Jump to content

kba

Senior Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kba

  1. Relativity connected to speed of interaction by means of v/c or v^2/c^2. You can't explain all phenomenas exists in the Universe by gravity. There are more fundamental things which have not connected with gravity. The gravity only one separate interaction. I think that cosmologic red shift could be explained by gravitation's relativity which discussed in other my thread you had commented. Because the Solar system have placed on the peripheria of the Galaxy, and red shift which observed in the far galaxies is mostly light from their centers, so the main part of red shift is a gravitational shift while light moves from centers of galaxies to their peripheria, as that, where Solar system have placed.
  2. Where the proofs? I didn't checked that. Did you? I have found theoretical possibility for relativity of gravity. If the time in the test space-time volume will get much slower (e.g. near to Black Hole) then how we should consider the physical laws there? The quantity of matter remain constant, but speeds of actions will decrease, or in other words the time spends for them will grow. The space-time looks like a liquid with tension which slowers any actions, including Gravity. Nearer to Sun - stronger tension of space-time (and slower own gravity of bodies).
  3. PS. To calculate additional precession you shouln't consider the Sun and the planet as interacting points, you have to consider them as volumes of separetely interacting particles (atoms). I think, it is possible to consider these volumes by pairs of parts (under the integral), one of them get closer, other get farer. Because it is a main difference between particles which that volumes consist, and which should be considered.
  4. You can use Newton's law. But you have to consider the speed of gravitation (which equal to c), because gravity, as dynamical force, depends on it. For v<<c you shouldn't get something special by your calculations inside the Solar system (i.e. in small scale of space and time), except additional precession (mostly for Mercury ;) and possible very slow increasing of orbit for far planets.
  5. This is correct because a test particle and an accelerometer (actually, particles it consists) already [in free fall] under the same gravity acceleration.
  6. I'm so agree with these. I have an explanation for the essense of gravity, as a dynamical force, which based on particles' model. And this explanation predicts very weak acceleration (caused by gravity of far stars, accordingly with Mach's principle) for any bodies and particles for their inertial traveling. Such weak acceleration, in the scales of galaxy, provides the high speed for peripheral stars and rotating curve which differs with newtonian one. And no DM is needed. Also it provides very high speed and energy for particles in the cosmic rays. And no supernovas are needed. Probably, it could be connected with some kinds of bursters, with ultraspeed extragalaxy stars, etc., anything that depend on accelerated traveling. Its nature, its origin, its source.
  7. How it is possible to discuss what "gravity theory" is better while them all don't explain the essense of gravity?
  8. I can't explain everything you wish right now. But my theory can. Just try it :) It looks like an examination, not a discussion. In case of "shut up" I wish to remove thread totaly from this "forum".
  9. In the language I speak the "substance" term which came from English without translation, defines something continuous without defining is it contains particles or not. k=R^2. Newton's factor 1/r^2 is for own gravity on the distance from central mass of own gravitational system. But my R in the equation of gravity is a distance from central mass of external system (Sun). F=[k1/k2•G]•M•m/r^2. Where, k1 is for R1, k2 for R2. My idea explains how it is possible for sauropods reach to 100tn of mass (not 1kN of weight!), 13 m of height without 1,5bar of blood pressure, and for ptherosaurs reach 12 m of wing sizes and 200 kg of mass and be able to rise up and for active flying.
  10. I quess that QM is Quantum Mechanics? Then CM is Classic Mechanics. Not exactly Classic Neuton's laws. Just a mechanical principle. I didn't mean to explain everything in the Universe, just made the theory based on general principles, which can explain everything, step by step, by years. In case if scientists will take it as basic. UToI is a simpliest of theories. It explains everithing in the universe by means of only one element of Matter and its main propertiy - speed of interaction. If the speed of stars in the galaxies will correlate with knee shift in cosmic ray's energy spectrum it will main evidence for Dynamic gravity theory. Only this one evidence will be suffificent to rewrite basic principles in mainstream Physics.
  11. The Gravitation was explained few times. And General relativity as I see, isn't final explanation? The main hypothesis is that the gravity on the planets surface depends on external gravity of parent star. When the planet changes its orbit, the gravity on its surface changes too. The factor of gravity changes I demonstrated above k=R^2. Where R - radius of planet's orbit. It works for planets only inside Sun's gravity system. Outside we must consider only Galaxy's gravity. In that example I just imagine how time changes can correlate between with gravity of planets. I just suggest that it so. The gravity isn't a substance containing particles. But to represent gravitation relativity I should to use the term of dension to demonstrate its gradient. I can change the substance term to lines of fields (like electomagnetic ones). They do not interact with each other, but density of such lines correlate with gravity (aka space-time in General relativity). Thus, no flows, no particles in such substance. It is not an ether theory. It is just a correction to Neuton's law for the complex gravitational system, where body placed in the planets' gravity which already placed to solar's one. Probably the red shift in the light spectrum of far galaxies also could be explained as gravitation's relativity (as its additional evidence). Mainstream isn't constant thing. What do you name "mainstream" - asteroid impact or Deccan Traps?
