Science topic

# Gravitation - Science topic

Acceleration produced by the mutual attraction of two masses, and of magnitude inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the two centers of mass. It is also the force imparted by the earth, moon, or a planet to an object near its surface. (From NASA Thesaurus, 1988)
Questions related to Gravitation
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If we cannot see the edge of Universe or cannot measure its size, it does not mean it is infinite.
Article is attached which states that Universe on larger scale as well as on a smaller scale of subatomic scale is driven by an external force.
Using this Hypothesis I have arrived at new equation for Gravitational force.
When two bodies come closer they cast shadow of the external force and generate energy vacuum in the mass of each object. This vacuum is responsible for gravitational attraction. Energy vacuum is computed by multiplying mass of the object in shadow area by square of the velocity of light (C^2)
Gravitational attraction between Sun and all the planets of solar system and also Earth and its moon is computed using proposed equation. These values are close to the values computed by Newton's law. Thus it supports the proposed theory.
This gives us more open possibilities compared to the finite version of the universe.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Some seem to believe that the supposed existence of an ether can save much in physics and cosmology.
If ether is of infinite activity, it cannot interact with anything in the world, and hence also with matter, EM and Gravitation.
But if it is not in interaction with anything of EM and Gravitational propagations, then with what will ether interact? If it does not interact with anything, then we do not need it as a "background / reference" for EM and Gravitation....
Moreover, if space and time must be taken separately while doing the physics of the cosmos that we can speak of, we are not doing contemporary physics!
Just insisting on the existence of ether as the background under the presupposition that it is necessary is not a demonstration of the existence of ether!
Raphael Neelamkavil
I think the data are there to make a strong argument for the ether, but were analyzed to make a different point. And with an ether several more enigmas in physics can be explained.
The obvious experiment would to remove the ether from a volume of space and show that light will not pass, but we do not know how to do this. However, if there is an ether, the ether would have to have some mass, however small it might be, and that would lead to density variations across the universe, being more dense around massive objects and less dense in intergalactic space. As a result the speed of light will vary with the ether density just as the speed of sound varies with atmospheric density. If there is no ether the the speed of light would be a constant. Also if the ether has no mass then a wave has no kinetic energy.
The data analysis leading to the conclusion that the universe's expansion is accelerating is based on a constant speed of light. Had the analysis assumed that the universe's expansion is slowing then the resulting speed of light calculation would imply that the speed of light in intergalactic space would be less than 2/3rds of what we measure here. In essence, assume a constant speed of light and the conclusion is the illogical rate for the universe's expansion, or assume the universe's expansion is slowing and the speed of light varies implying an ether. See: http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.79084 for more details.
Another thought that goes with this argument is with respect to dark energy. It may be possible that a logical expansion for the universe will not need the concept of dark energy. So the assumption of a constant speed of light leads to two illogical conclusions: the universe's accelerating rate of expansion and the concept of dark energy. It is also highly likely that dark matter and the ether are one in the same.
The big question though, is if there is an ether, how does a transverse wave create the EM characteristics of a photon? An ether particle must therefor have some kind of EM characteristic. No matter how you vibrate or rotate or combine electric charges to make up an ether particle, the EM characteristics of the photon cannot be envisioned. The obvious simple answer is that the ether particle creates a magnetic field proportional to its velocity, then a transverse wave would create an oscillating magnetic field and, from Faraday's law, a transverse electric field like those of a photon. This would obviously be an EM property not before identified. The expansion of this property to normal matter leads to a localized vortex wave in the ether to transmit the Coulomb force and a localized longitudinal wave to transmit gravity. See: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2018.97083 for more details. In addition, inside a very small distance these waves are not formed and thus prevents the singularity in the Coulomb force, thus turning off the Coulomb force in the nucleus, and also providing a mechanism for the proton and electron to magnetically bond into a neutron. See: https://doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2020.118073 for more details.
While a significant amount of physics can be explained with the existence of an ether, it does not prove anything, which got me to thinking about what you meant by a "theoretical proof." It would almost seem that "theoretical proof" is an oxymoron. I think you might mean a generally accepted theory since there is always the possibility that new data can come to light that is in conflict with the theory. At some point one must choose if there are sufficient data to earn your belief in an ether; currently there would seem to be more arguments in favor than opposed, its up to you.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Could anyone clearly demonstrate how rotation and turbulence exactly affect self-gravitational collapse dynamics to structure formation out of molecular clouds?
Quantitative and directional analyses in comparison with the gravitational ones would be highly appreciated in this clear context of bounded structure formation.
Thanks, Dr. Patrick Okezuonu, for the nice answer
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
My position about Mach's Principle is that it is unsupported and refuted by optical and gravitational detection of Neutron Star Collisions.
I identified the only support (Celestial Dynamics within the Solar System requires instantaneous positions to be used in the force calculation) as being the result of using the wrong (empirical Newton's Law of Gravitation) law.
This shouldn't come up as a surprise to anyone since we all know that Newton's Law failed to predict the right Mercury Perihelion Precession Rate.
Of course, nobody can use Einstein's equations for a multi-planet dynamical simulation.
My theory - the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU) provides a trivial replacement for Newtonian Dynamics and Einstein's General Relativity.
In fact, HU fully replaces General and Special Relativity.
IN SUMMARY
To call a theory Machian is a bad thing.
Mach's principle, or, as I like to call it "Mocks principle" is essentially a refutation of Newton's second Law. It is positively one of the most idiotic ideas in physics, but because it is always expressed by respected scientists in awed tones nobody notices.
Newton's second states, essentially, that acceleration is equal to the net force on an object divided by its mass.
What mocks principle does is says, no... we're not going to do that. We're going to say that
amach = a-mg = ∑Fng/m
Where Fng is the net non-gravitational force acting on the particle,
But then on top of that, we're going to add a whole bunch of other complete claptrap, to wow and amaze people, so it seems like we've just done something clever in conflating real and fictitious forces.
It's also one of those "Emperor's New Clothes" sorts of things, so if you point to the fact that you've spent a considerable amount of time in College Freshman physics making a distinction between real and fictitious forces, people in the general relativity community will cluck and guffaw about how foolish and uneducated you are to fail to conflate them, once Mach's principle is introduced.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
We simply come to this conclusion if we consider the field (gravitational or electric) around a single particle. Its field has a perfect globular structure and exactly follows the constant speed of the particle. If the particle gets a push (a delta pulse), which changes its speed, a gravitational radiation pulse is generated during the acceleration. This pulse finally leaves a gravitational field with again a perfect globular structure, but now moving with the new speed.
A part of the radiation energy, generated during the acceleration, dissipates in spacetime. Another part is contained in the different energy content of the fields moving with different speeds.
Therefore, a more concise way to calculate the radiation might be taking the difference of the globular fields and looking for a minimal transient solution, which exactly leaves that difference.
The base of this hypothesis is the fact, that force fields have an energy density.
Stam Nicolis "Plane waves are just a basis and any basis is as good as any other."
No, an appropriate basis to solve a problem must consider specific properties of the problem. In the special case, that a particle at rest, gets accelerated by a delta pulse, these properties are:
- Rotational symmetry around the direction of the pulse.
- Inclusion of the aperiodic limit case
- Convergence to a known solution (globular structured field moving with the velocity of the particle)
You cannot guarantee that the plane wave approach has a chance to converge to the solution. I think that actually there is no chance for convergence because the plane wave approach does not include the aperiodic limit case and the rotational symmetry.
But anyway, thank you for your contribution, though it embodies the solidified standard approach, which prohibits any progress.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The geoid of the Black Sea is inclined from east to west by 25 meters. The map is attached. Maybe this is due to the fact that the Earth rotates around its axis from West to East and water has accumulated by inertia off the coast of Bulgaria? Or is it purely a gravitational anomaly?
Sea level is the same everywhere, but Georgia land is higher than in bulgarai. Regards.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If we ignore fermions and bosons, what is your model of the pristine vacuum? One aspect of this question is designated the “cosmological constant problem”. The observable energy density in the universe is about 10-9 J/m3. This is the average energy density of ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy. However, one interpretation of quantum field theory says that the vacuum has zero-point energy density of about 10113 J/m3. This enormous energy density has been called “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.” However, this enormous vacuum energy density is supported because it is used to make the most accurate theoretical prediction in all of physics (the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment).
Quantum field theory says that the vacuum is not empty because it contains all the fields required by the standard model of particle physics. However, the geometric interpretation of gravity from general relativity implies the vacuum is an empty medium that can be curved by matter. For example, the strong equivalence principle requires this geometric interpretation. If gravity is transferred by gravitons, then gravitational acceleration and physical acceleration would have different causes.
There have been hundreds of scientific articles written on the cosmological constant problem and most of these articles attempt to disprove the 10113 J/m3 energy density. There is no doubt that this is not observable energy, but could this be the undetectable fields required by quantum field theory? A field is undetectable until an “excitation” is introduced to create an observable particle (observable energy density). I have written several papers exploring this model. However, what is your vacuum model?
Wolfgang Konle General relativity (GR) is a top-down approach to understanding gravity, spacetime, the rate of time, etc. This approach has made wonderful progress, but it has its limitations. For example, GR does not attempt to describe the underlying physics of how a fundamental particle such as an electron creates curved spacetime. GR merely postulates that matter causes spacetime to curve and proceeds to mathematically describe this curvature.
