Dear Abdul,

People often ask where the antimatter is. Where anti Galaxy to look? Now we should be clear that antimatter contained in ordinary matter and find it not anywhere does. Proton has eight neutrinos and ten antineutrinos. Therefore, it is more "anti". In the hydrogen atom — the most common element — contains the same number of neutrinos (10) and an antineutrino (10).

Please look at the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1" in my profile.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy,

The causality based world outlook of mainstream physicists, do not allow them to see things clearly and leads them to the polar opposites of either positive or negative, either yes or no, either good or bad etc.; but not both opposites together as in dialectics. For dialectics, the opposites lie together in the very unit of a thing or a process in a logical contradiction. A resolution of this contraction is what gives rise to the manifestation of the universe.

The photon (light) the purest of the pure, the holiest of the holy and the largest constituent of the universe (more than the hydrogen atom or proton) is composed of a particle-antiparticle pair and resolves to a pair of matter and an antimatter particles if enough energy of their mass equivalent is available

As I have shown in my works, quantum electrodynamics QED) is a representation of dialectics in physical systems and processes from the macrocosm of the galaxies to the microcosm of the quantum particles; which gives rise to chance accumulated aggregates of separate matter and antimatter, in various units, from the single particles to the large cosmic bodies. Astrophysics is finding these antimatter cosmic bodies in increasing numbers, but denied by official physics, simply because these are against their accepted paradigm; so they close their eyes!

Dear Abdul,

I am glad to hear clever speech. Modern physicists are very dogmatic. For example, there is a problem of the nature of gravity. Do you remember Hegel's dissertation "On the physical orbits of the planets"? He wrote: "The mass does not possess the inherent property of attracting. The planets themselves rush to the Sun ..." But today all interactions are carried by particles. The force carrier particles violate the laws of conservation and have the inherent property of attracting. When I point to the source of strength outside the attracting bodies, no one understands me. All fundamental interactions is gravity (The book Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2 in my profile).

The same is about antimatter. It is so simple. Louis de Broglie proposed the "neutrino theory of light." A photon contains two neutrinos (an anti-photon contains two antineutrinos). Photon is the electron's superpartner. The annihilation reaction fully confirms this model. The figure on the right shows a photon that contains neutrinos and antineutrinos. The current photon is not yet officially opened. I described all this in detail in the book Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 1 in my profile.

You are right that the presence of cosmic bodies from antimatter must be recognized publicly. I do not understand, why make a secret out of this? But why give up the Big Bang? You just have to call things by their names. The Big Bang is a local explosion above the massive Black Hole. They occur today. We can call the superrelativistic jets of Black Holes Small Bangs. The essence of the Big Bang is the Inflation of the Pre-matter, the conversion of matter. Because Eternity realizes itself in looping.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy,

Thanks for your further comment on this issue and for the links you provided. I made an attempt to incorporate the ideas of Hegel and Marx on planetary motion, in my criticism of the theories of gravitation at the following link:

Article THE CONCEPTUAL DEFECT OF THE LAW OF UNIVERSAL GRAVITATION OR...

Dear Abdul,

I read your article. You are right that Newton and Einsten did not know why the Moon was attracted to Earth. But you also do not know. You talk about "the force countering the strong gravitatу". But force is a measure of the interaction between two bodies. For your "anti-gravity" power you do not indicate the second body. You write: "The nature of the repulsive force will only be known when the nature of the gravitational attraction is understood".

Dear Abdul, I completed the case of Newton, Maxwell and Einstein. I solved Maxwell's equations for gravity. The law of the World Newton is a solution to Maxwell's equations. There is no gravitational field as a physical object. Gravitational constant is not fundamental. It is expressed through constant fields and substances. Experimental evidence is a modification of the Cavendish experience. Earth does not attract the Moon. The electromagnetic field pushes the moon to Earth. The field does the work of attraction.

