  # SergUpstart

Senior Members

288

1

## Everything posted by SergUpstart

1. To do this, the size of the accelerometer must be negligible compared to the curvature of ST. The accelerometer in the form of comet Shoemaker-Levy in July 1994 perfectly "discovered" the gravity of Jupiter.
2. However, after 2008, the European Union had its own debt crisis, related specifically to the government debts of the PIGS countries
3. If you have a debt of $1,000 at a rate of 1%, then you will have to spend$ 10 a year on debt servicing, and if the rate increases to 2% , then you will need $20 for debt servicing. And there is another problem with debts. If the population is heavily credited, then it can no longer take out loans for the purchase of goods, including electronics, cars and real estate. This should inevitably cause a decline in demand, which can develop into a sales crisis. 4. The financial system is gradually losing its stability. The Fed already does not have the opportunity to significantly raise rates, since this will cause problems with debt servicing. 5. I don't see anything good in this. Something must eventually happen, either hyperinflation or a parade of defaults. The question is when. How long can an atom be in an excited state? How long can water vapor be in a supercooled state? 6. We should talk not only about the American, but in general about the world economy. Global debt could reach$300 trillion by the end of the year. https://psm7.com/money/mirovoj-dolg-mozhet-dostignut-otmetki-v-300-trln-uzhe-v-etom-godu.html
7. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

The force is a vector, not a scalar
8. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

You are confusing this. The gravitational potential of the Earth, not the car. If the car moves so fast that the square of its speed becomes equal to the gravitational potential of the Earth not on its surface, then the car will fly into the Solar System.
9. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

The square of the velocity is not the gravitational potential, the gravitational potential is the square of the escape velocity.
10. ## If the sun were to go red giant wouldn't it cause all planets to move as well?

strictly speaking, the motion in a circular orbit is determined by the sum of the masses of the planets and the central body The speed (or the magnitude of velocity) relative to the central object is constant::30 {\displaystyle v={\sqrt {GM\! \over {r}}}={\sqrt {\mu \over {r}}}} where: {\displaystyle G}, is the gravitational constant {\displaystyle M}, is the mass of both orbiting bodies {\displaystyle (M_{1}+M_{2})}, although in common practice, if the greater mass is significantly larger, the lesser mass is often neglected, with minimal change in the result. {\displaystyle \mu =GM}, is the standard gravitational parameter. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_orbit But in most cases, the masses of the planets can be ignored. Perhaps the Earth too To this effect, you can also add the influence of tides. It is not a solid body. Due to the tides, it gradually loses the angular momentum, which should be compensated by the removal of the planets. In addition, the rotation of the planets around their axis is gradually synchronized with their rotation around the Sun, and this effect also leads to an increase in the radii of the orbits of the planets. But the impact of these effects is also insignificant.
11. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

Well, then it follows simply from the definition of the gravitational radius R=GM/c^2 that the ratio of the gravitational radius of the universe to the gravitational radius of an electron is equal to the ratio of their masses. But the mass of the electron is about 10^-30 kg, and the mass of the Universe is about 10^56 kg. So if we use gravitational radii, their ratio will be different. Not so, the field strength is the gradient from the potential with a minus sign. And the force is the field strength multiplied by the mass of the test body ( if we are talking about the gravitational force in the Newton paradigm) or by the test charge (if we are talking about the electrostatic force).
12. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

The electron does not have a certain radius and certain coordinates. An electron is not a ball. This follows from the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Maybe you meant the radius of the orbit of an electron in a hydrogen atom??? But the electron does not have a clear orbit in the atom, at present physicists are talking not about orbits, but about orbitals.
13. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

Draw formulas in Paint
14. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

What do you think is the smallest particle and what is its radius???
15. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

I briefly read the text that is indicated by the link in the first post of this topic. What I would like to note is that there is no mention of the costant alpha=1/137 in the text, and this is the most important physical constant.
16. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

It was Hawking's dream. From my point of view, the main formula of physics is not E=mc^2, but
17. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

I'm sorry? But the main thing in this issue was the Mach principle, it was not discussed earlier.
18. I remembered how in 1998, a couple of weeks before Russia's default, Sergey Kiriyenko (then he was the prime minister of Russia) came to the Gazprom office and demanded to pay all taxes.
19. ## Доказательство гипотезы Больших Чисел Дирака. Proof of the Hypothesis of Large Dirac Numbers.

On this forum, they communicate in English, take the trouble to make a translation. With the help of Yandex-Translator, it will take a couple of minutes https://translate.yandex.ru ( На этом форуме общаются на английском языке, потрудитесь сделать перевод. С помощью Яндекс-Переводчика это займет пару минут https://translate.yandex.ru)
20. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

Does the metric reflect the Mach principle? The fact that the gravitational potential of the Universe is the sum of the gravitational potentials of all particles in the universe is essentially a mathematical formulation of the Mach principle.
21. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

The gravitational redshift can be expressed as where is the gravitational redshift, is the optical clock transition frequency, is the difference in gravitational potential, and } denotes the violation from general relativity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift It is impossible to do without the gravitational potential. If you look at the definition of the gravitational potential, then this is the energy that must be communicated to a resting body of a unit mass so that it flies to infinity. Probably, the fact that this energy is difficult to calculate from the GRT equation does not mean that this energy does not exist. In addition, it follows from the definition of the gravitational potential that it is equal to the square of the escape velocity from a given point in space. Does the escape velocity exist? I can't give you a link. Hawking's books do not contain formulas, so it is convenient to listen to them in audio format, which I did. But here I found the link http://kosmos-x.net.ru/news/kuda_rasshirjaetsja_vselennaja/2018-08-09-5403 It is in Russian, but now this is not a problem, since many browsers automatically translate the text. Here is a quote from there, Space expands only where the gravity of matter and energy are limited. Therefore, space does not expand inside galaxies or complex galactic groups, but only between galactic clusters and superclusters.
22. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

Here's what you wrote "Frankly, this does not seem to be a difficult concept; the concepts of motion and force it evokes are Newtonian. If gravity in a region is strong enough to prevent expansion, that’s what happens. " I just asked a counter question, the meaning of which is "Won't we need the fifth interaction to explain the nature of this Newtonian force ?"
23. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

Yes, the expansion of space is not a force. The expansion of space is a change in the scale of distances. In the first post of this topic, I offered my explanation for the fact that we observe a change in scale only in intergalactic space.
24. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

Then which of the four interactions is this force associated with?? If with gravity, then it is necessary to introduce a negative mass, because this force, the force of repulsion.
25. ## Why does it seem to us that the universe is expanding where there is no gravity

Does this mean that there is an anti-gravitational force in the universe and is this force a manifestation of the fifth fundamental interaction ?????
×