Jump to content

kba

Senior Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kba

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. Your question looks as phylosophic. In term of Phylosophy, the Motion is a main property of Matter, by which the Matter demostates its relativity.
  4. e.g. this one https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660357_Models_of_the_Knee_in_the_Energy_Spectrum_of_Cosmic_Rays Google search gives numerous links if you'd like to be more informed on that subject. Actually, I hoped that you have wide knowledge in Astrophysics. You say such because you are talking on a GR language. Because fundamental grounds must be reinspected. Dynamic gravity based on other grounds which declares that "There aren't motions, in the Universe, without forces". PS. thanks for attention and spended time.
  5. Because English isn't my native language. And I don't use it daily. Except of two threads here. An achieving of what? I didn't understand your request. An achieving of what? I didn't understand your request.
  6. I didnt meant it. Fistly you asked Without any reference what predictions you mean. The connection with my "The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value." you provided later. I was mistaken. "r is a constant value" means that it is constant in the time in some limits. I didn't mean that Earth has form of ideal sphere. But for r/R ratio these deviations of r can be ignored as doesn't matter.
  7. It's interesting for me. Did you the precision measurements of weight for etalon mass during half of year? What the part? There isn't any additional part of g, which doesn't depends on G, in the equation. )
  8. Dinosaurs' extinction showed us that it is a true ) The surface is that you do stand on. What more definition do you need? And here is what I asked you. Ok. I understud you at now. And I say again. Because the ratio r/R for various orbits isn't constant. This ratio correlate with gravity acceleration value by law describes its changing from minimum to a maximum or vice versa. When the Earth's orbit and Earth's local gravity system (R) is decreasing, the g on r goes nearer to the minimum on the gravity acceleration graphics, and, vice versa, when R is increasing, g on r goes nearer to the maximum of gravity acceleration. Using Newton's gravity law without idea of gravity's relativity, you'll never get the changing of gravity on the planet's surface during the changing of planet's orbit. So, just don't try. )
  9. Actually the DM phenomena is stated as deviation from Newton's law, for the stars' and galaxies' speed curves. The prediction of DM looks like post-predictions for hypothetical particles which wasn't registered in any experiments during about 100 years of DM, from the thirties.
  10. But g depends on G: F=mg=GmM/r^2 => g=MG/r^2. where, G was defined as constant in the tests made near to the current Earth's orbit. How about 2/r^2?
  11. Did you saw what phenomena in your list I had accented by bold fonts? Only with adjective "gravitational". They are connected with light distribution. Actually, gravitation (accordingly to DG) has two kind of action - an attraction and a repulsion. That's why it cannot to influe to the light distribution. The mass(energy) can do it, but not the gravity. Do we observe extraspeed for stars in the galaxies peripheria? Do we observe ultra high energy protons in the cosmic rays? Do we observe "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays? And for the GR: Do we register gravitons? Do we register DM particles?
  12. The test measurements of G gave various values. The difference was bigger than measurement's precision. May be it was connected with Relative gravity?
  13. Accordingly to Relative Gravity, we have the difference (from Newtonian law) for the gravity only inside the local gravitational system. I can't provide final RG law formula, yet. But, considering the previously published picture, it must describe the gravity function for third body, as a changing of the gravity acceleration, from its minimum (zero value), on the border of planet's local gravity system to its maximum (constant, which depends on planet's mass), in the center of the planet, by means of curve, which should be defined by 1/r^2 law. The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value. But the size (R) of local gravitational system (accordingly to picture, posted above) depends on a planet's orbital radius, and they're get various value, due to difference on Sun's gravity acceleration on those orbits. Thus, we have various ratio r/R for the functions of the gravitational acceleration on the various orbits of the planet. This is a reason, accordingly to Relative Gravity, to register different acceleration on the planet's surface on its different orbits.
  14. Actually, phenomena, you had described as gravitational exactly aren't connected with gravity. But DM, which GR cannot describe, is absolutely gravitational one. Accordingly to Dynamic Gravity (DG) the gravity is a force, which appears between mass particles during their relative nearing, and it isn't something static which influences to massless particles. So, the dynamical gravity is much different thing, than GR describes. The DG explains two real gravitational phenomena - the Dark matter, and the acceleration of cosmic rays, which wasn't predicted by GR. When, after number of years, the scientists will not find dark matter particles, they will have to reinspect the GR. I'm suggesting to do it right now. Thanks. I'll do it right now. IMO, it's a main mistake that scientists consider GR as a gravity theory. Accordingly to DG, the GR isn't a gravity theory, because it doesn't describe the Gravity as a force (which, actually, is a force). The GR is, as it was defined, a relativity's theory. It describes how the mass generates the local space-time and how ST curvature (tension) defines the relativity of all interactions.
  15. Do you define them as gravitational because they're correlates with space-time curvature which GR defines as gravity? Accordingly to Dynamic gravity, I can state that the dispersion of electron is gravitational phenomena. I think that GR and QM will disagree with such proposition. ) But, where is a "totally"? ; Explains or shows (demonstrates) "how ... works" - what the difference?
  16. You'll do it because highly likely my theory is valid. Actually, you have not a theory which explains the nature of gravity. If I'll say that the Moon and the Sun (everything on the sky) are the stars, then astronomers will say that I'm totally wrong? It would mean that Sun isn't a star, and that there aren't stars on the sky. It's a measuring an acceleration of inertial motion for the test mass in large scale of distances.
  17. F=ma, where a - is an universal acceleration, which value is empiric and must be found by precision test, or can be calculated, using "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays It is dynamical, because it appears only while particles moving relatively to each other.
  18. I think that not all phenomenas, which GR explains, are gravitational. Probably, most of them just relativistic ones.
  19. How do you understand the gravity? Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity? Accordingly to a subject of this thread it "bring to the table" many answers to paleobiological and geophysical questions. I'm sure that many specialists in paleo- and geo- sciences would like to correlate many known evidencies with changes of the Earth's gravity.
  20. Ok, basic principles do not change. But what about conditions? Can you say that nothing changes for Earth on different orbits? I can't. And I found why.
  21. Why all? Only comparable with our Galaxy or bigger, and which exactly do not moving closer to us. And, do you know exactly what condition of space-time there are, around of all galaxies to consider all possible gravitational relativities? I'd like to make such surprise ) Anyway something must have place. Because the Big Bang theory isn't explanable. Accordingly to Dynamic Gravity, the movement outside of Universe is impossible. There are no forces to provide it. Why not? Is there "climbing out" or isn't? Is there gravity or isn't? Is it equal to Cosmological red shift or isn't - let it say astronomers.
  22. Main law for interaction is inverse-squared dependence of force on a distance. The difference have place in the particles' interaction in the microworld, which isn't area to use Newton's law. Dynamic gravity provides the stable orbits for elecrons in the atom with constant rotating moment, which probably can explain the results of basic experiment of QM - "dispertion of electron". For macroworld the difference from Newton's principles appears only as additional acceleration for any moving bodies and particles in the Universe, which denies the First Law of Newton's mechanics and provides the infinite dynamic for Universe, by means of energy accumulation and traveling it to other areas of Universe.
×
×
  • 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.