The book "Gravity" in my profile describes all this. I understand that you will not read my books. Just take my word for it.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy,

In my article, I describe gravitationally bound system in terms of a contradiction. This contradiction is between absolute free motion intrinsic to any (cosmic) body on the one hand, and the limitation of this free motion mediated by gravitational attraction, on the other. This contradiction can go through various phases as long as the two bodies are bound gravitationally in a contradiction (the dialectical unity of the opposites”). The gravitational force is mediated through the exchange of gravitons. I have given a qualitative picture in terms of graviton orbitals (like the bonding-electron orbitals in chemical bonding) in the following article: Article Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter! A Qualitative Gra...

Is your book in Russian or do you have an English translation? Is your model of gravity similar to the “Pushing Gravity” of Louis LeSage?

Dear Abdul,

I read your articles. But I have too much questins to it. I do not agree with main idea: gravitons have inherent property to attract. Bishop Berkeley wrote to Newton that if this was accepted, then all the tales of the Holy Bible could be believed.

My model of gravity is not similar to the “Pushing Gravity” of Louis LeSage. It is a model of Descartes. I am a greater Cartesian than Descartes himself.

The electromagnetic field is the medium that fills all the space. You are convinced of the existence of the field environment whenever you bring a mobile phone to your ear.Electromagnetic vortices surround the Earth. Due to the Bernoulli effect, there is a pressure gradient of the external environment of the field near the Earth. The area of presence of this gradient we call the gravitational field.Force from the external environment of the electromagnetic field pushes the Moon to Earth.

Dear Abdul, look at the picture. If the Moon would not attracted it goes to point B. The motion of inertia is your "antigravity" element, negation. The force of medium from outside change the motion (negates negation). The Moon goes to point C.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

PS

My books are in English.

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Valeriy,

It is not that the “gravitons have inherent property to attract.” For me the gravitons are the agents that act in the exchange force of gravity, like all other forces, electric, magnetic, chemical, nuclear etc, where the exchange of (bosons, virtual or real) particles are supposed to involve. For me matter particles in motion (atoms of Democritus) is the basis of objective reality. Matter-less field (like aether, spacetime, quantum, Higgs etc.) are esoteric ideas that are more tuned to idealism and Bishop Berkeley! For me, “fields” (like electromagnetism, gravity etc.) are (secondary) properties of matter and with limited extension. These cannot pervade the whole universe with unlimited extension. I am trying to extend materialist dialectics to the microcosm and quantum electrodynamics (QED) is my tool. But it does not involve “fields”; only particles in motion (and exchange particles); from the quantum particles to the galaxies and their clusters; involving various exchange forces of specific nature and range..

I like your philosophical orientation and a much wider approach to the question of gravity; which is unlike the crude and narrow mechanical approach of most physicists. But you seem to depend heavily on the “field” concept that I do not like. Some others in RG like Thierry De Mees (gravito-magnetism) base his work on fields. Thierry seems to be influenced by the works of Heaviside and Jefimenko.

I have to read more about your works, before I can make a clear judgement. I would appreciate your participation in the following RG forum on the theories of relativity that I initiated about a year ago and is still active:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Any_Effective_Refutation_of_Einsteins_Theories_of_Relativity_Possible

Best regards, Abdul

Dear Abdul,

If you have read my works, I would not have to retell them here. Nature is fractal. Water exists in three phases: vapor, liquid and ice. Matter also exists in three phases: Pre-matter, electromagnetic field and matter. Black holes are Phase converter . You, as a philosopher, understand that the primary particles of matter ("a thing in itself" according to Kant) remain unchanged. The field is not a continuum, something separate from the substance. We often consider water as a continuous medium, although we know that it consists of particles-molecules. The quanta of the electromagnetic field are the vortexes of pre-matter, and the quanta of matter (neutrino) are the vortexes of the field. Before that, Descartes thought of it.

Dear Abdul, the field occupies the entire volume of the universe. Otherwise, the radio waves from the radio galaxy Swan A could not reach the Earth!

