Dear John-Erik Persson ,

It is great that there are good alternatives to Newtonian gravity and general relativity, both of which face many challenges and unanswered questions.

With the conceptual analysis approach, I believe in the existence of ether, and I also believe that ether causes many vague actions in physics. We also explain gravity with ether in APG.

Our work is not over yet, but we may prepare a per-article soon.

I like your physics style.

With much respect to you,

Rashid

Rashid

Thanks for very good words. They are needed.

Dear Colleagues.

A similar model is developed in the following papers

Preprint GRAVITY MODEL WITH NEUTRINO-LIKE PARTICLES

Preprint ON THE DIFFERENCE OF THE VALUES THE FARADAY CONSTANT

Sincerely, Yuriy.

Dear John-Erik Persson The building block of universe is QM remark. therefore Gravity is Internal NOT External

Article Gravity is an Internal Force

regard

Javad

Einstein tried for 50 years to confirm (his idea) light quanta and found it was time to give it up. Relativity was a castle in the air.

Schrödinger was not invited to come to Princeton and fight mainstream (quanta and relativity) together with Einstein. TWO against mainstream could have changed physics.

I do not nelieve in spooky action.

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

The article was studied by APG.

Since the article is without calculations and observational results, assuming the claims of the article are correct, a few points are stated below:

One: The overall approach of the article is fascinating. At least it can be considered as an alternative.

Two: Considering neutrinos as ether or graviton particles is a bit vague. Here the author is apparently confused in his choice.

Three: What is the argument or calculation based on the fall of the ether in the radial direction?

Four: Considering the speed of light for ether particles is a basic assumption or a axiom?

Conclusion: At APG, we boldly welcome such ideas and review them if the owner is interested. In my opinion, the gaps of this idea are not more than Newtonian gravity or general relativity, so it can be considered as an alternative. Frankly, I do not currently replace this model with general relativity, but as the strengths of this model increase, I have the courage to replace it.

Regards and thanks for introducing this fascinating idea,

Rashid

Attachment: We at APG thought and worked a lot about gravity. We have come up with an alternative idea that has not been discussed anywhere before. If you like and want to work together, we can work on it together. Because in some places our idea is similar to the model in this article, but with a number of differences that may be able to reduce its shortcomings. We were not familiar with this article and its idea before, and our acquaintance with this article was done by you and in this question.

No, gravity is not a neutrino effect.

Fatio´s model, reinvented several times, cannot even explain any of the three laws of Kepler. Or why the gravitational and inertial mass are the same (Eötvös experiment).

It makes little sense to even think of the Pioneer anomaly in this context. But there are some observed physical phenomena, like the Poynting-Robertson effect, where the idea behind the "Fatio-Le Sage-...-Jørgen Karlsen^*"-model have some relevance.

^*) http://www.principlephysics.com/Forces-by-Proxy-a-theory-which-unifies-all-basic-forces.html

Kåre

You are wrong when you say conflict with Kepler. If you had read my paper before answering you would have found that Fatio predicts the same as Newqton for spheres.

Fatio's model does not reproduce Newton, due to its velocity dependence.

Dear Kåre.

Kepler's three laws are derived from the law of universal gravitation using Binet's second formula. This formula is used to find the trajectory, knowing the central force. In a model similar to that proposed by Fatio, but with the involvement of neutrino-like particles, the derivation of Newton's law of gravity is elementary. You can verify this yourself:

Preprint GRAVITY MODEL WITH NEUTRINO-LIKE PARTICLES

Preprint ON THE DIFFERENCE OF THE VALUES THE FARADAY CONSTANT

Article WHETHER VALUE OF A CONSTANT FARADAY IS CONSTANT?

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Kåre

I gave a demonstration how Fatio predicte the same as Newton.

You state the opposite without the least logical agument. That is very bad reasoning.

Yu. E. Zevatskiy "You can verify this yourself"

I have, long ago, looked into this model. With a positive attitude, but seriously. One problem is that this model does not lead to a purely central force, but to velocity dependent corrections which are much too large.

It is an educating exercise, which makes one realise how cleverly GR extends Newtonian gravity to the relativistic domain, without violating Keplers laws (by an unacceptable amount). Relativistic electrodynamics extends the Coulombs forces in an almost equally clever way.

There are many other problems with the Fatou-Le Sage gravity model, discussed in this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Sage%27s_theory_of_gravitation

As you can see in that article, over several centuries, many scientists have worked on this model. The reasons that it does not constitute a viable theory of gravity is not (only) the lack of candidates for "Fatou particles".

John-Erik Persson "... very bad reasoning"

My reasoning is based on mathematical analysis. It is consistent with the treatment you find under "Aberration" in the Wikipedia article. (I were not aware of the Fatou-Le Sage model, and the extensive literature on it, when I considered a similar type of model many years ago.)

Kåre

No one has provided an argument against the basic idea. But as soon as any assumptions of different kinds, based on known physics, regarding Fatio's particles arrises. So, the simple assumption that the particles have some property that we do not know makes the theory of interest.

Dear Kåre.

I sincerely and fervently support the idea of ​​the immense possibilities of the relativistic model. It's beautiful and effective. The computation of magnetism as the relativistic effect of the electric field that creates the Coulomb forces is a great example of this.

Fascinated by the ideas of relativistic mechanics, I myself have repeatedly tried to apply them in various fields. Using the provisions of special relativity, I tried to derive the Born-Jordan quantum conditions:

Article Derivation of Quantum Conditions out of Provisions of the STR

As a relativistic effect of the Heisenberg uncertainty relation, I calculated the anomalous moments of the proton and the electron:

Article Anomalous Magnetic Moments of Proton and Electron as a Relat...

Using the provisions of relativistic mechanics, I substantiated the Laplace invariant (RLR vector), Kepler's laws, and the accelerated scattering of galaxies:

Preprint INERTIAL MOTIONS AND LAPLACE INVARIANT

Therefore, I fully share and support your idea of ​​the great role of relativism in science.