  12. Thanks for you opinion. I know many reasons why my hypothesis cannot be admited by scientists. Anyway it can explain many evidences by simple idea. Increased volcano and tectonic activity and floods, highest transgression in the Earth's history, climate change, appearences of bony fishes, flowers, extinction of all giants, moving whales' and dolphins' ancestors to sea, etc. All these numerous things was happened together about 65 mln. years. As I see, no any other idea except of gravity change can combine them all. And I only have found the (probably possible) way for changing gravity significally withous changing mass.
  13. Dynamic Gravity theory explains QM by words of CM. As you can see above (in my comment to @joigus) the Dynamical gravity force must have two signs (direction) - which represents as mutual attrcation for the particles with similar electric charge and mutual repulsion for the particles with different electric signs. In the atom we have in one moment two oppositing forces - mutual electric attraction between atom's core and electrons and mutual repulsion between them by means of dynamical (anti)gravitational force. The parts of kinetic energy (quants) can change the speed of electron (and the value of dynamical anti-gravity force) and change its orbit (where strong force have other value). Thus, electron gets its stable orbit where strong attraction fully compensated by dynamical (anti)gravity. Also the balance between strong focres and (anti)gravitational one inside the atom provide the stable moment. Other classic QM effects, IMHO can be explained by similar double interactions between monitored particles and atoms in the bodies. Do you mean that both of them are placed on contrary sides of formula? And that the one force always must be in opposition to other? IMHO, using the values of speed of change of forces (instead of resulting values) we can resolve this issue. I imagine (for myself) the movement relatively: any body in the Universe is a part of many (actually innumerous) systems. By changing speed it change one system by other one. And the inertial (defined by gravity) mass of body is only its relativity to other systems. By difining the changes of gravity forces we can demostrate how body moves from one such system to other. The speed of atoms while body get warmed cannot compare with electrons one in the atom. Also many years ago I have read some pop-science news about decreasing mass of coldened body. I don't know exactly was it a fake-news or not. Actually, the correllation of mass of the particles on speed is a main proposition of General relativity. I just exlplain this effect in other words.
  14. Actually, by posting this topic I hoped to engage attention of specialists in Astrophysics to check out - is there a correlation between stars' extraspeed in the galaxies and knee shift in the cosmic rays' energy spectrum? I hope it is. Both parameters must depend on additional constant acceleration which I'll glad to connect with my theory. But if you need more details about my theory, I can start new thread dediacted exactly to its basics or answer to your questions in this one. Actually, the equivalence principle absolultelly provided by Dynamic gravity theory. This theory, as I see, only way to explain it. Because it defines inertial mass as a gravitational one. It doesn't depends on it. Dynamic gravity force generates inertial mass. Some basics of Dynamic gravity theory; Actually this theory is a part Unified theory of Interactions (UToI) which explains the essence of all kind o forces by general principles. Accordingly to UToI all particles interact with other by only one general interaction (unified static force) which represented by two well-known main static forces - strong (aka nuclear) and electric, which works on different distances and replaces each other, and by one dynamic force (gravity) which is a part of unified static force. While two charged particles nearer than some critical distance they interactation represented as strong (or nuclear). On the far distances they unified interaction changes its sign (direction) and it represented as electic. For the particles with similar lectric charge strong force is attractive, but electric one is repulsive. And for the particles with different electric charge vice versa. It work such due to particles form and force distributions inside them. Besides of static interaction the spheric objects generates also dynamical one which is a some part of resulting static forces and it depends on a speed of relative particles' movement. Therefore, the gravity reflects the energy(mass) which particles consist, also it dependence from speed as described in General relativity.
