When stars collapse, they can create black holes, which are everywhere throughout the universe and therefore important to be studied. Black holes are mysterious objects with an outer edge called an event horizon, which traps everything including light. Einstein’s theory of general relativity predicted that once an object falls inside an event horizon, it ends up at the center of the black hole called a singularity where it is completely crushed. At this point of singularity, gravitational attraction is infinite and all known laws of physics break down including Einstein’s theory. Theoretical physicists have been questioning if singularities really exist through complex mathematical equations over the past several decades with little success until now. LSU Department of Physics & Astronomy Associate Professor Parampreet Singh and collaborators LSU Postdoctoral Researcher Javier Olmedo and Abhay Ashtekar, the Eberly Professor of Physics at Penn State developed new mathematical equations that go beyond Einstein’s theory of general relativity overcoming its key limitation—the central singularity of black holes. This research was published recently in Physical Review Letters and Physical Review D and was highlighted by the editors of the American Physical Society.

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh’s new equations describe black holes in loop quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.

“In Einstein’s theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity,” Singh said.

Instead of singularity, loop quantum gravity predicts a funnel to another branch of the space-time.

“These tile-like units of geometry—called ‘quantum excitations’— which resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can detect with today’s technology, but we have precise mathematical equations that predict their behavior,” said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.

“At LSU, we have been developing state-of-the-art computational techniques to extract physical consequences of these physical equations using supercomputers, bringing us closer to reliably test quantum gravity,” Singh said.

Einstein’s theory fails not only at the center of the black holes but also to explain how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity. Therefore, a decade ago, Ashtekar, Singh and collaborators began to extend physics beyond the Big Bang and make new predictions using loop quantum gravity. Using the mathematical equations and computational techniques of loop quantum gravity, they showed that the Big Bang is replaced by the “Big Bounce.” But, the problem of overcoming black hole singularity is exceptionally complex.

“The fate of black holes in a quantum theory of gravity is, in my view, the most important problem in theoretical physics,” said Jorge Pullin, the Horace Hearne professor of theoretical physics at LSU, who was not part of this study.

The research was supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation, the Urania Stott Fund of the Pittsburgh Foundation, the Penn State Eberly College of Science and the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, or MINECO, in Spain.

Publications:

- Quantum Transfiguration of Kruskal Black Holes, Physical Review Letters: https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.121.241301
- Quantum extension of the Kruskal spacetime, Physical Review D: https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.126003

If v>=10c,then we can pass the black hole.

Science achieved many breakthroughs this year, first the Riemann hypothesis, then the artificial sun made by China and now about this quantum loop gravity. This truly proves that nothing is impossible…

In my childhood I learned about heaven and hell which are outside our realm. Now I learn about “another branch of the space-time”. It seems that some physicists publish their visions similarly to biblical prophets. Star Trek movies had shown how people can travel faster than light. Did they show how to switch to a parallel Universe?

Helpful article on singularity, space time and gravity. I especially like your adding a link to the original article.

Following are some of my thoughts on the matter. According to current theory, small pieces of randomly moving matter in space attract each other with their individual minuscule gravitational fields and thereby eventually form increasing larger amounts of matter, eventually leading to stars and planets. The high concentrations of matter warp nearby space-time and create a gravity effect.

The Einstein field equations EFE describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. A re-interpretation of the EFE could lead to the following alternative explanation of how matter collects to form planets and stars, and how spacetime is warped by matter. Rather than matter first collecting, and then distorting space-time and thereby creating gravity effect, I hypothesize that discontinuous areas of SpaceTime could result in concentrated areas of gravity which then attract collections of matter. In a way, this is a reversal of the classic chicken (matter) or the egg (gravity) argument.

@Donald Marks: Amazing idea! The answer to the chicken, egg question would be a link between Einstein general relativity and Standard Model

P.S unless the existence of the question itself is already the link… 🙂

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (essay)

Mercury is revolving in orbit. Size of Mercury increases centrifugal force acting on revolving Mercury. This will be reason for perihelion shift of Mercury. The angle is about 5.75 arc-sec in a year.

Size of Mercury will also increase gravity of Sun (which acts on Mercury). But it will not affect direction of long axis of elliptical orbit (after a round: that is, it will be unrelated to perihelion problem).

@Donald Marks: [brainstorming idea] imagine that this primal energy points is pushed towards or away from each other through the ripples caused by those more dense areas of matter/energy which drives us into a conclusion what are those ripples made of? Highs Field 2.0 :). Interesting thought.

Thank you for the article. This is all well beyond my ability to comment upon, but I find it absolutely fascinating nonetheless

Though I’ve not gained much knowledge yet(self studying for engeenering) but I could say that there exists no universal law …All laws that we say governing nature and not actually accepted everywhere ,every law is restricted upto its own world!!!This is my thought!!!I know I’m mad and so just what I think I just made this mad comment!!!

Does anti-singularity combine with non-locality (re: I think Bell) to demonstrate a multitude, perhaps observably preceding the appearance of a space-time singularity?

“Reality is an illusion, however make your illusion worthwhile.”~Wayne Hicks

Great article!

It seems there will never be a fully established universal theory or law after all; a new discovery will always be made, one that will disprove and extend a previously held one (no matter how reverential we may uphold the latter, or how great the postulator may be-Enstein, Newton,etc.) Einstein’s General Relativity predicts the existence of a singularity at the centre of a black hole, now this Loop Quantum Gravity theory disproves that; Newtonian Mechanics assumes a universal time frame, and Einstein’s theory says there’s no such a thing as that.

One theory says something and a new, more robust one comes along that paints quite a different, more general picture.

This is the nature of Physics, and Science in general. Knowledge grows, and previously held theories crumble in wake of new ones. The search for an ultimate theory of the universe will forever be elusive!

Interesante artículo. Sobre todo muy importante ya que si se comprueba, sería el inicio o tal vez la continuación de la caída de elementos fundamentales de la Teoría de la Relatividad de Albert Einstein (si no fué un plagio a los físicos Poincaré, Lorentz, Heiysenberg y otros).

Hace mucho tiempo estaba buscando un sitio como este.

If one takes into account the axial Doppler shift, there is additional dimensions for time perceived by and observer of a moving object (proper time). Because there is the angle of observation in the axial Doppler shift (angle between a line from the observer to the observed and the motion). Multi-dimension time kills General relativity. For a discussion of this go to this link:https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ERT2iqUtpfn7SXUCJAqZ9_UOe4mv1WOT

If there’s no singularity then the density wont be infinite and subsequently the energy emitted by it wont be infinite too.. so by Einstein’s theory their gravitational pull would be less than that actually predicted wont it?

Albert Einstein was wrong about the speed of light for which that was just his perception through a vacuum. Therefore, the speed of light is infinite in my opinion.

General Theory of, not Theory of General. The theory is general, not the relativity.

Math is nothing more than a linguistic metaphor, a map for describing our experiences. We must remember that the map is not the territory. Math is a linear system, and there are no strait lines in reality, just circles and spirals. Can math accurately describe these? NO!

PI=3.141592654… :it can not be written down!

PHI=1.618…. :it can not be written down!

