SergUpstart

I made a differential equation for both positive and negative gravitation field mass. It turned out that for a positive mass it has no solution, and for a negative one there is a solution and if the distance from the center of gravity is greater than The Schwarzild radius this solution converges asymptotically to the inverse square law g=Gm/r^2

In the topmost equation? Exactly 2Gm/r^3. It is a derivative by r of Gm/r^2. Dimension of g is m/s^2 and dg/dr is 1/s^2 Gauss's theorem popped up under the answer. I first uploaded the image, but failed to reduce or delete. Excuse me.

I see an error in the first equation, the last term must be g^2/c^2. But the solution is given just for the second term of g^2/c^2

Do you pay special attention to units used in your equations? i.e. units on the left side of equation must match the right side of equation.. Yes the dimensions match

Consider the problem of the gravitational field of a point mass, taking into account the mass of the gravitational field itself. First, assume that the mass of the gravitational field is negative and its density is -g^2/c^2. From the Gauss theorem, we write a differential equation for the gravitational field strength. The solution of this equation Otherwise it can be written where radius of Shvartsald if r<R=2Gm/c^2 one can use the asymptotic approximation of Bessel functions then we come to the classical formula of Newton's law of universal gravitation If we assume that the density of the gravitational field is positive and equal to g^2/c^2 then the solution of the corresponding differential equation is as follows Hence it can be seen that the corresponding differential equation for the positive mass of the gravitational field has no solution

Natural oscillations in the system arise due to the fact that the system due to INERTIA does not stop in equilibrium. The photon has no rest mass, and the relativistic mass it has is hf/c^2

Yes, I jumped to conclusions. I did not pay attention to the fact that x in the exponent is in the denominator. To these formulas it is still necessary to apply the normalization condition, calculate the coefficient c1 so that the field strength equals zero at infinity, and then compare Newton's law of gravity. And so, from them it is impossible to draw a conclusion, positive or negative mass at a gravitational field. And the gravitational field must have mass because there are gravitational waves. Waves are an oscillatory process, oscillations are impossible without inertia, and the measure of inertia is mass.

It turns out that gravity has no mass at all and the formula E=mc^2 does not apply to the energy of gravity.??

Assume that the gravitational field has a positive mass, and density g/c^2, then the differential equation for the point mass field will be as follows where b=2Gm, a=1/4*Pi*c^2, x=r, y(x)=g(r) his decision will be a positive exponent in the third term means that at some point the field strength will begin to increase with increasing distance Conclusion. Either the mass of the gravitational field is negative or it is equal to zero. The second Varian means that the formula E=MC^2 cannot be applied to the energy of gravity.

Under GR negative mass is impossible. Is White Holes possible under GR ?????

Under GR negative mass is impossible. And how then to understand Hawking's phrase about the fact that the universe is an island of positive energy in a pit of negative energy of the vacuum? After all, this means that the vacuum has a negative mass according to E=mc^2.

This system of equations is written on the hypothesis of Jamie Farnes, according to which the space of the universe is filled with electric dipoles with negative mass. Gravity from positively charged matter attracts negative mass, so in areas of space where gravity is stronger, the permittivity will be higher. Based on this, the curvature of space by gravity can be replaced by a change in the dielectric constant of the vacuum, and electromagnetic waves will move in this space along curved trajectories in accordance with the law of refraction of light. It also tackles the question of whether gravity has mass. On the one hand, the gravitational field has energy, so it must have mass, but if you give it a positive mass, it will inevitably pull itself to a point. But if we remember that in physics textbooks gravitational energy is written with a minus sign, it is logical to recognize the mass of the gravitational field as negative. This also solves the issue with the balance of divergences in the dif.the equation for the gravitational field. More detailed https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/negativemass.aspx http://www.yuniverse.org/eng/curvespase.aspx https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/unifield.aspx the system of equations is as follows

Thank you very much

I am looking for information in the form of a table where there would be the following columns: galaxy-distance to it - the rate of removal-the mass of the galaxy-the mass of the Central black hole

I must admit that there was a mistake in my calculations, and now it was impossible to explain Hubble's law immediately. The correct formula for the total mass of two identical galaxies should be written as follows M = 2m - 2E/c^2 - Gm^2/Rc^2 m - mass of each galaxy, E - internal gravitational bond energy in each galaxy then for two values E2>E1 the balance of gravitational binding energy will be expressed by the following equation 2(E2-E1) = Gm^2(1/R1-1/R2) where get R2-R1 =2(E2-E1)R1R2/Gm^2 denote dR=R2-R1 , dE=E2-E1 and approximately R1R2=R^2 dR = 2*dE*R^2/Gm^2 that is, the increment in the distance between galaxies caused by the same increment in the internal energy of the gravitational bond in each galaxy will be proportional to the square of the distance between galaxies, not just the distance, as in Hubble During the reverse process does the black holes, according to you, spit out the matter again? There is another option. Black holes will slowly evaporate due to Hawking radiation and this will cause them to converge

Can you provide a reference for the formula? I'm known from nuclear physics, the formula has replaced the masses of protons and neutrons on the masses of bodies A and B. a reference to the third term, which expresses the gravitational binding energy here https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гравитационная_энергия In this video (it is in Russian) Professor Zaitsev said that if two particles with a small mass bind a large binding energy, the system of two particles will have a negative mass

Thanks, I will revise the model Where does that formula come from? The formula is taken from nuclear physics, " the mass of the nucleus is the sum of the masses of protons and neutrons minus the binding energy divided by the square of the speed of light" Negative mass repels both other negative masses and positive masses. This makes it even easier, as soon as the negative mass inside the black hole equals the positive mass of the shell, the black hole should explode.

