kba

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?

You'll do it because highly likely my theory is valid. Actually, you have not a theory which explains the nature of gravity. If I'll say that the Moon and the Sun (everything on the sky) are the stars, then astronomers will say that I'm totally wrong? It would mean that Sun isn't a star, and that there aren't stars on the sky. It's a measuring an acceleration of inertial motion for the test mass in large scale of distances.

F=ma, where a - is an universal acceleration, which value is empiric and must be found by precision test, or can be calculated, using "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays It is dynamical, because it appears only while particles moving relatively to each other.

I think that not all phenomenas, which GR explains, are gravitational. Probably, most of them just relativistic ones.

How do you understand the gravity? Could you answer, why an electromagnetic field (which represented inside particles as mass) in its "free form" (outside of particles) doesn't generate the gravity? Accordingly to a subject of this thread it "bring to the table" many answers to paleobiological and geophysical questions. I'm sure that many specialists in paleo- and geo- sciences would like to correlate many known evidencies with changes of the Earth's gravity.

Ok, basic principles do not change. But what about conditions? Can you say that nothing changes for Earth on different orbits? I can't. And I found why.

Why all? Only comparable with our Galaxy or bigger, and which exactly do not moving closer to us. And, do you know exactly what condition of space-time there are, around of all galaxies to consider all possible gravitational relativities? I'd like to make such surprise ) Anyway something must have place. Because the Big Bang theory isn't explanable. Accordingly to Dynamic Gravity, the movement outside of Universe is impossible. There are no forces to provide it. Why not? Is there "climbing out" or isn't? Is there gravity or isn't? Is it equal to Cosmological red shift or isn't - let it say astronomers.

Main law for interaction is inverse-squared dependence of force on a distance. The difference have place in the particles' interaction in the microworld, which isn't area to use Newton's law. Dynamic gravity provides the stable orbits for elecrons in the atom with constant rotating moment, which probably can explain the results of basic experiment of QM - "dispertion of electron". For macroworld the difference from Newton's principles appears only as additional acceleration for any moving bodies and particles in the Universe, which denies the First Law of Newton's mechanics and provides the infinite dynamic for Universe, by means of energy accumulation and traveling it to other areas of Universe.

Relativity connected to speed of interaction by means of v/c or v^2/c^2. You can't explain all phenomenas exists in the Universe by gravity. There are more fundamental things which have not connected with gravity. The gravity only one separate interaction. I think that cosmologic red shift could be explained by gravitation's relativity which discussed in other my thread you had commented. Because the Solar system have placed on the peripheria of the Galaxy, and red shift which observed in the far galaxies is mostly light from their centers, so the main part of red shift is a gravitational shift while light moves from centers of galaxies to their peripheria, as that, where Solar system have placed.

Where the proofs? I didn't checked that. Did you? I have found theoretical possibility for relativity of gravity. If the time in the test space-time volume will get much slower (e.g. near to Black Hole) then how we should consider the physical laws there? The quantity of matter remain constant, but speeds of actions will decrease, or in other words the time spends for them will grow. The space-time looks like a liquid with tension which slowers any actions, including Gravity. Nearer to Sun - stronger tension of space-time (and slower own gravity of bodies).

PS. To calculate additional precession you shouln't consider the Sun and the planet as interacting points, you have to consider them as volumes of separetely interacting particles (atoms). I think, it is possible to consider these volumes by pairs of parts (under the integral), one of them get closer, other get farer. Because it is a main difference between particles which that volumes consist, and which should be considered.

You can use Newton's law. But you have to consider the speed of gravitation (which equal to c), because gravity, as dynamical force, depends on it. For v<<c you shouldn't get something special by your calculations inside the Solar system (i.e. in small scale of space and time), except additional precession (mostly for Mercury ;) and possible very slow increasing of orbit for far planets.

This is correct because a test particle and an accelerometer (actually, particles it consists) already [in free fall] under the same gravity acceleration.

I'm so agree with these. I have an explanation for the essense of gravity, as a dynamical force, which based on particles' model. And this explanation predicts very weak acceleration (caused by gravity of far stars, accordingly with Mach's principle) for any bodies and particles for their inertial traveling. Such weak acceleration, in the scales of galaxy, provides the high speed for peripheral stars and rotating curve which differs with newtonian one. And no DM is needed. Also it provides very high speed and energy for particles in the cosmic rays. And no supernovas are needed. Probably, it could be connected with some kinds of bursters, with ultraspeed extragalaxy stars, etc., anything that depend on accelerated traveling. Its nature, its origin, its source.

How it is possible to discuss what "gravity theory" is better while them all don't explain the essense of gravity?

I can't explain everything you wish right now. But my theory can. Just try it :) It looks like an examination, not a discussion. In case of "shut up" I wish to remove thread totaly from this "forum".

In the language I speak the "substance" term which came from English without translation, defines something continuous without defining is it contains particles or not. k=R^2. Newton's factor 1/r^2 is for own gravity on the distance from central mass of own gravitational system. But my R in the equation of gravity is a distance from central mass of external system (Sun). F=[k1/k2•G]•M•m/r^2. Where, k1 is for R1, k2 for R2. My idea explains how it is possible for sauropods reach to 100tn of mass (not 1kN of weight!), 13 m of height without 1,5bar of blood pressure, and for ptherosaurs reach 12 m of wing sizes and 200 kg of mass and be able to rise up and for active flying.

