kba

Do you believe they didn't adjusted it? ) Chernyaev said that his scales measured order of 10-5 of weight.

What type of scales you used? Did you adjusted them to etalon weight?

Also, I cannot "believe" in such measurements - where was other causes of the losing of weight. Also, What type of scales you used? Did you adjusted them to etalon weight?

Yet new one - "Dynamical gravity" theory which explains QM in atom and for particle's interaction. No more Dice for God and no more tries for gravity quantumization.

I'll believe in your measurements ) Just make them to refute his ones.

"Pulsations" - is his explanation, weight changes is measurement. As I don't belive his explanation as I don't believe your scepsis. I adopt only measurements.

He published few books. But I saw his presentation on youtube. In this publication (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https://www.phantastike.com/other/weather/doc/) in russian you can find the weight measurement graphics (from page 27)

Is scales independent of science? He didn't mean to find weight changes, he just registered them. And, exactly, he didn't know about relative gravity changes. His explanation for phenomena of weight changes was incorrect. Only useful thing in his researches for me is long time weight measurement I never made. Just make your own measurement to refute his one.

The confirmation for relative gravity changes I've found in the Internet: As the independed gravity researcher Anatoliy F. Chernyaev [1937-2013] from Russia was argued about 10 years ago, he made weight measurements for various materials and he did registered their weight changes during the traveling of Earth on its orbit, per year. These changes were in range 1÷7 gr. for every 100 gr. of weight and had, generally, wavelike form. As he said, these changes were depended on distance of Earth from the Sun.

I have a model of particles, which unifies all basic physical interactions: electrostatic, strong and gravitational. In this model, particles are represented as spheric formation of fundamental field, and we do not need any quarks. I consider particles as made from continued field which can be represented by means of unified "primary "elements". All kinds of Matter are constructred by such elements. We can describe their properties, but we cannot extract and separete them from continued field. IMO, it is impossible to describe particles using electromagnetics equations, we need equations which describes "primary elements". These New physics's equation will describe both, particles and electromagnetic field. I'm not that familiar with field theory, as you are. But I'm sure that you are on the right way. You can try to describe equations for "primary elements", if you wish. And we'll get New physics Why they must slide? Is there some additional force which make them to slide? Just do not look back to General relativity.

You wrote about an effect on the inner ear, not about Coriolis's force. Actually, orbital period of 30 second for 224m of diameter isn't so slow rotation speed. Anyway drop aside effect will depend on speed of movement inside the rotating station. I like an idea, but I don't think that the mining on the moons or asteroids is more profitable than it is in the Earth's oceans, if you do plan to delivery raws to the Earth's land.

Why nobody doesn't takes into account the Coriolis' force? Such artificial gravity is convinient only if nobody and nothing do move inside the rotating space station. Any movements will induce the Coriolis's force which will trying to drop moved object aside. Moving peoples will look as they're drank ) Also any transportations inside rotating space station which use its artificial gravity will affect to its rotation stability.

There is a simple proof for the subject of thread. How we do thinking? How works our mentation and imagination? What physical principles in that how our brain works? Is there a mathematics in those principles? You don't need any other reasoning. PS. Accordingly to this concepts, any ideas, even phantastic, have a math in their grounds. Because the brain works only using the math based processes.

I have such prediction.

I disagree.