Jump to content

SergUpstart

Senior Members
  • Posts

    336
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by SergUpstart

  1. I can suggest an experiment to test GRT based on the verification that the speed of light does not depend on the gravitational potential. It is known that the speed of light is a wound The experiment consists of launching two spacecraft from earth. one flies towards the Sun, the other away from the Sun. Each device is equipped with equipment that will accurately measure the value of the magnetic constant and transmit the results of measurements to the earth. If the value of the magnetic constant does not change, then the GRT is correct. If the measured value of the magnetic constant decreases on a vehicle flying towards the Sun, and increases on another vehicle, then the Yanchilin's formula is correct In the link, the results of astrophysical measurements, which can be interpreted as the fact that in the vicinity of massive bodies, the magnetic constant decreases https://science.sciencemag.org/content/358/6368/1299
  2. There is another opinion. Not concentration increase in CO2 causes warming, but rather warming increases the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, due to the fact that the solubility of CO2 in water decreases with increasing temperature, i.e. by heating of the global ocean dissolved CO2 goes into the atmosphere. Perform a simple experiment, pour carbonated water into a glass and heat it slowly.
  3. Perfect dark matter are photons. They do not emit anything, do not even Shine with reflected light, and we see a photon only when it hits us in the eye.
  4. Yes, you are right, not Yanchinin but Yanchilin. Briefly, the essence of his theory, as it explains the mechanism of gravitational attraction. The square of the speed of light is equal to the gravitational potential with a minus sign Planck's constant and the speed of light are related by the ratio Thus Therefore, the gravitational potential determines not only the speed of light, but also the value of the Planck constant. the greater the absolute value of the gravitational potential, the smaller the value of the Planck constant. This means that at a point with a higher absolute value of the gravitational potential, the quantum uncertainty value is less, and this in turn means that the probability of a particle's transition from a point with a lower gravitational potential is greater than the probability of a particle's transition from a point with a higher gravitational potential to a point with a lower absolute value of the gravitational potential.
  5. I expressed this idea ( that the square of the speed of light is equal to the gravitational potential) on another forum and received the answer "This idea is not new, on its basis V. Yanchinin developed the quantum theory of gravity". You wrote that you know several languages, including Russian? If so, here is a link where you can read this theory. http://www.vixri.com/d/Janchilin V.L. _Kvantovaja teorija gravitacii.pdf the Theory is very interesting and very likely correct.
  6. Does this mean that if in a static gravitational field you move a body in space from point A to point B along different paths or at different times, the amount of work against the force of gravity can be different?
  7. I don't know about the Gulstand-penlevet coordinates, but if we assume that c^2= - Phi (Phi is the gravitational potential), then the formula E=mc^2 transforms into E= - m*Phi with an understandable physical meaning, a body of mass m has energy that must be applied to move it to infinity, where the gravitational potential is 0. This is just information to think about
  8. You probably just forgot to write the word operator after the word vector. In vector calculus, divergence is a vector operator that operates on a vector field, producing a scalar field giving the quantity of the vector field's source at each point. More technically, the divergence represents the volume density of the outward flux of a vector field from an infinitesimal volume around a given point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence From the point of view of physics (and in a strict sense and in the sense of intuitive physical image of a mathematical operation) the divergence of a vector field is a measure of the extent to which a given point of space (or rather a sufficiently small neighborhood of a point) is a source or a drain of this field: div F>0 — point field is the source; div F<0 — the field point is a drain; div F=0-there are no drains and sources, or they compensate for each other It is quote from the Russian-language version of Wikipedia, the English-language version does not have this https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дивергенция
  9. Let's write Newton's law of universal gravitation in the differential form div g = - G*ro The divergence Operator shows where the field has a drain and where it has a source. If the divergence is positive at a given point in space, it means that the source of the field is there, and if it is negative, then the flow of the field is there.From the above equation, it follows that the gravitational field has only drains. Where are the origins? in infinity? But then gravity must propagate at an infinite speed, which is not true. So where is the origin of the gravitational field?
  10. The electromagnetic field with its mass and momentum creates gravity, which changes the direction of movement of electromagnetic waves. In this case, gravity is an additional source of gravity or anti-gravity. I'm leaning toward the latter.
  11. NASA researchers conducted experiments in Antarctica and found evidence that a parallel universe, like our own, was formed as a result of the Big Bang. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiecartereurope/2020/05/21/has-nasa-found-a-parallel-universe-where-time-flows-backwards-the-truth-behind-the-headlines/#211c18e0646d NASA researchers discovered high-energy neutrinos in Antarctica that were moving away from the center of the earth into space. This should not happen because high energy neutrinos that came from space from the other side of the earth should be absorbed in the earth's core. But since they were discovered, it was concluded that they came from a parallel universe and time for these particles goes in the direction opposite to the flow of our time. And if you look for another explanation for this, a more mundane one. For example, it has been repeatedly reported that the glaciers of Antarctica are melting under the action of geothermal heat from a tectonic fault. http://www.plateclimatology.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melting-from-geothermal-heat-not-global-warming We can assume that under Antarctica, close to the surface of the earth, there are nuclear reactions that are the source of these high-energy neutrinos, and then the eruption of a supervolcano should be expected more likely in Antarctica, and not in Sumatra or Yellowstone national Park
  12. I believe that in accordance with the third law of Hegel's dialectics ( development goes in a spiral), physics will somehow return to the ether as a medium for the propagation of interactions. Of course, not to the Lorentz model, but on a new level. Most likely, the term "ether" itself will be replaced with another one.However, this is already happening, because the vacuum in the modern sense is not a void.
  13. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/abs/2018/12/aa32898-18/aa32898-18.html
  14. Saoussen Mbarek and Manu Paranjape at the Université de Montréal in Canada say they’ve found a solution to Einstein’s theory of general relativity that allows negative mass without breaking any essential assumptions. Their approach means that negative mass can exist in our universe provided there is a reasonable mechanism for producing it, perhaps in pairs of positive and negative mass particles in the early universe. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/cosmologists-prove-negative-mass-can-exist-in-our-universe-250a980320a7
  15. According to Hawking, the energy of space is negative. Excerpt from Stephen Hawking's final book "To help you understand this strange but important idea, let me draw a simple analogy. Imagine a person who wants to make a hill on an even place. The hill is the universe. To implement his plan, our man needs to dig a hole in the ground and use the soil to fill the hill. In other words, it creates not only a hill, but also a pit, which is essentially a negative version of the hill. The substance that was in the pit is now in the hill, so everything is perfectly balanced. The same principle underlies the creation of the Universe. When the Big Bang produced a huge amount of positive energy, it simultaneously produced the same amount of negative energy. Thus, negative and positive energy add up to zero-as usual. Another law of nature. Where is all this negative energy now? In the third ingredient of our cosmic cooking recipe — in space. It may seem strange, but according to the laws of nature related to gravity and dynamics — one of the oldest scientific laws — space is a huge store of negative energy. Enough to balance everything and reduce it to zero."
  16. Einstein was not against the ether in principle. See his article "Ether and the theory of relativity" 1920.
  17. If we consider the gravitational field as a medium for the propagation of electromagnetic waves, the refractive index of this medium can be described by a very simple formula N=sqrt (Phi)/c this formula shows that the refractive index N depends only on the gravitational potential of Phi and does not depend on the frequency of photons, that is, there will be no dispersion in this medium. Photons propagate in a physical vacuum, and even if there are 0 protons per cubic kilometer in it, still from the point of view of modern physics, a vacuum is not a torricellian void, that is, a vacuum can be considered as a material medium. Yes, OP's mode cannot be considered a full-fledged theory of gravity, but it can be considered a theory of the interaction of gravity and electromagnetism.
  18. And here the question should be put so, which model is simpler from the point of view of mathematics, i.e. more convenient for calculations.
  19. This means that the description of gravity by using LITG will be more complicated than GR ??
  20. Three coordinates of the gravitational acceleration vector + three coordinates for the torsion field vector?
  21. Yes. J/kg = ( kg * m^2 / s^2 ) / kg = m^2/s^2
  22. The dimension of the gravitational potential is the square of the speed, or m^2/s^2. What is this speed? It is logical to say that the gravitational potential at any point in space is the square of the speed of light at that point.
  23. mechanical moment vector is vector product of the radius of the vector and the pulse vector
  24. There is a certain asymmetry between matter and antimatter. Тhe proton's magnetic and mechanical moment vectors are directed the same way, while the antiproton's vectors are directed in opposite directions. This should lead to the fact that if the proton and antiproton are close to the event horizon of the black hole, they will have different probabilities of not being drawn under the event horizon.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.