kba

I'll believe in your measurements ) Just make them to refute his ones.

"Pulsations" - is his explanation, weight changes is measurement. As I don't belive his explanation as I don't believe your scepsis. I adopt only measurements.

He published few books. But I saw his presentation on youtube. In this publication (https://docs.google.com/gview?url=https://www.phantastike.com/other/weather/doc/) in russian you can find the weight measurement graphics (from page 27)

Is scales independent of science? He didn't mean to find weight changes, he just registered them. And, exactly, he didn't know about relative gravity changes. His explanation for phenomena of weight changes was incorrect. Only useful thing in his researches for me is long time weight measurement I never made. Just make your own measurement to refute his one.

The confirmation for relative gravity changes I've found in the Internet: As the independed gravity researcher Anatoliy F. Chernyaev [1937-2013] from Russia was argued about 10 years ago, he made weight measurements for various materials and he did registered their weight changes during the traveling of Earth on its orbit, per year. These changes were in range 1÷7 gr. for every 100 gr. of weight and had, generally, wavelike form. As he said, these changes were depended on distance of Earth from the Sun.

I have a model of particles, which unifies all basic physical interactions: electrostatic, strong and gravitational. In this model, particles are represented as spheric formation of fundamental field, and we do not need any quarks. I consider particles as made from continued field which can be represented by means of unified "primary "elements". All kinds of Matter are constructred by such elements. We can describe their properties, but we cannot extract and separete them from continued field. IMO, it is impossible to describe particles using electromagnetics equations, we need equations which describes "primary elements". These New physics's equation will describe both, particles and electromagnetic field. I'm not that familiar with field theory, as you are. But I'm sure that you are on the right way. You can try to describe equations for "primary elements", if you wish. And we'll get New physics Why they must slide? Is there some additional force which make them to slide? Just do not look back to General relativity.

You wrote about an effect on the inner ear, not about Coriolis's force. Actually, orbital period of 30 second for 224m of diameter isn't so slow rotation speed. Anyway drop aside effect will depend on speed of movement inside the rotating station. I like an idea, but I don't think that the mining on the moons or asteroids is more profitable than it is in the Earth's oceans, if you do plan to delivery raws to the Earth's land.

Why nobody doesn't takes into account the Coriolis' force? Such artificial gravity is convinient only if nobody and nothing do move inside the rotating space station. Any movements will induce the Coriolis's force which will trying to drop moved object aside. Moving peoples will look as they're drank ) Also any transportations inside rotating space station which use its artificial gravity will affect to its rotation stability.

There is a simple proof for the subject of thread. How we do thinking? How works our mentation and imagination? What physical principles in that how our brain works? Is there a mathematics in those principles? You don't need any other reasoning. PS. Accordingly to this concepts, any ideas, even phantastic, have a math in their grounds. Because the brain works only using the math based processes.

I have such prediction.

I disagree.

Your question looks as phylosophic. In term of Phylosophy, the Motion is a main property of Matter, by which the Matter demostates its relativity.

e.g. this one https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222660357_Models_of_the_Knee_in_the_Energy_Spectrum_of_Cosmic_Rays Google search gives numerous links if you'd like to be more informed on that subject. Actually, I hoped that you have wide knowledge in Astrophysics. You say such because you are talking on a GR language. Because fundamental grounds must be reinspected. Dynamic gravity based on other grounds which declares that "There aren't motions, in the Universe, without forces". PS. thanks for attention and spended time.

Because English isn't my native language. And I don't use it daily. Except of two threads here. An achieving of what? I didn't understand your request. An achieving of what? I didn't understand your request.

I didnt meant it. Fistly you asked Without any reference what predictions you mean. The connection with my "The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value." you provided later. I was mistaken. "r is a constant value" means that it is constant in the time in some limits. I didn't mean that Earth has form of ideal sphere. But for r/R ratio these deviations of r can be ignored as doesn't matter.

It's interesting for me. Did you the precision measurements of weight for etalon mass during half of year? What the part? There isn't any additional part of g, which doesn't depends on G, in the equation. )

Dinosaurs' extinction showed us that it is a true ) The surface is that you do stand on. What more definition do you need? And here is what I asked you. Ok. I understud you at now. And I say again. Because the ratio r/R for various orbits isn't constant. This ratio correlate with gravity acceleration value by law describes its changing from minimum to a maximum or vice versa. When the Earth's orbit and Earth's local gravity system (R) is decreasing, the g on r goes nearer to the minimum on the gravity acceleration graphics, and, vice versa, when R is increasing, g on r goes nearer to the maximum of gravity acceleration. Using Newton's gravity law without idea of gravity's relativity, you'll never get the changing of gravity on the planet's surface during the changing of planet's orbit. So, just don't try. )

Actually the DM phenomena is stated as deviation from Newton's law, for the stars' and galaxies' speed curves. The prediction of DM looks like post-predictions for hypothetical particles which wasn't registered in any experiments during about 100 years of DM, from the thirties.

But g depends on G: F=mg=GmM/r^2 => g=MG/r^2. where, G was defined as constant in the tests made near to the current Earth's orbit. How about 2/r^2?

Did you saw what phenomena in your list I had accented by bold fonts? Only with adjective "gravitational". They are connected with light distribution. Actually, gravitation (accordingly to DG) has two kind of action - an attraction and a repulsion. That's why it cannot to influe to the light distribution. The mass(energy) can do it, but not the gravity. Do we observe extraspeed for stars in the galaxies peripheria? Do we observe ultra high energy protons in the cosmic rays? Do we observe "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays? And for the GR: Do we register gravitons? Do we register DM particles?

Actually, I do.

The test measurements of G gave various values. The difference was bigger than measurement's precision. May be it was connected with Relative gravity?

Accordingly to Relative Gravity, we have the difference (from Newtonian law) for the gravity only inside the local gravitational system. I can't provide final RG law formula, yet. But, considering the previously published picture, it must describe the gravity function for third body, as a changing of the gravity acceleration, from its minimum (zero value), on the border of planet's local gravity system to its maximum (constant, which depends on planet's mass), in the center of the planet, by means of curve, which should be defined by 1/r^2 law. The distance (r) from planet's center to its surface is a constant value. But the size (R) of local gravitational system (accordingly to picture, posted above) depends on a planet's orbital radius, and they're get various value, due to difference on Sun's gravity acceleration on those orbits. Thus, we have various ratio r/R for the functions of the gravitational acceleration on the various orbits of the planet. This is a reason, accordingly to Relative Gravity, to register different acceleration on the planet's surface on its different orbits.

Actually, phenomena, you had described as gravitational exactly aren't connected with gravity. But DM, which GR cannot describe, is absolutely gravitational one. Accordingly to Dynamic Gravity (DG) the gravity is a force, which appears between mass particles during their relative nearing, and it isn't something static which influences to massless particles. So, the dynamical gravity is much different thing, than GR describes. The DG explains two real gravitational phenomena - the Dark matter, and the acceleration of cosmic rays, which wasn't predicted by GR. When, after number of years, the scientists will not find dark matter particles, they will have to reinspect the GR. I'm suggesting to do it right now. Thanks. I'll do it right now. IMO, it's a main mistake that scientists consider GR as a gravity theory. Accordingly to DG, the GR isn't a gravity theory, because it doesn't describe the Gravity as a force (which, actually, is a force). The GR is, as it was defined, a relativity's theory. It describes how the mass generates the local space-time and how ST curvature (tension) defines the relativity of all interactions.

Do you define them as gravitational because they're correlates with space-time curvature which GR defines as gravity? Accordingly to Dynamic gravity, I can state that the dispersion of electron is gravitational phenomena. I think that GR and QM will disagree with such proposition. ) But, where is a "totally"? ; Explains or shows (demonstrates) "how ... works" - what the difference?