SergUpstart

Yanchilin assumed that the splitting of spectral lines in distant quasars will not change, so the constant of the fine structure does not change. He also showed that the variation of the elementary charge violates the law of conservation of energy.

Indeed, it is impossible to refute GRT using a formula . But not because the formula is incorrect, but because we can not fundamentally compare the course of the clock at points with different gravitational potential, bypassing GRT. And radioactive decay will not help here, since it is necessary to compare the number of decay events for and the time intervals for which they occurred, and it is impossible to compare these time intervals bypassing GRT. But to conduct this experiment with the measurement of the magnetic constant at different gravitational potentials would still be interesting, not from the point of view of checking GRT, but from the point of view of checking the above formula. In addition, a previously unknown effect can be detected, the dependence of the wave resistance of the vacuum on the gravitational potential

Yanchilin considered two atoms that are at different heights above ground level, the height difference is equal to H, and emit photons at the same energy transition. the frequency of the photon emitted by the atom at point A (below) is higher by relative value 2gH/c^2 than the frequency of the photon emitted exactly the same atom at point B (above). But while the photon is flying up, its the frequency is lowered by a relative value of 3gH/c^2 . At the same time 2/3 this value (i.e. 2gH/c^2) is caused by a decrease in the photon energy (the energy of a photon decreases twice as fast as the energy of a non-relativistic body because the photon has no rest energy), and 1/3 of this values (i.e. gH/c^2) caused by an increase in the Planck constant. Thus, the total result of the two effects is that the frequency of the photon emitted by the atom below decreases when it rises to the height H by a relative value of gH/c^2, which coincides with the result predicted by GRO and corresponds to the experimental data. Agree that this explanation is simple, logical, and it is devoid of contradictions that exist in the explanation from the point of view of GR.

It follows from the formula that the square of the speed of light is not an invariant, but depends on the gravitational potential. In addition, Yanchilin's theory contradicts GRT. According to GRT, time slows down near massive bodies, but in the Yanchilin's theory, it accelerates on the contrary, although due to the gravitational redshift, the remote observer has the illusion that time slows down near a massive body. It also follows from the formula written above that black holes do not exist, since the speed of light increases in proportion to the square root of the gravitational potential. Light can leave the vicinity of any massive body, but the amount of gravitational redshift is not limited. Theoretically, it is possible that leaving the vicinity of a sufficiently massive body, even gamma radiation can turn even into radio waves of the ultra-long-wave range

I wrote about this award not because I want to get it😃😃, but because they quite reasonably do not consider gravitational redshift to be proof of time slowing down near a large mass. It can be explained in another way. Moving away from a massive body, a photon with its own mass spends its energy on performing work against the force of gravity and its energy decreases, and therefore its frequency decreases. Their team believes that there is no other way to test the theory other than directly measuring the passage of time at different gravitational potentials using a very accurate atomic clock. I see another method based on a different physical principle.

If they had measured not the strength of the magnetic field (which was 400 times weaker than expected) but the magnetic permeability of space, it would not have been a "possible interpretation" but a fait accompli.

Based on the law of Biot-savard-Laplace, the smaller the magnetic constant, the weaker will be the strength of the magnetic field created by a current of the same force. Briefly, the essence of Yanchilin's quantum theory of gravity 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. The Institute of Special Studies (Saint Petersburg, Russia) announced in 2016 that it would pay a prize of 100,000 us dollars to anyone who provides IRREFUTABLE proof that the GRT is correct. The bonus has not yet been paid to anyone and the offer is still valid.

Unfortunately, I can only give a link to a Russian-language source http://www.vixri.com/d/Janchilin V.L. _Kvantovaja teorija gravitacii.pdf

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

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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.

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.

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."

Einstein was not against the ether in principle. See his article "Ether and the theory of relativity" 1920.

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.

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.

This means that the description of gravity by using LITG will be more complicated than GR ??

Three coordinates of the gravitational acceleration vector + three coordinates for the torsion field vector?

Yes. J/kg = ( kg * m^2 / s^2 ) / kg = m^2/s^2

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.