We can use math to a precision that works for describing OUR EXPERIENCES. That does not mean it is the translation of reality.

IF people could finally find the “Universal Equation” that completely describes the universe, bringing together all the equations that they have to describe all the phenomenon in the Universe (an unrealistic expectation of “God” by my guess) they will find that the Buddha described it years ago in another language, and the Vedas before that. In math it is:

(1=0=∞) (one=zero=infinity: we each are are nothing yet everything)

When theoretical physicists factor in the findings of Cognitive Science they will begin to understand that.

Or at least that is what came to me while meditating.

Send me more details of it

I read George Lakoff ([was/is?] professor of Linguistics at the University of California, Berkley): “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind”; but, with Mark Johnson, “Metaphors We Live By” may better express the Cognitive Science foundation of what I am trying to convey.

There are only a handful of “base metaphors” on which all other metaphors are based, and all language is based on metaphors. These “base” metaphors are something like “in/out,” “up/down,” etc…

Their theory is NOT that “Math can not be a universal language based on a reality that our bodies have evolved to comprehend,” (as I remember the Gnostic teachings to be that Math is God’s language that we are held to learn, if my history holds) but rather that “we understand Math in terms of our basic Embodied Mind’s perceptions, and therefore our comprehension of systems that don’t adhere to those perceptions (quantum physics) falls apart”.

What does it mean for light to be a wave of energy and a particle at the same time? That is the translation of the Mathematical language through our natural linguistic metaphorical system into our perceptual comprehension. That only means WE CAN NOT ACTUALLY COMPREHEND THE MATH in terms of our Embodied Mind.

The limits to this Embodied Mind may very well be unknowable to us. Therefore we come up with equations that seem to work, but when they are all added together, they simplify to 1=0=∞

Or something like that, if I understand their proposition.

In other words:

There MAY be some aspect of the Universe that we *can*not* comprehend because it will not fit into the categories of our perceptions; therefore we can not create a mathematical equation (linguistical expression) for it, and therefore our sum-of-equations becomes 1=0=∞. However, even that statement is misleading, because “aspect” is a metaphor based on the “parts” metaphor based on the “thing” metaphor which is rooted in our handful (pun intended) of Base Metaphors of the Embodied Mind; since we can understand “things” and “parts” therefore “aspects”, we could then ultimately understand what is is I am saying we can not.

So we are stuck in a linguistical conundrum, and Math is very rooted in those same Base Metaphors of the Embodied Mind.

Many call that “aspect” the “spiritual dimension”; but that uses words and therefore metaphors that we can understand.

Taoist say that the Tao that can be spoken of is no the Tao.

Somewheres in the Christian Bible it says God has no “name” other than “God” because naming “God” limits “him” to a metaphor, which is comprehend-able to us.

Other “religions” say “God” has so many, many names (or in Hindu there are many Gods which are all part of the greater One), again because limiting “him” to a single metaphor is misleading us in to thinking we can ultimately comprehend “him”.

Finally, I ask, and subtly suggest in these comments, does the Embodied Mind and its natural ability to comprehend Math yield Meditational Experiences of Oneness with the Universe combined with the understanding that ultimately we are nothing in the face of everything, yet we are that everything? 1=0=∞

Even the metaphors for these numbers mean something:

1 -> whole

∞ -> everything

0 -> infinitly-not something

The speed of light is not infinite, if it was your eyes couldn’t see colors, each color is a fixed speed that your retina and brain understand.Einstein is still right.

Just as Eisteins theory took us beyond Newtons understanding. New theories like this will take us beyond Einsteins. It’s an exciting time with the competing theories about time, space and other dimensions.

@Lynx: I gotchu, bro

My bs meter has hit the speed of infinity my attention tubes have melted and above all else the price of eggs in China has remained the same as yesterday.

@Lynx – yup!

Einstein’e relativity is a wrong theory. There is nothing called spacetime in nature, not to mention the existence of black holes as singularities of spacetime. All the theories based on relativistic spacetime model are wrong. The fatal mistake of Einstein’s relativity is that it uses Lorentz Transformation to redefine time and space and the newly defined time is no longer the physical time we measure with physical clocks. We know the physical time shown on any physical clock is T = tf/k where t is the theoretical time, f is the frequency of the clock and k is a reference frame independent calibration constant. In Newton’s mechanics, f is a reference frame independent constant too. Therefore, we can set k = f to make the clock show the theoretical time i.e. the absolute Galilean time: T = tf/k = tf/f = t.

But in special relativity, frequency is a reference frame dependent variable and can’t be eliminated by setting k = f, thus, T can never be relativistic time t: T = tf/k != t. Therefore, relativistic time is never the clock time i.e. the physical time. On the other hand, when a clock is observed in another inertial reference frame, t’ = γt and f’ = f/γ and T’ = t’f’/k = γt(f/γ)/k = ft/k = T, which means that clock time won’t change with the change of the inertial reference frame, Lorentz invariant and absolute. That is, a clock still measures the absolute time in special relativity. As relativistic time is not the physical time we measure with physical clocks, special relativity is wrong.

The fact that physical time (i.e. clock time) is absolute has been clearly demonstrated by the clocks on the GPS satellites which are synchronized not only relative to the ground clocks but also relative to each other, directly denies the claim of special relativity that clocks can never be synchronized relative to more than one inertial reference frame no matter how you correct them.

Besides the instruction as cause for everything imminent in existence, a function of polarity as (residual) provisional augmentations of space, light was created with space at its boundaries. The structures and compositions of matter upon their creation are derived from the atomic and subatomic plenums, expressed as sine derivation with (timed-tined-polarity, two time grids – one next to one) polarity’s (spin to tine time) all collective arrangements of these tiny constituents (polarity’s sines to twine-time) for motions of all mechanical macroscopic facts. (particle-wave)

CP Violation

(Spatial spin speed or universal quantum field proxies, all approximate, proximate differential variable(s) restrained by (splitting) gravitation into the other forces thus combining energy/mass to quanta/time, vice versa, [these immeasurable atomic, subatomic collective arrangements, field forms of the immaterial, some subatomic parts are also immaterial as an anti-particle’s integuments] like the unconscious as conflux to human consciousness… in an electric-magnetic dual!)

This Truth May Scare You! (2018-2019)

14:41

Anonymous Official

Equivalence principle

On a plain, imagine two gravity sources and fine circular waves (gravity). On every point, vector of two gravity acts as a resultant force and there is a point where the resultant force disappears. Next, gravity source is one. Huge elevator cabin is in free fall. Fortunately, this elevator is empty. So, resultant force of gravity and inertial force that acts on every point of the structure does not disappear.

Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Equivalence Principle

Let’s start from accelerated motion. Many substances (solids, fluids, etc) are moving in various accelerated motion. According to this motion, inertial force occurs. Imagine water of a current. Involvement between inertial force and gravity will be on resultant force only.《P.S.》Acceleration is not relative and inertial force is not fictitious. The two are corresponding qualitatively and quantitatively.

Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Equivalence principle

Free fall of an elevator will be (one of the) problems of resultant force (composition of forces). All will be explicable as a problem of resultant force.

