchanging with energy is a duel condition of status which may not effect overall entropy. I think the conservation of energy law has more application in this circumstance than changing entropy.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Disagree. Entropy can be described as spreading or dissipation of heat….the billions (trillions?) of stars are busy turning matter into energy but where is energy being turned into matter? Heat leaves the stars…heat has no tendency to accumulate but rather only dissipate. Cosmologists estimate that about 95% of all stars have been formed so the future is bleak…it will be a very very long road to the cold dark future but nonetheless a likely one way trip.
Reply
Seriously
| #
No, not just Herb. Very intriguing, reasonable, his theories and i look forward to them here. I have a mad suggestion and assure you not being facetious. Injest a very low dose, purely made by a good chemist, lysergic acid, and see /feel what cannot be seen, all around, thru and part of everything. I suggest a group to include a very open minded engineer, to build something to detect it…and Charles, you may see exactly why EM should be measured. And before you all go off the deep end with your sarcastic comments, insults, et al, the effects are the same, the phenomenon, EVERY TIME…so measurable, some how….Good day.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks for your comment and suggestion.
Reply
RockyTSquirrel
| #
Could you give consideration to the possibility that, gravity is the attraction of dimensions, interacting with each other..
A “black hole” would be a “link” (if you will) between two such dimensions.
Other gravity sinks in our space would be “dimples” (if you will) between dimensions..
With that in mind, couldn’t that account for “gravity” mass which remain unaccountable.
The background noise from across the universe, could then be the static (if you will) between dimensions..
Just a thought experiment, no math, no facts, just thinking out of the box, and out loud…
RTS
Reply
Purple People Eater
| #
[Chorus]
And Rocky Raccoon checked into his room
Only to find Gideon’s bible
But Rocky had come equipped with a gun
To shoot off the legs of his rival
Reply
RockyTSquirrel
| #
Great.. 😉
It’s been ages… since I last heard that one… 😉
Nicely done…..
RTS
Reply
Clancey
| #
Oh it hurts to read all the tripe comments above parroting some nonsense about gravity. Mindless idiots without any critical thinking skills whatsoever. Gravity does not exist drones. All that is needed to explain what we perceive is density and buoyancy. Heavier objects displace the lighter liquids and settle downwards. Air and water are both effected the same. The earth is flat. Maybe some of you arm chair geniuses should actually think for once! No space, black holes, planets, etc. Use your senses and correctly perceive your reality. A flat motionless earth with a firmament above containing the orbiting Sun and Moon that are much smaller and closer than what NASA claims. Stars whatever they are certainly not distant nuke furnaces nor is the Sun. Go to a website called IFERS to start your journey to the truth and stop being a mindless trained monkey who believes in space. Yeah I believed in it too about 6 years ago then I woke up. Just like I did for Santa Claus long ago. Come on pin heads you can do it too. Always remember that the system that brought you the plandemic, wars, fake terror, taxes, fake viruses and so many more lies is the same system that presents you with the lies of what you live on, space and fake gravity. Once a liar, always and forever a liar. No charge.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
A big thank you to all who have contributed to this discussion and given significant time and thought to a very challenging subject.
And to John O’Sullivan and staff who have developed the PSI site and kept it going under some very trying circumstances.
This discussion highlights the important role PSI plays in providing an opportunity to float and test new concepts in the public domain, as well as focusing on contentious subjects which do not receive balanced coverage in the MSM.
Reply