I assumed John Wheeler's model of the quantum vacuum (Planck length oscillations at Planck frequency) and calculated the acoustic properties of this elastic quantum mechanical medium. I postulated this is the structure of a fundamental field. I tested this hypothesis by seeing if it was possible to build a model of an electron by introducing ħ/2 angular momentum "excitation" into this medium. After several steps, the model exhibited an electron's energy, inertia and de Broglie waves. However, then the model unexpectantly also generated an electron's gravity and electrostatic properties. Since a single model was generating both the electron's gravitational and electrostatic forces, it was also making predictions about how these forces should be related and other previously unknown characteristics of these forces.
GR still works at the scale of an electron, but equations are simplified because weak gravity approximations are highly accurate when dealing with an electron's mass/energy. In previous posts, I have given both equations and referenced papers on this subject. For example, one prediction that is easy to check is the predicted equation for the ratio of the gravitational force (FG) between two electrons divided by the electrostatic force (Fe) magnitude between the same two electrons. The equation incorporates the fine structure constant (α) and the electron's wave amplitude: Planck length (Lp) and the electron's Compton angular wavelength ƛc = ħ/mec.
FG/Fe = α-1Lp2c2
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The Strong Equivalence Principle of Gravitation states that the effects of acceleration are indistinguishable from those of gravitation. This is valid only if the geometrical interpretation of gravity is valid. For example, if gravity is transferred by gravitons, then acceleration caused by gravity would have many gravitons transferring this force, but physical acceleration would not. It does not matter that gravitons have not been detected. If gravitons physically cause gravity, then a gravitational force would be different than the inertial pseudo-force caused by acceleration.
A related question: Does freefall eliminate the gravitational force on a mass? The alternative explanation is that the gravitational force is still being exerted in freefall, but the acceleration is causing an opposing inertial pseudo-force that exactly offsets the gravitational force.
Strong Equivalence is INVALID. Gravity involves tidal forces - those as if from a central point. The direction of force in a rocket would be along its axis. In gravity the force is not parallel from one side of a rocket to the other. The issue is one of measurement ability.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
We all know that the moon has a gravitational influence on the Earth but does this effect involves the Ionosphere?
The ionosphere of Earth and its role in radio communication is well understood, and the location of its effective altitude is well specified with respect to physical properties such as the geomagnetic field.
If the physical structures themselves are largely unaffected by the moon's gravitational attraction (and I'm not sure that's true of the ionosphere), the moon's effect upon the ionosphere will likely behave according to the same planetary physics that would apply were the moon to be orbiting at a different rate. The precise physical changes will vary depending upon the physical nature of the structures constituting the ionosphere, although they will in principle amount to a transfer of energy (heat) between the moon and the Earth-like body interacting via the space environment. This energy flow will endow the ionosphere with low frequency electromagnetic perturbations arising from thermal sources. The moon moved across the sky 18.6 years ago, and the Earth's spin was slowing quite quickly at that point (recording the Doppler shifting of light from stars close by in the sky and relating it to geometry showed that the Earth was losing a tiny fraction of a secondof time on a day a week) so the current active ionosphere is closer to 10 yr old than it is antique and the representation of the active ionosphere in models has historically lagged behind the structure it actually has around now.
The evolution of the ionosphere will therefore relate to the spin and orbit of Jupiter in the next week or two as well as the gravity of the Sun and Moon (both of which affect the region due to the thermal structure in much the same way that the ocean tides and small perturbations from the Moon and other bodies in the Earth's orbit and ellipticity combine to produce the buoyancy that maintains the density stratification of the ocean) so the orientation and proximity to the moon's differential curvature will combine with the contemporary location of the sunlight and particle fluxes (which are pretty deep but also incredibly complicated) to produce a whole ensemble of transient structures most of which would have obfuscated the natures of Earth and its moon even a decade ago and that will still not be fully understood 30 years from now.
The prevalent explanation for Earth's "ringing" was that it was interference from the sunlit side of the moon and that it was actually above the ionosphere, but that also relies upon the age of the current structure model for the ionosphere which isn't particularly good and that produces Fresnel zone resonance rings instead of more circular polarization.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
One difference seems to be that scientific observations of the cosmos though very crude in medieval period were truly reported, even though these were wrongly interpreted to fit ideal cyclic models. For example, observational data of the time were more correctly represented by the old geocentric Epicycle model; than the Copernican heliocentric model that replaced the old one. In modern times the scientific integrity of both observations and theories seem to have been grossly compromised lured by the prospect of authority, fame, fortune and funds.
Riccardo C. Storti : This is a question for discussion and for possible general (majority) consensus or conclusion. Any justification for or against, can only be made on the basis of historical/social practice and facts. Some are presented in the references cited in the question.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Can anyone please confirm whether there exists an explicit mathematical relationship between the gravitational instability growth rate and the corresponding structure (star) formation rate in molecular clouds?
Thanks a lot, dear Javad Fardaei, for the article
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The above question emerges from a parallel session [1] on the basis of two examples:
1. Experimental data [2] that apparently indicate the validity of Mach’s Principle stay out of discussion after main-stream consensus tells Mach to be out, see also appended PDF files.
2. The negative outcome of gravitational wave experiments [3] apparently does not affect the main-stream acceptance of claimed discoveries.
Stam Nicolis: "Mainstream theorosts"
Mainstream theorists, I would say, are those who, based on mainstream consensus, raise public funds (from taxpayers) for large-scale experiments (Big Science) and organize spectacular media campaigns that essentially affirm the mainstream consensus. It is a self-sustaining system that inhibits progress in science. When experimental results do not fit, they are made to fit or simply ignored, as can currently be observed with "gravitational wave astronomy." https://www.researchgate.net/project/Discussion-on-recently-claimed-simultaneous-discovery-of-black-hole-mergers-and-gravitational-waves https://www.researchgate.net/project/Discussion-on-recently-claimed-simultaneous-discovery-of-black-hole-mergers-and-gravitational-waves
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
It has been drilled into us that electric potential and gravitational potential are two different things, science communicators often bring up the argument that gravitational potential is so much weaker than electric potential , but my understanding is it's the same thing.
I believe the reason for all the confusion is because we have completely misunderstood electric potential. Since the days of Michael Faraday we have treated ground potential as zero potential, but franky this is very naive thinking.
With millions of volts between bodies in the universe why would ground potential be zero ?
My calculations show that ground potential is 930 Million volts, and gravitational potential just adds around 3.5V per meter of elevation.
Physics becomes simpler, it turns out that electric potential and velocity is one and the same thing, relative potential is proportional to relative velocity, stupidly simple!
🙂
g and V are the same, they are potentials, Prof. Steven Sesselmann
Details are the toys researchers used to refresh theories.
Best Regards.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If so, experimental results and related theory might also be helpful ...
Dear all,
As with other discussions that refer to experimental results, it is clear in the present one that responses generally do not refer to cited experimental results and procedures, but preferably rely on mainstream conform theoretical arguments.
Indeed, Stam Nicolis, citing "experimental" results from LIGO labs, concludes that both gravitational and electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light. However, the validity of the LIGO results is still disputed in view of certain fundamental flaws in the experimental setup (see reference below), but is simply taken for granted without further discussion by the public in view of the general acceptance of the spectacular discoveries, including Nobel Prizes.
I would indeed be very grateful for any comments on the Keith experiment quoted above, especially since I believe that Julius Riese and László Attila Horváth are right when they mention that the gravitational speed could be faster than the speed of light.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
We consider gravitational potentials, which let planets orbit around the sun. This view implies a remote non-local impact of the sun on the planets and vice versa.
But in fact, the gravitational fields have an energy density, which is present locally. The energy density E quadratically depends on the field strength and is given by E=-g²/(8πG), g=MG/r². G is the gravitational constant, r is the distance to the centre of mass M, which generates the gravitational acceleration g.
With the locally available energy density, the gravitational force also becomes a local force.
The gravitational force on an object, which contributes to the gravitational field, is given by the derivative (gradient) of the total field energy in respect to the position of the object.
This force is an interaction between gravitational fields. The energy density of the gravitational field of the object decays with the distance d from the object to the fourth (~1/d4). The interaction of the local gravitational field of the object with the omnipresent background field, therefor is a local interaction.
The idea of a remote gravitational interaction on a distance is a blatant chimera!
The highlighted relation between energy density and force applies to all kinds of force fields.
There is no gravity force or field exist in space, that is why our astronauts call it zero-gravity.
If there was any gravity force exist, after several billions of years all the planets, suns, moons would go to gravity force, and eventually stop.
If our sun that made over 98% lightest element H had any gravity, all the comments, asteroids, never been rejected by sun flare. there is no single gravity force exist in space.
there is no single mathematic calculation exist to describe nature of the universe.
This is my theory, our universe is a complete entity that our flat static mathematic is wrong tool describe nature.
To my understanding, prediction of any kinds, or modeling nature is not science.
I know you are disagree with everything I say, but the truth always win. There is no single argument with my statements, and you knw it too.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I am trying to fractionate virus from plasma into different densities by sucrose gradient but we only have fixed angle rotors...
Has anyone tried doing that with a fixed angle?