There are two pictures. In each picture, vector of two forces (f = f’) acting on a point are drawn. Direction of vectors is opposite (right and left). In one picture, forces are gravity and gravity. In the other picture, gravity and inertial force. Two pictures will not be the same (an infinite small area will be also).

Sorry, I cannot receive E-mail. I do not have PC.

http://www.geocities.co.jp/Technopolis/2561/eng.html

Science will never be able to find out and understand many phenomena in the universe because it does not know the basis of the universe. First of all, no one knows what is matter, how and from what forms and how gravity and magnetism originate and who causes them. Besides this, science did not understand the sequence of formation and processes of the origin and disappearance of celestial bodies. Black holes are not the result of a star explosion. They are created under the influence of gravity, when in a given system, it accumulates so much mass that it represents a critical mass and critical gravity, when the matter returns to the form of the substance from which it was formed, and that substance is Aether that fills the infinite universe. Einstein’s Fatamagoras have been entangled in science, and to this day, many theories are unsurpassed and have no foothold in natural laws.

Gravitational acceleration

Who started to say gravitational acceleration ? Is it a technical term really ? It seems to be an adjective.

Is there a difference between an acceleration caused by an ordinal force ? If there is not a difference, a thing called gravitational acceleration will not exist.

Turn your eyes to accelerated motion and inertial force. It does not matter what gravity is.

Allow me to show new URL of my web site (service of geocities japan ends on Mar 2019).

http://lifeafterdeath.vip/eng.html

Equivalence principle

Every inertial force is measurable. Every gravitational force is measurable also. Principally. In an elevator in free fall, there is no exception.

An elevator in free fall

Are the two indistinguishable? Vector of the two are opposite.

Equivalence principle

In space, there are two gravitational sources (point source). In the middle of the two, a small area is selected. This area will be a state of weightlessness (not zero gravity). Like an elevator in free fall.

Best Regards

E=mc2

Why This Equation Is Incomplete One?

The matter is created in motion (my hypothesis)

That means without motion the matter will be perished –

The motion here means the matter outer motion – as the moon motion around Earth- and I don’t mean the atoms motion inside the matter-

So

The Matter is created with the space because the space is the necessary component for the matter motion-

That means

The matter and space are created from the same origin to be complementary to each other

That’s why the previous Equation is incomplete one

ETotal = EMass + ESpace

So

ETotal = mc2 + ESpace

This is The complete Equation

Please read my paper

Special Theory Of Relativity (Questions For Discussion)

https://www.academia.edu/39341580/Special_Theory_Of_Relativity_Questions_for_Discussion

Or

https://www.slideshare.net/Gergesfrancis/special-theory-of-relativity-questions-for-discussion-148611741

Gerges Francis Tawdrous +201022532292

Free fall

There is inumerable vectors of inertial forces and gravity everywhere. On an elevator cabin, why they are making a big fuss ?

Difference of motion

Differene of inertial motion and accelerated motion will be difference of motion relative to aether frame. And accelerated motion and inertial force are the front and back of a fact. Inertial force is not a fictitious force.

Horizontal Doppler effect

On a plane, pararell lines are drawn. On each line, light sources (frequency is the same ) are moving in the opposite direction. Imagine light sources form japanese letter エ. Phenomenon horizontal Doppler effect will not be.

New equivalence principle ?

A passenger car is accelerating (at a, to the right). A body is hung from the roof by a string. Can the string distinguish mg caused by acceleration and by gravity ? No, it is a joke. But a picture of an elevator seems to be a joke also.

Accelerated motion

Accelerated motion will be the motion relative to aether frame. Vector causes the same vector of inertial force. Gravity has no connection.

From every inertial frame, accelerated motion is possible to know qualitatively and quantitatively.

A site on anti relativity

A web site written by member volunteers of Japan science council is now being published (in Japanese). URL is http://reriron.kage-tora.com

Equivalence principle

Two forces the same vector in strength are acting on a particle from the opposite. The two are inertial force, tension and gravity. Different combinations are three. Forget the equivalence principle.

Equivalence principle

From the roof of an elevator cabin, a body is hung by a string. The elevator begins acceleration upward. Can the string distinguish between gravity and inertial force ?

Equivalence principle

An elevator in free fall is explained fully by Newton. There is no room for Einstein.

Gravitational mass and inertial mass

A point mass is falling in free fall. According to the law of action and reaction, gravity and inertial force are equal. And g and a, as acceleration are equal also (direction is opposite). So, two mass are equal (mass is mass !?).

Acceleration and non acceleration

On a plane (no friction), there is a body. Difference between the two above will be evident. It is enough to keep an eye on inertial force.

Inertial force

Inertial force is depending on m. So, it is not fictitious.

Acceleration and non acceleration

On a plane, there is a body. Different between the two above will be evident. It is enough to keep an eye on inertial force.

Acceleration

True identity of acceleration must be shown by inertial force or geometrical expression of motion starting from an inertial frame. Though it is a great formula ; F = ma, acceleration will not be connected directly to external force.

Inertial force

On a slope (no friction), a body is sliding down. Action is gravity mg. Then, how about the reaction ? It is resolved to two vectors. Inertial force is not fictitious.

Equivalence principle is nonsense (I say again)

An elevator in free fall is explained fully by Newton. No different explanation is possible. And it is the same even if limited to the infinite small area.

Inertial force is not fictitious

On a plane, there are two bodies. One is at a standstill, the other is accelerating. Acceleration (a) and inertial force (ma) both are not fictitious.

There are two disks. One is not rotating, the other is rotating. Acceleration and inertial force both are not fictitious.

Acceleration

From nothing, a seems not to emerge. By acceleration of body relative to aether, am will emerge. Qualitatively and quantitatively.

Acceleration (I say again)

On a plane, a straight line is drawn. On this line, two bodies are receding. One is at a standstill, the other is accelerated uniformly. On the one, inertial force is emerging but not on the other. All is shown by a and ma.

But what distinguishes acceleration and nonacceleration ? In above picture, uniform isotropic aether will be hidden. This picture is not picture of geometry.

Space is rest frame

Into space, let us draw plural vectors of acceleration a. Space will be rest frame.

Elf fires

Are there still berievers of relativity? Elf fires. It is not a thing of this world.

Equivalence principle (I say again)

Vector of inertial force is shown by an arrow. Vector of gravity cannot be shown by an arrow generally. The two are different generally as pHysics facts.

Accelerated frame and non-accelerated frame

There are plural accelerated frames and plural non-accelerated frames. The two will not be relative.

Aether

Speed of light relative to mediums (water or air) is constant. Speed of light relative to aether (physical substance) is constant also. Aberrations show this.

About inertial force (I say again)

On a plane, there are two passenger cars. One is accelerating and the other is at a standstill. Difference of the motion of the two is not relative but absolute.

On a plane, a passenger car is accelerating. On the floor (no friction), a body is put. This body is not accelerated (to everyone). In physics of 20th century, nonsenses overflow.

Sagnac effect

Let’s try to explain Sagnac effect by the emission theory. There is a picture of light pathes (a light source and two mirrors form equilateral triangle). On this triangle, there are three emission points,(different inertial frames). It will be a cause of this effect.

