Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kba

  1. And again. The next evidence for the Dynamic Gravity is here https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_Study_Reinforces_Evidence_for_Modified_Gravity_in_Wide_Binary_Star_Systems_999.html also here https://medium.com/@gabriel.macedo.brother/new-theory-for-gravity-46284969714c An acceleration of the inertial movement is more viewable on the far distances!
  2. https://www.livescience.com/space/unexpected-cosmic-clumping-could-disprove-our-best-understanding-of-the-universe also https://physics.aps.org/articles/v16/193 This is one more reason to consider conception of Dynamical Gravity.
  3. T.Rex was able to have such big head because he hadn't normal-sized "hands", so his body was perfectly balanced for walking on the land.
  4. Like being at the center of mass in the geocentric and heliocentric model of the Universe.
  5. I wrote "it sounds like", not "=". It's how do you like. The name of article is "Speed of the Milky Way in Space". May be "velocity of the milky way" isn't equal to "Speed of the Milky Way" for you and for article's authors? I don't know. Or/and "Space" isn't equal to "the universal level" by Bufofrog’s? May be ask him?
  6. It sounds like a heliocentric or early christian geocentric model of Universe 🙂 Just read this
  7. Yes, of course. Evenly distributed mass is better for uniform acceleration. It connected with dynamical nature of gravitational force. Do you know about "retarded potentials"? If no, then I have to provide this link for you. How about an extra velocity of stars on numerous galaxies which scientists connect with mistiqal Dark matter? Just look at name of topic you comment ) And, can scientists directly register a = 0.00000000868 m/sec² for our Galaxy or its stars?
  8. Did you already considered it? In the absolutelly empty space with no other bodies, particles and fields. Do you know what Aristotle said about it?
  9. For what? Are you waiting that calculations will show something different that Newton's mechanics? Only calculations I can provide right now is a caluculation of global gravitational acceleration (inducted by a forces of "faraway stars" - by "Mach's principle" - that support any motion). This acceleration, accordingly to estimated mass and size of Universe, is about: a = MG/R^2 = 0.00000000868 m/sec. What difference on a gravity force between the Earth and Moon in the static you can get with such value of acceleration? Just a microscopic one. At the same time, the global acceleration is able to accelerate the proton of any star upto: v=273.7*10^9 m/sec per 1 billion years - it's almost the speed of light! And it can accelerate the stars in the galaxies, that speeds are different from described by Newton's mechanis, aspecially on their periphery. Do you think that higher velocity of these stars is because of "Dark matter", which holds the stars on their orbits, and which cannot be acted by other forces? I do not think so. I think that spiral look of galaxy shows us how stars goes away from its center, accelerating by global acceleration of so-called "inertial motion" (which, actually, isn't uniform and stright lined)
  10. Yes, if this body is free. This declaration of Newton's First Law is absolutely incorrect. There is no uniform motion for free bodies. All of them or keep in rest, either moves with acceleration which you cannot register locally, at the short distances.
  11. My interpretation of inertia law: A body will not move, unless acted upon by a force. Just compare with Newton's First Law. Still,
  12. I don't understand what do you mean with your example. Your book in the same time does move with your table arount the Earth's axis, around the Sun, around the Galaxy's center, etc.
  13. #AmaterasuParticle is the next evidence for my theory after #OMGParticle. Should wait for next one? 😉
  14. Do you believe they didn't adjusted it? ) Chernyaev said that his scales measured order of 10-5 of weight.
  15. What type of scales you used? Did you adjusted them to etalon weight?
  16. 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?
  17. 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.
  18. I'll believe in your measurements ) Just make them to refute his ones.
  19. "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.
  20. 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)
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.