The electromagnetic field is a medium of vortex particles - gravitons. The progressive flows of gravitons, we call the electric field. Rotational flows of gravitons, we call the magnetic field. Rotational movement is fundamental, because only rotation can store more energy in a small volume.We live in nested environments: the field is surrounded by matter, and they are embedded in the pre-matter. Pre-matter plus field are Dark Energy. Minimized measurements of string theory should be turned inwards, not in breadth.

You mentioned the quantization of gravity. Gravity exists solely due to the spin of the neutrino. The vortex of field gravitons around the Earth is a superposition (addition) of the magnetic fluxes of all neutrinos (quanta).Everything is very clear and simple!

Best

Valeriy

PS

You ask me: "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?"

My replay-question: Is it really necessary to refute?

Dear Abdul,

My work is philosofical at first and phisical at second. It is new paradigm. The target is to propose a new model of nuclear fusion instead "TOKAMAK". Therefore let me write you a few additional words.

In your article " Gravity – An Intrinsic Property of Matter!" you write: " The strength of the gravitational force is proportional to the density of the graviton cloud". YOUR GRAVITON IS FORCE CARRIER PARTICLE. How gravinon does it? Look at the picture. Suppose in a gravity interaction the body 1 emits a graviton 3 and the body 2 absorbs a graviton 3. When a graviton with impulse p is emitted, body 1 will receive a recoil impulse - p. When a graviton with momentum p is absorbed, body 2 acquires a momentum p. Because of the graviton exchange, the bodies will diverge. Their attraction is contrary to the law of conservation of momentum. Moreover, in life, for some reason, a ball thrown at us only pushes us away, but does not attract. In order to connect two bodies, it is necessary to give them an impulse in the direction towards each other from the external environment.

You write that particles carry four different types interactions. For smallest bodies is strong interaction. If that bodies are joined there is another electromagnetic interaction. If atoms gather in a big room, there is third interaction - gravity. But for the destruction there is special interaction - weak.

Has God been such a bad creator?

Dear Abdul, I open the secret of God. Diffusion phenomena belong to the class of primary phenomena in comparison with force interactions of particles. Albert Einstein searched union field of interactions. I speak today: it is the field of Faraday and Maxwell.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

PS

If you have some time, read the book "Electromagnetic Gravity. Part 2".

Please see my animations of electron and photon at the site http://gravity.spb.ru

Dear Valeriy,

Unfortunately, you are taking a purely mechanical (Newtonian) and one-sided view of the "exchange force". In reality it is a dialectical process. As the saying goes, you need two to tango!

An exchange particle can go from Body1 to Body2 only when the Body2 is tuned to it synergistically. If not the exchange will not take place! It means that Body2 attracts (wants) the exchange particle from Body1 and vice versa, for the exchange process to be effective, if not there would be no interaction! The exchange forces of various kinds have specific range in which these are effective.

It is well established after Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” that exchange force involving exchange of "virtual" or "real" particles (bosons) is at the root of all forces such as electronic (photons), vibrational (phonons), magnetic (magnetons), (nuclear) weak (Gauge bosons), (nuclear) strong (gluons), gravitational (gravitons), forces etc.

Please see the following link. Even Wikipedia has a topic on it!

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Forces/exchg.html

Dear Abdul,

You write: "...the Body2 is tuned to it synergistically. If not the exchange will not take place! "

If "the exchange will not take place", then where do particles 3 (bozons) go? They can not go back. For that they have to push off.

Dear Abdul, I do not retell here my book. If You believe in official mistery I will not disturb you by my ideas.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin

Dear Abdul,

You say about Heisenberg’s “uncertainty principle” . This is pure agnostiсizm. "Uncertainty" in world of particles disappear in more wide system medium+particles.

You say about virtual partices. This is pure idealism. This particles violate the lows of conservation. This is mathematical abstraction, fantazy.

Physisist do not want to study philosophy. I studied in school "Materialism and Empiriocriticism" by Lenin. I studied Hegel and Kant. That help me to create new paradigm.

Yours

Valeriy Pakulin