Dynamic Gravity theory to explain dark matter, cosmic ray energy, etc.

[kba]

I have a theory which explains the Gravity as dynamical force which appears only between moving particles. Actually electric and strong (aka nuclear) forces also appears only between particles, but as static ones.

This theory has few conclusions. One of them that the infinitly continued relative movement of all bodies in the space remains by means of dynamical force of gravity.

Thus,

1. Stars in any galaxy move with weak acceleration. By time they their orbit and speed increase. When they reach the galaxy's periferia their velocity increased greatly.
This is explanation for dark matter phenomena.

2. Cosmic rays get their high speed and energy during the weakly accelerated (by gravity) movement between galaxies after mil-ons and bil-ons years.
Known "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays demonstates the border between galaxy nad extragalaxy ones. Only the extragalaxy cosmic rays have energy exceed galaxy's ones by times, because the distance between galaxies much bigger then galaxys' size, and extragalaxy cosmic rays get thier superiorioty in the velocity and energy over the galaxy ones by weak gravity acceleration in this distances.

There are many other conclusions in the Dynamical Gravity theory.

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, kba said:

I have a theory which explains the Gravity as dynamical force which appears only between moving particles. Actually electric and strong (aka nuclear) forces also appears only between particles, but as static ones.

This theory has few conclusions. One of them that the infinitly continued relative movement of all bodies in the space remains by means of dynamical force of gravity.

Thus,

1. Stars in any galaxy move with weak acceleration. By time they their orbit and speed increase. When they reach the galaxy's periferia their velocity increased greatly.
This is explanation for dark matter phenomena.

2. Cosmic rays get their high speed and energy during the weakly accelerated (by gravity) movement between galaxies after mil-ons and bil-ons years.
Known "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays demonstates the border between galaxy nad extragalaxy ones. Only the extragalaxy cosmic rays have energy exceed galaxy's ones by times, because the distance between galaxies much bigger then galaxys' size, and extragalaxy cosmic rays get thier superiorioty in the velocity and energy over the galaxy ones by weak gravity acceleration in this distances.

There are many other conclusions in the Dynamical Gravity theory.

How do you explain the weight of a lump of concrete?

[studiot]

1 hour ago, kba said:

I have a theory which explains the Gravity as dynamical force which appears only between moving particles. Actually electric and strong (aka nuclear) forces also appears only between particles, but as static ones.

This theory has few conclusions. One of them that the infinitly continued relative movement of all bodies in the space remains by means of dynamical force of gravity.

Thus,

1. Stars in any galaxy move with weak acceleration. By time they their orbit and speed increase. When they reach the galaxy's periferia their velocity increased greatly.
This is explanation for dark matter phenomena.

2. Cosmic rays get their high speed and energy during the weakly accelerated (by gravity) movement between galaxies after mil-ons and bil-ons years.
Known "knee" shift in the energy spectrum of cosmic rays demonstates the border between galaxy nad extragalaxy ones. Only the extragalaxy cosmic rays have energy exceed galaxy's ones by times, because the distance between galaxies much bigger then galaxys' size, and extragalaxy cosmic rays get thier superiorioty in the velocity and energy over the galaxy ones by weak gravity acceleration in this distances.

There are many other conclusions in the Dynamical Gravity theory.

Nonsense.

Science was sufficiently advanced for Cavendish to measure the gravitational attraction of stationary bodies as small as a few kg placed near each other before 1800.

[kba]

14 hours ago, exchemist said:

How do you explain the weight of a lump of concrete?

As I see electrons and nuclones in the atom's core are continuously moving relatively to each other. And any particle (or body) move relatively to most particles (bodies) in the Universe.

Any such movement generates gravitational force which appears as weight.

14 hours ago, studiot said:

Nonsense.

Science was sufficiently advanced for Cavendish to measure the gravitational attraction of stationary bodies as small as a few kg placed near each other before 1800.

And any bodies consist continuously moving particles - electrons and nuclones.

Edited July 5, 2022 by kba

[Sensei]

@kba

What is wrong with the education system in your country?

 

[kba]

2 hours ago, kba said:

any bodies consist continuously moving particles - electrons and nuclones.

I mean electron's running around atom's core, and nuclones periodic deviations (vibrations), as the Sun deviate under gravitation of planets, especially Jupiter, and Saturn.
For example, exoplanet's mass can be calculated using such deviation of parent star.

Edited July 5, 2022 by kba

[joigus]

I don't know what you've found, but it doesn't look like gravity at all. Starting with... it seems to violate the equivalence principle, it's not consistent with Cavendish's experiment... Although, to be fair, you haven't explained how your force depends on the masses (inertias) of the bodies.

It seems to be an ill-conceived (or ill-explained) version of a magnetic effect. Any theory that purports to be the new theory of gravity must start with an explanation of the basics. And then you go on to explain the more subtle effects --dark matter, etc. as probably small corrections.

