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

In general, the main thing in QM is the uncertainty principle formulated by Heisenberg. It means the rejection of complete determinism in the laws of physics. And this is correct, because if there were only determinism in the laws of physics, that the fate of each person would be predetermined even at the time of BB.

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

And if you answer the question, " why is the geometry of our space-time like this?" Because not only do we not have an absolute reference system (Newton's ether) , but we also do not have absolute standards of time and distance. These standards change so that the speed of light remains constant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impedance_of_free_space

I noticed that the wave resistance of the vacuum is in some sense equivalent to the Planck constant where e is the elementary charge, alpha is the fine structure constant, and Z0 is the vacuum wave resistance What does this mean?

A little bit wrong. Space-time repels both matter and itself. Matter attracts both matter and space-time, or holds space-time around it. In other words, the mass of matter is positive, and space-time mass is negative.

It exists, but it is very weak. More than 40 orders of magnitude weaker than the electromagnetic interaction

You don't have to. But setting the origin of the coordinate system to the center of mass dramatically simplifies the mathematical description of the gravitational field, since the problem becomes centrally symmetric

The Haber process is an industrial process (invented by Fritz Haber and Karl Bosch) in which atmospheric nitrogen is "bound" by the synthesis of ammonia. A mixture of nitrogen and hydrogen is passed through a heated catalyst under high pressure[1]. At the same time, due to high pressure, the equilibrium in the N2+3H2 ⇄ 2NH3 reaction shifts towards ammonia. The firm BASF has been studied more than 8,000 catalysts of the process. Already in 1910, it was shown that the best catalyst is fused iron with additions of aluminum, potassium, and calcium oxides. This catalyst became the main one for the synthesis of ammonia for 90 years.

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