Consider a system of two bodies with masses MA and MB at a distance R. The total mass of the system of these two bodies will be equal as If the distance between the bodies R is less than the critical RC, which is then the total mass of the system of these two bodies will be negative. Thus, to obtain a negative mass, it is necessary to compress ordinary matter very much, so that the gravitational energy of the bond would be greater than the initial mass of matter. Now tell me, where in the Universe is matter very much compressed? The answer is obvious, in black holes. And now about the properties of bodies with negative mass. First, it is obvious that bodies with negative mass will repel bodies with positive mass and attract other bodies with negative mass, this follows from the Law of universal Gravitation. But there is another important property of bodies with negative mass, which is worth mentioning. Suppose we have two bodies with the same initial mass M0 and gravitational bond energy E0 > M0 * c^2, that is, their masses are negative. They are located at a distance of R. the Total mass of the system of these two bodies will be M = 2M0 – 2E0/c^2 – 4G(M0-E0)^2/(R c^2) They will begin to attract to each other, the distance R to decrease. This means that the last term in the above formula will increase and that the total mass of the system of bodies will remain unchanged, the gravitational binding energy E0 in each body will have to decrease. This will mean a decrease in the absolute value of the negative mass of each of the bodies. This will lead to the fact that on the surface of each of the bodies will form a thin shell of positive mass, which will immediately disperse in the surrounding space under the force of repulsion from the negative mass, and if the distance R is sufficient, there will be a complete annihilation of these bodies with negative mass. Thus, when approaching two bodies with a negative mass annihilate, just as annihilate matter and antimatter. From the above, the internal structure of the black hole is as follows. When a black hole is formed in its center, a region of negative mass is formed under the influence of enormous pressure. Unlike electrodynamics, where opposite charges are attracted, the masses of one sign must be attracted, and the masses of different signs repelled. Therefore, in the center of the black hole should be a nucleus of negative mass, which repels the outer shell of the positive mass. The shell is held from the inside by the pressure of negative mass, and from the outside by the pressure of absorbed matter and its own gravity. On the inner surface of the shell is a layer in which, under the influence of pressure from both sides, particles of negative mass are gradually formed, which are immediately repelled into the nucleus. We can say that there is a white hole inside the black hole and to clarify what was said earlier, " the Universe is expanding from billions of black-white holes." Thus, the apparent mass of a black hole will be the difference between the mass of matter absorbed by the black hole and the negative mass of the nucleus, or white hole. Also, a small contribution to the reduction of the mass of the black hole will make a gravitational mass defect from the compression of matter. And this visible mass of a black hole can be billions of times smaller than the total mass of matter absorbed by the black hole.

I assume that in the center of the black hole the density of matter is so high that the gravitational binding energy of the matter compressed there exceeds the initial mass of this matter. That is, the density inside the black hole is negative. It turns out that inside the black hole is a white hole. Agree, this is a very explosive design. More detail https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/negativemass.aspx, https://www.yuniverse.org/eng/blackhole.aspx

I came to the conclusion that the source of energy for the expansion of the Universe is the compression of matter in galaxies, primarily when matter is absorbed by black holes. This compression of matter leads to an increase in gravitational binding energy in those places where matter is compressed. The law of conservation of energy requires that this increase in binding energy be compensated by something, and it can only be compensated by a decrease in the gravitational binding energy between these centers of mass concentration by increasing the distances between them. The greater the distance between galaxies, the greater the absolute increase in the distance between them is required to compensate for the same increase in gravitational binding energy in galaxies. That's how Hubble's law is explained. When the mass in the Universe, which can absorb black holes, will end, or will be eaten by black holes, then the expansion of the Universe will end and, logically, it will begin to shrink. And this is the reverse process, and the law of conservation of energy requires that during the contraction of the Universe, black holes would be destroyed and the universe would return to the original state from which its expansion began. Not in point, and in some area with more less uniform distribution of sparse.And then the whole cycle has to repeat. This turned out to be a very simple and beautiful model of the Universe. Read more at *link removed*. Initially, I did not set out to refute the hypothesis of the Big Bang, I just tried to apply to the universe a formula from nuclear physics, where the mass of the nucleus is the sum of the masses of protons and neutrons minus the binding energy divided by the square of the speed of light, and then everything turned out by itself through simple logical conclusions.