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

[kba]

On 11/29/2023 at 7:45 PM, Bufofrog said:

The easiest way to understand your theory, I think, is to show us a simple calculation.

Could you use your theory to calculate the orbital period of the moon?

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).

Spoiler

Scientist, even that agreed with "Mach's principle", didn't knew how it is correct, because they thonk that the body, moved by inertia, anytime is in the equal gravity force condition. But, actually, there is a dominating gravitational force from the direction to which body does move.

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)

Spoiler

PS. I'm not from scientists, I just do offer my old (quarter of century) ideas that they could use to solve some Physics problems and to understand many existing phenomenas. A lot of time has already passed, but no one of them was solved yet. I'm just observing, year by year, the newer and newer evidences for my theory )

Edited December 1, 2023 by kba

[kba]

On 11/29/2023 at 5:57 PM, studiot said:

So consider either a universe with only one single body in it

or alternatively one single body so far from any other body that it may be considered isolated ?

Can you describe the motion of such a body ?

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?

Edited December 1, 2023 by kba

[studiot]

54 minutes ago, kba said:

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?

He said a lot about a lot of things so not until you tell us more specifically, no.

 

Did you understand what I said about the difference between free and isolated and many forces ?

[Eise]

21 minutes ago, studiot said:

1 hour ago, kba said:

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?

He said a lot about a lot of things so not until you tell us more specifically, no.

It is of vital importance to know what Aristotle said, if you want to understand modern physics...  No?

[studiot]

39 minutes ago, Eise said:

It is of vital importance to know what Aristotle said, if you want to understand modern physics...  No?

I don't know until kba tells us what he means.

Do you ?

[Eise]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

I don't know until kba tells us what he means.

Do you ?

Nope. I have no idea of why he referred to Aristotle. Given that he talks about vacuum, I suppose he refers to Aristotle's ideas about it: namely, that a real vacuum does not exist. According to A, objects move with a velocity, proportional to the 'impetus' divided by the density of the medium it moves through. As the density of the vacuum is zero, the velocity would go to infinity. That was absurd according to A, so the vacuum does not exist.

But I think physics has made a little progress since A's days...

[Bufofrog]

7 hours ago, kba said:

For what? Are you waiting that calculations will show something different that Newton's mechanics?

Of course not, the point is how can you know if you are on the right track if you don't test the theory!  If your theory accurately predicts the orbital period of the moon then you may be on to something, if it doesn't then you know your theory needs work.

7 hours ago, kba said:

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).

 

7 hours ago, kba said:

This acceleration, accordingly to estimated mass and size of Universe, is about:

a = MG/R^2 = 0.00000000868 m/sec.

I'm sure you meant m/s^2 due to a typo.  If the mass in the universe is more or less evenly distributed as observation shows, there should be no force or acceleration in any particular direction on a universal scale.  Observation indicates that indeed there is no acceleration or even a velocity of the milky way in any direction at the universal level.

[kba]

On 12/1/2023 at 7:05 PM, Bufofrog said:

I'm sure you meant m/s^2 due to a typo.

Yes, of course.

On 12/1/2023 at 7:05 PM, Bufofrog said:

If the mass in the universe is more or less as observation shows, there should be no force or acceleration in any particular direction on a universal scale.

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.

Spoiler

This article's author (RIP) didn't made the logical conclusion, that retarded potentials of gravitational force will increase the speed of bodies and particles in the direction of their movements. He didn't knew the real nature of gravitational force and, highly likely, he beleaved to uniform inertial motion. Saddenly, I was late to discuss my theory with him(

 

On 12/1/2023 at 7:05 PM, Bufofrog said:

Observation indicates that indeed there is no acceleration or even a velocity of the milky way in any direction at the universal level.

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?

Edited December 4, 2023 by kba

[kba]

On 12/1/2023 at 7:05 PM, Bufofrog said:

Observation indicates that indeed there is no acceleration or even a velocity of the milky way in any direction at the universal level.

It sounds like a heliocentric or early christian geocentric model of Universe 🙂

Just read this

 

Edited December 5, 2023 by kba

[swansont]

6 hours ago, kba said:

It sounds like a heliocentric or early christian geocentric model of Universe 🙂

Not moving ≠ at the center

6 hours ago, kba said:

Just read this

 

Your linked site does not contradict Bufofrog’s statement.

[kba]

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Not moving ≠ at the center

I wrote "it sounds like", not "=".

14 hours ago, swansont said:

Your linked site does not contradict Bufofrog’s statement.

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?

Edited December 6, 2023 by kba

[swansont]

1 minute ago, kba said:

I wrote "it sounds like", not "=".

How does being motionless on the scale of the universe “sound like” being at the center?

[kba]

15 minutes ago, swansont said:

How does being motionless on the scale of the universe “sound like” being at the center?

Like being at the center of mass in the geocentric and heliocentric model of the Universe.

Edited December 6, 2023 by kba

[iNow]

So it sounds wrong?

[kba]

14 minutes ago, iNow said:

So it sounds wrong?

According to what?

[iNow]

Suggestions of geocentrism from local frame and heliocentrism from galaxy frame. Wasn’t that obvious 

[kba]

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.

Edited January 10 by kba

[kba]

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!

Edited January 14 by kba