Dynamic Gravity theory to explain dark matter, cosmic ray energy, etc.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, kba said:

I can't explain everything you wish right now. But my theory can. Just try it  :)

I'd like to use it to calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit, please. How can I do that using your idea (it's NOT a theory, btw)?

1 hour ago, kba said:

It looks like an examination, not a discussion. In case of "shut up" I wish to remove thread totaly from this "forum".

We want discussions to be meaningful, and at least have the possibility of being valid. You should "put up" the evidence for your claims, or you should stop making them (shut up). You aren't holding up your end of the discussion very well.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, kba said:

I can't explain everything you wish right now. But my theory can. Just try it  :)

You don't have a theory. There is no model I can use to make specific predictions, and you haven't provided evidence that the idea is true.

What you have is a guess that sounds good to you, but it doesn't look like there has been any critical analysis of it until now. 

[kba]

 

On 7/7/2022 at 8:56 PM, Phi for All said:

I'd like to use it to calculate the height of a geosynchronous orbit, please

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.

Edited July 24, 2022 by kba

[kba]

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.

Edited July 24, 2022 by kba

[Markus Hanke]

2 hours ago, kba said:

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.

I don’t know what you consider “something special”, but we observe quite a number of phenomena that have nothing to do with speed of gravity - such as gravitational time dilation, gravitational red shift, geodetic precession, Shapiro delay, Thirring-Lense precession, tidal stretching, and gravitational light deflection. That’s just the ones that immediately come to mind. All of these are correctly predicted by standard GR, and they’re either absent or wrong in Newtonian gravity.

[kba]

11 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

we observe quite a number of phenomena that have nothing to do with speed of gravity - such as gravitational time dilation, gravitational red shift, geodetic precession, Shapiro delay, Thirring-Lense precession, tidal stretching, and gravitational light deflection

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.

 

Edited July 24, 2022 by kba

[swansont]

14 hours ago, kba said:

You can use Newton's law

Your claims don’t appear to be consistent with Newton’s law of gravitation.

If they are, you need to demonstrate that this is the case.

[kba]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Your claims don’t appear to be consistent with Newton’s law of gravitation.

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.

Edited July 24, 2022 by kba

[MigL]

55 minutes ago, kba said:

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.

Are you saying all galaxies should have Cosmological red shifts equivalent to gravitational red shift from 'climbing out' of the source galaxy ?
And not a red shift linearly dependent on distance, proportional to Hubble's constant ?

That will come as a surprise to astronomers ...

[kba]

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

all galaxies

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?

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

That will come as a surprise to astronomers

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.

52 minutes ago, MigL said:

Are you saying all galaxies should have ... gravitational red shift from 'climbing out' of the source galaxy ?

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.

Edited July 24, 2022 by kba

[swansont]

2 hours ago, kba said:

Main law for interaction is inverse-squared dependence of force on a distance.

So it’s not a “dynamical force which appears only between moving particles” as you stated in the first sentence of this thread?

2 hours ago, kba said:

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".

What’s the equation for this force? And why does an electric field levitate a charge, like in the Millikan oil drop experiment, if the interaction is gravitational?

2 hours ago, kba said:

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.

I can’t parse this word salad. Give me an equation for this additional force on moving bodies.

[Markus Hanke]

13 hours ago, kba said:

You can't explain all phenomenas exists in the Universe by gravity.

Of course not. But the phenomena I listed in my post are all gravitational phenomena.

[kba]

14 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

all gravitational phenomena

I think that not all phenomenas, which GR explains, are gravitational. Probably, most of them just relativistic ones.

Edited July 25, 2022 by kba

[kba]

On 7/25/2022 at 4:22 AM, swansont said:

Give me an equation for this additional force on moving bodies.

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

On 7/25/2022 at 4:22 AM, swansont said:

So it’s not a “dynamical force...?

It is dynamical, because it appears only while particles moving relatively to each other.

Edited July 25, 2022 by kba

[MigL]

On 7/24/2022 at 3:53 PM, kba said:

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.

Sure. We'll throw out all observational evidence from the last 90 years, and make up stuff so that your theory is valid.

 

On 7/24/2022 at 3:53 PM, kba said:

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.

\\\\astronomers say cosmological red shift is very different from gravitational red shift.
And, that you are totally wrong !