Should I use the same g force and time used for same experiment with SW rotors?
While Drs. Nobre and Steinbruck are theoretically correct, practically the answer is more complicated. Sucrose density separations can be achieved in fixed angle rotors. While swinging bucket rotors offer the best separations of proteins, viruses and DNA; fixed angle rotors may provide SUFFICIENT separations of these molecules depending on your specific application. You should consult,
"Density Gradient Separations in Vertical Tube, Near Vertical Tube, Fixed Angle, and Swinging Bucket Rotors: A Comparative Study" American Laboratory an application note posted 9/1/2007.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Scientists including Einstein claim that we need to unify Gravitation (GRT) with Quantum Theory.
Why?
Can Quantum Fields not be formulated in classical curved space-time without trouble? Energy & momentum may be the link between the energy of quantum fields and space-time.
What problems occure if we do not quantize Gravitation?
Before we can have a founded deeper look into new concepts, like the role assigned to information in physics, we must tidy up among messy classical concepts. Gravity is one of the messy concepts.
The mess in Gravity is the relation between potential energy and the energy contained in gravitational fields. If the classical physics considers something like gravitational binding energy, which assigns the mass equivalent of potential energy to the mass, it is not mature.
We know that mass has a rest mass and can store kinetic energy by increasing the relativistic mass. There is no room for potential energy. Otherwise, the operation of cyclotrons, would depend on the absolute height above sea level.
Another mess in standard physics is space expansion. The illusion that space at every location would give birth to new volume is in contradiction to conservation laws. New space inside atoms would have an influence on the electronic shell. On large scale, the inertial moment of galaxies would be affected. It is immature to allow the negation of basic conservation laws only to save a questionable cosmological theory.
The relation between material parts of our world and something immaterial like information is such a sensible concept, that it requires an absolute stable counterpart and not something that argues with potential energy and new volume oozing out from every point.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Dark matter interacts with ordinary matter (and ordinary energy) via gravity (G), but not via electromagnetism (E), the strong nuclear force (S), or the weak nuclear force (W). But is totally dark matter that does not interact with ordinary matter (and ordinary energy) at all, not even via gravity (G), possible or impossible? If totally dark matter is possible, could there be other Universes with their own sets of forces (G´, E´, S´, W´), (G´´, E´´, S´´, W´´), etc., coexistent with our own (G, E, S, W) Universe, with each such Universe (including our own) interacting within itself but not with the other Universes? Is this a possible or impossible aspect of the Multiverse?
Matter exists absolutely independently. It does not exist as the result of theoretical considerations, mathematical derivations and descriptions.
Dark matter was never observed. Its existence as the result of theoretical conclusions and their mathematical derivations. One should keep therefore a critical distance to this human mind creation which reflect a certain, rudimentary level of the cognition.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Science Journals (gsjournal.net)
In order to avoid a demand for perfect symmetry in gravitating bodies Newton's law should be applied to small elements in the gravitating body and then integrated. After doing that we see that uniting his law to Fatio's model is possible. Fatio's law implies an ether wind in radial direction to the gravitating body. Therefore, the ether can be falling (perhaps with the same speed as the escape velocity). By doing this assumption we can explain the Pioneer anomaly and the Big Bang as illusions due to ether motions and not motions of bodies.
This explained in the attachment.
Regards from ___ John-Erik
I said: a small amount is missing. Described.
John-Erik
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I believe magnons and spin waves to be artifacts of the experimental setup, not a genuine boson, that in defiance of all boson nature, requires a medium to travel through.
The charge state of that hypothetical boson, per unit mass, is some 30-orders of magnitude greater than the compliant Gravitational [mass-energy] outcome. In a forming neutron star, whose medium is rapidly changing from a highly electromagnetically charged medium of protons, electrons, crushing together to make neutron, and upon the collapse of the Pauli Forces is now generalized as 3-Gigantic quarks...
The physical density outcome of the medium wherein a magnon spin-wave travels is such that, under increased density, to the point of collapsing the Pauli Forces, the Magnon becomes a Super-Quasi-Particle, for lack of a better term [sounds impressive]. Simply, in a degenerate medium the magnon-spin-wave becomes a charge phenomenon many orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational entropy of the neutron star system, and would literally tear the forming neutron star to pieces before it could ever form.
I will publish all of the math and derivations sometime this year as I get a chance to it. However, the problem remains, I really think the magnon in a conventional sense is an artifact of the experimental setup. And, upon reading the early work on the topic, there is no illusion that the magnon is a ferromagnetic medium quasi-particle, but a classic boson in a classic vacuum.
Your reasoning is correct. The "medium", which can be seen as a type of "magnetic" background field and excitations within it, is always crucial to see what exactly such quasi-particles are doing.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
We know today that inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal. But we do not know yet the physical origin? I open discussion on this subject only for physicists. I do not like a philosophical debate.
What John Hodge has pointed out about "The plenum has the "inertia" property because it carries waves:. That will then be intrinsic property of matter to "G".
""Gravitational mass is experienced by the smallest matter particles" will then be extrinsic property of matter, constituting attraction of neighboring clusters. However, equivalence principle will be working with only mutual conjugality.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The existence of negative pressure of vacuum follows from the cosmological models, based on the results of observations. The gravitational defect of mass is interpreted as the transfer of energy to the vacuum, which becomes apparent from its deformation.The gravitational impact of matter on the vacuum and opposite in the sign pressure of it can be determined in case of weakly gravitating static centrally symmetric distribution of matter. A possibility to extend the obtained results to arbitrary gravitational systems is evaluated. The equation of state (p_v =-(1/3)[q_L+q_m+q_rel]) gives the deceleration parameter of the universe consistent with its accelerating expansion.
Equation of state for a sphere with constant density \rho=-(1/3)p gives a solution of the Einstein equations in the form of a space-time with a constant course of time inside it (Eq. 33).
This metric can be used to determine the course of time below the Earth's surface.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Consider the Newtonian n-body problem. An initial condition must specify the initial positions and velocities for each of the n point masses. Thus the space of initial conditions has dimension 6n. I am interested in the subset G of initial conditions which yield solutions that:
1. Are global (defined for all t > t_0)
2. Do not have have collisions or any particle escaping into infinity
3. Are real analytic: at each t there is a neighbourhood U(t) such that each position component of each particle is given by a convergent power series in t.
Note that real analytic functions which are real analytic on the whole R need not be given globally by a convergent power series as in the complex analytic case (of entire functions).
For if we extend a real analytic function to the complex numbers, such as 1 /1 + x^2, then it may well have a pole. We call such real analytic functions piecewise-entire.
What can be said about G topologically ?
When are the coeficients of the convergent power-series computable (possibly different for each member of a countable cover of the reals) ?
Are there examples of solutions which satisfy 1 and 2 but not 3, i.e. are smooth but not real analytic ?
I do not think such a general question can have a definite answer. A particular question to classify the initial data leading to closed periodic trajectories (without collisions) for 3 body case makes sense and is of importance. I guess the most appropriate person to discuss all that is R Montgomery from UC Santa Cruz.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Is there a way to avoid starlight to find planets?
For this, let us first consider the earth and the sun. The world revolving around the sun star follows a method (rotation) just like the exoplanets. However, these turnaround times are different. If the value in the planet finding chart is first constant then decreasing then increasing when the planet is accelerating. So if it turns out to be a planet. What else can we say? So, when we accelerate the orbit of a planet, it means that we will be exposed to much less starlight because it will pass quickly from the sun, that is, the star. Orbit means gravity. If the gravity increases, the orbit, that is, the gravitational relationship of the two objects to each other (here the sun and the earth), the orbital speed will increase and the light scattering from the opposite star will decrease. So let's use SIR ISAAC NEWTON's formula G.m1.m2 /r'2 and derive something new.
The formula for going to exoplanets might be this: g. c(luminous intensity of star) /v(rotation rate of earth or exoplanet)
Gezegenleri bulmak için yıldız ışığından sakınmanın bir yolu var mıdır?
Bunun için öncelikle dünya ve güneşi düşünelim. Güneş yıldızı etrafında dönen dünya tıpki ötegezegenler gibi bir metod (dönüş) izler. Ancak bu dönüş süreleri farklıdır. Eğer gezegen hızlandığı vakit gezegen bulma tablosunda değer dalgalı fonksiyon once sabit sonra azalan daha sonra artan ise. Böylece gezegen olduğu ortaya çıkıyorsa. Başka ne söyleriz? O halde bir gezegenin yörüngesini hızlandırdığımız vakit güneşten yani yıldızdan hızlıca geçeceği için yıldız ışığına çok daha az maruz kalacağız demektir. Yörünge kütleçekimi demektir. Eğer kütle çekimi artarsa , yörünge ;yani iki cismin birbirlerine olan kütleçekimsel bağıntısı.(burada güneş ve dünya olur) yörünge hızı artacaktır ve karşıdaki yıldızdan ışık koparma azalacaktır. O halde SIR ISAAC NEWTON’un G.m1.m2 /r’2 formulünü kullanalım ve yeni bir şey türetelim.
