Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
beard_new

Theory of interaction of physical spaces

17 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

beard_new

I will not immediately download all the brains of voluminous text. It will be possible to discuss later on specific sections, possibly in different topics.

Let's start with the main thing.

1. Each hypothesis and theory in physics has in its foundation principles or postulates. Sometimes one can doubt their truth, but the theory built on these postulates is usually not intrinsically contradictory. Therefore, it is difficult to accept criticism, for example, about SRT and GTR, when the reason for criticism was a different understanding of the initial principles.

2. The proposed new hypothesis should explain everything that other theories have already explained, and further explain what the predecessors did not explain.

3. The theory and hypothesis should contain only certain terms. If there is no generally accepted definition of a concept, this definition must be in a hypothesis or theory.

4. The physical theory should not contain infinite and zero values of physical quantities. Material points with zero dimensions and infinite density in the real world do not exist.

5. There is always a reason for each event.

From this perspective, I approached the development of the theory of interaction of physical spaces TIPS.

As a test of the battle, I take the facts known from observations and, on the basis of my theory, calculate the magnitude of the effects, comparing them with the observed ones.

Today I propose to discuss the first principle of the theory.

There is no single space, like Newton's, or a single space-time, like Einstein's.

Space is an attribute of physical objects, determined by the charge of the object (gravitational, electrical, and possibly others), which has its own structure.

The spaces of massive physical objects have two areas - external and internal. The outer regions of spaces are added together.

In fact, what is usually called the gravitational field, and there is a space that can be called gravitational. A static electric field can be called an electrical space. In this way, space can be defined as a field, but this does not add clarity to the term.

The properties of space I begin to consider with its density. If we consider classical ideas about the field, then the density of the gravitational space is the second derivative of the potential. But in TIPS the density is at the base, and then the integral over the radius gives the tension, and the next integral gives the potential.

Classical physics does not see physical meaning in the very notion of potential, giving meaning only to its derivatives. Considering the density of space as a basic property, we attach meaning and potential, as a double integral of density along the radius.

Why make it so complicated? Simply this approach gives an answer to the question - why do gravitational charges attract of the same name (masses) attract, and the electric charges of the same name repel.

And the answer to this question leads to the need to include an amendment to the law of universal gravitation of Newton (but the Coulomb law does not require an amendment). The magnitude of the correction is so small that even at the surface of the sun its value is close to unity 0.999987, and at distances of known orbits the planets are practically indistinguishable from unity.

Without the potential of the universe, the space of which is formed by all the material objects present in it, the masses would be pushed like electrical charges. But the presence of a very high potential (the square of the speed of light C ^ 2) of the Universe, or more precisely, of the high density of the collective space of physical objects, leads to a change in the density gradient of space, the density of its energy, and the direction of motion of physical objects in an effort to occupy the lowest energy state.

The universe has no common electric potential. "Electrical" spaces appear to be embedded in the gravitational space, have two signs, and their carriers are necessarily carriers of the "gravitational" space.

This question is described in detail and graphically on my website .

All formulas there are represented in the system of units of measurements, where C = 1, G = 1 / 4π, unit of length = 1000 km. Accordingly, the units of time, mass, and all other derivatives in this system of units are obtained.

The introduction of the density of space eliminates the need for its curvature.

There are no physical quantities that are not related in any way to the transmission or transformation of energy. So is the metric of space. We estimate the distance from the energy effect (for example, through the propagation of an electromagnetic wave or the mechanical movement of a massive object).

Where the external negative mass potential is completely compensated by the positive potential of the universe, an "event horizon" is formed. Near the event horizon, the rate of all physical processes decreases. And "inside" the surface of the event horizon they can not occur at all, just like the propagation of light. The event horizon is an area without space.

So, I ask to speak out with a constructive criticism of the idea of the private spaces of all existing objects and their unification into the common space of the universe.

Are the facts known to which such a representation contradicts?

While I was able to calculate the anomalous displacement of the perihelion of Mercury from the assumption that the Sun has an absolute velocity in the Universe of 230 km / h. The result is the same as the measured value.

In addition, the rotation speed of the galaxy, computed from TIPS, fits well into the measured data.

computed from TIPS: (linear scale)

fig_2.png.f29bb9c1895d03d849edeaf5f24264ed.png

measured data: (logarithmic scale)

fig_1.thumb.jpg.852153108a9d7d49e1b0e8939f8e6f10.jpg

Another crude (not finalized) version of the theory is on my website. (the site will soon be removed, I turn to the forum site in Russia)

There may be inaccuracies in mathematics. When reading, look at the essence of the questions.

Modern physics does not consider this approach ...

The proper definition of space, time, gravity, electromagnetic field ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Weitter Duckss
3 hours ago, beard_new said:

In fact, what is usually called the gravitational field, and there is a space that can be called gravitational

Gravity is a force with a great reach. That's what we see from:

 cluster of galaxies , is a structure that consists of anywhere from hundreds to thousands of galaxies that are bound together by gravity

Today it is known that most of the universe is connected by gravity through clusters and superclasses.

Does "and there is a space that can be called gravitational." represents the entire universe or the universe you observe through the non-existent Big Bang?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beard_new
3 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

Does "and there is a space that can be called gravitational." represents the entire universe or the universe you observe through the non-existent Big Bang?

Big Bang is a fiction. Everything that is considered a confirmation of the Big Bang has other explanations.
Yes, gravitational forces connect objects of the universe, But they are explained not by the gravitational field in space, but by the properties of space itself. The space has density. The density has a gradient (acceleration).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beard_new

A revised version of the text of the Theory of Interaction of Physical Spaces has appeared. I give the text of the conclusion and a link to PDF.
Conclusion
All matter is considered as a collection of physical spaces of objects of the universe.
The object space is considered as a complex structure with several parameters that determine all known manifestations of physical interactions.
As the fundamental entities, the event time and the space of physical objects are considered. Photons are considered as a perturbation of space.
Attention is drawn to the effect of the gravitational potential of the universe on all the physical laws in it.
This approach allowed us to abandon the concept of force fields. All interactions occur between the spaces of physical objects. In this case, any force is a consequence of the gradient of the potential of the surrounding space.
Also, the concept of absolute motion is introduced. Consideration of the interaction of parallel moving beams of charges is impossible, if we assume that they are in relative rest. The closest practical cases of using such beams are currents in parallel conductors and particle accelerators.
The law of universal gravitation, the direction of the forces of gravity, the force of Lorentz, the rotation curve of the galaxy, the interaction of black holes, the dispersal of galaxies, nuclear interactions are derived from the representations of TIPS.

PDF can be viewed / downloaded from the Yandex disk (https://yadi.sk/i/VlCe40Vb3WMVKJ). The link is secure.

Full text with 29 pages.
I do not update on my website, I will close it soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
18 hours ago, Weitter Duckss said:

 "and there is a space that can be called gravitational.

I was always under the impression that it was a depression in "space time". Like a bowl ( or series of bowls) where everything slides towards the bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beard_new
14 minutes ago, Piney said:

I was always under the impression that it was a depression in "space time". Like a bowl ( or series of bowls) where everything slides towards the bottom.

This is for Einstein. He has space-time. But this is mathematics and not physics. Time itself is a dubious concept :) In this hypothesis, time is a chain of causes and effects, not geometry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, beard_new said:

This is for Einstein. He has space-time. But this is mathematics and not physics. Time itself is a dubious concept :) In this hypothesis, time is a chain of causes and effects, not geometry.

Well then I'm outta here. 2+2=7 in my mind every time. :tu:

 

 

Edited by Piney

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beard_new
Just now, Piney said:

Well them I'm outta here. 2+2=7 in my mind every time

All according to Einstein :)

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss

https://phys.org/news/2018-05-history-saturn-small-moons.html and 

The constant growth of the body becomes very popular.

The conclusion would be that it is a very complex and dynamic pattern related to the processes of objects' creation – it is constantly moving and growing. The complexity of objects is related to the space temperature, the mass of an object and the total sum of tidal forces. Furthermore, the complexity is influenced by the position of an object related to the planet, Sun, as well as the asteroid belt. The important role also belongs to time when object got captured, for how long the object had been near Sun (perihelion) and at what distance.

The goal of this article is to eliminate the biblical-style of thinking of simultaneous creation of all objects and their inability to change during time, as well as to point out that everything could be explained by the already existing evidence and processes.“ from

http://www.svemir-ipaksevrti.com/Universe-and-rotation.html#differences-in -structure

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beard_new
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Weitter Duckss said:

The goal of this article is to eliminate the biblical-style of thinking of simultaneous creation of all objects and their inability to change during time, as well as to point out that everything could be explained by the already existing evidence and processes.“ from

Interesting Facts.

All of them are in good agreement with TIPS (https://yadi.sk/i/VlCe40Vb3WMVKJ). This hypothesis simplifies the view on the device of reality, and in some cases clarifies the notion of physical interactions.
"Critical" conditions for TIPS interaction conditions were practically not covered. And the consequences that are known are explained by physics in that it can not be proved. For example, relict radiation is explained by TIPS, as a consequence of the degradation of matter in certain areas of the universe. Physics speaks of the Big Bang ...
In normal mechanics, TIPS does not introduce amendments. Corrections appear at extremely high gravitational fields, velocities close to C.

Edited by beard_new

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
8 hours ago, beard_new said:

Interesting Facts.

All of them are in good agreement with TIPS (https://yadi.sk/i/VlCe40Vb3WMVKJ). This hypothesis simplifies the view on the device of reality, and in some cases clarifies the notion of physical interactions.
"Critical" conditions for TIPS interaction conditions were practically not covered. And the consequences that are known are explained by physics in that it can not be proved. For example, relict radiation is explained by TIPS, as a consequence of the degradation of matter in certain areas of the universe. Physics speaks of the Big Bang ...
In normal mechanics, TIPS does not introduce amendments. Corrections appear at extremely high gravitational fields, velocities close to C.

First, sorry. The comment was intended (continued) for my topic (wrong turn). I'm glad there are similarities. I failed to enter the post at nowteory.ru. Please link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Emma_Acid
Posted (edited)

 

On 21/05/2018 at 4:57 PM, beard_new said:

Modern physics does not consider this approach ...

I'm sure the world's physicists have been waiting patiently by their phones for your call.

Edited by Emma_Acid
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
beard_new
1 minute ago, Emma_Acid said:

I'm sure the world's physicists have been waiting patiently by their phones for your call.

And there is :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freetoroam

So, i am trying to cook unsoggy rice and i.....

Ooops,  sorry, wrong thread! 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weitter Duckss
On 25. 05. 2018. at 11:19 AM, beard_new said:

I looked. I did not watch the physics discussions. I notice you're doing good. It will be too bad if you do not publish the work. I gave you links to the magazine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.