[Markus Hanke]

6 hours ago, kba said:

I think that not all phenomenas, which GR explains, are gravitational. Probably, most of them just relativistic ones.

Locally, GR reduces to SR, so you are right. Nonetheless, all the specific phenomena I listed are gravitational ones.

5 hours ago, kba said:

F=ma, where a - is an universal acceleration

So that means only massive objects are affected by this, but not electromagnetic radiation?

[swansont]

10 hours ago, kba said:

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

Precision test implies that this is very small. How small? What kind of test?

 

10 hours ago, kba said:

It is dynamical, because it appears only while particles moving relatively to each other.

You haven't provided an equation that depends on relative speed or velocity

[kba]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

We'll throw out all observational evidence from the last 90 years, and make up stuff so that your theory is valid.

You'll do it because highly likely my theory is valid.

Actually, you have not a theory which explains the nature of gravity.

18 hours ago, MigL said:

astronomers say ... that you are totally wrong

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.

11 hours ago, swansont said:

What kind of test

It's a measuring an acceleration of inertial motion for the test mass in large scale of distances.

Edited July 26, 2022 by kba

[MigL]

40 minutes ago, kba said:

You'll do it because highly likely my theory is valid.

Actually, you have not a theory which explains the nature of gravity.

I hear the Nobel people at your door ringing the doorbell ... NOT !
Theories don't explain the 'nature; of anything.
They are a mathematical ( usually ) model of how a mechanism/process works.

43 minutes ago, kba said:

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?

They would say you are wrong again; the moon is not a star, and neither is 'everything in the sky'.

[kba]

18 hours ago, Markus Hanke said:

...all the specific phenomena I listed are gravitational ones.

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. )

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

They would say you are wrong again

But, where is a "totally"? ;

46 minutes ago, MigL said:

model of how a mechanism/process works.

Explains or shows (demonstrates) "how ... works" - what the difference?

Edited July 26, 2022 by kba

[Markus Hanke]

9 hours ago, kba said:

Do you define them as gravitational because they're correlates with space-time curvature which GR defines as gravity?

I define them as gravitational because they are direct consequences of the presence of gravitational sources. For example, a gyroscope not subject to any other interaction does not precess if there are no gravitational sources - planets etc - nearby. Some of these phenomena will happen regardless of which model for gravity you use, but only GR predicts them all with the correct magnitudes. For example, Newtonian gravity predicts neither frame dragging nor time dilation, and gets both light deflection and perihelion precession pretty badly wrong.

9 hours ago, kba said:

I think that GR and QM will disagree with such proposition. )

Neither GR nor QM have anything to say about this proposition, because it makes no sense.

I notice you didn’t answer my question, which I find to be important - what about massless test particles, ie photons? Is radiation subject to your proposed effect? If you base this on F=ma then the answer should be no.

[SergUpstart]

11 minutes ago, Markus Hanke said:

For example, Newtonian gravity predicts neither frame dragging nor time dilation, and gets both light deflection and perihelion precession pretty badly wrong.

As for the deflection of the beam of light, Newton's theory of gravity is not just very wrong, but exactly 2 times.

[studiot]

3 hours ago, SergUpstart said:

As for the deflection of the beam of light, Newton's theory of gravity is not just very wrong, but exactly 2 times.

That's rather like saying to me  "You have one penny in your pocket, I have two so I am very much richer than you are !"

We could only just measure the difference two hundred years after Newton's death. 

So he was not very much wrong.

Edited July 27, 2022 by studiot

[swansont]

13 hours ago, kba said:

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. )

You can state anything you want. The issue is demonstrating it in an unambiguous fashion. How do you propose doing that?

[kba]

On 7/24/2022 at 1:27 PM, Markus Hanke said:

we observe quite a number of phenomena that have nothing to do with speed of gravity - such as gravitational time dilation, gravitational red shift, geodetic precession, Shapiro delay, Thirring-Lense precession, tidal stretching, and gravitational light deflection.

Actually, phenomena, you had described as gravitational exactly aren't connected with gravity.

But DM, which GR cannot describe, is absolutely gravitational one.

On 7/27/2022 at 1:57 PM, Markus Hanke said:

you didn’t answer my question, which I find to be important - what about massless test particles, ie photons?

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.

On 7/27/2022 at 5:53 PM, swansont said:

You can state anything you want.

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.

Edited July 28, 2022 by kba