I don't see that happening on this thread.

[exchemist]

4 hours ago, kba said:

As I see electrons and nuclones in the atom's core are continuously moving relatively to each other. And any particle (or body) move relatively to most particles (bodies) in the Universe.

Any such movement generates gravitational force which appears as weight.

And any bodies consist continuously moving particles - electrons and nuclones.

But if that were so, things would get appreciably heavier when they became warmer or entered excited states. We don't observe that, do we? 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, exchemist said:

But if that were so, things would get appreciably heavier when they became warmer or entered excited states. We don't observe that, do we? 

We do, in accordance with E=mc^2

IOW, in accordance with mainstream physics. But because c is so big, the mass change is small, and difficult to observe. But that's been done; an isotope of Fe in a Penning trap was observed to have two different frequencies, which means two masses - one for the excited state and one for the ground state.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278

In principle, any energy other than that associated with linear momentum of the center-of-mass will raise the mass of an object. Again, this is standard relativity, and not evidence in support of any new hypothesis (in fact, it's likely evidence against any new hypothesis, since we only see the increase that we expect.)

8 hours ago, kba said:

And any bodies consist continuously moving particles - electrons and nuclones.

QM doesn't treat electrons as moving; there is no classical trajectory one can assign to them.

[studiot]

Just to add a little to swansont's post (+1)

 

@kba

 

I advise you look at Earnshaw's theorem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw's_theorem

This classical theorem applies to systems with centres of charge (gravitational, electric, magnetic) and the field interactions between them.

 

It basically states that for any system with two or more poles, rest is an unstable state so such a system must be in motion.

 

But it does not state that the field or the interactions are caused by the motion.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

We do, in accordance with E=mc^2

IOW, in accordance with mainstream physics. But because c is so big, the mass change is small, and difficult to observe. But that's been done; an isotope of Fe in a Penning trap was observed to have two different frequencies, which means two masses - one for the excited state and one for the ground state.

http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278

In principle, any energy other than that associated with linear momentum of the center-of-mass will raise the mass of an object. Again, this is standard relativity, and not evidence in support of any new hypothesis (in fact, it's likely evidence against any new hypothesis, since we only see the increase that we expect.)

QM doesn't treat electrons as moving; there is no classical trajectory one can assign to them.

Not appreciably, though. That's why I qualified my statement by including that word. 

As for QM, I don't follow you. Schrödinger's equation is based on electrons possessing kinetic, as well as potential, energy, is it not? So movement seems to be implied, even if trajectories cannot be defined. Furthermore in heavy atoms, my understanding is that one has to make relativistic corrections to allow for the "speed" of the electrons becoming a significant fraction of c, which makes the orbitals more stable than would otherwise be the case (e.g. why Hg is liquid, why Au is yellow, etc.) 

Edited July 5, 2022 by exchemist

[swansont]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

As for QM, I don't follow you. Schrödinger's equation is based on electrons possessing kinetic, as well as potential, energy, is it not? So movement seems to be implied, even if trajectories cannot be defined. Furthermore in heavy atoms, my understanding is that one has to make relativistic corrections to allow for the "speed" of the electrons becoming a significant fraction of c, which makes the orbitals more stable than would otherwise be the case (e.g. why Hg is liquid, why Au is yellow, etc.) 

If electrons had a trajectory, they would be accelerating, and would radiate. QM is why we have orbitals and not orbits, and the location is undetermined unless measured. The relativistic corrections are to the energy, not the speed. Most journal papers are careful about this; many pop-sci descriptions are not. It's a sloppiness of explaining things with classical descriptions that don't actually hold up when compared to the science. It's understandable when you're trying to reach a broader audience, but in this case it's watered down to the point where it's wrong.

Quote

Not appreciably, though. That's why I qualified my statement by including that word. 

Yes, but I was trying to make the point (to the OP; you already know this) that in science we quantify things. And the situation being proposed has been looked at, and the only effect we see is the one we know about. It's small, and it leaves no room for some other conjecture.

[exchemist]

16 minutes ago, swansont said:

If electrons had a trajectory, they would be accelerating, and would radiate. QM is why we have orbitals and not orbits, and the location is undetermined unless measured. The relativistic corrections are to the energy, not the speed. Most journal papers are careful about this; many pop-sci descriptions are not. It's a sloppiness of explaining things with classical descriptions that don't actually hold up when compared to the science. It's understandable when you're trying to reach a broader audience, but in this case it's watered down to the point where it's wrong.

Yes, but I was trying to make the point (to the OP; you already know this) that in science we quantify things. And the situation being proposed has been looked at, and the only effect we see is the one we know about. It's small, and it leaves no room for some other conjecture.

Are you trying to tell me that electrons in an atomic or molecular orbital have kinetic energy without motion? How does that work?