As for the description of gravitational interaction using neutrino-like particles, the following is not clear to me. According to the model, the force of interaction exactly corresponds to the gravitational force of Newton. The model does not provide for any other forces. Deviations from the law can only occur at short distances. On an astronomical scale, deviations from the law are negligible, due to the ultra-small scattering cross section of neutrino-like particles. In addition, the work:

Preprint GRAVITY MODEL WITH NEUTRINO-LIKE PARTICLES

contains a link to the data of the latest astronomical observations.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Problems arising in the framework of classical mechanics must be solved within the same framework. If the answer has not yet been found, it is not gravity that is to blame, but the inability to find a solution. Riemann made this mistake a long time ago. He began to look for a way out of the impasse in Zend-Avesta and failed. But he was one step away from solving the problem ... Within the framework of classical mechanics, the problem of gravity has long been solved in works in Russian. Your way: find them and translate them into your language.

Suggest the name of the author?

Rashid Nasrolahpour and APG

Three

The radial ether wind was assumed to be equal to the escape velocity, and light speed in relation to the ether was assumed to be c.

Four

Assumption

Yes, I am interested in more communication with APG

Regards ______________________________ John-Erik

Dear John-Erik Persson ,

Hello and thanks.

After preparing the initial design and per-article, I will send it to you,

Both for review and for evaluation and for cooperation.

With respect,

Rashid

Attachment: It may take a while because there is a lot of APG work. I will be grateful for your patience.

I like your approach to the task and the direction of your thoughts.

But streams of cosmic matter (you have neutrinos), entering a material body, remain in this body, without leaving it, and form its mass. Then ALL questions are resolved. The problem was solved 30 years ago, but they will probably not notice it soon.Here are excerpts from the report, and the full, albeit short, and author's articles can be viewed at Research Gate

THE LAW OF THE SUSTAINED DEVELOPMENT OF THE UNIVERSE

V.A.Lebedev

Institute of thermophysics, Siberian Branch,

Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia

Petri Primi academia scientiarum et artium

E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (3832) 337847

Ether space model with gravitating bodies has been described.

Gravitating bodies in an infinite liquid space are considered as sinks of an ideal liquid of density 📷. A weak-compressible fluid medium (ether) flows into growing spherical sinks. Analysis of the motion of this liquid [1] shows the following. Spherical sinks interact with each other according to the law, which exactly coincides with Newton’s law of gravitation: by forming masses m📷 and m📷 of the bodies the flow makes them approach to one another with the force F = – G m📷(t) m📷(t)/R📷(t). The gravitation constant G = 1/4π📷= R📷/3mt📷 of such systems contains the quantity 1/📷. Here 📷– density of the fluid medium, R – the distance between the centers of the bodies, t📷– indicative time of duplications of mass of growing body (sink of fluid medium or ether) [2]. Strictly, without any postulation, the liquid discharge determines the equality of a gravitating and an inert masses. This involves the regularity t📷~ R📷, where t is the time of the cycle of the body rotation. The time t📷 characterizes the rate of growth of mass gravitating bodies of the Universe rather than its age, as supposed by P.Dirac. On the other hand G contains the quantity..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

– “Hubble constant”, n – multiple number of the mass growth in time t, K📷.

This is realized under the observed divergence of heavenly bodies from one another. It corresponds with "Hubble’s law" of the duplication of masses for ~100 million years. This corresponds to the observed growth of rock masses. Simultaneously, radii of heavenly bodies grow. On the Earth’s surface this growth corresponds to the known rate of continental displacements.

The known astronomical constant (R📷/mt📷) or (R/m)×(R/t)📷 contains a mass m of the central body and law of motion of its satellites (3-rd Kepler’s law). It points to condition of accommodation of certain energy levels around the central body m: each value (R/m) correspond to certain squares of velocity v📷= (R/t)📷of motion of ether to the central body. This defines the law of the motion of planets. This points to the physical essence of the phenomena, described by the “Bode-Titius’s law”.

Let us suppose in this hydrodynamic space model a small object (being both the source and sink of the liquid ether) is discussed and this object travels past a much larger object. Then we see that the movement of the small object and the action of the vortex (funnel-shaped) flow of the liquid ether into this object are like the movement of the comet round the Sun and the action of the comet tail during this movement [4].

So the known natural phenomena in the real world correspond to this gravitation model and Law of the sustained development of the Universe (law of geometric and energy resemblance) (1,2).

Gravitation is the accelerated motion of ether to gravitating bodies, with the atomic nuclei being sinks of ether. Matter exists in two main states: atomic nucleus with known density 📷g/cm📷 and ether with density 📷 g/ cm📷 [2]. The latter coincides with density of interstellar space. Flow of ether into the surface of nucleus at rate C defines internal rest energy E📷= m📷C📷 for bodies with rest mass m📷 [5]. Value С is connected with "phase transition" from state of ether to nuclear state. The law of accelerated motion of liquid exactly defines the form of the law of universal gravitation as we said before. Gravitation of macro-body (material with density 📷) is directly proportional to number of atomic nuclei in the volume V of body, i.e. mass of body is (📷V). Gravitation of atomic nucleus is directly proportional to its surface, since the flow of ether into the atomic nucleus is realized through its surface. It is the essence of nonequivalence gravitating and inert masses on the micro-level. Under destructive processes with the escape of ether this nonequivalence can reveal itself on macro-level.

With a gravitating body of rest mass m📷 considered as a sink of the ether (an ideal weakly compressible liquid) and the gravity considered as an ether flow toward the body, the body appears to move at the velocity v without frontal resistance, the ether being discharged to the corresponding extent. This leads to changing the mass according to m = m📷(1 + v/C) with C being velocity at which the ether flows into the body [6].

