[sorlov (OP)]

In the theory of vortex gravity, cosmology and cosmogony, evidence is presented that the forces of attraction are created by etheric torsions. On the cosmic scale, the gravitational field acts in a plane-symmetric manner. This explains many physical phenomena, such as:
- elliptical orbits of celestial bodies,
- the tides,
- removing or approaching satellites, planets or stars to each other,
- deflection, deceleration or acceleration of spacecraft.

This circumstance can be used to reduce the cost of space flights.
The theory proposes physical models of the origin and evolution of Black Holes, planets, stars, galaxies and the entire Universe, as well as energy, atoms and electromagnetic fields.
On the basis of the laws of aerodynamics, the invariance of the speed of light is explained.
As a proof of the vortex, plane-symmetric nature of gravity, the calculation of the forces of solar attraction acting on Mercury and Pluto is made. The equation of vortex gravity has an error of not more than 1%. Whereas the classical equations of gravity are more than 10% wrong.
On the basis of the proposed theory, it is possible to explain many physical paradoxes that are not understood until now.

[Kryptid]

You're going to need to give us more than that to work with. Where is this evidence you speak of? Where is this equation you claim to be more accurate than existing equations?

[sorlov (OP)]

All my calculations and justifications have been repeatedly published. I can send the address of my website. Let us know your email.

[Bored chemist]

All my calculations and justifications have been repeatedly published. I can send the address of my website. Let us know your email.

That's not the way this site works.
You need to provide grounds for a discussion here.

[evan_au]

Whereas the classical equations of gravity are more than 10% wrong.

If by "classical" you mean "the astronomy of Aristotle", I think the >10% error is justified.

However, if by "classical" you mean "Isaac Newton", I think you will find this rather harder to justify.
- In the case of Mercury (which has the biggest deviation in our solar system), the error is about 10 seconds of arc per century, ie about 1/2000 of an orbit in 400 orbits. That is considerably better than 10% error!

And if by "classical" you mean Albert Einstein, he resolves even this tiny error.

It is an extremely bold claim that you have a theory more accurate than Einstein's.
And an extremely foolish claim that the errors of Isaac Newton exceed 10%.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury

[Bored chemist]

On the basis of the laws of aerodynamics, the invariance of the speed of light is explained.

That one was my favourite.
Using the rules for air flow to calculate the speed of something in a vacuum.
That  takes a "special" kind of intellect.

[Kryptid]

According to the theory of vortex space rotation, the gravitation force is independent of the masses and densities of the bodies

Not according to experiments to measure the gravitational constant. There is strong experimental evidence that the strength of gravity is directly related to an object's mass. Henry Cavendish performed one of the earliest measurements of gravitational force between bodies in the laboratory and the gravitational constant derived from his measurements are pretty close to the modern measured value: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant#History_of_measurement

- The faster the planet rotates, the faster the corresponding ether torsion rotates too. The faster the torsion rotates, the stronger is the force of vortex gravitation.

This is contradicted by astronomical data. Venus rotates at an equatorial speed of only 1.81 meters per second whereas Mars rotates much, much faster at 241.17 meters per second. Despite this, Venus is the planet with the stronger gravitational pull (0.9 G vs. 0.38 G for Mars). Mercury also rotates more quickly than Venus (3 meters per second), but also has weaker gravity (0.38 G, about the same as Mars).

The faster the planet rotates around the axis, the greater is its mass and more satellites it possesses.

Pluto has five satellites (Charon, Nix, Hydra, Styx and Kerberos), whereas the more massive Mercury and Venus have none. Mars and Earth, also more massive than Pluto, have only two and one satellite respectively. Then there are asteroids significantly smaller than even Pluto that have their own satellites (243 Ida, 66391 Moshup, (357439) 2004 BL₈₆ and (136617) 1994 CC, the last of which has two satellites).

By the way, the planet is called "Uranus", not "Uranium".

[sorlov (OP)]

All my evidence is presented in my articles. Look in the Google search

[Kryptid]

All my evidence is presented in my articles.

And I just showed that at least some of your "evidence" is wrong.

[sorlov (OP)]

According to astronomical facts - faster all planets revolves around its axis-Jupiter. This planet is the largest. Obviously, the smaller the planet, the lower the rotation speed. But there are exceptions mentioned above. The fact is that it is necessary to take into account the age of the planet. The greater its age, the greater the deceleration of rotation. The number of satellites also depends on extraneous factors. The dependence of rotation speed, mass, number of satellites has exceptions, but in General it is fulfilled. My main proof is the calculation of solar gravity on mercury and Pluto. Read in my article this calculation and after this write-foolish this or not foolish.

[sorlov (OP)]

The mistake of Newton and Einstein is that they think that gravity is created by bodies. Therefore, their gravitational forces are directed centrally symmetrically to one point. In fact, gravity is created by a subtle ethereal vortex. Therefore, the forces of gravity decrease inversely to the square of removal, but only ALONG the PLANE of the VORTEX. When moving away from the vortex (perpendicular), the gravitational forces decrease inversely to the CUBE of this removal. The plane of the solar, etheric vortex is very close to the Ecliptic. All calculations are mainly done in the plane of the Ecliptic. Therefore, the inaccuracies of the Newton and Einstein equations are small. But in the tops of the small semiaxis of planetary orbits, these errors are large. Look at my calculations.