I quess that QM is Quantum Mechanics? Then CM is Classic Mechanics. Not exactly Classic Neuton's laws. Just a mechanical principle. I didn't mean to explain everything in the Universe, just made the theory based on general principles, which can explain everything, step by step, by years. In case if scientists will take it as basic. UToI is a simpliest of theories. It explains everithing in the universe by means of only one element of Matter and its main propertiy - speed of interaction. If the speed of stars in the galaxies will correlate with knee shift in cosmic ray's energy spectrum it will main evidence for Dynamic gravity theory. Only this one evidence will be suffificent to rewrite basic principles in mainstream Physics.

The Gravitation was explained few times. And General relativity as I see, isn't final explanation? The main hypothesis is that the gravity on the planets surface depends on external gravity of parent star. When the planet changes its orbit, the gravity on its surface changes too. The factor of gravity changes I demonstrated above k=R^2. Where R - radius of planet's orbit. It works for planets only inside Sun's gravity system. Outside we must consider only Galaxy's gravity. In that example I just imagine how time changes can correlate between with gravity of planets. I just suggest that it so. The gravity isn't a substance containing particles. But to represent gravitation relativity I should to use the term of dension to demonstrate its gradient. I can change the substance term to lines of fields (like electomagnetic ones). They do not interact with each other, but density of such lines correlate with gravity (aka space-time in General relativity). Thus, no flows, no particles in such substance. It is not an ether theory. It is just a correction to Neuton's law for the complex gravitational system, where body placed in the planets' gravity which already placed to solar's one. Probably the red shift in the light spectrum of far galaxies also could be explained as gravitation's relativity (as its additional evidence). Mainstream isn't constant thing. What do you name "mainstream" - asteroid impact or Deccan Traps?

Thanks for you opinion. I know many reasons why my hypothesis cannot be admited by scientists. Anyway it can explain many evidences by simple idea. Increased volcano and tectonic activity and floods, highest transgression in the Earth's history, climate change, appearences of bony fishes, flowers, extinction of all giants, moving whales' and dolphins' ancestors to sea, etc. All these numerous things was happened together about 65 mln. years. As I see, no any other idea except of gravity change can combine them all. And I only have found the (probably possible) way for changing gravity significally withous changing mass.

Dynamic Gravity theory explains QM by words of CM. As you can see above (in my comment to @joigus) the Dynamical gravity force must have two signs (direction) - which represents as mutual attrcation for the particles with similar electric charge and mutual repulsion for the particles with different electric signs. In the atom we have in one moment two oppositing forces - mutual electric attraction between atom's core and electrons and mutual repulsion between them by means of dynamical (anti)gravitational force. The parts of kinetic energy (quants) can change the speed of electron (and the value of dynamical anti-gravity force) and change its orbit (where strong force have other value). Thus, electron gets its stable orbit where strong attraction fully compensated by dynamical (anti)gravity. Also the balance between strong focres and (anti)gravitational one inside the atom provide the stable moment. Other classic QM effects, IMHO can be explained by similar double interactions between monitored particles and atoms in the bodies. Do you mean that both of them are placed on contrary sides of formula? And that the one force always must be in opposition to other? IMHO, using the values of speed of change of forces (instead of resulting values) we can resolve this issue. I imagine (for myself) the movement relatively: any body in the Universe is a part of many (actually innumerous) systems. By changing speed it change one system by other one. And the inertial (defined by gravity) mass of body is only its relativity to other systems. By difining the changes of gravity forces we can demostrate how body moves from one such system to other. The speed of atoms while body get warmed cannot compare with electrons one in the atom. Also many years ago I have read some pop-science news about decreasing mass of coldened body. I don't know exactly was it a fake-news or not. Actually, the correllation of mass of the particles on speed is a main proposition of General relativity. I just exlplain this effect in other words.

Actually, by posting this topic I hoped to engage attention of specialists in Astrophysics to check out - is there a correlation between stars' extraspeed in the galaxies and knee shift in the cosmic rays' energy spectrum? I hope it is. Both parameters must depend on additional constant acceleration which I'll glad to connect with my theory. But if you need more details about my theory, I can start new thread dediacted exactly to its basics or answer to your questions in this one. Actually, the equivalence principle absolultelly provided by Dynamic gravity theory. This theory, as I see, only way to explain it. Because it defines inertial mass as a gravitational one. It doesn't depends on it. Dynamic gravity force generates inertial mass. Some basics of Dynamic gravity theory; Actually this theory is a part Unified theory of Interactions (UToI) which explains the essence of all kind o forces by general principles. Accordingly to UToI all particles interact with other by only one general interaction (unified static force) which represented by two well-known main static forces - strong (aka nuclear) and electric, which works on different distances and replaces each other, and by one dynamic force (gravity) which is a part of unified static force. While two charged particles nearer than some critical distance they interactation represented as strong (or nuclear). On the far distances they unified interaction changes its sign (direction) and it represented as electic. For the particles with similar lectric charge strong force is attractive, but electric one is repulsive. And for the particles with different electric charge vice versa. It work such due to particles form and force distributions inside them. Besides of static interaction the spheric objects generates also dynamical one which is a some part of resulting static forces and it depends on a speed of relative particles' movement. Therefore, the gravity reflects the energy(mass) which particles consist, also it dependence from speed as described in General relativity.