Equivalence principle

Difference between acceleration and nonacceleration seems to be more basic. If so, equivalence principle is invalid.

On acceleration, there is a web site as follows.

“Orders of magnitude (acceleration) – Wikipedia”

Acceleration and nonacceleration

A passenger car is accelerating (uniformly). A body is hung from the roof, a body is placed on the floor (no friction) and a station building. Physics seems not to distinguish the three.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Mercury revolving is decided in two (hemisphere A facing the sun and the other B). Inertial force is A＜B and gravity is A＞B (center of gravity is not on the orbit).

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Yesterday’s post must be the most natural explanation of perihelion shift of Mercury. Because the value of pergee movement of the moon is remarkable (around 8.85 years). On the other hand, value of asteroids will not be found. Common explanation is not acceptable.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Perihelion shift moves forward constantly. It cannot be explained by gravity of other planets.

On asteroids, no perihelion shift will be observed. Some size is needed.

Cause of perigee movement of the moon is written to be the sun. But it will be the same phenomenon to perihelion shift of planets. Not acceptable.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

The value of perihelion shift of planets is constant. It will not be three body problem or many body problem. And it will be the same to binary star.

Time dilation

Two passenger cars are passing each other. At the front of side wall of each car, the same light source (frequency is the same also) is settled and light ray is emitted backward at 45 degrees. Each ray is reflected by mirror sticked on the side wall wholely and is coming back. Time dilation is impossible.

Gravity lense

Gravity lenses are said to be a positive evidence of GR. However if gravity of gravitational source can be estimated, which is real GR or Newton’s theory will be clarified.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

“It can be safely said that gravity of other planets has no effect on the perihelion shift of Mercury”. It’s in a website.

Imagine that with long radius of orbit of Mercury, the space of the solar system is divided into left and right. The probability that other planets exist on the two is equal. There will be no shift of perihelion in one direction at constant speed (common view is wrong).

But main cause of perihelion shift of Jupiter and Saturn will be mutual effect of gravity. Each perihelion is shifted every moment.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

There is a model of Mercury. A long lod penetrates a true sphere and at the both ends of the lod, weights are set. This model is rotating horizontally and is moving on the orbit of Mercury (two planes fall on). Main forces acting on the weights are gravity of the sun and inertial force (centrifugal force). And each force acting on the outside weight and inside weight is different.

Inertial force pulls the orbit to the outside. But actual orbit of Mercury is pulled to the inside. Gravity of the sun acting on the two weights is inversely proportional to the square of the distance (not come out even. not plus minus zero). In Mercury, the action of gravity will be superior.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

A model of Mercury is shown previously. Now, there are plural models. Length of lods and mass of weight each is different. These are revoleved around separately on the real orbit of Mercury. Maybe, all will be explained by Newton’s theory (including 575 arcsec).

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Value 5.75 arcsec/year seems to be an observed value. In a website, contribution of other planets to this value is shown. These are added simply !! And value 5.75 arcsec (and contributions) seems to be constant every year !! On these problems, further explanation seems not to be done.

I say again, other planets will not be main cause of this value 5.75 arcsec.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

This is the top of tall tower. Two rods of equal mass and different length are arranged vertically (heigth of center of gravity is the same). Now, two rods start to fall at the same time. The fall of center of gravity will not be the same. Because the strength of gravity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. This will be the main cause for perihelion shift of Mercury.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Let’s reconsider the main cause of perihelion shift again. On Mercury or Venus, main cause will be the size of sphere. On Earth or Mars, effect of satellite is added. On asteroids each, effects of size is negligible. On Jupiter or Saturn each, the powerful and unstable effect of the other will act. On Uranus or Neptune each, slight and unstable effect of the other all planets will act. Anyway, common view on Mercury is wrong.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Mercury has an own size as a sphere. Therefore, the sun’s gravity will have a different effect on Mercury than it does on the center of gravity. Actual orbit will be different from that the center of gravity must follow. On Mercury, it will be the main cause of the perihelion shift.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

In an binary system (formed by main star and companion star), periapis is shifted also. Motion of companion star (apsidal shift) will be depending considerably on its size. Common view (says main cause is pertubation of other planets) will be invalid.

Main cause of perihelion shift of Mercury is said to be gravity of the other planets. But position of other planets move (also position of perihelion of Mercury moves). If so, values 5.75 secarc/year is unthinkable. Main cause lwill be in Mercury itself. And also it will be the same on values of perihelion shift of the other planets.

All of propagation of light (I say again)

Bradley found annual aberration on gamma star : Eltanin. In books, picture of ellipse is shown. However, this ellipse must be warped because of secular aberration (not only Eltanin). With this warp, the motion of solar system relative to aether must be clarified.

Light emitted from a source in outer space will follow the emission theory. But for a few seconds only. The corner cube settled on the surface of the moon proves this.

The motion of an observer relative to light waves is the same as the motion of an observer relative to sound waves. Light waves are light waves. An observer is an observer. And everything follows Galilean transformation.

The speed of light in medium is c/n. The MM experiment ( done in air) is nonsense.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (the truth)

In Mercury (in terms of Mercury’s size), the non-uniformity of the Sun’s gravity may be the main cause of perihelion shift. In artificial satellites, the effects of non-uniformity of the Earth’s gravity (the position of the center of mass and the center of gravity are different) are also mentioned.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (rewritten)

Mercury is moving on the revolution orbit. The sun’s gravity is equal to the centrifugal force. Because the two are action and reaction. Following are some explanations. Centrifugal force follows Mercury’s mass. But in addition, gravity is affected by the size of Mercury (and acting position of gravity is different). These are caused by the non-uniformity of gravity (in the space occupied by Mercury). And after perihelion passage, orbit will be pulled inward (from its original orbit).

High tide level twice a day is the same. Gravity and centrifugal force caused by the moon will be action and reaction. Centrifugal force is not fictitious.

Moon and earth (an essay)

In an illustration, the moon and the earth are drawn side by side. Because of the lunar attractive force, seawater is bulged in the left and right edges of the round earth. The bulge is symmetrical. Two resultant forces pull two bulges (to the opposite direction : outward). Two resultant forces each are composed of the lunar attractive force and the centrifugal force caused by earth’s orbital motion (moves around the common center of gravity with the moon). Two resultant forces will be equal strength. This will explain that the level of high tides twice a day are generally the same.

Also, the lunar attractive force acting on the earth’s center of gravity (not the center of mass) and the centrifugal force resulting from its orbital motion (mentioned above) will be action-reaction and will be equal.

P.S. Is action-reaction in the sky exactly equal ?

Moon and Earth (rewritten)

Suppose the moon and the earth is two-body problem. And imagine, the earth is revolving (not rotating) around the common center of gravity with the moon. The orbit is a perfect circle. If lunar attractive force acting on the center of gravity of the earth is action, the centrifugal force of the earth is a reaction. And the strength of the two will be equal. This will be also true for the earth as a whole.