Ötegezegenlere gidebilme formülü bu olabilir: g. c(yıldızın ışık şiddeti) /v(dünya veya ötegezegen dönüş hızı)
There have been various proposals for free-flying 'starshades' to block the light from a star in order for a space telescope to image orbiting exoplanets. Northrup-Grumman formulated one proposal with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, to work with the WFirst space telescope, and another called mDOT was a design study by Stanford University. While it would work in theory, the problem is that the shade has to be at precisely the right distance to obscure the disc of the star without hiding the planets. Obviously it won't work with double stars or larger multiples, and would have limitations with planets in highly elliptical orbits, or orbits having low inclinations with respect to us. But the big difficulty would be repositioning the shade in relation to the telescope, each time the users wanted to look at a different star.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I have instructions to spin samples at 13G. I only know this unit as the gravitational constant. Did my supervisor mean "g"? If so, the RPM for my centrifuge is only 325, lower than the minimum speed.
Could someone please explain the "G" unit in this context?
Any help is much appreciated :)
I think based on the nature of the experiment that has to do with centrifuge. There must be a stirring rate or stirring speed used to describe the hydrodynamics of the particles in suspension. G is stirring intensity for mixing or flux density with a unit S^-1
if u av rpm. It can be emperically converted to S-1 unit
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Imagine the long-term and almost periodical interaction of gravitation waves with existing distribution of atoms (mostly hydrogen) in deep space. Billions of years of interaction can form a repetitive structure of atoms in huge volume (in 3-Dimesions), with some statistical deviations which can be caused by irregularities of gravitation waves.
Can this repetitive structure (in absence of near source of gravitation) represent some properties of Metamaterials?
There are virtual particles in vacuum space that we haven't discovered yet experimentally. But this theory proves their existence:
I could verify the existence of detected and hidden particles using teaching about ultimate realities in Abhidhamma.
There is a similarity between the elementary particles (dimensional sets) and Material Forms (Rūpa) mentioned in Abhidhamma.
According to Abhidhamma, there are 28 material forms:
Concretely Produced (Nipphanna)
I. Great Elements (Mahā Bhūta):
1. Pathavi (Extension/Hardness)
2. Apo (Cohesion/Fluidity)
3. Tejo (Heat/Hotness)
4. Vāyo (Motion/Pushing & Supporting)
The above 4 great (Mahā) elements are not the emerged/derived elements. And those four elements made the following 24 elements:
II. Internal (Pasāda) Rupa:
5. Cakkhu (eye element) ==== Photon?
6. Sota (ear element) ==== Z Boson?
7. Ghāna (nose element) ==== W Boson (1)?
8. Jivhā (tongue element) ==== W Boson (2)?
9. Kāya (body element) ==== Gluon?
III. Gocara (Objective) Rupa:
10. Vaṇṇa (visible) ==== Electron?
11. Sadda (Sound) ==== Up Quark?
12. Gandha (Smell) ==== Down Quark (1)?
13. Rasa (Taste) ==== Down Quark (2)?
* Phoṭṭhabba (Tangibility, warmth, and movement) comes
from 3 mahā bhuta of pathavi, tejo, vāyo
IV. Bhava Rupa:
14. Itthi (Feminine) ==== Neutrino (1)?
15. Purisa (Masculine) ==== Neutrino (2)?
16. Hadaya Vatthu (seat of the mind) ==== Z (1/2)?
VI. Life:
17. jīvitindriya (Life faculty) ==== Higgs Boson?
VII. Nutritional:
18. Oja (Nutriment) ==== Magnetic Monopole?
Abstract (Anipphanna) Rupa
VIII. Limiting Phenomenon:
19. Ākāsa dhātu (space element)
IX. Communicating (Viññatti) Rupa:
20. Kāya Viññatti ==== AXion (A)?
21. Vaci Viññatti ==== AXion (X)?
X. Mutable (Vikāra) Rupa:
22. Lahutā (lightness)
23. Mudutā (Elasticity)
24. Kammaññatā (weildiness)
XI. Material Qualities (Lakkhana Rupa):
25. Upacaya (production)
26. Santati (continuity)
27. Jaratā (Decay)
28. Aniccatā (Dissolving)
There is a mathematical way to derive the detected elementary particles and the hidden particles. Please consider reading my book on Binary Mathematical Physics and Buddhism to learn more about dimensional sets.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Several attempts at modifying the EFE to include the effects of Dark Matter and Dark energy have been done in the last 40 years.
One of the latest attempts comes from Gary Nash who modified the Stress Tensor of the EFE including a quantity which takes account of the gravitational energy avoiding the Pseudo tensors.
The introduction of the Line element field, first studied by Hawking is the entity which made a difference in this study
Let's see what are the comments and alternatives...
Dear Gary,
<<Therefore the corresponding gravitational energy-density is negative: -c4Φαβ/8πG.>>
I would provide a picture to MGR:
A negative definite energy density is admitted, as in Newtonian gravitation in which such quantity is calculated by considering a 0 energy density wherever far from ponderabile matter.
Considering that no energy density can be admitted in GR.
By using a line element field, intrinsic in a Lorentzian metrics, with the due modifications of the Einstein Stress tensor, it becomes possible to account for phenomena which GR is not able to give account of.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
FROM the paper of Quirino Majorana
"it emerges that the reflection of light on a moving metallic mirror
does not provoke the modification of the propagation of its speed in air, hence very likely in vacuum.
This experimental result is against the Hypothesis of some authors, like Stewart, who affirmed the possibility that light after reflection propagates at c+v where v is the component of the speed in the source reference frame in the direction of the reflected beam."
from this second:
"it emerges that the speed of light does not change due to the movement of the source, along the propagation direction."
These experiences state the independence of the speed of light on the speed of the source.
On the other side Abraham, as reported in this thesis
supports the possibility of variation of the speed of light.
He formulated a theory of gravitation based on such variation and the Lorentz Invariance valid only for total vacuum.
Recently about time and constancy of the speed of light
I am afraid that the line of questions continue as following: what provides the constancy of the velocity of propagation of matter/energy /information in a media, how the outcome depends on the morphology of the latter and what provides stability of its functioning. Further, if a minimal process do exists, it is for every complex system and thus it is specific. Consequently, an immediate outcome of the simple consideration that each and every process has finite life time for relaxation/excitation and bounded propagation rate of the dissipation of the exchanged in the corresponding interaction energy/matter/information renders that there is a minimal size of any system, below which it cannot operate. At the same time, an upper limit of any complex system of bounded size also do exists, because every functional morphology needs correspondence with the corresponding structual morphology. In turn, the boundedness of any functional spatio-temporal landscape provides covariance of the laws of Nature. this result opens the door to an alternative explanation of the Hubble law. I myself, am interesting in the role of Doppler effect in heterogeneous media and thus I bump into a paper about an alternative explanation of Hubble law, published in Journal of Modern Physics.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If so, why should we neglect the effect of gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe which is about 106 times larger than the additional gravitational potential at the Sun's surface ??
GR theory predicts that a distant observer looking at a region that has a somewhat increased gravitational potential U will see that clocks are slowed in the region, and that the speed of light there is reduced. Both of these effects are proportional to the U value. (The U value for a spherical mass is Gm/(c^2 r), a positive value.). The effects are NOT proportional to the gradient of the potential, which decreases with r^2. Gravitational ACCELERATIONS towards a mass are proportional to the mass’s gravitational potential gradient, but the gradient doesn’t cause the slowing effects.
The clock-slowing effect is indisputable, as atomic clocks on the Earth can be used to accurately measure even small elevation differences. Observing the reduction in the speed of light is more difficult than observing clock-slowing, but in the 1970’s NASA’s Viking experiment carefully measured the pattern of the delay of radio waves sent on a round trip to Mars. The waves’ path was initially far from the sun, but over several months Mars’s orbit brought the path closer and closer to the sun and the time delay increased. The observed pattern of delay times matched the GR prediction: the slowing during each round trip was proportional to the solar gravitational potential, and not proportional to its gradient.
GR also correctly predicts the amount of refraction of light waves passing near to the sun. The curvature of the light path is proportional to the gradient of the sun’s potential.
Johan K. Fremerey states correctly that the gravitational potential of distant masses, felt here within the solar system, is far greater than the potential due to the solar system’s masses, even though the gradient of the distant masses' potential is negligible. Our observed slowing of light passing near to the sun reflects the DIFFERENCE between the potential at the Earth and the potential at the sun.
A hypothetical observer in deep space would perceive that compared to its deep-space speed the speed of light in and around the solar system was significantly reduced, due to the gravitational potential of the Milky Way and our Local Group of galaxies. That observer would see the speed was slowed slightly more near to the Earth, and slightly more again near to the sun. In the Viking experiment we just saw the difference between those two factors.
A comment: I think that GR theory is invalid. However, it gets the right answers for low-intensity gravitational fields. The consistency of those answers gives me confidence that the astronomers’ analyses of gravitational lensing effects are valid, and that the calculated patterns of dark matter in and around galaxies are correct.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Dear Researchers in the field :
Does anyone know what the KAGRA Gravitational Waves Observatory it's been up to ?
KAGRA announced at the end of last year (2019) that they were ready for the kick off. And that in February this year (2020) they were turn to the sky for the first (real) observations and be ready to joing the efforts of the LIGO-Virgo collaboration.
But I haven't hear anything about KAGRA since that time.