  15. I'm not sure exactly what do you mean I have to provide as model - formulas or how it works. I can represent relativity of gravity in 3 different ways: 1) By classic, I think we can imagine the gravitational field as some kind of substance. The Sun generates its volume of such substanse with gradient of density, Any planet of the Solar system generates its own too. When this planet (asteroid of comet) comes closer to the Sun its gravitational filed (which we imagine as a substanse) dissolve in the Sun's one, and its strength gets weaker for bodies placed near to it. 2) By space-time effects it looks like the strength of gravity force depends on a run of time. When planet comes closer to the Sun the time for it runs slower and slower and planet's gravity acts to near bodies as visually "weakering and weakering" force. 3) By geometry, gravity of Sun and Earth can be represented as their gravity systems. (see fig.1) The planet's gravity systems are placed inside the Solar gravity system. The cone of proportionality demostrates us the border where gravitational acceleration to the Sun and to the planet, calculated by Neuton law, are equal. Therefore, the result acceleration is zero. If we accept that superposition of gravities on this border is zero and in the center of planet it have some constant value (aka gravity potential) while the total gravity function has simple form with only factor (supposably G) then the gravity on the same distance from the planet (e.g. on its surface) on the different orbit of planet should get different resulting value. Only evidence I can provide for relative changing of gravity I can see above. It's a comets' tale which change its length while comet change its distance from the Sun. As you can see, the relativity of Gravity isn't known and it doesn't considered in Neuton's Mechanics and in the General relativity. But if it have place, IMHO it could explaint dinosaurs' extiction by changing of Earth's gravity.
  16. I mean electron's running around atom's core, and nuclones periodic deviations (vibrations), as the Sun deviate under gravitation of planets, especially Jupiter, and Saturn. For example, exoplanet's mass can be calculated using such deviation of parent star.
  17. Actually, the gravity of the Sun depends on distance from one. I used the Sun's gravity to demonstate relativity of gravity. If I just say that Earth changed its orbit, and it caused the change its gravity noboby understand - how and why? Above I listed 3 ways to change gravity of the Sun on Earth's orbit. 1) By changing Earth's orbit. 2) By dropping cover of the Sun during very big flash. 3) By changing external gravity (of the Galaxy). Third scenario also uses hypothetical relativity of gravity. I prefer first one, because it explains the non-inversible climate's change on the Earth during last 65 mln years. But how it is possible - to increase Earth's orbit - I don't know. Probably by means of impact? Only evidence for the gravity changes - are giant dinosaurs (and other giantic animals and plants), and their total extiction. I just meant to engage topicstarter's attention to my theory to participate discussion as like-minded person on dinosaurs' extinction causes. But I'm ready to start new discussion.
  18. As I see electrons and nuclones in the atom's core are continuously moving relatively to each other. And any particle (or body) move relatively to most particles (bodies) in the Universe. Any such movement generates gravitational force which appears as weight. And any bodies consist continuously moving particles - electrons and nuclones.
  19. I have a theory which explains the Gravity as dynamical force which appears only between moving particles. Actually electric and strong (aka nuclear) forces also appears only between particles, but as static ones. This theory has few conclusions. One of them that the infinitly continued relative movement of all bodies in the space remains by means of dynamical force of gravity. Thus, 1. Stars in any galaxy move with weak acceleration. By time they their orbit and speed increase. When they reach the galaxy's periferia their velocity increased greatly. This is explanation for dark matter phenomena. 2. Cosmic rays get their high speed and energy during the weakly accelerated (by gravity) movement between galaxies after mil-ons and bil-ons years. Known "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays demonstates the border between galaxy nad extragalaxy ones. Only the extragalaxy cosmic rays have energy exceed galaxy's ones by times, because the distance between galaxies much bigger then galaxys' size, and extragalaxy cosmic rays get thier superiorioty in the velocity and energy over the galaxy ones by weak gravity acceleration in this distances. There are many other conclusions in the Dynamical Gravity theory.
  20. I have similar theory explaining dinosaurs' extinction by gravity change. But I explain it by other way. I have hypothesis that gravity of planets has a relativity to solar gravity. Thus, when gravity of Sun changes on the planet's orbit, it affects to planet's gravity function. Gravity potential doesn't change because planet's mass doesn't change. But the superposition of gravity function changes while the local gravity system of the planets changes its size. When gravity system change its size, but planet's size is constant, the gravity on the planet's surface changes its value. For examle, if gravity of Sun on the Earth orbit will change with factor 2, the size of Earth's gravity system enlages by factor 1/2. The gravity correlate with orbit as function of 1/R^2. Therefore the gravity value on the planet's surface changes with factor 1/2^2 or 1/4. I don't know exactly what called changes of Sun's gravity function about 65 ml. years ago, but I suggest that Earth increased its orbit. The decreasing Sun's gravity on the Earth's orbit made the increasing of gravity on th Earth surface. Probably, the relativity of gravity what is cause of undefiniteness of gravitational constant. Also probably the changes of length of comets' tail are called by such relative gravitational changes happens near to the comets' surface. PS. Other possible causes made solar gravity weaker probably could be Sun's superburst with dropping its cover or similar relative changes but relatively to Galaxy's gravity when Solar system entering or exiting its sleeves.
×
×
  • 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.