In an illustration, the earth is drawn next to moon. Imagine two points on the surface of the earth closest to the moon and farthest from the moon. The difference between lunar attractive force and the centrifugal force of the earth at above two points will be almost equal and therefore the resultant force will also be almost equal. This will explain that the level of high tides twice a day are almost equal.

Note: Is the law of action and reaction valid for celestial bodies on elliptical orbits ?

Moon and earth (rewritten again)

Allow me to rewrite again.

Moon and earth are supposed to be two-body problem. Also it is supposed that the common center of gravity of moon and earth is situated outside the earth. And the orbit of earth is a perfect circle, and earth is a perfect sphere. In the illustration, the surface of earth closest to moon is A and the surface farthest from moon is B. At the two points A and B, the strength of resultant forces of moon’s gravity and centrifugal force (of earth) will be the same (act to opposite directions). Otherwise, earth cannot stay on orbit of perfect circle. This will explain that the level of high tide twice a day are the same.

Moon and earth (an essay)

As moon passes overhead, high tide (one of two high tides a day) will come after a short delay. But why ? Why is seawater with a low specific gravity bulged ? Newton imagined that moon will continue falling. Earth will continue falling also. And seawater will cotinue falling too. So, it doesn’t matter how specific gravity is.

Pelihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)

Some wide binaries are separated by one light years. And many wide binaries are at most (as much as) by 1000 au. These motion will be treated as mass points (a point). On the other hand, many close binaries are detected. What are physicists who repeat nonsense on perihelion shift of Mercury ?

Moon and earth (an essay)

Moon and earth are supposed to be two-body problem. In the illustration, the surface of earth closest to moon is A and the surface farthest from moon is B. At the two points A and B, the strength of resultant forces of moon’s gravity and centrifugal force (of earth) will be the same (act to opposite directions). It will be proved by the sameness of high tides.

Also it will be proved by stability of orbits of each body.

Moon and earth (an essay)

Moon and earth are supposed to be two-body problem. Also supposed that common center of gravity of the two is outside of earth : the orbit of earth is perfect circle : and earth is a perfefct sphere. The strength of moon’s attractive force acting on earth and centrifugal force due to revolution of earth are equal in total (as action reaction : as centrifugal force and centrepital force).

The points on the surface of earth closest to moon is A and the surface farthest from moon is B. It will mean that the forces acting on the two points AB must be offset. It will explaine that level of high tides twice a day is the same.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (again)

The main forces acting on Mercury are attractive force of sun and centrifugal force only. Hemisphere of Mercury facing sun is supposed to be A and the other hemisphere is B. The attractive force of the sun acting on the two will be A>B, and the centrifugal force will be B>A. From the look of the perihelion shift, the attractive force acting on Mercury as a whole will be slightly stronger.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)

A celestial body called Vulcan is revolving on orbit of Mercury. It has the same mass and revolution cycle as Mercury. And diameter is twohold (the both stars are uniform in density). Since the sun’s gravitational field is non-uniform, the sun’s gravity acting on both stars will be slightly larger in Vulcan and smaller in Mercury. The value of perihelion shift also likely will be similar. In short, the size of the celestial body (close to the gravitational source like Mercury) will be the main reason for the perihelion shift.

Imagine a cone with evenly spaced concentric circles on its surface. The non-uniformity of gravity will be exponential non-uniformity.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)

On planets, it is said that centrifugal force caused by orbital motion is balanced with attractive force of sun (and the action and reaction are equal). On Mercury, it will stand up also. But exactly ? Solar wind or some other solar- derived substances seem to go down slightly speed of orbital motion of Mercury (one of perturbation ?). If so, centrifugal force will be reduced accordingly. On the other hand, attractive force of sun will not be affected at all. This may be the main reason for the perihelion movement of Mercury.

Propagation of gravity

The propagation of gravity will be done in an instant. For this, here are two reasons. One reason is that two-body problem, many-body problem are true for celestial bodies. The other reason is that the whole solar system is in an uniform linear motion and planets are in elliptical revolution on their revolution planes.

Isn’t it amazing what a spinning Top does on top of a levitating frisby

Unless you know how to shrink the kids, spinning Tops make Smurfs get high

Oh mary Mary quite contrary how does your garden grow…..overnight

But then I can recharge wirelessly with a delighted If I choose to

Centrifugal force : reconsidering

Two mass points a and b (with large difference of mass) are in motion of two-body problem (a large, b small). One picture is in outer space, and the knot of a,b is gravity (b is in a circular motion). The other picture is on a plane (no friction), and the knot is tension of a string (the mass of the string is zero). In the two pictures, the centrifugal force of b is a vector that is on the extension line of a,b. The reaction is gravity in one picture and tension of the string in the other picture. Where and how is the centripetal force?

Tension of the string between a and b is constant. Gravity is not constant.

Inertial force is not fictitious

Three passenger cars are moving in different accelerated motions. These are shown with the formula, F = ma, 2F = m2a, 3F = m3a. Inertial force will not be fictitious (even for those in the passenger car).

About free fall

Is there a unified explanation for free fall and similar form of fallings ? Is there a unified explanation for the local inertial frame and the adjacent spots ? Probably not.

Local inertial frame

An elevator is falling in free fall. On a horizontal plane, multiple observers are moving in uniform linear motions. For these observers, the elevator draws parabola and is in an accelerated frame. This is, the accelerated frame and the non-accelerated frame all are white and black. This means that there is no inertial frame in the accelerated frame. Even it be local.

About inertial force

In the action-reaction law, inertial force is always a reaction. Attention, action is a force and reaction is also a force. The accepted view that inertial force is fictitious force and has no reaction is unacceptable.

About inertial force

A body is placed on a plane (no friction). The body has two strings (zero mass), the left string is tied to a wall and the right string is pulled by the force ma to the right.

Then the left string is removed. The body begins accelerating by force ma to the right. There is no change in the tension of the right string. According to the action-reaction law, inertial forces cannot be fictitious.

Rotary motion (in vacuum)

A disk is rotating (relative to the celestial sphere). At any mass point on the disk apart from the center, centripetal force is acting as action and centrifugal force is acting as reaction. Both are not fictitious force.

Two disks A and B the same are rotating. The rotary speed of A is twice the rotary speed of B. The physical effect (of dynamics) of rotation does not extend beyond the disks.

Action-reaction law (reposting)

The original text of Newton’s third law starts with action and reaction (F=-F). But many texts in books and websites start with two bodies (objects). Why? To prevent people from realizing that the inertial force is not fictitious force, but true force.

Local inertial frame

On a plane (no friction), two elevators are separating horizontally. One is in accelerated motion, the other is in non-accelerated motion. With an accelerometer, it is possible to determine which one is accelerating. And there is no local inertial frame in an accelerating elevator.

Local inertial frame

An elevator is falling in free fall. Imagine many mass points regularly arranged in space inside the elevator. The direction and magnitude of vectors of the inertial force acting on the mass points are all the same. There will be no local inertial frame.

Inertial force and gravity are acting on each mass point in the falling elevator. Is the action-reaction law valid for these two forces ? However, it is not problem of relativity.

About emission theory

The speed of light inside glass is c / n. And it is said that in the space between molecules in glass, light moves at c. If so, the speed of light going out of the glass (to vacuum) will also be c. The emission theory will be correct.