[Kryptid]

My main proof is the calculation of solar gravity on mercury and Pluto. Read in my article this calculation and after this write-foolish this or not foolish.

Okay, so where is this calculation so that I can read it? The gravitational constant measurement experiments are still a falsification of your model.

The mistake of Newton and Einstein is that they think that gravity is created by bodies. Therefore, their gravitational forces are directed centrally symmetrically to one point. In fact, gravity is created by a subtle ethereal vortex. Therefore, the forces of gravity decrease inversely to the square of removal, but only ALONG the PLANE of the VORTEX. When moving away from the vortex (perpendicular), the gravitational forces decrease inversely to the CUBE of this removal. The plane of the solar, etheric vortex is very close to the Ecliptic. All calculations are mainly done in the plane of the Ecliptic. Therefore, the inaccuracies of the Newton and Einstein equations are small. But in the tops of the small semiaxis of planetary orbits, these errors are large. Look at my calculations.

If this was true, we would know about it. There are artificial satellites in polar orbits around the Earth and any anomalies in their motion would be detectable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_orbit

[sorlov (OP)]

1. All calculations can be read in my main article.   2. Artificial satellites orbit in the center of the terrestrial, etheric, torsion. In the center of the torsion act end vortices, which create a force of attraction equal to the Equatorial. Therefore, humanity is the whole history of its existence, thinks that gravity is centrally symmetric. The radius of the earth's torsion is not less than 1 million km. Therefore, its area up to 10,000 km is a center with end vortices. If the forces of gravity acted centrally symmetrically, then all celestial systems would be spherical, not flat. 3. Just on forum not going to explain. Read my articles.

[Colin2B]

......Just on forum not going to explain. Read my articles.

The rules of the forum are that you need to explain and discuss here, not just advertise an external site. If you can’t do that we will remove your posts.

I also notice that you have created a number of identities on this forum, please reduce these to one within 24hrs or we will remove all your identities.
Thank you

[The Spoon]

......Just on forum not going to explain. Read my articles.

The rules of the forum are that you need to explain and discuss here, not just advertise an external site. If you can’t do that we will remove your posts.

I also notice that you have created a number of identities on this forum, please reduce these to one within 24hrs or we will remove all your identities.
Thank you

I am guessing this is the guy who posts the tidal gyre nonsense?

[yor_on]

That's not correct Sorlov " The mistake of Newton and Einstein is that they think that gravity is created by bodies." Einstein imagined it as a result of both mass and 'energy'. The problem with 'energy' on its own is that we can't touch it. It's a lot simpler with mass, at least proper mass. But the result of f.ex a black hole is a 'energy density' around the event horizon. To us that space is as transparent as a space without mass, but it's 'folded' differently, and will treat a clock differently as defined from a far away observer..

[yor_on]

https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/26apr_gpbtech/

And the result is https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
=

The argument that light speeds vary due to energy density becomes somewhat confused if you think of both the effect of a 'squid' varying its direction creating 'real photons' from this 'constant acceleration' creating a energy density as in the Swedish experiment as well as if you think of this experiment linked above. It's a lot simpler to define it to a 'propagation' through a 'distorted space' as it seems to me. The real test of it should be if we could be in communication with someone that actually exist inside such a space, finding it f.ex 'infinite' while the far observer gives it a limit.

But if you look at it from a field perspective then energy densities should be it. But from that perspective you don't need to define a 'propagation' either, at least not the way I think about it. It would just be causes and effects due to where and how you measure inside this 'infinite SpaceTime' we live in.
==

Which is why I don't fully agree to this http://physicsdetective.com/how-gravity-works/

It's one way to define it through 'propagation's' but the evidence for a 'photon' doing so is missing. What we have is a geometrical definition of 'propagation' connected to a measurement in time, always done locally it gives us a 'global definition' of a unvarying speed. That will hold locally defined.
=

A 'varying speed' can't ever be an 'absolute' btw. It will be observer dependent. What that means is that you won't ever agree on what this speed you measure is. Einstein used the postulate of a defined speed of light in a vacuum to explain it, and as a result gave us LorentzFitzgGerald contractions and time dilation's. Without that local definition that holds everywhere there will be no way to define what a 'speed' should mean. Actually this is needed for your 'proper time' to be existent too.

[sorlov (OP)]

To talk about the speed of light, one must understand its nature. The origin of light I proposed in my article

[yor_on]

Looked at the paper you linked Halc. Would that be yours Mr Sorlov?
Saw you referring to a center of the universe in it?

You seem to have mixed in a lot of different ideas, and then representing them as some sort of proofs?

[Kryptid]

To talk about the speed of light, one must understand its nature. The origin of light I proposed in my article

Why not give us the URL here? That would make it easier.