SergUpstart

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.

At the bottom, the frequency should be at a relative value of 3gH/c^2 more. Hence, delta f/f=delta f/(1+3gH/c^2). If we substitute H=8000m, we get that the clock at the bottom should go to (2.4*10^-10)% more accurately. I admit, the effect is impossible to notice practically.The height of mount Everest is clearly not enough.

It can not be excluded that the slowing down of time (slowing down the flow of processes) is combined with an increase in frequency, as in the case when the neutron flux moves relative to the observer, see above. We must admit that the experiment is either very long or expensive. If the frequency stability of the atomic line df/f=1E-14, then it takes at least 3 years to feel any effect at the frequency of 1 GHz. And for a set of statistics, you need to repeat the observation at least 100 times only at one height. The total is 300 years at one altitude + 300 years at another altitude. Or use the comparison of one source with hundreds of others at the same time for 3 years.

Although I believe Yanchilin's quantum theory of gravity is correct, I found one POSSIBLE error in It. This error is not fatal to his theory. An erroneous conclusion is that next to with a large mass, the speed of time increases. This means that near a large mass, the rate of decay radioactive elements should be increased, and experiments show the opposite. So don't demand it new experiments, and understand the reason. Considered example. The neutron flies away from the observer at the speed of v, because of the Doppler effect, the length of its de Broglie wave increases, the natural frequency decreases, the decay constant increases according to the formula Now let's consider the same situation, but let the neutron not fly away from the observer, but on the contrary, fly in the direction of the observer. In this case, its de Broglie wavelength will decrease due to the Doppler effect, and its natural frequency will increase, but it is constant the decay rate will still increase according to the above formula. Means Doppler frequency shift and deceleration the time of a moving object is not the same. And the fact is that the photon in addition to its frequency has another important characteristic. This is the natural width of its spectral line, which is inversely proportional to the time of its radiation. And it is this time of photon emission that determines the speed of time flow. What is the speed of time in a physical system? This is the speed of all processes in this system. The atoms and particles that make up the physical system interact with each other through the radiation/absorption of particles that carry the interaction, both real and virtual, mainly photons. The radiation time of these particles is finite, and it determines the speed of all processes in the physical system. The frequencies of these particles, which are equal to f=E/h, do not matter in terms of the speed of physical processes. An analogy with radio engineering is relevant here. In an amplitude-modulated radio signal, the information is carried by its envelope.For this information, the value of the carrier frequency does not matter. Thus, near a large mass, both the time of photon emission and its frequency increase simultaneously. This means that the natural relative width of the spectral line of the emitted photons decreases. And, therefore, clocks that operate as quantum frequency standards should run with GREATER RELATIVE ACCURACY near a large mass. On this effect, we can build an experimental test of this idea. It is necessary to set a couple of clocks at the foot of mount Everest, which they represent a quantum frequency standard, and during sufficient time to determine the standard deviation of their measurement intervals time. Then move them to the top of mount Everest for the same time and again determine the standard deviation, and then compare the reseltates. If the relative accuracy of the movement of the clock at the bottom is higher, then this will be evidence in favor of my version of nature gravitational deceleration of time, so m in favor of the quantum theory of gravity of Yanchilin.

This is an oxidizer and reducing agent in one bottle. The NH3 reducing agent HNO3 is the oxidizing agent. But in order for ammonium nitrate to detonate, it must be cleaned of water (it is very hygroscopic) and properly compacted.

But decompose into scalar and vector fields according to the Helmholtz theorem?

No, I really couldn't solve this equation for a long time and decided to turn to mathematicians. How could I have known that you would solve the equation? I was hoping that the solution would converge to Gm/r^2 in the asymptotic for large r, but not exactly match it.

Thank you. Yes, this is the equation for a point mass field, taking into account the mass of the field itself. I used to think the density of the gravitational field was equal ro=g^2/4*Pi*c^2 which led to an incorrect decision. Replacing c^2 with phi led to an equation that I asked for help solving. In him y(x)=phi(r) and a=4*Gm. The solution you found gives Newton's law of gravity phi(r) = -2Gm/r g(r)=(dPhi/dr)/2=-Gm/r^2 It turns out that taking into account the mass of the gravitational field itself does not change anything in Newton's law of gravity.