Emission theory (restating)

Light is emitted from two point sources. The two are moving in relative motion. Frequency is assumed to be the same. The speed of lights is the same for each of the two light source frame (wavelength is the same also). In short, the propagation of light will follow the motion of the light source. The natural explanation will be the emission theory. It is a hypothesis that emission theory is valid only for a few seconds.

Emission theory

Emission theory will be valid on the light leaving light source (in vacuum). But it will be valid for a few seconds only. And it will explain all of the behavior of light. No special treatment is needed. Galilean transformation is everything. Space-time is absolute. Goodbye Lorentz transformation. Goodbye warped coordinates.

Speed of light can vary (restating)

For an observer, speed of sound waves and water surface waves can vary. It is the same for light waves propagating through aether. It is the same also for light waves that follow the emission theory. Goodby relativity.

Acceleration and non-acceleration (inference)

A passenger car is accelerating to the right. In rear of the car, there is a light source and in front, an observer. The number of waves existing in the passenger car during acceleration will be larger than before acceleration. The difference between acceleration and non-acceleration will not be relative but be absolute. PS : Inside of the passenger car is vacuum.

Space and time will be absolute (a supposition)

Perhaps, space and time each will be absolute. Each will not be affected by any phenomenon or situation (at all). If so, relativity is impossible.

Constancy of speed of light will be impossible

Plane waves of light come from the upper left (in outer space) and is incident on two glass cubes A and B. A is stationary and B is moving upward at a constant speed. Wavelength of light in cubes is A > B. Since speed of coming light relative to the cubes is different, the wavelength in the cubes is also different.

Constancy of speed of light is impossible

Plane waves of light come from the upper left (in outer space) and is incident on two glass cubes A and B. A is stationary and B is moving upward at a constant speed. Wavelength of light in cubes is A > B. Since speed of coming light relative to the cubes is different, the wavelength in the cubes is also different.

Constancy of speed of light (Reexamination)

Constancy of speed of light is not possible always. No, it will be possible limitedly in the following two events only. Btw, speed of light in mediums is not subject of this reexamination.

1) A geometric point and a light source are in the same inertial frame. Distance between the two is supposed to be within a few light seconds.

2) A geometric point is stationary in aether frame. Light propagated in aether comes to this point. Distance from the light source is supposed to be more than a few light seconds.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

It will be impossible

Constancy of light speed will be impossible. It will be clear if the formula c = f λ is looked at.

Equivalence principle will be impossible. It will be clear if the formula F = m a is looked at.

Allow me to rewrite my post (24.April).

Constancy of speed of light (Reexamination)

Constancy of speed of light is not possible always. No, it will be

possible limitedly in the following two events only. Btw, speed of

light in mediums is not subject of this reexamination.

1) A measurement point and a light source are stationary in the same

inertial frame. Distance between the two is within a few light

seconds. Speed of light is c.

2) A measurement point is stationary in aether frame. Light

propagated in aether is coming to this point. Distance from the

light source is more than a few light sveconds. Speed of light will

not be c.

Translated with http://www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Supplement to my post (July 9)

1) In space far from light source, propagation of light follows aether frame. See again various aberrations.

2) In space close to light source, propagation of light follows the emission theory. See again various facts.

3) In outer space, a mirror is moving at a uniform speed. Plane waves of light of a star are reflected by this mirror. 1) and 2) must be seen as facts.

Aether

Existence of aether (uniform isotropic) is precondition for Newton’s first and second laws of motion. There can be no other explanation.

Aberration (reexamination)

Aberration is caused by various motions of Earth relative to stationary aether (uniform isotropic). Light that enters upper air of Earth (from aether) is bent in the direction of motion of Earth. As a phenomenon, aberration is completed in the upper air. The same as refraction.

Therefore, illustration of raindrops and an umbrella is NG. Result of Airy’s experiment with a water-filled telescope is only natural. It is said that apparent displacement of stars is displaced in the direction of Earth’s motion, but in fact, it will be the opposite. You can check this by drawing light bending (in upper air) on a paper.

Free fall (reexamination)

Problem of free fall in an elevator will be problem of resultant force of inertial force and gravity (nothing else). In any local area, it will be so also.

Note: Inertial forces acting on every local area of the cabin (supposition: mass of every local area is m) is the same ma.

Note: External force (gravity) and inertial force acting on entire cabin are equal (Newton’s second law and third law of motion). How about in local area ? To image will not be difficult.

Supplement to my post (sep 3 2021)

Even in a resultant force, inertial force is inertial force, and gravity is gravity. Vector follows own law each and is inviolable.

Cabin is made by a 3D printer. Material is uniform.

On a plane (no fliction), elevator cabin is moving in a uniformly accelerated linear motion (to the right). Inertial force acting on every local area (mass is m) of the cabin is the same ma (vector is the same also).

Free fall (an essay)

An elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Cabin is made up of n mass points (with the same mass of m). Free fall is supposed to be a uniform acceleration.

Inertial force acting on each mass point is the same ma. No exceptions. On the other hand, magnitude of gravity acting on each mass point is not the same slightly. Difference depends on the position of the mass point. P.S. For the entire cabin, magnitude of inertial force and gravity is equal.

Lorentz contraction

Plane waves of starlight (wavelength is constant) is arriving from upper left 45 degrees. Two spacecrafts are sailing in the right and left directions. Number of waves hitting the front and rear ends (A and B) of each spacecraft is the same. Therefore, number of waves existing between A and B is invariant (for both spacecrafts, regardless of lateral motion). Lorentz contractions will be impossible.

Relativity of simultaneity will be impossible also.

Free fall (an essay)

Rewriting of my past post (Sep 6 2021)

An elevator cabin is falling in free fall. Cabin is made up of n mass points (with the same mass of m). Imagine a single moment of falling.

Inertial force acting on each mass point is the same ma. No exceptions. On the other hand, magnitude of gravity acting on each mass point is not the same slightly. Difference depends on the position of the mass point.

P.S. For the entire cabin, magnitude of inertial force and gravity is equal.

Speed of light (an essay)

The defined value of speed of light is based on measurements (with wavelength and frequency) done by Evenson et al. in 1973. Error is 1.1 m / s in pramai. Now measuring instrument is separated into a measuring part and a light source part. When one of them is moved at a constant speed higher than above error (in the direction of light path), different value will be obtained.

Speed of light

In outer space, plane waves of starlight are coming from just above. A spacecraft is sailing horizontally. What should we think of speed of the spacecraft relative to light waves (c=fλ) and relative to photons (light rays)?

About light (re-post)

◎ How are light waves propagated ?

1) Emission theory (for a few seconds only)

2) On aether (after the above)

◎ How are light sources visible ?

1) For celestial bodies beyond a few light-years, effect of emission theory is too small to be found (e.g. binary stars). So, every celestial body is visible to be stationary on aether (celestial sphere). Also by various aberrations.

2) Moon is by emission theory.

3) Celestial bodies in solar system (excluding moon) are depending on planetary aberrations. Also, depending on other aberrations (but, is secular aberration offset ?).

