SergUpstart

In astronomy, the problem of hidden mass has often arisen. For example, at the beginning of the 19th century, an anomaly was discovered in the motion of the planet Uranus and the question arose whether Newton's law of gravity is correct or there is still a planet in the solar system. This question was resolved in 1846 by the discovery of the planet Neptune. Then an anomaly in the movement of Mercury was discovered, and astronomers began to look for another planet between Mercury and the Sun. She was even given the name Vulcan. But in 1915, Einstein explained the anomaly in the motion of Mercury from the perspective of a new theory of gravity, and the search for the Volcano stopped. In the mid-20th century, this question arose again with the discovery of anomalies in the orbital velocities of stars in galaxies. I believe that this time the question will not be solved unambiguously by detecting the hidden mass or changing the law of gravity, but both will be needed.

I think the reason here is simple: the light beam is deflected by gravity at an angle twice as large as the moving macrobody. Therefore, in the solution for the radius of the event horizon, it is the second cosmic velocity that appears, and not the first.

I came across the following note on the Internet. "Physicists Laura Mersini-Houghton and Harald Pfeiffer suggested that black holes do not exist. The Englishwoman and the Canadian presented the results of their research in two preprints available on the resource arXiv.org. A brief summary of the work can be found on the website of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (USA). Scientists have tried to show by theoretical and computer calculations that the evolution of massive objects will not reach the stage of black hole formation. According to their hypothesis, a dying heavy star will lose mass along with the radiation, which will not allow it to shrink to form a black hole. The completion of the evolution of the star, in the view of the authors, will end with its expansion and explosion. (End of quote with https://texnomaniya.ru/uchenie-usomnilis-v-sushestvovanii-chernih-dir) I tried to solve a simple problem, to calculate to what radius it is necessary to compress the Sun so that it turns into a black hole, but taking into account the mass defect associated with an increase in the gravitational binding energy during compression. After the compression, the mass of the sun will be next, we substitute M, taking into account U, in the equation for the Schwarzschild radius, where U is the gravitational binding energy, for the ball it is calculated by the formula next, we substitute M, taking into account U, in the equation for the Schwarzschild radius The resulting equation is converted to a square equation with respect to R Its discriminant is equal to Wow! The discriminant is less than zero, the equation has no solution, the star cannot collapse into a black hole. It may be objected to me that if we are talking about a black hole, then we cannot use Newton's theory, but we must use GRT. The answer is that the Schwarzschild radius is calculated from Newton's theory, if you equate the speed of light to the second cosmic speed.

Biden got rid of the button for calling a waiter with a Coca-Cola, which was installed by Trump (Letters)

This follows from what is written in the article. The interstellar medium contains more interstellar gas and plasma (i.e., baryonic and lepton dark matter) than the interplanetary medium in the SS.

It seems that what the Voyagers found has a very direct relationship to the problem of dark matter https://www.sciencealert.com/for-some-reason-the-density-of-space-is-higher-just-outside-the-solar-system

On one of the forums I found a good statement about the ether. "Ether is a quantum foam of virtual particles".

The key word is completely. Dark matter in the form of brown dwarfs, asteroids, planets and interstellar gas certainly exists.

The prevailing theory among scientists is that roughly three quarters of all the stuff in the universe is made up of “dark matter,” a mysterious substance that interacts with visible matter via gravity. Despite its ubiquitousness, though, scientists have yet to find direct evidence of its existence. According to a new study by an international team of scientists however, this search could be for nothing, NBC News reports. Instead, they argue that our limited scientific understanding of gravity may be unable to account for the strange gravitational behavior of galaxies. In other words, it’s not dark matter causing the behavior — we simply don’t fully understand the natural laws governing matter. In their recent study, the team argues that an idea first established in the early 1980s called the modified Newtonian dynamics theory (MOND) could explain the existence of strange gravitational behavior of stars that scientists conventionally explained with dark matter. In short, the theory replaces Newtonian dynamics and General Relativity as posited by Albert Einstein, and argues that the gravitational force of experienced by a star should be calculated in entirely different ways. “What we’re really saying is that there is absolutely evidence for a discrepancy,” co-author Stacy McGaugh, head of the astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, told NBC. “What you see is not what you get, if all you know about is Newton and Einstein.” A number of theories have been put forward trying to explain what dark matter could be, from primordial black holes to weakly interacting massive particles known as WIMPS. McGaugh argues that the MOND theory has been able to predict a number of astronomical observations since it was first brought up in the 80s. “MOND is the only theory that has succeeded in this way,” McGaugh told NBC. “It is the only theory that has routinely had all predictions come true.” https://futurism.com/new-study-claims-dark-matter-doesnt-exist

With what force the weight acts on the table, with the same force the table acts on the weight, Newton's third law.

That's right. But this means that gravity is still a force, at least pseudo.

There is a weight on the table. It is affected by the force of gravity and the reaction force of the table, which balance each other. But if gravity is not a force, then in response to what is the reaction force of the support?

A very important property of pseudo-forces is that they are always proportional to the masses; the same is true for gravity. There is therefore a possibility that gravity is also a pseudo-force. Could it be that gravity is caused by the lack of a proper coordinate system? After all, we can always get a force proportional to the mass, just imagine that the body is accelerating. For example, a person placed in a box that is standing on the ground finds that something is pressing him to the floor with a force proportional to his mass. If there were no earth at all, and the box was still at rest, then a person would be floating in space. On the other hand, if again there was no earth, and someone was dragging the box up with an acceleration of g, then the person in the box, analyzing the physics of this phenomenon, would find a pseudo-force pressing it to the floor in the same way as gravity does. Einstein put forward the famous hypothesis that acceleration causes an imitation (similarity) of gravity, that the acceleration forces (pseudo — forces) cannot be distinguished from the forces of gravity; it is impossible to say which part of a given force is gravity and which is pseudo — force. It would seem that nothing prevents us from considering gravity as a pseudo-force, to say that we are pressed down because we are accelerated up; but what about the inhabitants of New Zealand, on the other side of the Earth — where does it accelerate them? Einstein realized that gravity can be considered a pseudo-force at only one point at a time; his reasoning led to the assumption that the geometry of the world is more complex than the usual geometry of Euclid. Our discussion of the issue is purely qualitative and does not pretend to anything other than a general idea. To explain in general terms how gravity can be the result of the action of pseudo-forces, we will give a purely geometric example that has nothing to do with the true state of things. Let's assume that we live in a two-dimensional world and do not know anything about the third dimension. We would think that we were living on a plane, but in fact, suppose we were living on a ball; let us now throw an object along our surface, without acting on it by any other forces. How would it move? It would seem to us that it moves in a straight line, but since there is no third dimension and it would have to remain on the surface of the ball, it would move along the shortest distance on the sphere, i.e., along the circumference of a large circle. We will throw another object in the same way, but in a different direction; it will also go along the arc of a large circle. We think that we are on a plane, and therefore hope that the distance between two objects will grow linearly over time. But careful observations will suddenly find that at a sufficiently large distance, objects will again begin to approach each other, as if they were attracting each other. But they are not attracted to each other; it is all about geometry, it is something "wonderful"that happens to it. Although this picture does not concern the geometry of Euclid (it does not show us what is "wonderful" in it), it shows that by noticeably distorting the geometry, all gravity can be attributed to pseudo-force. This is the general idea of Einstein's theory of gravity (Feynman Lectures on Physics Chapter 12 Pseudo-forces)

You won't find any redshift in 60 seconds. The light from the Sun goes for 8 minutes, is there a red shift in the spectra of chemical elements????

check whether the output power of the dc-dc converter matches the power consumption whether it is very hot

The big Bang created Our Universe, which is part of the Multiverse or proto-Universe. And the Multiverse is truly infinite.

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.

But in Our galaxy, you can probably find more than one pair of main-sequence stars, so that they have approximately the same mass, temperature, and speed of rotation around their axis, but that one would be close to the center of the galaxy, and the other close to the edge of the galaxy. That would be a rough measure and compare the strength of their magnetic fields.

Chinese officials report that a deadly "unknown pneumonia" has broken out in Kazakhstan, with a higher death rate than Covid -19. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8508129/Unknown-pneumonia-said-deadlier-coronavirus-sweeping-Kazakhstan.html

Yanchilin's equations are slightly different from Newton's Newton's Phi (r)=Gm/r g (r) = Gm/r^2 Yanchilin'sPhi(r)=2Gm/r g(r)=(dPhi/dr)/2=Gm/r^2 This reflects the law of conservation of energy. When an Apple accelerates when it falls from a height H, the energy of the Apple changes not by the amount of mgH, but by the amount of 2mgH. Half of that energy to change the kinetic energy mv^2/2, and the other half goes to the change in internal energiei that of Apple, which is Einstein's E=mc^2, and Yanchilin's respectively E=-mphi. A photon has a rest mass of 0, so all this energy is used to change the kinetic energy of the photon. 2mgH and not mgH, as in Newton. This explains and corrects the error Of Newton's theory, which predicts the deflection of a ray of light in a gravitational field exactly 2 times less than GRT. How are you going to measure local time and determine when to stop counting decay events? There's no way without a second watch. Have there been experiments with two different clocks?

Let's go back to the clock experiment. The new theory States that as the gravitational potential increases, Planck's constant decreases, which should REDUCE the rate of radioactive decay. We need an experiment not with one, but with a couple of hours, where one will work on the principle of radioactive decay, and the other as a quantum frequency standard. This pair of hours is set at the top and synced, then we lower the pair of hours down and they will have to be out of sync.

Yes, you are right, such an experiment will help you find the truth

Let's say we count 1000 pulses from the Geiger counter. In fact, we form a rectangular pulse, whose front front coincides with the first pulse, and the back - with the 1000th. when transmitting it to an external observer, we will get the same rectangular pulse, the duration of which will be formed by a proportional change in all the frequencies of its spectrum. Nothing will work, we check the gravitational frequency shift.

The law of conservation of energy will not be violated, the rest masses of all bodies are also variable and are determined by the gravitational potential. Here I found a link to this theory in English https://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0398v1.pdf It is useless to accumulate impulses, this only narrows the Delta f. With a gravitational shift all frequencies of the spectrum will change by the same relative value