SergUpstart

Scientists have found another sign of life on Venus – the simplest amino acid glycine. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.06211

I saw a video on YouTube where a priest, who is also an associate Professor of physics at Moscow state University, proved that God did not violate the laws of physics when he created the Universe. "God first created the Universe, and only then the laws of physics, and the law has no retroactive force." You can laugh, but our world is sinking into obscurantism.

The deflection of light rays by the mass of the sun was twice as large as predicted by Newton's theory. Einstein's theory explained this (although an alternative explanation has recently been found for this effect within the framework of a small analogy of Newton's theory). In addition, Einstein's theory explained the precession of mercury's orbit, and here no alternative explanations have yet been found.

By the same influence, we mean the same acceleration. In this case, the force acting on the body is proportional to its mass, and the acceleration of the body is inversely proportional to its mass (Newton's second law). Thus, the mass of the body is reduced and it turns out that the acceleration of the body does not depend on its mass.

The keyword is "directly". It is affected by the Planck constant, which is uniquely related to the speed of light. Planck's constant also determines the size of the atoms, hence the size of the physical artifact.

To measure the dielectric and magnetic constants, a distance standard must be used. Is there a distance standard independent of the speed of light? The whole problem of invariance of the speed of light comes from the fact that there are no standards of distance and time independent of the speed of light in a vacuum. But the dielectric and magnetic constants will change differently when the speed of light changes, so we can detect a change in the wave resistance of the vacuum.

I agree. Nonsense is not nonsense, and the proof of a parallel universe can not be considered. The anomalous signal could have come simply from outside the Universe. Or even its source was in the earth's crust.( There have been reports of a heat source under Antarctica's glaciers) But the statement about a parallel Universe was made by NASA, why did they need it?

And what can you say about this experiment conducted by NASA in Antarctica https://nypost.com/2020/05/19/nasa-finds-evidence-of-parallel-universe-where-time-runs-backward-report/

Biology can simply be explained. All living matter on Earth came from a single RNA molecule that was accidentally formed.

And how then to be with symmetry? I don't see any other option, except that the universe appeared together with the anti-universe, which consists of antimatter and electrodynamics in it works on the left-hand screw rule, while in our case it works on the right-hand screw rule.

I wonder if there is a force similar to the Lorentz force for gravity? Its existence would violate the symmetry. For a proton, the magnetic and mechanical moments are directed in one direction, and for an antiproton, they are directed in the opposite direction.

If you go back to the experiment you referred to, when the couple left the atomic clock at home and went up the mountain with other clocks. With a 99.99% probability, the atomic clock left at home did not use radioactive decay, but was a caesium quantum frequency standard. I wonder in which country you can freely buy a device that uses at least 1 milligram of a radioactive isotope. Therefore,it would be very interesting to conduct the experiment that I suggested earlier. We calculate the number of decay events for a trillion periods of oscillation of the quantum frequency standard at one height, and then at another height, and compare.

There may be another explanation for the results of the experiment. An increase in frequency at the bottom can be combined with a slowdown in time at the bottom ( with a slowdown in the course of processes, including radioactive decay)

3gH/c^2 the dimensionless quantity, relative frequency offset, g=9.8 m/s^2. And I was wrong here, the frequency of radiation at the bottom is greater by 2gH/c^2 This is just an analogy with SR.