Now in an infinite three-measured Euclid space filled with an ideal liquid two objects (two sorts of the waves) are considered: 1) the compression wave traveling from the spherical liquid sink against the flow of the liquid; 2) a similar compression wave from a second sink of the liquid. The second sink travels relatively to the first one, and swallows up more liquid of the opposite flow than the first sink, so the condition of the absence of the frontal resistance with the relating movement is accomplished. The compression waves emitting from mobile and immobile bodies propagate at different velocities because of different velocities of the liquid ether counter flow toward the body but are described by absolutely identical classic equations coincident, in both cases, with the Maxwell-Herz radiation equations which describe geometrical factors of the vector field. The Maxwell and the Maxwell-Herz equations system describe mutually perpendicular vectors at the wave front. These Maxwell equations are invariable in Galilei transformations and the Maxwell-Herz equations are invariable in other (non-relative) transformations in the transition from an immobile system to a mobile one [7]. Thus, the classic invariance is shown to exist not only for Maxwell’s equations describing a wave from different systems of coordinates, but also for the Maxwell-Herz equations that describe the waves emitting from a source changing its own gravitation field when moving.

The idea on gravitation as a movement of the continuous matter had been developed over many years by a number of scientists independently of one another. First attempts to describe mathematically the world’s model based on this idea, seemed to be made by Gauss, Weber and Riemann (1853). Working secretly, Riemann was ahead of his competitors but did not end the problem in success, for he made a principal mistake because of his adherence to the Herbart and Fechner philosophy. The Gauss and Weber investigations (and later Thompson) were also fruitless. Yarkovskii (1889), who avoided Riemann’s mistake, proposed an extraordinary concept of gravitation as a consequence of the formation of a weighty matter inside bodies. By developing Yarkovskii’s idea, Butusov (1991) has received some interesting results. He has shown that as the radiator mass increases in vast radiating systems, a “red shift” is observed without any movement of the light sources [8]. On the other hand, one can hardly agree with his negation of the Universe expansion (in his treating), for in the absence of recession the bodies with time should be approaching one another with acceleration, as their masses grow. But over time the body must break with the acceleration, and their masses increase. This was shown in 1991 (2-nd International Conf. in S-Petersburg) by the author who was ignorant at the time of the existence of the above works.

I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to Tatiana Borozdina(Russia), Raewin Carswell and Yuriy Veslogusov(New Zealand) who have helped in the preparation of this article.

REFERENCES (All in Russian)

1. Lebedev V.A. Hydrodynamic Model of Space with Gravitational Masses // Space and Time Problems in Modern Natural Science. Series “The Universe Investigation Problems”.– 1993.– Issue 16, part II.– P.128–132.

2. Lebedev V.A. Inter-coupling of the fundamental characteristics of the gravitating bodies systems and the law of the steady development of the Universe. // Problems of Natural Sciences on the Boundary of Centuries. – St.-Petersburg: Politechnika, 1999. – P.241–249.

3. Lebedev V.A. Geometric and energetic (mass) similarity as the stability of a gravitating bodies system condition in a hydrodynamic space model // Problems of Space, Time, Gravitation. Series “Problems of Universe Investigation”– 1997.– Issue 20, part II.– P.163–166.

4. Lebedev V.A. Radiating body in the double oriented continued matter flow // (above R.3) – P.167–170.

5. Lebedev V.A. Geometrical and energetic invariants of system of spherical gravitating bodies in continuous media // Problems of Space, Time, Gravitation. – St.-Petersburg: Politechnika, 1995. – P.383–390.

6. Lebedev V.A. Invariance of the radiating equations in a hydrodynamic space model // (above R.3) – P.171–175.

7. Лебедев В.А. Геометрическая инвариантность центрально-симметричных систем в прямоугольных координатах // Препринт №212-90.– СО АН СССР, Ин-т теплофизики.– Новосибирск. – 1990. – 28с.

8. Butusov K.P. Time as a physical substance // Space and Time Problems in Modern Natural Science. Series “The Universe Investigation Problems”. – 1991. – Issue 15. – P.301–310.

We do not know what causes gravity. However, it will not be neutrinos that act as messengers because neutrinos are given off in nuclear reactions. One of the unexpected things about gravity is it is proportional to the mass of the objects, and totally independent of the nature of the mass. If we accept Einstein's relativity, then whatever any messenger particle is involved, it must have zero mass, and neutrinos do not have that. Further, it must not interact with matter in any other way than the gravitational force, and neutrinos do so interact, admittedly rarely, but we depend on those interactions in detectors. It may be there is a messenger particle because particles need to kn ow the others are there, and how big they are and how far away, but it won't be through neutrinos.

Dear Ian.

As we all well know, electrons are also involved in nuclear reactions. But this in no way prevents them from participating in electrical and magnetic interactions.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Уважаемый Владимир Алексеевич.

Не затруднит Вас дать ссылку на русский текст Вашей статьи.

С уважением, Ю.Зевацкий.

Yu

Neutrinos must have an extreemely small mass. You cannot know if it is exactly zero.

Regards _________________ John-Erik

Dear Yuriy,

Electron are involved in nuclear reactions, but their involvement is not only proportional to mass but their rate also depend on which nucleus and which reaction. Gravity does not show such dependency. Further, neutrinos give rise to scintillation effects, but gravity does not.

Dear Ian.

What you say does not contradict my thesis at all.

Neutrino and electron (positron) take part in weak nuclear interactions. These forces are devoid of CPT invariance. This does not prevent electrons from participating in electrical and magnetic interactions. What prevents neutrinos from participating in gravitational interactions? Take a look at the latest astronomical observations:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03585

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Dear Yuriy,

That is an interesting link, but while neutrino emission may come from something that caused gravitational waves that does not mean neutrinos cause gravity. Try this. Given the symmetry of the Universe (as far as we can see) there should be a directional independent neutrino flux, leaving aside the very small variations due to what caused the very small variations in CMB intensity. How can that form galactic scale forces? Further, if a star is a locally net emitter of neutrinos how does it generate an attractive force between it and its planets? How do small blocks of metals that do not emit neutrinos exert forces on each other proportional to their mass?

Sincerely,

Ian

Dear Ian.

For more than 50 years it has been experimentally established that the Universe is filled with isotropic relict radiation with a temperature of about 2.7 K. Photons are the carrier of this radiation.

Make an assumption. The Universe is filled with another relict isotropic radiation, which is carried by neutrino-like particles with a scattering cross section of no more than 10^-11m^2 / kg. The bulk density of this radiation is not less than 10 ^ 12 Pa. To obtain gravitational effects, you can carry out the calculations yourself or get acquainted with the ready-made formulas in the preprint:

Preprint GRAVITY MODEL WITH NEUTRINO-LIKE PARTICLES

or in a previously published article:

Article WHETHER VALUE OF A CONSTANT FARADAY IS CONSTANT?

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

In the book Feynman lectures on gravitation, in his usually playful style, Feynman uses the example of physicists from the planet Venus, who know Maxwell’s theory, who know quantum field theory, but who are only now becoming familiar with gravity and are trying to make sense of it.

They observe two very important properties. First, in gravitation, positive masses attract each other. (In contrast, in electromagnetism, like charges, such as two positively charged protons, repel.) Second, gravity is universal: the gravitational “charge” of an object is its energy-content, the material properties of the object are otherwise not relevant.

So then, given what they know, these Venusian scientists begin to speculate. What kind of a field would mediate this mysterious “gravity” thing?

Let’s start with the simplest: a spin-0 scalar field. This would be the Newtonian gravitational potential. Sounds good! Except… Except that the dependence of the interaction strength on velocity comes out wrong, with faster things experiencing weaker gravity. Why is that a problem? Because this means that when we add thermal energy to an object by heating it (such that its constituent particles wiggle about more rapidly), the object would gravitate less. This is contrary to the equivalence principle, which, in turn, is based on actual observation. So we must reject a spin-0 theory.

A spin-1 vector field theory is like electrodynamics. The problem with a spin-1 field is that like charges in such a theory repel. This is not what we see in gravitation.

Could gravitation be mediated by a half-spin particle such as a neutrino? Not really; exchanging a half-spin particle would mean changing other particles from integral spin to half spin or vice versa. Perhaps a pair of half-spin particles? Nope, such a theory would alter the inverse-square law of gravitation, which has been known since Newton and which has been verified to great accuracy, e.g., by solar system spacecraft tracking experiments.

Having exhausted all these possibilities, we are forced to look at the next possible case, a spin-2 tensor theory of gravitation. And this is where we hit pay dirt: Finally, a theory that obeys the equivalence principle and produces the right inverse-square law of gravitation in the limit of weak fields and nonrelativistic velocities. Only one difficulty remains: we find that such a theory slightly overestimates the (nowadays very precisely known) anomalous precession of the perihelion of Mercury. But this problem goes away the moment we realize that the gravitational field itself has energy, and must therefore be a source of gravitation itself: in other words, the theory must be nonlinear. And this is how we can arrive at the tensor theory of gravitation (known as a spin-2 theory in the language of quantum field theory) that is Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

Feynman gave these lectures in the early 1960s, when there was still general optimism regarding the efforts to reach a quantum theory of gravitation. Since then, we learned that this task is much more difficult than anyone thought. But the basics have not changed. Our classical theory of gravitation is still Einstein’s tensor theory, and if there is a quantum theory of gravitation that reduces to Einstein’s in the weak field, so-called perturbative limit, it would have the spin-2 quanta that we dub gravitons.

But it is a fact that neutrinos are not spin two bosons but they are spin half fermions. So it is unacceptable according to the theory of quantum mechanics for same particle to have two fundamentally different spins, one of bosons and other of fermion.

So neutrinos cannot be the mediators for the force of gravity.

Dear Adithya Rao.

I completely agree with you that spin is the most important characteristic of particles responsible for interaction in quantum field theory.

However, it is generally known that, starting from a certain temperature value, the statistics of bosons and fermions (for example) becomes indistinguishable. That is why bosons and and fermions behave in the same way in hydrodynamic and electromagnetic phenomena, for example, at high temperatures. The phenomena of superconductivity and superfluidity (rheology) are observed, as a rule, at low temperatures. Of course, many exceptions have been found recently, but with an increase in temperature, they disappear.

As it is said in the Holy Scripture, the almighty God sends rain in the sinners and on the righteous indiscriminately.

Now let us assume that the density of isotropic radiation of neutrino-like particles is not less than 10 ^ 12 Pa. This pressure will most likely correspond to a sufficiently high temperature value of this radiation. Very high. Will the difference in the value of the spin of the radiation carrier particles be of great importance at such high temperatures? I doubt it very much.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

P.S. In ancient China, after the 108 negations of Bathidharma were formulated, the saying was in use:

Proof doesn't prove anything. Denial does not refute anything.

Proof is needed to deny neutrino-like particles the opportunity to participate in the formation of gravitational interaction. Convincing evidence.

Dear Yu E. Zevatskiy,

I totally agree with you, but what I would like to say is that what is possible theoretically need not be the reality, for instance, time travel which is mathematically viable is not possible in reality, and that sufficient experimental evidence is also required in support of any theory. But I don't think that is the case with this pseudo-theory, where I did not find any experimental evidence in support of this ( I might be wrong here ).

It might be true that at extreme conditions like the grand unification epoch, graviton and neutrino were the same entity, but in the classical limit neutrinos and gravitons are completely different entities, with no possible correlations between one another.

I truly appreciate the time you have taken to read my answer and reply.

Sincerely,

Adithya Rao

Dear All

We are in wrong direction regarding Gravity as Externa, and mechanical force phenomenon. Gravity is Internal Not External,.

Article Gravity is an Internal Force

regard

Dear Mark

If you make mistake, which I do most of the time, You can correct it by click on ^ upside down, and go back to your thread.

Regard

Dear Kåre

Fatio's model is not dependent on velicity. The effect is caused by an attenuation inside matter causing fewer particles to lieve a body compared to the number of approaching particles. Gravity is a small difference between pushing and pulling forces. For the special case of spherical bodies Fatio predicts the same as Newton.

Regards ______________ John-Erik

Dear John-Erik.

For this, it is necessary that the particles that transmit the impulse move at the speed of light. In this case, the forces will be central and will not depend on the speed of massive bodies. Therefore, the mass of particles - carriers of gravitational interaction must necessarily be zero. This convinced me to suggest neutrino-like particles for this role. In the course of many years of experiments to determine the neutrino mass, the lower limit of its value is constantly decreasing. Aiming for zero.

Newton's gravitational potential is a slightly different formalism. The forces in this case depend on the speed of massive bodies.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Yu

Fatio: Since the neutrino mass is extremely small you cannot see if it is zero or not.

Newton: His law states inverse square, or position only, not speed.

Regards ______________________ Johnb-Erik

Dear John-Erik.

In field theory, there is a conclusion showing that potentials change the reciprocal distance between bodies, lead to the emergence of additional forces. They depend on the speed of the bodies. As in electromagnetism.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Yu

Yu. E. Zevatskiy

Yes, perhaps it is so, but how can you know that this is valid for gravity also?

Regards __________ John-Erik

PS

Perhaps gravitons are a kind of particles just like neutrinos? Fatio's physics is to me more interesting than Newton's mathematical idealism.

DS

Dear John-Erik.

It is assumed that gravitons have a spin equal to 2. What in this case will be the equations of the gravitational field, I personally have a bad idea. Apparently, it is worth contacting specialists in quantum field theory and general relativity.

I share your interest in the Fatio's model. There are several interesting implications of this view.

1) gravity obeys statistical laws similar to high energy thermodynamics. To be consistent with observations, the bulk energy density of a "gas consisting of neutrino-like particles" must be at least 1000 GPa;

2) there is a limit of values ​​of gravitational forces, limited by the above pressure of "gas".

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Yu

We have states of decreasing aggregation:

high, medium and low perhaps lower

solid, liquid and gas perhaps neutrino likeparticles in neutrino gas.

A fourth state of aggregation.

Regards ______ John-Erik

Dear John-Erik.

Given that the particles that fill space move at the speed of light, I lean towards the "gas" model. But the most interesting thing is different. If the first law of thermodynamics is applied to this "gas", then what will happen? Thermodynamic work can be compared to a change in the volume of massive particles. This follows from the fact that the cross section of massive bodies in the "gravitational model with the participation of neutrino-like particles" is proportional to their mass. In beta decay reactions, the mass of the nucleus changes. Consequently, the cross section for scattering of the nucleus by neutrino-like particles changes. The cross section of the nucleus is proportional to the volume of the nucleus. Hence, the change in volume multiplied by the pressure created by the "gas of neutrino-like particles" is thermodynamic work.

What should we associate potential energy and heat in the first law of thermodynamics? The kinetic energy of an electron (positron), the appearance of a neutrino-like particle, a quantum of light? This is to be discussed.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Yu. E. Zevatskiy

Yes, an ether based on neutrino-like particles is most like a gas. However, gas molecules collide with each other and neutrines do (almost) not. So, perhaps we need a state of aggregation (almost) zero and lower than a normal gas.

Dear John-Erik.

According to the molecular-kinetic theory, the gas pressure P is related to its temperature T through the concentration n. P = n * k * T. k is the Boltzmann constant for an ideal gas. This ratio gives some freedom in determining the numerical value of T at a constant value of P. T can be small as you suggest. Since neutrino-side particles “do not see” each other, their concentration can be arbitrarily large.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

P.S. Although there should be a limiting value for the concentration of neutrino-like particles. After all, they are fermions and they cannot find more than two in a small volume.

Yu

I said neutrino-like, not neutrinos

I have doubt over it. Not easy to say whatever we want.

Dear John-Erik.

There are different kinds of resemblance, I was referring to the likelihood of particles in spin statistics.

Another thing is interesting. That we will compare the internal energy and heat of the "gas" of neutrino-like particles in the process of beta decay.

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Dear Rashid

I remember that you asked for a motivation to radial ether wind:

This follows easily from Fatio's 300 years old model. He assums attenuation in matter to reduce the ether flow near a massive body in direction from that body. So, the spherical symmetry is disturbed by matter and attenuation of flow from the body means that gravity is caused by a pushing force slightly larger than the pulling force. Not pushing gravity but a difference between pushing and pulling. See the article.

Regards

Thank you very much Dear Persson,

After I did not receive an answer from you, I found out the answer with further analysis. I fully understand this hypothesis, but I have questions and challenges about it, that apparently there is no desire to talk about it.

I have now proposed four scenarios for ether, each of which has specific consequences. I have also provided an estimate of the density and elasticity of the ether. But even ether enthusiasts are not interested in talking about it.

I do not know the reason for not talking about this? Maybe fear Maybe fear and maybe fear and of course maybe boredom. But science will not progress by fear of dialogue and challenge and boredom.

Rashid

I have no fear of discussing these issues, but there are many other discussons on RG. Yes, you are right. Science needs dscussions and many people write many articles on the Internet, but very few are reading them. So the ideas disappear in a black hole.

My view

• Ether is the needed content in the container called space.
• The ether is all there is.
• Therefore, the ether must explain:

Your interest is:

• Density
• Elasticity

So, you must explain how try to do these estimations.

Regards

Great. This is the beginning of a great work and a long way. After all, we all have to talk about everything. Not like the past, but a serious and transparent dialogue. This is the only way to save science and physics from confusion, because technology is on its way, and it is science that must look for new ways to be dynamic and survive.

But about ether:

Yes, my current interest in ether is focused on density and elasticity. Of course, this is one of the four scenarios I suggest for ether.

Of the things you mentioned, I only consider the presence of ether to be necessary for the emission of light, not to explain gravity or to control separation in crystals.

Comparing the method of production, propagation, and speed of sound and light, I came to the conclusion that ether must be a very low-density, highly elastic material medium. I have also provided an estimate for this ratio. This conclusion is merely to describe the speed at which light travels relative to sound. I put these estimates in RG.

I have also shown in the formulation of structural action how the presence of ether causes repulsion and attraction between masses with spin.

I recently made a suggestion on how rechargeable action works given the ether presence. Of course, this is just a raw idea at the moment.

Rashid

The ether is all there is. So, the ether must transmit longitudinal forces between atoms and also in gravity.

That cannot be avoided.

John-Erik

John-Erik Persson

Do you have a paper on how Fatio's model explains the Pioneer Anomaly. Note the Pioneer Anomaly as originally posed by Anderson had 10 anomalous characteristics. Traditional science (the thermal model) explains only one.

I hope you can explain more about the features of this ether. Also provide estimates of these features.

Because we need more details to continue the conversation.

Dear John Hodge

My theory explains all characteristics, since Pioneer anomaly is just an illusion.

Fatio's model explains gravity by attenuation of nuetrino-like gravitons passing a material body. So, flow from the body is slightly reduced, and pulling force is smaller than pushing force. So, Fatio implies a falling ether. A negative and radial ether wind explains gravity. (I assume ether wind equal to escape velocity). Therefore, in radial direction 2-way light speed (in relation to Sun) is reduced, and 2-way light speed is increasing between 20 and 70 AU. This increase causes in illusion of decreased space station motion, and 2-way Doppler effect 3.1 Hz in the 2.3 GHz carrier.

I have described this in the article that this is about.

Have you not read the article ? I repeat it:

Regards

Dear Rashid Nasrolahpour

I am sorry and only an engineer and amateur scientist, so I have not anything to say about elasticity and density.

I am convinced that the ether exists and has to explain 3 earlier metioned phenomena.

Regards

Dear John Hodge

I also sent this idea to GSJournal 2003. However, I guessed wrong about:

• integration from 20 to 10 instead of 20 to 70 AU and
• using 2 GHz instead of 2.3 for carrier and
• another value on radial ether wind.

https://www.gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers/View/5093

I send a link anyhow.

Regards

John

The yrear was 2013

John-Erik Persson

Thank for the link. I think this does NOT explain the periodicities measured, the apparent Earth direction of the anomaly. It seems oriented to only the "Sunward acceleration" which the thermal model is meant to explain.

However, I think the STOE approach is similar to your approach.

There are four serious scenarios about ether.

It seems that a better description of natural phenomena can be provided with ether, but this requires more serious discussions and dialogues, which I hope will eventually be resolved.

Dear John Hodge

You must explain what periodicity you mean.

Observations are done from a moving observation point, and anomaly is directed towards the Sun, and space station is moving from a position at a constant distance from the Sun.

Regards

see

Article Scalar potential model of the Pioneer Anomaly

Article Pioneer Anomaly predictions confirmed

If we want to continue this dialogue more seriously, I must say that there are two important points or questions here:

· One: Does ether, as claimed, contain neutrinos?

· Two: Is gravity due to the effect of ether on matter?

Our answer to the first point or question is that this scenario is very vague and unacceptable for Ether. Neutrinos are not present in any of our four proposed ether scenarios. This could be a fifth scenario, which in our opinion is a very weak scenario.

Our answer to the second point or question is also negative. Even if we assume that ether contains neutrinos and accept this weak scenario, we cannot provide a specific mechanism for their uptake or passage by matter, or if so, show that the resulting action is only a longitudinal (radial) action and in the form of Absorption or possibly repulsion.

If ether is to represent the effect of matter on matter, we have given a very good description of it in structural action, which is very logical and understandable.

There is both adsorption and repulsion of materials due to mass and spin and due to the presence of matter in structural action and it has also been formulated.

Dear Rashid Nasrolahpour

Point 2 first

You cannot base a theory on the fact that you failed to find the mechanism that Fatio found 300 years ago. Gravity must be caused by ether affecting matter, since the ether is all there is. You must base physics on visible facts.

Point 1 next

Neutrinos are not proved to be existent to 100 %. However, you base non-existence on your failure to detect them. It is theoretically impossible to prove anything to not exist. If non-existence is true there exists no properties to confirm that fact directly.

Regards

Dear John Hodge

I made a short statement that increased 2-way light speed can simulate a decreased space station motion. There is nothing in the 13 pages long paper that is in conflict with my simple suggestion. See ATT.

Regards

John-Erik Persson

I mentioned the Pioneer Anomaly (PA) may have an experimental / observational impact on this discussion. You responded (thanks) that you analyzed the PA and found that Fatio's model could explain all 10 of the observed effects. Then you didn't know about 2 of the ten (periodicities). This suggested to me that you had no idea what the PA characteristics are - hence the reference to the 2 papers. BTW the second paper references work that finds the PA may be directed toward Earth not the Sun (but definitely NOT toward the SUN).

However, IMHO the ether (my plenum) model explains all the PA effects as an effect like the redshift of galaxies (same equation). That is, the ether causes the gravity effect and the PA and galaxy redshift. The Fatio model may not do this. I say "may" because I think there may be a calculation method to do within the Fatio math (a neutrino type of force transfer). But it would be complex and it would require a calculation - not merely hand waving. Personally, I have no interest is doing the calculation as was done in y papers for the PA. The ether also offers a neat solution relating galaxy luminosity to rotation curve shape ("Dark Matter model is rejected by the Low Surface Brightness galaxies).

This shows how Newtonian gravity is better (more explanatory) than General Relativity and Fatio's model. It is the way out of the blind ally in which physics seems stuck.

Article Scalar Theory of Everything (STOE) unites the big, the small...

I think a model based on vague assumptions without empirical evidence and even accepted logic cannot attract attention.

Without wanting to advertise, the structural action that we have presented is in every way much better than Newtonian gravity and general relativity or any other model that can explain why objects are absorption or repelled.