I'm sure they had to close due to the COVID-19 pandemic, probably since March.
But, now in December, almost the end of the year, I would have expected to hear news about Observatory.
Does anyone know what is it status nowadays ? Maybe the explanation is that the facilities kept shut down almost the whole year since the pandemic.
If someone know fresh news, I'll appreciate the sharing.
Best Regards all ! :)
Discovered the following publications which i shall be reviewing and highly recommend the members here to as well. From KAGRA.
[2201.01397] Inferring Astrophysical Parameters of Core-Collapse Supernovae from their Gravitational-Wave Emission (arxiv.org)
Phys. Rev. D 105, 023004 (2022) - Merger rate density of stellar-mass binary black holes from young massive clusters, open clusters, and isolated binaries: Comparisons with LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA results (aps.org)
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I want to calculate the distance between points and lines in ArcGIS. I need to use the parameter of gravitation direction. I need to compute the direction from the center of the forest plot to the nearest road, but it is important for me to give weight on the direction of gravitation.
The Near tool has an option for providing the direction in addition to the distance and can be run on points going to lines. Once you have the distance and direction you can combine them in whatever weighting scheme you like. There is also a paper that describes an existing Gravity Model tool for ArcGIS -
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Through the telescope, Astronomer Edwin P. Hubble first observed the distribution of galaxies in space in 1929. Hubble found that most of the galaxies outside of the local group are receding from us, and the ones farther away are receding the fastest. From Hubble’s observation, scientists discovered that the universe is expanding.
Yet! in my research results saying-
“Gravitational worlds, they are moving or changing the orbit with all their family members depending on the nuclear energy of each other”. Circumstantial evidence: the super cluster of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and galaxies, that there are the black holes of other kinds of energy in the deep gravitational world, they are moving or changing the orbit with their all family members depending on the nuclear energy of each other. According to this information; as I see it, all the gravitation worlds of the universe have become the victims of rolling or moving into the oval orbits of critical radius. The gravitational worlds of the nuclear circle of the gravitational worlds, are expandable with others in the orbits around the nucleus, resulting in it seems that the universe is expanding. See reality in our solar world about moons, planets orbits system and also see in our galaxy Milky Way stars orbits formula. From the nuclear of the circle of the gravitational force, the gravitational worlds are expanding from each other being moved around the radius of the nuclear inside the circle or in the difference of movement their distance boundary are always increasing in the eternal radius. Again law of philosophy: “An individual respective very location is the present and the rest all locations are of the deep of the past”. In this way; see big bang is earliest known event. So, see scientist Edwin P. Hubble discovery is blunder about universe is expanding because expended velocity of the universe is going forward towards the critical radius.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Theoretically, we are supposed to believe that "Graviton" is the exchange particle for the gravitational interaction which is a spin 2 particle (Boson). What is the physical meaning of Spin 2 ?
Yeah, got it. Thank you so much.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Luminiferous ether dates back to Aristotle, but assumed greater significance due to mention of an ethereal medium in Newton’s Optics. Phlogiston theory accounting for fire dates to 1667. Caloric theory accounting for heat dates to the 1770s or so. Phlogiston, ether, caloric as concepts have been superseded, and rendered historical footnotes.
The theory of universal gravitation in Newton’s Principia dates to 1687 over 300 years ago. Gravitation is an old concept. Science has made much progress since 1687.
Might gravitation become an archaism too? Is it possible that gravitation will in time be regarded as an apparent force, analogous in that way to centripetal force?
Yay or nay, and why?
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I have derived an equation containing Hubble's constant 'H' , Einstein's gravitational constant'k' and Siva's constant 'K'. With this I predicted a particle which is basic building block of mass.I have calculated its mass as 10-25 Kgs. I understood that it is force particle of a new fundamental force with a coupling constant 10-8 just near to weak interaction(of standard model).
As per its mass it seems like a rediscovery of 'Higgs Boson'.
But it has a diameter of 10-25mt. different from that of prediction of Higgs mechanism.
This particle is predicted by different methodology than that of standard model and quantum mechanics. It is more of general relativity and methodology is different.
My expertise is not enough to calculate its spin. But as per my knowledge any particle physics expert can calculate its spin by its mass/energy/momentum.
Now I was fed up with the peer review processes of journals and not interested to submit the paper to journals.
Is there any other way to report it to LHC or Fermi labs or CERN?
My Dear Siva
the review is very important for any researcher to know the work is ok or not.
you can find many journals to publish your work . Also, you can send it to CEREN directly
good luck
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
at large scale, do earth goes around sun or particles of the earth goes around the particles of the sun?
i am proposing new theory which says; the Gravitational force in between two objects depends on the most probable distance in between them.....
thank you
In chord space, chord interaction is manifested as spatial interaction, the basic way is: separation and combination.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The field energy density /gravitational energy density is missing in General relativity but in Newtonian gravitation, it is present and negative as expected.
As stated by Penrose not very accurately, about potential energy
"Although there is no room for such a thing in the energy–momentum tensor T, it is clear that there are situations where a ‘disembodied’ gravitational energy is actually playing a physical role.
Imagine two massive bodies (planets, say). If they are close together (and we can suppose that they are instantaneously at rest relative to each other), then there will be a (negative) gravitational potential energy contribution which makes the total energy, and therefore the total mass, smaller than it would be if they are far apart.  Ignoring much tinier energy effects, such as distortions of each body’s shape due to the gravitational tidal field of the other, we see that the total contributions from the actual energy–momentum tensor T will be the same whether the two bodies are close together or far apart.
Yet, the total mass/energy will differ in the two cases, and this difference would be attributed to the energy in the gravitational field itself (in fact a negative contribution, that is more sizeable when the bodies are close than when they are far apart)."
As a matter of fact what is negative is the binding energy which is localizable... what is not localizable is the potential energy.
There is substantial a difference between gravitational energy which is negative in Newtonian Gravitation and is a sort of BINDING ENERGY and Potential energy which is positive since it is "given" to the system of attracting masses.
It is undisputed that there is no room at all for a potential energy density in gravitation since it is not determinable from where such energy comes from, although it exists...it cannot be part of the "gravitational field"...
According to Heisenberg, the particles, or what the particles seem to contain or represent, cannot be located in such an incredibly small volume. Otherwise it would have a total energy, which exceeds by far the restmass, assigned to the particle.
If we look closer and closer, the particle view vanishes and makes room for the field- or wave view. We then are left alone with additional degrees of freedom, locally decoupled particle properties, including a vector field of kinetic energy and a tensor field of mechanical and magnetic spin.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I don't think so. We know the inertial mass of particles (charged particles). From those inertial masses, we calculate the mass of a hydrogen atom (in the case of electron and proton).
Since those measurements are consistent, we conclude that the Gravitational Mass of an electron is proportional to the Inertial Mass of an electron.
That is the Weak Equivalence Principle.
My theory tells me that the gravitational mass of an electron is equal to the gravitational mass of a proton and both are equal to the Gravitational mass of two hydrogen atoms.
If you do the calculation, you will realize that one only measures Gravitational Masses for neutral moieties.
The assignment of protons and electrons into a single moiety is called The Fundamental Dilator Paradigm, which I proposed in 2006 in the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory (HU).
HU proposed that matter is made directly and simply a coherence between stationary states of deformation of space (not spacetime). As a coherence, energy flows from state to state (electron state to proton state), tunneling while spinning. Since it is a deformation of space, it can be positive (dilation) or negative (contraction).
This means that the Fundamental Dilator is driven by three processes: tunneling, spinning, and the dilation-contraction alternation.
I explained Gravitation as a Van der Waals force where the relaxation time was 1E-24 seconds.
Faster relaxation means stronger screening and weaker force.
In my theory, I considered two kinds of Fundamental Dilators:
a) Electromagnetic Fundamental Dilator (with four phases representing the four fundamental particles).
b) Gravitational Fundamental Dilator (a hydrogen atom)
In other words, the gravitational mass of an electron can be the same as the gravitational mass of a proton and both can be equal to half the gravitational mass of a hydrogen atom
Because of that, I became interested in this result:
My theory proposed that Matter is composed of Fundamental Dilator Polymers.
I introduced two archetypes: the GFD and the EFD. EFD is the Electronic Fundamental Dilator (e.g. Proton, electron, antiproton, positron).
The GFD archetype is a hydrogen atom.
I did this before it became clear to me that gravitation was a van der Waals force.
For both forces, the Quantum Lagrangian Principle (a replacement to all laws of Physics and specially to Newton's laws of dynamics) states that FDs will move into position where they dilate space in phase with the local dilaton field (metric waves generated by the shapeshifting done by FDs). They do so such as not to do work just by existing.
Independently upon being Gravitation or Electromagnetism, they will move sideways by x (shown in the figure). The force will be calculated in two parts. First, calculate the stress (change in the direction of velocity (alpha), and then multiply that by strain (the 3D volume of the probe particle. In other words, for both EM and Gravitation, HU calculates acceleration and them multiply that acceleration by the probe mass. This means that the Gravitational force will always be proportional to the inertial mass (FD footprint times density of energy per volume of a particle).
That said, the actual Gravitational Mass (ability to create a Gravitational Field will always be different. In other words, Gravitational mass is similar to the charge. The gravitational mass of a proton is equal to the gravitational mass of an electron.
The actual force is distinct because of how a force is calculated in HU. You never saw this argument because no other theory can derive the laws of nature from first principles.
My theory proposes that. That said, one can envision a scenario where that wouldn't be correct.
My answer above really addressed a different question: can we accurately measure the mass of a single particle, hence my answer. Your question instead was: Do we really know the Gravitational Mass of single particles? Yes, we have accurate knowledge concerning the mass of single particles via different means. I find no fault with your answer :)
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The new energy formula (E) that is proposed is equal to the mass (m) by the speed of light (C) squared and inversely proportional to the porosity (n) E = (mC2)/n. Einstein's formula has one limitation. It only includes the temporal and gravitational component. Temporal component is represented by the speed of light (C), that having a dual wave particle. It is raised to the square; and the gravitational component of matter (m, mass), but does not include the volumetric component determined by length, width and height. If it is considered that the mass of a porous media has a weight of one kilogram (1.0 Kg) and variable porosity between zero and one (for example 10E-1, 10E-2, 10E-3,10E-10, 10E-20), it can be concluded that the energy value is always higher with the proposed formula that considers the four dimensions than with the formula of Albert Einstein 1905.
1st of ALL instead of c^2 which is squarekm/ square-seconds and > c, the formula should write the value about 9billion...
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If I disregard the distinction between passive and active gravitational mass, then we generally associate two types of masses with an object, namely, inertial mass (mI) that appears in F=mIa and gravitational mass (mG) that appears in F=GmGM/r2 for the same object. While this is the theoretical explanation, these equations are meaningless writing unless we provide physical interpretations to those through experiments. Then comes the question that how we measure mI and mG of the same object whose motion is getting studied so as to verify the above equations. Therefore, the question arises whether the unit, in terms of which mI and mG will be expressed, itself is an inertial mass unit or a gravitational mass unit.
I shall be glad if anyone can explain this.
Also, mass is both a property of a physical body and a measure of its resistance to acceleration (rate of change of velocity with respect to time) when a net force is applied. An object's mass also determines the strength of its gravitational attraction to other bodies. The SI base unit of mass is the kilogram (kg). See the link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Dear Sirs,
The elevator example in general relativity is used to show that gravitational force and an inertial force are not distinguishable. In other words the 2nd Newton's law is the same in the two frames: inertial frame with homogenous gravitational field and the elevator's frame without gravitational field which has constant acceleration in respect to the inertial frame.
But every one knows that an inertial force is a force which does not obey the 3rd Newton's law. For example such forces are cetrifugal force and Coriolis force existing in the Earth reference frame. Gravitational force satisfies the 3rd Newton's law. So one can conclude that the gravitational force is not inertial.
Could you clarify the above controversy.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
50 years ago it was “self-evident” that the universe was dominated by matter. all agreed that the universe’s expansion rate should slow. The surprise was therefore total when the observational data instead seemed to indicate that the universe is accelerating i.e. increases its rate of expansion - as if the cosmos recently moved its foot from the brake pedal to the accelerator.
I believe in the fact that it is a trustworthy theory to apply whose theory can accurately calculate the orbits of the planets in the solar system.
The expansion of the universe is not mysterious. We can deduce that the universe is expanding with our existing physical and mathematical knowledge
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If the magnetic field permeability and electric field permittivity of the quantum vacuum at a point in spacetime may be understood as the effective vacuum magnetization and vacuum polarization, respectively, then there should be an observable spatial variation in the velocity of light with changing gravitational potential (predicted by general relativity). And could this observed variation in the velocity of light be understood as analogous to a continuous Lorentz transformation of a classical electromagnetic field with changing gravitational potential, and modeled, quantum mechanically, in terms of the exchange of quantum entanglement between momentum-energy fluctuations of the vacuum in the form of virtual fermion-antifermion pairs and virtual boson-antiboson pairs with changing gravitational potential, leading to a change in the refractive index of the vacuum that is consistent with General Relativity's prediction of the gravitational deflection of light?
Take a look at the following ArXiv paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.6165
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
"THIS IS AN ABSOLUTELY SCIENTIFIC QUESTION"
Gravitational Lens Effect, predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein in 1912 is proven by Hubble Telescope.
Simply put, the Gravitational Lens Effect is a process in which light is amplified and twisted by gravitational effect of very large celestial bodies (a lot of mass) modifying space-time tissue and thus light that propagates through it.
See the ring of light with four very bright spots in photo (from this last week of August 2021). It's actually just one point, the other three points are due to Einstein Gravitational Lens effect.
The bright spot is a Quasar influenced by gravity of two galaxies that we see as one in center of ring. Its gravitational force deforms all space-time around it, assumes light from the Quasar that is behind the galaxies bends and deforms as it passes close to galaxies.
VERY IMPORTANT: Participate only if you are original, be yourself give your opinion, do not put links or texts from "Genio Google" or things found out there on the web! No one has any interest in stupid web answers, if that's the case, please be so kind as to ignore this debate! Also, don't post your hurts and hates, and don't deviate from the subject at hand, thanks.
Hello Prof, I think Space telescopes is important because it helps scientist to understand how planet and galaxies form. Although they very expensive to build than ground-based telescopes and they also extremely difficult to maintain.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Einstein said that energy (or mass) is equivalent to the curvature of the spacetime, based on the Einstein field equations. But I have some questions: What is the effect of energy on the spacetime itself? Are they independent of each other? Does the existence of energy lead to create the spacetime and vice versa in the evolution of the Universe known from the Hot Big Bang model? Is there another physical concept to relate them to each other?
Energy and mass contribute equivalently to the curvature of spacetime, according to the relation e = mc squared. This means, for instance, that light causes curvature in spacetime. This is not usually measurable, but when light curves round a star under gravity, described by the curvature of space by the star (as it is observed to do with the sun) the sun is also deflected in the opposite direction. This gravitational force on the sun is described by a miniscule deformation of the curvature of spacetime by the light.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The description of the gravitational phenomena and laws in the frame of gravitoelectromagnetism (GEM), and the description of the electromagnetic phenomena and laws in the frame of Maxwell’s electromagnetism (EM) can perfectly be explained[1],[2] by the “theory of informatons”.
The theory of informatons[3] starts from the hypothesis that a material object manifests itself in space by the emission - at a rate proportional to its rest mass - of mass and energy less granular entities that, relative to an inertial reference frame, are rushing away with the speed of light. They are carrying information regarding the position and the velocity (g-information”) and , if the case should arise, about the electric status (e- information) of their emitter. Because they transport nothing than information, these entities are called “informatons”.
This hypothesis implies that a material object is at the centre of an expanding cloud of informatons that forms an indivisible whole with that object. On the macroscopic level, the g-information carried by the constituent elements of that cloud manifests itself as the “gravitational field” of the object. If it is electrically charged the constituent elements of the cloud carry, in addition of g-, also e-information, that on the macroscopic level manifests itself as the “electromagnetic field” of the object.
From the hypothesis that information is the substance of gravitational and electromagnetic fields and that the informaton is their constituent element, it can be deduced that
- these fields are dual entities always having a field- and an induction- component simultaneously created by their sources: whether or not moving masses and whether or not moving charges;
- the Maxwell-Heaviside equations are the expressions at the macroscopic level of the kinematics of the informatons;
- the gravitational and the electromagnetic interactions are the effect of the fact that an object in a gravitational field and a charged object in an electromagnetic field tend to become “blind” for that field by accelerating according to a Lorentz-like law;
- an accelerated object is the source of gravitational radiation, and a charged accelerated object emmits in addition electromagnetic radiation.
References:
I believe it is an abstraction of a substantial element of nature, because the mathematics of information theory can be used to determine what is possible, for instance in communications links. Information theory correctly predicts what kind of physical change can be deliberately made to a system over a communications link in a given time. This is described by the Shannon Hartley theorem. This theorem describes something physical and is tested and demonstrated daily by the internet, GPS, radar systems and other physical realities.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Pulsars are subject to a systematic secular spin-down. It is well-known that the electromagnetic torque is responsible for the rate of change of the rotational frequency. The braking index is obtained in terms of the second time derivative of the rotational frequency. Any deviation from the canonical value of 3 is given in terms of the SECOND time derivative of the moment of inertia.
Alternatively, the rate of energy loss can be expressed as a secular variation in the moment of inertia. The rate of energy loss is the square of the second time derivative of the moment of inertia, making it a 4th power of the rotational frequency, again resulting a breaking index of 3.
Now, for gravitational radiation it has been claimed that the rate of energy loss yields a value of 5, the rate of energy loss is portional to the 6th power of the rotational frequency. If it could be expressed in terms of a "gravitational" torque, that would mean a torque proportional to the cube of the frequency, and not a squared as in the expression for the centripetal acceleration in the electromagnetic case.
How can this be accounted for by a breaking index whose deviations from the canonical value of 3 is only a function of the SECOND time derivative of the moment of inertia and not the third? It would therefore appear that electromagnetic and gravitational radiations cannot be interpreted by the same breaking index yet both should apply to pulsar spin-down.
.