◎ Motion of light seen by observers

Same as bodies. Follows Galilean transformation. Constancy of speed of light cannot be hypothesized. By the way, light waves (speed = fλ) and photons (rays) are basically different. Especially in outer space.

Acceleration and non-acceleration

A passenger car is accelerating to the right. In the car, lights (frequency is constant) are emitted from light source settled on rear and front walls, and at the center of the car, interference fringes are observed. Varying of interference fringes will reflect varying of acceleration. Sagnac effect like will also occur in a straight line.

Acceleration and non-acceleration

A passenger car is moving in a uniform accelerated motion to the right. In the car, a ray of light emitted downward from the roof will be bent to the left (as a parabola). Defference of acceleration and non-acceleration is not relative (but absolute).

Gravitational time dilation

Laser beam (frequency is constant) emitted from the ground is reflected by the mirror at the top of the high tower, and returned to the ground. Frequency at these three points is the same. There is no time dilation.

Time delation

A point light source is shining (frequency is constant). Two spacecrafts are moving away from the light source in opposite directions at the same speed (three are on a straight line). Two spacecrafts are receiving light of the same frequency. There is no time delation.

Speed of light Varies

A spacecraft equipped with a frequency measuring device is moving on an optical path of light of a star coming into outer space. Wavelength of incoming star light is not affected by motion of the spacecraft (at all). That is, the speed of light varies in the formula of speed of light = frequency x wavelength.

Propagation of light

Propagation of light follows aether frame, emission theory, and air (medium) frame. In either case, speed of light will not be constant for moving observers.

About aether

Existence of aether (uniformly isotropic) will be the prerequisite for Newton’s first and second laws of motion. There can be no other explanation (ground).

Inertial force is not fictitious

On a plane (without friction), a body is pulled to the left by two strings and to the right by one string. The tension of each string is the same F. That is, the body is accelerating to the left. Inertial force is not fictitious (Newton’s third law of motion holds at the left end of the body).

Notices on anti-relativity

Shown below (notices are mine, selected) will be plain and definite (sorry, in English are 5 and in Japanese are 34 notices).

http://www.asyura.com/0306/idletalk2/msg/1242.html2

Sorry, URL of the post above is invalid. Valid is….

http://www.asyura.com/0306/idletalk2/msg/1242.html

Selected notices in English

28 selected notices (anti relativity) in English are added in a site below. Yes, these are selected.

http://www.asyura.com/0306/idletalk2/msg/1242.html

Aberration on the moon

Many of widely accepted explanations for aberration will be right if these are on the moon. Illustration of raindrops and an umbrella will be OK. But as already mentioned, aberration on the earth is completed in the upper atmosphere. The explanation for aberration of earth must be rewritten.

Aberration (both on the moon and on the earth) is incompatible with constançy of the speed of light, and existence of aether is a prerequisite.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay）

Perihelion shift of Mercury is about 574 arcsec per century, and main cause is said to be perturbations due to the gravity of other planets (Venus is about 280 arcsec, Jupiter is about 150 arcsec).

There is a question. At the left end and the right end of the orbit of Mercury (a view from above), force that accelerates and decelerates Mercury by perturbation by other planets will be equal (in probability). Especially in the span of the century. Main cause will not be gravity of other planets.

P.S. Perturbations of other planets will be caused only by the position of these on the orbits (and speed of gravity will be infinite).

Bending of light (by gravity)

Light will not be bent by gravity. Because…

1) At the center of Milky Way galaxy (where we live), it’s said that a black hole exists. Around it, several stars are revolving. These orbits seem to be natural.

2) How about a star, before it is occulted by the moon or Jupiter ?

Accelerated motion & light

On the moon’s surface, a passenger car is accelerating to the right. A starlight (horizontal) is passing through a hole A in the front wall, and reaches B in the rear wall of the passenger car. Frequencies of A and B will be the same. Therefore, number of waves existing between A and B will be constant (even at different accelerations). Above is not only for uniform acceleration but also for non-uniform acceleration.

On the moon’s surface, a passenger car is accelerating to the right. A light emitted from light source A’ in the front wall reaches B in the rear wall. What is frequency of A’B ? How many waves exist between A’B ?

Stationary aether

In outer space, an observer (in an inertial frame) is measuring light of stars. The number of stars being measured is reasonable and there is no clumping of stars on celestial sphere. What is measured is frequency and wavelength of each star’s light, i.e., speed of light. The results will reveal the existence of stationary aether. the

Note: Existence of stationary aether is not in doubt due to aberration.h

Perihelion shift of Mercury

In Wikipedia (in Japanese version : “Apsidal precession” 近点移動), there is

a table named “Perihelion shirt of planets of solar system”. These seem to

varies greatly depending on the distance from the sun and the

presence or absence of satellites. Newcomb’s table and explanation

of relativity would be NG.

A planet called Vulcan is revolving the orbit of Mercury. Assume

that mass is the same and diameter is half to Mercury. The

gravitational force of the Sun and the centrifugal force due to the

orbital motion each would be Mercury > Vulcan > mass point.

Newcomb’s table (of perturbation values of the planets acting on Mercury) should be nonsense.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Mercury is perihelion shift and binary star is periastron shift. Two shifts are smooth and in one direction. Two each must be considered to be a two body problem.

See again that table (in 近点移動). Values are observed values. And these each will be two body problem.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Recurring orbits show that this is a two body problem.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)

Scaled models of Mercury and Vulcan (of my post, April 7) are falling in free fall. Magnitude of acceleration is probably Mercury > Vulcan > mass point. At the beginning of falling, centers of gravity of three models are at the same horizontal level.

A web-site says, periastron shift are many in close binaries. This will be a two body problem.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

5.75, 2.04, 11.45. These are observed value of perihelion shift of Mercury, Venus, and Earth (in a table of a website. Value are in arcsec/year. Table covers to Neptune). The decrease in Venus will be due to distance from the Sun, and the increase in Earth will be due to the Moon.

Perihelion shift of Mercury

Here is a close binary. A companion star approaches the main star and is passing the periastron on orbit. Actual orbit of companion star is different from orbit of mass point of it. Difference will be due mainly to size of companion star (mass distribution).

Perihelion shift of Mercury

In a close binary, gravity of main star is acting on companion star. Magnitude of gravity is inversely proportional to square of distance. Therefore, if size of companion star is large, gravity that acting is somewhat larger (even if mass is the same).

Note: Here is a horizontal line. From the right, gravity of main star is acting. On the line, we see three masses. Mass of right and left is m/2 and middle is m (interval is the same). Magnitude of gravity acting will be m<m/2+m/2.

Free fall (rewrited)

A body is falling in free fall. On a horizontal plane, an observer is moving in a uniform linear motion. To the observer, the falling body draws a parabola. Every point of the body is accelerating.

An elevator is falling in free fall. Assume, that there are two sources of gravity and there is a considerable distance between the two (even when viewed from elevator). How does equivalence principle explain ?

