The Galiley phenomenon took place many years ago, when Galiley introduced the concept of inertia in the Aristotelian mechanics, where this concept was absent. Researchers of that time did not accept the concept of inertia, because it was not used by their teachers. It was very difficult to accept a new concept, if it contradicts to existing concepts. The Galiley phenomenon lasted almost hundred years. To stress the role of inertia in the physics, Isaac Newton had introduced the concept of inertia as the first law of mechanics. (one can see, that the first law of mechanics is a partial case of the second law). It shows, that positions of the Aristotelian mechanics were strong in the time of Newton. The Galiley phenomenon took place, when Boltzmann sugested kinetic equation for description of continuous medium.
Dear Dmitri,
Frankly speaking, I have not understood your verbal considerations. I prefer mathematical reasoning with mathematical formulas. Besides, I think that the general relativity is incorrect, because it supposes that the space-time in the general relativity is described by the Riemannian geometry. Possibility of more general non-Riemannian space-time geometries is not considered. Consideration of non-Riemannian space-time geometries in general relativity leads to impossibility of dark holes, because an induced antigravitation arises, which stops collapse of the matter. As a result the dark hole horizon does not arise. See for detailes “ Induced antigravitation in the extended general relativity” . Gravitation and Cosmology, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 107–112,( 2012). Electronic version see on my web site http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~rylov/ialgr1e.pdf
Dear Mohamed,
You have published your paper in Global Journal of Science Frontier Research. I have also published my paper in this journal. I could not find impact factor of this journal. Maybe, you know, where I could find this impact factor.
Thank you in advance.
Dear Dmitry,
I have written not only, that Ihave not understood yourr verbal considerations. I have wrote, that there are no black holes. How can I accept your considerations about the horizon of black holes? Besides, I referred to the paper, where this fact was discussed. Я полагаю, что у Вас нет оснований для обиды.
Dear Dmitri,
The paper, published in a refereed journal. Is it an argument or not? У меня создается впечатление, что Вы читаете только начало поста и не дочитываете его до конца.
The reference was done a day ago in the letter to you " See for detailes “ Induced antigravitation in the extended general relativity” . Gravitation and Cosmology, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 107–112,( 2012). Electronic version see on my web site http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~rylov/ialgr1e.pdf "
I did not understand your arguments. Для простоты рассмотрите еще одномерный случай, и продолжайте сомневаться.
Dear Dmitri,
World function is a funcion, describing space-time geometry, but not a physical system. I should recommend you to see байку on my web site. It is written in Russian: http://gasdyn-ipm.ipmnet.ru/~rylov/tale1r.htm
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics