1 - in the theory of aether, planets moving in the ether, while the ether itself is a static medium. In the fluid of Madun theory, the situation is different. The fluid is a turbulent medium, with swirls and Tornadoes forming in it. the objects (planets, stars, ...) fall within the swirls of fluid so that objects move because of the rotation of swirls of fluid.This case is like a group of balls falling within a water vortex, so we see the balls moving because of the rotation of vortex of water,
2- Please note that the main idea in the theory of fluid is the idea of pressure (and the value of this pressure was calculated, please read .
(2.2.2The law of Madun pressure on the planet area
2.2.3Madun pressure constant (MPC)
The idea of pressure is an opposite idea of the idea of attraction(gravitation). So the question will be whether the objects fall because of a force that has attracted objects to the surface of the earth, or because of pressure on the objects, which pushing the objects to the surface of the Earths (please note that the pressure is the pressure of the fluid Madun not pressure of air ).
** I would appreciate it if you grant me your assessment of this scientific approach. "A new alternative theory of gravity where gravity is particles behave as a fluid forming two types of swirls Annular swirls and oval swirls ".
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-3-Conceptual-depict-shows-the-entire-curvature-revolves-together-around-center_fig3_330763968
From the alternatives that gravity is a force between massive objects, or a kind of pressure exerted by say the aether,
modern physics will choose the first. Gravity will work with essentially nothing between the attracting massive objects,
whatever you want to call this nothing.
Pressure on the other hand is due to multiple collisions of molecules on some surface, ie. atmospheric pressure.
Could be pressure due also to light (photons) or atoms, or some other particles.
Yes, I think you have it right. Pressure from the omnipresent medium, by whatever name it is given, is likely the source and cause of gravity. The Michelson Morley experiment did not have the proper set-up to detect it. But with laser light and the proper set up it seems that it has been readily detected. Here is one of those experiments the results of which does not interest mainstream physics. They do not want to consider that modern physics for the last 100 years or so could have major flaws in it and that theorists have been barking up the wrong trees.
via: Pushing gravity, local hidden variable within the quantum realm, etc.
https://etheric.com/grusenick-experiment-proves-existence-ether/
JW: From the alternatives that gravity is a force between massive objects, or a kind of pressure exerted by say the aether, modern physics will choose the first.
Modern physics describes gravity by intrinsic Gaussian curvature of geometry, the idea of a force was Newton's model. Pressure is the same, it is just force per unit area.
A vortex aether was the model Maxwell was working with in 1861 when he collected and rationalised the equations for which he is famous, see his paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Physical_Lines_of_Force
George
Still, the Newtonian conception is a very good approximation, and to feed such ideas into
people who are not advanced at all is to deform the concept of pressure, and needlesly complicate.
What exactly in the vacuum would exert pressure?
But I dont reject your answer per se.
regards, juan
Dear Juan,
JW: What exactly in the vacuum would exert pressure?
Consider the Casimir Effect for example, but that's anoher topic.
If you want to differentiate between a pulling force like Newton's or a pushing force then you could look at Le Sage's gravity. It doesn't work of course but then no vector model can work, we know from experiments that it has to be a tensor-based solution to even stand a chance.
If people want to have a stab at creating a model, I think it only fair to warn them about the attempts that have gone before and are known to be dead ends.
Einstein in the meaning of relativity has a Minkowsky 4 force K, a gradient of the energy momentum tensor;
Contraction of the derivative index, with one of the two of the tensor. ...but in vacuum I doubt. The meaning of vacuum there is no masses at all, and that is not what is wanted. You want one mass to warp, and another to feel.
The Casimir effect I have as a quantum effect.
Matter warps the ether (spacetime, zero point vacuum, etc.) which is an attraction to form a depression in the ether. Then the divergence of the ether pushes the matter around.
Dear Preston Guynn
Theory of Madun fluid is much broader than the Cavendish experiment. However, Cavendish's experiment can be explained by the fact that Madun's fluid is characterized by displacement ( please see:.1.3.2 The tendency of Madun fluid to displacement./and/ 1.3.3 Madun fluid has low viscosity and is applicable to Bernoulli's.),
theory of Madun fluid makes us see the universe more clearly.
1- Why do we need an alternative theory of gravity especially in geophysics? This article answers this question, as it will show us that the thing we measure in geophysics and call it field of gravity is characterized by many properties of fluids, the most important of these properties is pressure, why not treat it as fluid? If we deal with it on this basis, we will become more aware of physics of universe, galaxy, solar system and earth (acceleration of falling, tides, and many other things).
2- The article then asks the question that will determine fate of gravity (curvature of space-time), so will gravity remain part of science or become part of history?
3- The article provides precise and easy mathematics to calculate what we have called: Madun pressure on Earth, Moon and rest of solar system, and we were concluded a new constant what we have called Madun pressure constant which we define as a very small constant that is smaller than a part of a billion parts of a meter.>>>
I would suggest you can test any new theory you produce in two easy steps before looking at more complex tests.
First you need to show that it gives Newton's inverse square law to explain most of the planets. The anomalous precession of Mercury needs some careful calculation so I would ignore that at first.
The second test is for light passing close to the Sun. Its path gets deflected by twice the amount predicted by Newton's theory so a simple force or pressure theory cannot explain both observations.
George Dishman
Easier, just show reduction to current models which implies explanation of all experiments that support the current models. Then explain the anomalies. Then explain some experiment that current and other model predict another outcome than experienced - the difference is the criteria.
Ahmed
Objects falling into a swirl of fluid
That would really turn physics upside down, Law of inertia, Newtons first law no longet valid because vacuum is a swirl?
Best regards, Juan
With a similar idea as you stated, I wrote a paper on an alternative to dark matter, the abstract of which is posted here as a pre-print.
Preprint Background-Field Flow Dynamics as an alternative to dark mat...
The idea of it is that gravity is an aetherial pushing force flowing into a body at the speed of light but the field itself has a collective flow to it, an example of which could be the dark flow. Some of this background aether accordingly flows in a vortex manner such as in spiral galaxies, whereby the field flows at stellar speeds rather than at the speed of light as does gravity. Although both gravity and aether- flow would have the same cause of field flow, field flow can be separated from gravity as a different force in that it instead flows at stellar speeds within spiral galaxies rather than at the speed of light like gravity. The non-linear aspects of GR (the Ricci Tensor) would in this hypothesis would be caused by differential aether field pressure and arc like aether flow surrounding matter, instead of warped space.
The calculations and statistics within this paper assertedly confirms this proposal.
Dear John Hodge ,
JH: Easier, just show reduction to current models which implies explanation of all experiments that support the current models.
True but the way to do that is to compute the PPN parameters and see if they fall within the experimentally allowed ranges. I don't think doing those calculations for a vortex aether would be "easy" but you are right, it is the most comprehensive way to show compliance.
George Dishman
Perhaps a "proof by analogy". The role of vortexes in aerodynamics (airplane design).
The angle of deflection predicted by Newtonian theory is half of that predicted by GR. Analogy isn't good enough, anyone developing a new theory must do the maths and show that he gets an answer that is within the constraints of all existing experiments.
Dear Ahmad,
Mass does not possess the inherent property of attraction. Rene Descartes discovered the nature of gravity. Now there is such a model. All bodies are in an electromagnetic field environment. Each body is surrounded by its own whirlwinds. According to the Bernoulli effect near the body, a pressure gradient of the external environment is created.
In details You can read in the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2" in my profile. You can look at my experiment there.
Yours
Valeriy Pakulin
Valeriy
How did you get to this point? Oponent for the sake of it? Or do not read physics?
Dear Ahmed Hazaymeh,
The GRT describes gravity as curvature and calls the speed of light constant. Then unaccelerated masses follow a geodesic in spacetime that results in a curved line as seen in space. The same equations can be used where space is assumed to be constant but then the speed of light is variable. Und that condition the speed of light closer to matter has to be slower. In that view mass refracts during its path through space towards other mass.
Regards,
Paul Gradenwitz
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Force