Reviewing the Heliocentric Theory

Motion of earth is various, such as rotation, revolution, uniform linear motion of solar system, and others. And there is aberration to each. These are reflection of motions relative to uniform isotropic aether. Qualitative and quantitative.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion

As an action and reaction, there are two examples about gravity. One is normal force. The other is Inertial force in free fall. The two should be accepted qualitatively and quantitatively.

Newton’s Third Law of Motion

Does gravity always act as action? Is inertial force always reaction? It is a problem statement. As an example, there is an elevator cabin in free fall (mass is m).

Galaxy Rotation Curve

Allow me to post an idea about the above. It is contraction of the size of galaxies. But in Wikipedia (in English), there seems to be no mention.

Third Law of Motion (still pending ?)

Action and raction (of the third law) are acting at the point of action, This will be the simplest picture of equilibrium of forces. Now, we beg Newton to comment. Newton whispers that reaction of the third law can include inertial force. And that, there are other pictures of equilibrium of forces including inertial force.

Not a few books and websites say that the third law is the law of two bodies. Newton’s original text is neglected. No, third law is the law of at a point of action of force. A piller of mass m is lying on a horizontal plane (without friction). If the piller is continuously pulled to the right, it is accelerated to the right. At the right end of the piller, magnitude of action-reaction is the same ma. Also, at the other positions (points of action) of the piller, magnitude of action-reaction is the same. This is a single body (like a chain).

Galaxy Rotatin Curve

Is it because gravitational sources (that revolve galaxy) also extend over the disk of galaxy ? Is it because the state of inverse square law of gravity is different from that of solar system ?

Speed of light

In Wikipedia’s “Dispersion (optics)”, there is a video of dispersion. By a prism, white light is spectrally dispersed. The speed of light is different between red and violet light after dispersion (spectroscopy). It is obvious at a glance.

Apology, Adjacent my post “Speed of light” (on prism) was wrong. Sorry.

To admin, i thank you always for accepting of my posts (I appreciate if you erace this and that two posts).

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (repost)

In a drawing, a fixed star F homogeneous true sphere and a planet P orbiting nearby are drawn. F acts gravity on P. Is magnitude of gravity on P dpending solely on mass m of F and distance r between FP ? No, the size of F may also have a slight effect. This will be main reason for the perihelion shift (secondary reasons are omitted). Newton’s spherical shell theorem may not be perfect.

Square of 99 is 9801. Square of 101 is 10201. See above my post.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (repost)

Size of Sun relative to Mercury will be main cause of this problem (however, will be incompatible with Newton’s spherical shell theorem).

There are two drawings in which Mercury and gravity source (considered as a point) are drawn. In one drawing, gravity source is Sun and its mass is m. Distance from Mercury is 100. In the other drawing, there are two alternative gravity sources to the Sun, Mass is m / 2 each. Distance from Mercury is 99 and 101(aligned on a straight line extending from Mercury). Magnitude of the gravity acting on Mercury is the latter > the former. It can be ignored on Neptune.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (Gleanings)

It is said that magnitude of Sun’s gravity acting on orbiting Mercury depends only Sun’s mass m and distance r between the two. But in reality, in addition, there will be an effect of Sun’s size. Gravity will be slightly greater. Therefore, Mercury’s orbit that has left aphelion will be slightly inward (and r will also be shorter), and then, perihelion will be shifted.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (correction)

Sorry, I ask to delete my post (June 8) and replace it with following.

It is said that magnitude of Sun’s gravity acting on Mercury depends on Sun’s mass m and distance r between the two. However, in reality, Sun’s size will have effect. Noticeably on Mercury, which is close to Sun. Gravity will be greater slightly. Let’s focus on orbit just after Mercury passes perihelion. Orbit will be slightly inward (r will be shorter also). This means that size of Sun shifts position of perihelion in the next around.

P.S. Orbit to be compared is orbit when Sun is a point.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

Increase in gravity due to size of Sun will depend on distance r between Sun and Mercury. This increase in gravity will be larger at perihelion and smaller at aphelion. Is this the reason for perihelion shift of Mercury ? Sorry for my repetitive posts.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

This is a thought experiment on close binary stars (imagine on a plane no friction). Imagine the same homogeneous true sphere with mass m. Main star is three spheres and companion star is two spheres (these are attached as a single unit). These are on a straight line. Gravity exerted and affected by and to each will depend on size of true spheres (of here and there). Forget the spherical shell theorem. Two-body problem is also complicated.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

This is a guess. Because of size of Mercury (in its elliptical orbit), centrifugal force will be increased. And, as Sun is near, effect of size will be larger (other planets are more like point).

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (essay)

Mercury is revolving in orbit. Size of Mercury increases centrifugal force acting on revolving Mercury. This will be reason for perihelion shift of Mercury. The angle is about 5.75 arc-sec in a year.

Size of Mercury will also increase gravity of Sun (which acts on Mercury). But it will not affect direction of long axis of elliptical orbit (after a round: that is, it will be unrelated to perihelion problem).

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

This is an idea. In this problem, planets seem to be treated as a point. Now, planet is divided into two hemispheres. One is closer to Sun and the other is far from Sun (back to back). If the planet is far from Sun, centrifugal force and gravity each acting on two hemispheres will be the same(1/2). But, how about Mercury? We must imagine a spherical surface that centers on Sun, and this spherical surface coincides with center of Mercury ? And then, in whole Mercury, centrifugal force will be larger and gravity will be smaller. It is compared to Mercury as a point.

orry, please ignore my two posts immediately preceding this one.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

This is an idea. In this problem, planets seem to be treated as a point. Now, planet is divided into two hemispheres. One is closer to Sun and the other is far from Sun (back to back). If the planet is far from Sun, centrifugal force and gravity each acting on two hemispheres will be the same(1/2). But, how about Mercury? We must imagine a spherical surface that centers on Sun, and this spherical surface coincides with center of Mercury ? And then, in whole Mercury, centrifugal force will be larger and gravity will be smaller. It is compared to Mercury as a point.

Sorry, please ignore my two posts immediately preceding this one.

Perihelion shift of Mercury (an essay)

Another inference. Half mentioned already at end of May. Mentioned was problem posing about a single gravitational source and gravitational sources separated into two. Let’s call this effect as the 99-101 effect. The 99-101 effect is equal to the two of binary stars. The 99-101 effect is a candidate for explanation of perihelion shift of Mercury. However, it is incompatible with attempt to explain by Sun’s spherical surface. I don’t know which one is hopeful.

If gravity source is close, size of gravitational source will increase gravity. Then, Newton’s sphericl shell theorem must be reviewed.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

Centrifugal force is inertial force and cannot be the first cause of perihelion shift. The 99-101 effect mentioned above (tentative naming: contrary to Newton’s spherical shell theorem) will be caused by size of Mercury, size of Sun, and distance between Mercury and Sun. On Mercury, these have effect on gravity and it will be the first cause. And then, direction of elliptical orbit may be shifted. At perihelion, this effect will be greatest.

Magnitude of perihelion shift of planets with satellite is far superior. This is probably because gravity of Sun acting on satellite in half orbit close to Sun is far superior.

Perihelion Shift of Mercury (an essay)

Shift is smooth, like a hand of clock. Mainly, it will be two-body problem.k