By accepting the presence of matter in the ether, this model explains the reason for the absorption and repulsion of objects by paying attention to the mass and spin of matter. It has clear assumptions, empirical evidence, and strong analytical logic. It also has a specific formulation.

The paper listed has lots of empirical evidence, and it list the sub paper.

So, where is the paper you are referring to?

Dear John Hodge

You seems to have missed the fact that in my theory the Pioneer anomaly does not exist. Instead it is an illusion due to measurement errors, since the changes in light speed are not regarded. Fatio's model implies an ether wind blowing in the same ditrection as the force of gravity (proportional to ether wind squared). So, all your 10 illusions are explained!

I have not asked you to do any calculations. However, Newton's law must still be valid even if you split a body up into smaller bodies. So, the description by one mass point may be substituted by many mass points and this description is more general, since spherical form is not demanded. So, we found an better model in agreement to Newton's model. Therefore, Newton's model is just a mathematical idealisation that is an approximation to reality.

Newton's model does not directly unite with Fatio's mechanism, but the improved model can do that.

Regards

John Hodge

I can help you with the calculations:

At 1 AU from Sun radial ether wind (and escape velocity ) is 42.1 km/s.

Division by c gives relative change in 1-way light speed 14.03x10-5.

Squaring gives change in 2-way light speed 197x10-10.

Multiplication by 20-1-70-1 gives change from 20 to 70 AU as an increase of 2-way light soeed 0.704x10-9.

This can simulate a 2-way Doppler effect 1.408x10-9 as a decrease and simulate a reduced space station speed.

Therefore, a 2.3 GHz carrier will be shifted 3.2 Hz.

Regards

Here are I state three separate but related sections:

1. Proposed models and their main drawbacks

Each of the proposed models has a fundamental ambiguity in the mechanisms used:

• Fatio's model: The mechanism of neutrino (or any similar particle) uptake by objects.
• Newtonian gravity and its generalizations: The mechanism of mass absorption.
• General relativity: The mechanism of curvature of immaterial (geometric) space by matter or energy.

The Fatio's model does not state how neutrinos are absorbed by objects.

Newtonian gravity and its generalizations do not explain how mass can be absorbed.

General relativity does not describe how matter or energy causes the curvature of immaterial space (geometry).

These are just some of the ambiguities of the models mentioned above.

2. I would be happy if the mechanism of neutrino uptake by objects were explained.

3. Structural action of adsorption or repulsion is due to the effect of matter spin on ether. That is, it considers both mass, spin, and ether. The mechanism of action is also very simple and clear. Each rotating substance affects the material environment around it (especially if it is a fluid) and the more concentrated and sticky the environment is, the greater these effects can be. We also feel this mechanism in our daily lives.

Dear Rashid Nasrolahpour

Newton's gravity is a bending of nothing and therefore absurd.

Fatio's gravity is a generalization of Newton's, since Newton's gravity demands spherical form and Fatio's does not. Besides, Fatio can explain anomalies that Newton cannot explain.

Regards

Rashid Nasrolahpour

Error.

General relativity (not Newton's) is a bending of nothing.

Regards

(Neither Newtonian gravity nor general relativity) My specific question about the Fatio's model is:

Quotation: "2. I would be happy if the mechanism of neutrino uptake by objects were explained."

Rashid Nasrolahpour

The neutrino mass is too small for detection. Do you really think that we can find out how absorption is done with certainty?

But there are possibilities: Electrons are captured by atoms when they produce X-rays; neutrinos can perhaps be captured in the same way.

Regards

Here are some important points (I will mention only one of them at the moment):

One: The absorption of electrons by an atom is due to the charging action between the nucleus and the electron, which is not the case with neutrinos, unless you believe that neutrinos are charged particles.

Rashid Nasrolahpour

Yes, neutrinos are neutral. So, they do not behave like electrons.

Regards

Thanks John-Erik Persson .

I will state other points below:

• Two: If neutrinos are absorbed by bodies, their mass will increase.
• Three: If the mass of objects increases, their nature will change.
• Four: In no way can this model explain the repulsion of objects from each other. This is the important difference between structural action and Newtonian gravity, its generalizations, and general relativity.

Rashid Nasrolahpour

• Two: Yes, the mass of our planet seems to increase.
• Three: Deep oceans in direction north to south looks like the bark of old oak trees (also expanding).
• Four: No repulsion. However, Fatio explains the same as Newton plus some anomalies.

Regards

This model is like two objects being pulled together by a rope, and their mass gradually increases. Neutrinos play the role of the same rope. It's really beautiful, but it doesn't make sense.

Gradually the masses of objects should increase and the ether should be emptied from the neutrino. That is, the gravitational effect should gradually decrease.

Do you agree with this short summary?

Dear Rashid Nasrolahpour

The number of neutrinos can be increasing if production is high.

Pushing outwards is slightly reduced in relation to pushing inwards due to a small absorption in matter.

Regards

Thanks John-Erik Persson .

I raise two issues based on the Fatio's model:

• An object is in the ether. Is there a force on it?
• Two objects are close together and in the ether. Is force applied to them? If yes, is it absorption or repulsion?

My answer from what I have learned so far is that in the first case no pure force enters the body because the result of all forces is neutralized.

But in the second case, the two bodies will repel each other because the neutrino absorption in the direction between the two bodies will be less than the other directions.

Is my impression correct?

If it is incorrect, state your reason.

Rashid Nasrolahpour

One object in Universe means that neutrino-like particles cause a preassure with spherical symmetry. So, the sum will be zero.

Two objects means that the flow, after passing A, is slightly reduced when hitting B. This small asymmetry is gravity,

Regards

We agree on one object, but there is still ambiguity about two objects.

I understand your explanation of the two bodies and the gravity caused by neutrino absorption. Ambiguities arise from now on.

Three assumptions:

• One: Two objects are similar.
• Two: The first object is larger (has more mass and a larger radius).
• Three: The first object is smaller (has less mass and less radius).