Please provide a reference. To the best of my knowledge it hasn't.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Plants's growth on the earth's surface is controlled by several interrelated factors. As a result plants's stems grow upward and their roots grow downward. Why and how this happens? Is there any role of earth's gravitational force in controlling this upward growth of shoots and downward growth of roots. If yes, then how plants grow on the surface of the areas where gravity of the earth is almost zilch. Argument based response would be helpful to understand the phenomenon.
Gravity is an action-at-a-distance force. Gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun affect the orbits of planets and provide some planetary precession data. The chasing effect of gravitational waves also causes the planetary orbital mechanical energy to continue to increase slowly until the planet escapes from the solar system. Gravitational waves exist; the gravitational model under the influence of gravitational waves that we constructed was a physical model. Through the calculation of planetary orbital precession, the correctness of the gravitational equation under the influence of gravitational waves is verified.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
This is an addition to my 12,000-word article “A New Paradigm Of An Artificially Intelligent, Augmented-Reality Universe Based On Electronics And Topology Gives Insights Into The Dimensions Of Dark Matter And Dark Energy, Newton's Theology In The 21st Century, And Relativistic Ocean Tides” - and its sections on mathematical topology and what I call vector-tensor-scalar geometry. (https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31659.67360)
PROPOSAL - extract the electromagnetic force from the gravitational force by dividing the figure-8 Klein bottles I propose as components of gravitons into the Mobius strips proposed to compose photons (thanks to Konrad Polthier's article "Imaging maths - Inside the Klein bottle" [http://plus.maths.org/content/os/issue26/features/mathart/index]). Then I arrived at the nuclear forces by interacting the gravitational and electromagnetic forces, and proposing combination of 10^2 gravitons with each photon to achieve the strong nuclear force's magnitude (100 times stronger than electromagnetism) … and combination of 10^11 anti-gravitons with each photon to achieve the weak nuclear force's magnitude (100 billion times weaker than electromagnetism).
The difficulty of physically combining so many gravitons and antigravitons with a photon implies the necessity of quantum entanglement. “Physicists now believe that entanglement between particles exists everywhere, all the time, and have recently found shocking evidence that it affects the wider, ‘macroscopic’ world that we inhabit.” (New Scientist, “The Weirdest Link”, vol. 181, issue 2440 - 27 March 2004, 32, http://www.biophysica.com/QUANTUM.HTM) Though the effect is measured for distances in space, the inseparability of space and time means that moments of time can become entangled too. (Caslav Brukner, Samuel Taylor, Sancho Cheung, Vlatko Vedral, “Quantum Entanglement in Time”, http://www.arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0402127)
An antigraviton would actually be a particle of dark energy, which is viewed by today's science as the force opposing gravity and causing the universe to expand. The antigravitons I propose do not contribute to expansion, but to a universe that's static at the largest scale. They oppose gravity as we understand it by existing in another large-scale dimension that's composed of dark matter, and they only interact with this dimension gravitationally. Equations have always confused me - so I only used mathematical topology and what I call vector-tensor-scalar geometry to describe this.
Gravity is an action-at-a-distance force. Gravitational waves caused by the revolution of the sun affect the orbits of planets and provide some planetary precession data. The chasing effect of gravitational waves also causes the planetary orbital mechanical energy to continue to increase slowly until the planet escapes from the solar system. Gravitational waves exist; the gravitational model under the influence of gravitational waves that we constructed was a physical model. Through the calculation of planetary orbital precession, the correctness of the gravitational equation under the influence of gravitational waves is verified
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
If a lift is falling freely with "g", the person inside will be experiencing or feeling
No force, and he becomes weightless, means force of gravity is constantly acting and producing "g", but the body on which it is acting saying no force,
Question is
Does such type of behavior exist for other type of forces (e, g magnetic and electromagnetic ) ??? if no
Then all the forces having same unit, same symbol, then how can we explain this different behavior of gravitational force ??
Shakeel ur Rehman, it is a Dynamic gravity model. Maybe you can find the answer.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The research of Michael Clark strongly suggests correlation between the strength of Earth's and Earth-Sun's gravitational force(s) and maximal growth development that is scientifically observed in populations of elephants and dinosaurs. Can these scientific findings constitute a theory hypothesizing principles or laws that express relationships and patterns, including sets of ratios to describe phenomenal linkage of gravity to growth?
I certainly appreciate your facts and figures with respect to elephants. Were you aware that they are on the endangered species list? Scientists tell us that the dinosaurs became extinct because they perished during the aftermath of a large asteroid that impacted planet Earth and caused a gigantic fallout, maybe something like what happened to the northwest quadrant of the continental United States when Mount Saint Helens eruped as an active volcano. Volcanic ash spread as far east as the Dakotas. In the State of Washington, daylight was totally eclipsed by darkness due to the ash filling the air. In the case of elephants, they have been hunted to extinction, herds killed for their tusks in an international commercial operation in which Africa and Asia were divested of wildlife.
Currently, in the United States, at least twelve species are on the endangered list. In the Southwest, the jaguar; in Alaska, the polar bear; in Hawaii, the monk seal; in California, the bighorn sheep; in the Rocky Mountains, the grizzly bear; in Washington and Oregon, the wild salmon; in the midwest heartland, the whooping crane and black-footed ferret; in the Great Lakes, the warbler,; in the New England northeast, the lynx; in the southeast on the Atlantic seaboard, the Florida panther and the sea turtle.
It seems that the extinction of animal species in the U.S. may be traced to the burgeoning of human population encroaching on wild life habitat and also to global warming that resultsin air pollution and contamination of waterways and increasing amounts of acreage burned to the ground in forest fires.
The gravity of the situation nevertheless should be weighed against the necessity for scientific and mathematical and technological prioritization of hard core science. In this regard, could you elaborate on your statement, if I have understood you correctly, that the orbits of all of the planets, including Earth, are increasing in their circumference relative to the central orb of the Sun?
Correct me if I err, but it is my understanding that the Sun is contracting and increasing its mass while, at the same time, it is sending out more heat and luminosity which is causing all of the planets to get a lot hotter! For example, did you hear about the sunspot that erupted from the Sun and caused a radio blackout that made a direct hit over the Atlantic Ocean? Apparently, x-rays bombarded Earth, which received the brunt of the sunspot x-ray emissions.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
According to GR, regardless of whether the sun is revolving or not, the gravitational force of the space around it is symmetrical with respect to the sun. This model obviously cannot explain the gravitational influence caused by the chasing effect (generalized Doppler effect) of gravitational waves.
There is no depression in time and space, and time will not expand. The effect of gravitational waves on gravity is the essence of physics.
Dear Valentin, I understand more than numbers: physical laws (depending on varariables or not), theory of everything, fuzzy logic, distributions theory, singularities, broken symmetries, lorentz transformation, dimensions, homogenuous spaces... and- That's the point- I have my own theory about universe în cosmos. Do you have your own opinion, or are you relating anew what others claim?
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
How can a clock inside a spherical shell "know" that it should tick slowly? Unlike Newton's action-at-a-distance theory of gravity (though even Newton himself had reservations about this), Einstein's General Relativity is a FIELD theory. Yet there is NO gravitational FIELD inside the shell, and spacetime inside the shell is Minkowskian. Furthermore, let the shell radially contract (expand). The gravitational POTENTIAL inside the shell then becomes more (less) strongly negative, so the clock must then tick more (less) slowly. Yet there still is NO gravitational FIELD inside the shell and spacetime inside the shell still remains Minkowskian. By Birkhoff's Theorem, even while the shell radially contracts or expands (not merely before and after the radial contraction or expansion) there is NO gravitational FIELD inside the shell (also no gravitational wave generation) and spacetime inside the shell still remains Minkowskian. So with NO gravitational FIELD to interact with and NO change of the metric coefficients from their Minkowskian values, how does a clock inside the shell "know" that it must tick slowly, even though the gravitational POTENTIAL inside the shell is negative? How does it "know" that the gravitational POTENTIAL has become more (less) strongly negative after a radial contraction (expansion) of the shell, and hence that it must then tick more (less) slowly --- even though the field always remains zero and the metric coefficients always remain Minkowskian?
Dear Jack Denur,
thank you for the detailed explanation of the gravitational force inside the spherical shell and pointing out that a non-zero gravitational attraction resolves the spherical-shell clock paradox in the GR. I have no objection. I would however like to state a warning. I am afraid that the community dealing with the GR, especially with the compact objects, would not accept any analysis based on a non-zero net force inside the shell. Other than the Minkowski metrics inside the shell is forbidden to be supposed in reality. I do not know a reason of this prohibition. The GR people however always claim that the metrics is the Minkowski metrics and net gravity in the shell, aside the center, is zero. (They do so despite the fact that this generates several problems; not only the spherical-shell clock paradox.)
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Gravitational segregation of pore-fluids:
Given the fact that the frictional resistance to the migration of pore-fluids will get enhanced very swiftly with the reduction in pore-sizes, what should be the minimum pore-size in a typical oil reservoir for the occurrence of gravitational segregation between water, oil and gas – when production is on? Whether such deduced pore-sizes would allow us to deduce “a single REV” representing the entire (heterogeneous and anisotropic) reservoir?
What exactly takes place during gravitational segregation between water and oil in a typical pore space - considering the dynamics of the pore-fluids: Will it be (oil-in-water) emulsion or surface-tension (between water and oil) that will be critically influencing the gravitational segregation at the pore-scale – during production? If surface tension dominates the scenario, how exactly to take into account the nature of the substances (such as clay) surrounding the pore-fluids at the pore-scale?