Edited July 5, 2022 by exchemist

[swansont]

23 minutes ago, exchemist said:

Are you trying to tell me that electrons in an atomic or molecular orbital have kinetic energy without motion? How does that work?

It's a standing wave in a potential well

[studiot]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Are you trying to tell me that electrons in an atomic or molecular orbital have kinetic energy without motion? How does that work?

 

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

It's a standing wave in a potential well

 

 

Another way to look at this is to take E = mc² and combine it with E = hf to obtain f = mc² / h

In words The wave function of a state with energy E vibrates at a frequency given by this equation.

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, studiot said:

Another way to look at this is to take E = mc² and combine it with E = hf to obtain f = mc² / h

In words The wave function of a state with energy E vibrates at a frequency given by this equation.

Not sure where you're going with this. The energy of the electron states in e.g. a hydrogen atom is not the mass energy of the electron, it's the energy from the electrostatic interaction. The potential well is 13.6 eV deep for the ground state electron. In He+ this would quadruple (Z^2 dependence), even though the electron's mass energy is the same

An electron in the Bohr model has a kinetic energy of 13.6 eV and a potential energy of -27.2 eV, but we must recall the Bohr model is not a physically correct depiction.

[exchemist]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

It's a standing wave in a potential well

Yes, fair enough, that makes sense, in the wave picture at any rate. 

[kba]

On 7/5/2022 at 1:31 PM, joigus said:

I don't know what you've found, but it doesn't look like gravity at all.

On 7/5/2022 at 1:31 PM, joigus said:

Any theory that purports to be the new theory of gravity must start with an explanation of the basics

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.

 

On 7/5/2022 at 1:31 PM, joigus said:

it seems to violate the equivalence principle

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.

On 7/5/2022 at 1:31 PM, joigus said:

Although, to be fair, you haven't explained how your force depends on the masses (inertias) of the bodies

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.

Edited July 7, 2022 by kba

[joigus]

24 minutes ago, kba said:

Because it defines inertial mass as a gravitational one.

Ok. Sorry I hadn't read your comments when I gave you the previous reply. But here's an interesting point that shows clearly that you do not understand basic physics. Inertial mass (or simply inertia) is one thing, and gravitational mass is another --very different-- one. You cannot simply identify both in a definition. It is a salient experimental fact that both are exactly and universally proportional for all matter in the universe as far as we can tell. You can therefore identify them in the mathematics by choosing appropriate units.

[kba]

On 7/5/2022 at 5:50 PM, swansont said:

QM doesn't treat electrons as moving; there is no classical trajectory one can assign to them.

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.

  

2 minutes ago, joigus said:

You cannot simply identify both in a definition

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.

On 7/5/2022 at 2:13 PM, exchemist said:

But if that were so, things would get appreciably heavier when they became warmer or entered excited states. We don't observe that, do we? 

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.

[joigus]

1 hour ago, kba said:

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.

No. I meant:

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Inertial mass (or simply inertia) is one thing, and gravitational mass is another --very different-- one.

That is, inertia and gravitational mass are very different things.

and,

1 hour ago, joigus said:

You cannot simply identify both in a definition. It is a salient experimental fact that both are exactly and universally proportional for all matter in the universe as far as we can tell. You can therefore identify them in the mathematics by choosing appropriate units.

So you can't define them as equal, which is what you said.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, kba said:

Dynamic Gravity theory explains QM by words of CM. 

1. No, it doesn't. This is far too lacking in detail to make such a claim.

2. Who is CM?

2 hours ago, kba said:

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.

QM is far more nuanced than this. The basic model this corresponds to - the Bohr model - is incorrect. Even so, can you derive the energy levels of the hydrogen atom starting only with your material?

Can you explain the Lamb shift with your "model"? The hyperfine splitting of the ground state of hydrogen? The fact that the ground state has no orbital angular momentum?

[kba]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

2. Who is CM?

I quess that QM is Quantum Mechanics? Then CM is Classic Mechanics. Not exactly Classic Neuton's laws. Just a mechanical principle.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Can you explain

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.

Edited July 7, 2022 by kba

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, kba said:

I quess that QM is Quantum Mechanics? Then CM is Classic Mechanics. Not exactly Classic Neuton's laws. Just a mechanical principle.

There are elements of quantum mechanics that can't be explained using classical mechanics, so your dynamic gravity can't explain quantum mechanics in these terms.

 

35 minutes ago, kba said:

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.

It can't explain everything, but it can explain everything?

35 minutes ago, kba said:

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.

You are making lots of promises, and yet you haven't delivered on any of them. Soon it will be time to put up or shut up.

[kba]

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

It can't explain everything, but it can explain everything?

I can't explain everything you wish right now. But my theory can. Just try it  :)

37 minutes ago, swansont said:

Soon it will be time to put up or shut up.

It looks like an examination, not a discussion. In case of "shut up" I wish to remove thread totaly from this "forum".

Edited July 7, 2022 by kba