In these three cases, what will be the action between the two crimes?

My answer is:

In the case of one, two objects are separated, which means that I am still on my previous opinion. This is because the first mass will absorb more neutrinos and will absorb more by ether. So these two objects are relatively far apart and this is against your opinion.

In the case of two, I think the repulsion will be greater than before. With the same analysis I mentioned above.

In the case of three, there will be relative absorption, and I will agree with you on this.

In total, out of the three assumed modes, only one mode will lead to gravity, and this is one of the ambiguities of this model.

Dear Rashid Nasrolahpour

Production of gravity is proportinal to mass, and sensitivity is also. So, gravity is proportional to product of 2 masses independent of size relations.

The law of gravity depends instead on mass point approximation and spherical form. Gravitation from distant bodies entrain Earth according to equivalence principle and neutralizies gravity. Sun and Moon so near that small deviations on Earth are observable during tides and during solar eclipses.

Remains Earth' own gravity with spherical symmetry.

Fatio's model means that we use Newton's model on a small part of a body and integrate and avoid depndency on spherical form. However, it is not easy to integrate over both bodies at the same time. We can do it for one if the other body is small.

I am putting the text I prepared about structural action here for those who are interested.

About structural action

Structural action is based on three important parameters:

1. Ether density (i.e. the belief in the existence of ether as a substance with a density and adhesion property)

2. Mass (as the material content of the matter)

3. Spin (as the rotational motion of matter around itself)

Of course, other parameters also affect (such as scale and shape), but these three parameters are the most important.

· Conceptually, structural action is based on the premise that the presence and rotation of matter (i.e. spin) in ether can cause changes in it that result in the effect of matter on other substances.

· Experimentally, even in everyday life, we see the effect of matter motion on fluids (gases and liquids) and even some solids.

· In terms of formulation, structural action has a simple formulation (but different from Newtonian gravity and general relativity and other models). However, in more complex cases this formulation can be complicated.

Structural action is a non-central action (unlike Newtonian gravity). It is also incompatible with Newton's third law, which is, of course, a strong point for this action. Because there are many doubts about the correctness of Newton's third law.

Structural action describes well the absorption and repulsion of objects from each other due to the existence of two types of left (up) and right (down) spin. Same spins cause repulsion and opposite spins cause absorption.

Structural action describes the Casimir Effect well (and without the need for irrational quantum assumptions). There is also a minimal coupling effect, which we called the APG Effect.

Structural action is also very useful for describing the stability of atomic models and the internal structure of matter. Without the need for vague quantum assumptions, we can describe the stability of a system consisting of electrons and protons or electron-electron.

Important features of structural action are:

· One: Acceptance of ether as a material mediator between substances.

· Two: Considering the effect of spin on interactions between materials.

· Three: An integrated description of material behavior from large-scale to micro-scale.

· Four: A simple description of seemingly complex phenomena without the need for vague and confusing assumptions.

· Five: Simple but practical formulation.

· Six: Ability to be tested and experienced.

· Seven: Being strong in terms of conceptual analysis.

· Eight: Being real and rational (i.e. consistent with accepted physical logics).

Those who are interested in reading the text of the main article can refer to my profile in RG. I am ready for a dialogue and a challenge on this.

https://www.growkudos.com/projects/take-nothing-for-granted-revisiting-principles-of-modern-physics

The Modification of Newton's Gravitational Law and its Application in the Study of Dark Matter and Black Hole: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-373969/v1

The Physical Cause of Planetary Perihelion: Precession:https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-536456/v1

Dear Colleagues.

To explain the anomalous displacement of the perihelion of Mercury and the accelerated recession of galaxies, it is not at all necessary to resort to "dark matter" or to space with nonzero curvature.

You can get acquainted with the development of the ideas of the relativistic theory of gravity in the work of Preprint INERTIAL MOTIONS AND LAPLACE INVARIANT

Sincerely,

Yuriy.

Preprint A Heuristic View on the Composition of Space

Preprint A New View on the Composition of Matter

Feng

Do you have any comments to my article?

So, here's the interesting thing. While there isn't a direct mechanism whereby neutrinos can explain gravity, as there are in fact more than one flavor (some of which operate by more than one force, as I understand it), there is definitely a set of predictions of how both gravitons, and gravity-interacting only neutrinos (called sterile neutrinos) would operate and indicate whether the extra spacetime dimensions predicted by string theory actually exist or not.

That paper can be found here:

Article Sterile-active neutrino oscillations and shortcuts in the ex...

As for whether any evidence meets these predictions, these papers here cover the latest MiniBoone experiments which were specifically designed to test for the existence of the sterile neutrino:

Preprint Observation of a Significant Excess of Electron-Like Events ...

Preprint Updated MiniBooNE Neutrino Oscillation Results with Increase...

Other than that, I can't really shed any more light on this, but hopefully this is related enough to give a competent start on answering the question...

Guthrie

Guthrie Prentice

Physics without an ether is unthinkable. Without the ether we have used the law of energy conservation in error by disregarding energy in the ether - perhaps equal to dark energy? We may also have disregarded matter in the ether - perhaps equal to dark matter?

Perhaps etherons are identical to sterile neutrinos?

With best regards from _____________ John-Erik

I invite you to read the response from ChatGPT on an exercise that might change your mind about "Gravity": https://chatgpt.com/share/d4a65ad7-997c-42db-963c-f7564deeb4ef

Just read it and do this small easy to do exercise. Perhaps you will wake up differently tomorrow.

The problem of gravity was set by Newton within the framework of classical mechanics, he did not solve the problem completely, having rejected the ether and replaced the bodies with points. Having taken into account the presence of the ether, having returned the sizes to the bodies, the problem is solved. This was done 30 years ago. Look at Lebedev's works. They are in Res Gate.

Rashid Nasrolahpour

Thanks for taking interest. Please tell me what APG stands for.

John-Erik