My paper:
Biochar and compost amendment impacts on soil water and pore size distribution of a loamy sand soil
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I am searching for the latest implementation of efficient tree-based algorithms for compuing the gravitational acceleration on particles in an SPH code. Preferably, the code should be written in FORTRAN 90 and be able to run parallel using MPI. A number of papers discuss tree-based algorithms like the binary tree, but public and well-documented implementations seem to be rare.
Dear Sigfried Vanaverbeke to my understanding your question has few error
1) world does not know gravity period. Science does not know, where, what, when, why and how gravity is generated.
2) world or science does not know any explanation for Particle. What is particle!!??
3) the world of nature can not get any mathematic to describe 1 & 2.
Regards
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Please don't take me very serious, Im a hobbyist fascinated by SF.
The atomic clock is an excellent example to confirm the phenomenon of the time dilation in gravitational field , but that is bothering me is the lack of entropy flow between the two clocks. In my opinion (please correct me if I'm wrong), with the clocks experiment we transfer only information about the differences that occur in the processes.
Observing discussions of professionals on subject of time dilation in gravitational field, I came up with a crazy idea that if we have an ongoing process in two physically connected places, but differ in the speed of occurrence then we should observe the flow of entropy between those places.
I am thinking of a test setup where the entropy flow could be directly observed and recorded.
Incidentally, this question and idea is very serious and practical, and I take it quite seriously.
Here are some vague issues:
· Gravity
· Time
· Entropy
And of course:
· Relativity (especially special relativity)
• Gravity is an illusion, and general relativity is a delusional theory. Basically, we do not have anything like a gravitational field in nature. There is no fact about this and no logical analysis about it.
• Time is merely a parameter identifying the material system.
• Entropy means the permissible and accessible states of the material system.
• Special relativity is a purely mathematical transformation that does not support any physical mechanism.
With these descriptions, if there is a desire to discuss, I am ready to continue it.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
I'm a MBA student looking at thesis subjects for spring 2020. Blockchain is of high interest to me, as i am not really sold on the sales-pitch for smart contracts and therefore it would be good to learn more about this particular domain.
My ideas are numerous of course, it's rather a question about feasability. Any analysis of the future of blockchain seems, well, hard. I'd tend to gravitate towards analysing what exists today. Any ideas on interesting subjects?
I propose the following research topic. The increase in the development of Blockchain technology applications and the increase in the use of Cryptocurrencies in online transactions in the context of accelerating the digitization and Internetization of economic processes, Internet billing and payments, e-commerce, Internet banking, e-logistics, etc. caused by the development of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (Covid -19).
Thank you, Best regards,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Hello,
I'm trying to measure the physical and hydrological properties of organic substrate media.
Currently, I'm referring The book Soil sampling and Methods of Analysis by Carter and Gregorich. (Chapter 68)
Measurement of bulk density
The method recommends the substrates in the cores to be saturated and drained on a tension table at -1KPa. My question is if we don't have a pressure plate, can we let the cores drain by gravitation for a specific duration (1-2 hours) and take it as the saturation point?
And to obtain bulk density, air-filled porosity, water-filled porosity at saturation at that point?
Measurement of water holding capacity
Water retention curve is graphed as water content against the tension. Instead of tension, can we graph it against time? after letting the core samples drain from the bottom while closing the top of the core? (picture attached)
Can you please mention if there are any standardized procedures/ papers related to the question? Thank you very much.
That will be very interesting. It primarily depends upon the nature of soil and porosity as organic matter (different varieties) would behave differently in filling up the gaps and enhance bulk density. Hydrological evaluation is greatly dependent upon the bulk density. May I request you to share your results. All the best.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Atmosphere of each planets vary according to the gravitational potential. If so, what is the relation/equation connecting both?
There is a connection but not directly relation...
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The study theoretically substantiates the relationship between the redshift in the electromagnetic spectrum of space objects and their gravity and demonstrates it with computational experiments. Redshift, in this case, is a consequence of a decrease in the speed of the photons emitted from the surface of objects, which is caused by the gravity of these objects. The decline in the speed of photons due to the gravity of space gravitating object (GO) is defined as ΔC = C-C ', where: C' is the photon speed changed by the time the receiver records it. Then, at a change in the photon speed between a stationary source and a receiver, the redshift factor is determined as Z = (C-C ')/C'. Computational experiments determined the gravitational redshift of the Earth, the Sun, a neutron star, and a quasar. Graph of the relationship between the redshift and the ratio of sizes to the mass of any space GOs was obtained. The findings indicate that the distance to space objects does not depend on the redshift of these objects.
Уважаемый Ричард, изменение скорости фотонов под действием гравитации полностью объясняет все явления связанные с красным смещением (смотри прикрепленную статью). При этом понятия:Большой Взрыв, расширение вселенной, темная материя и темная энергия лишние. Кроме того, объясняется такое фундаментальное физическое явление как абсолютность времени.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
The total energy of two bodies in gravitational interaction must be
(m1 + m2) c^2 - G m1 m2 / r ,
where r is the distance between them. When r is  G/c^2 times the reduced mass, the total energy and hence the total mass vanish! It is the Schwarzschild radius, so a black hole may form. Does it necessarily have zero mass? Is this not contradictory?
Recognizing the simple theory of the electron radius https://wikimili.com/en/Classical_electron_radius they only have the mass deficiency. Let the Black Hole be a matter sphere. Than its gravitational energy due to self interaction is E_g = - (3/5) G M^2/ r If r is the Schwarzschild radius than G M m /r = m c^2 /2 for the probe mass m so r = 2 G M / c^2 so we have E_g = - 3/10 M c^2. Now let M be the nuclear (rest) energy of all matter at infinity which would build the Black Hole sphere than we have:
M c^2 - 3/10 Md c^2 = Md c^2 where now Md is the dressed Black Hole Mass. So finally Md = 10/13 M so 3/13 of the constituent infinity mass deficiency.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Dear Sirs,
The 1st law in Newtons principia are now understood as two statements: the determination of inertial frame reference (if F=0 then a=0 and if F is not equal 0 then there is some body accelleration "a"); there is in nature at least one inertial frame reference. Theoretically I can understand it a little bit. As we have such a determination of inertial frame reference then the 2 nd Newton law is not directly followed from the 1 st law, or this determination is partly independent of the 2nd law. So it looks like logically good.
But what we have in experiment? I do not know whether there is any research on experimental determination of any particular inertial system (like International Celestial Reference System) using the 1 st Newton law. So in practice we use the 2 nd law (e.g. school example - foucault pendulum plane rotation). Could you clarify on the experimental and theoretical determination of inertial frame reference. You know there are teachers that see the 1st law as the consequence of the 2nd law.
The Galilean invariance, Dr. Anatoly A Khripov, the laws of motion are the same in all inertial frames if there is no acceleration due to an external force. But sometimes a conservation law (momentum, or energy) is needed experimentally to be tested.
For example, the capillary movement without viscosity of the 4He isotope is based on the Galilean invariance of energy and momentum, despite it is a quantum liquid, showing how general is the Galilean invariance.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Is that has an effect on the biological life
Wonderful question and interesting discussions.🌷🌷🌷
Fondest regards
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question
Gravitational viscosity, as inhibition of motion, is the property of a real gravitating space-time to resist the movement of one part of it relative to another.
By analogy with the concept of the viscosity of liquids and gases, we will distinguish between dynamic gravitational viscosity and kinematic gravitational viscosity. For the observable Universe, as the Hubble sphere, the dynamic gravitational viscosity is equal to the gravitational energy density of baryonic matter, and the kinematic gravitational viscosity is equal to the ratio of the dynamic gravitational viscosity to the mass density of baryonic matter. The physical nature of the quantum of the gravitational field of the baryonic matter of the observable Universe is the kinematic gravitational viscosity of this field.
See conference paper:
THE QUANTUM OF THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD. THE GRAVITATIONAL-ELECTROMAGNETIC RESONANCE. PHYSICAL NATURE OF THE QUANTUM OF THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
What is the problem of the unambiguous value of the polarization angle of the CMB, which is 0.35 degrees, differs from 0 and does not take on a chaotic value from the point of view of dark energy? See article: Yuto Minami and Eiichiro Komatsu New Extraction of the Cosmic Birefringence from the Planck 2018 Polarization Date https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.11254.pdf First of all, attention is drawn to itself - this is a highlighted, unambiguous, specific value of the polarization angle, which, moreover, is not equal to zero. As you know, relic radiation penetrates the entire space of the observable Universe. This means that in everything! space of the observable Universe there is a spatial asymmetry. But dark energy equally affects every point in space of the observable universe, so it cannot create such an asymmetry. It is known from technical electrodynamics that if a radar transmitter generates an electromagnetic wave, for example, with horizontal (vertical) linear polarization, and it is necessary to apply linear polarization to the antenna at a specific angle, then it is enough to twist a rectangular waveguide at this angle. The existence of a specific value of the polarization angle in the relict knot radiation means that the entire space of the observable Universe is folded, twisted. This is only possible when this space is rotating.
• asked a question related to Gravitation
Question