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

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.

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

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.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.

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.

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?

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*/*m^{3}. 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 10^{113}J*/*m^{3}. 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 10

^{113}J/m^{3}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?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.

We all know that the moon has a gravitational influence on the Earth but does this effect involves the Ionosphere?

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.

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?

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.

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!

🙂

If so, experimental results and related theory might also be helpful ...

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/d

^{4}). 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.

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?

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?

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?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 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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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)

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 :)

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?

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...

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

If so, why should we neglect the effect of gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe which is about 10

^{6}times larger than the additional gravitational potential at the Sun's surface**??**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 ! :)

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.

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.

The Universe is Not Expanding at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356987677_The_Universe_is_Not_Expanding

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 ?

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?

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

^{-25}mt. 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?

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.....*Preprint THEORY OF MOST PROBABLE DISTANCE

my dear unique scholars welcome to your valuable feedback, answers, comments....

thank you

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"...

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.**

**Well... I am happy that this article's conclusion is consistent with my theory and that I can forget about this part of the theory.**

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.

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 (m

_{I}) that appears in F=m_{I}a and gravitational mass (m_{G}) that appears in F=Gm_{G}M/r^{2}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 m_{I}and m_{G}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 m_{I}and m_{G}will be expressed, itself is an inertial mass unit or a gravitational mass unit.I shall be glad if anyone can explain this.

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.

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.

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?

**"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.*

*What is your scientific opinion about space telescopes, important or superfluous?*

**PLEASE ANSWER IN ENGLISH ONLY.**

*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.*

**SOURCE LINK:**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?

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:

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.

.

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.

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.

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 ??

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?

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.

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?

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?

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.

Please don't take me very serious, I`m 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.

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?

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.

Atmosphere of each planets vary according to the gravitational potential. If so, what is the relation/equation connecting both?

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.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?

Dear Sirs,

The 1st law in Newton`s 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.

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

Conference Paper THE QUANTUM OF THE GRAVITATIONL FIELD. THE GRAVITATIONAL-ELE...

GRAVITATIONALOne relation is the Poisson eq. for gravitation

Laplacian (PHI) = 4pi G rho

PHI potential, rho density.

Is there any more direct relation between the two?

Also

Is there a concrete expression for the gravitational self energy of a body of mass M?

(ie suppose the mass M is composed of small parts dm.

Somthing like integral over volume of

dm1 dm2 G / r(1,2)