[yor_on]

A most poignant point Syphrum :)

" The spot on my high performance oscilloscope moves faster than the speed of light but it does not shake my belief in SR "

And you made me think of me calling it a 'local definition', which it is as far as I know. It doesn't matter if this light you catch, to then use in a two mirror experiment, have traveled the universe, 'bending' (or if you like 'accelerating' inside a gravitational potential)  around neutron stars etc. As soon as it 'bumps' into your mirrors the result must be 'c'.
=

If we want to use apparent effects it is enough with looking up at a starry sky at night, then turning your head. It now turns 'faster than the speed of light' relative the distance existing between those stars you see.

[yor_on]

And yes, I still need to see a proof for something 'propagating' faster than light Mr Sorlov. As for this 'universal center' you mention, if now that paper would be yours? Can you define where it is, and give us the equations (with explanations) and coordinates, as defined from Earth?

[sorlov (OP)]

Какое у вас образование в области науки? Мне просто любопытно.

I'm just an engineer. I propose that I discuss the topic - vortex gravity, and not my personality and theory of relativity.

[sorlov (OP)]

And yes, I still need to see a proof for something 'propagating' faster than light Mr Sorlov. As for this 'universal center' you mention, if now that paper would be yours? Can you define where it is, and give us the equations (with explanations) and coordinates, as defined from Earth?

Something is apparently ether. With an extremely low density of ether, it must have such a huge speed to create the force of gravity known to us. Look at my calculations.
I do not understand what universal center you are writing about. If you mean the center of the vortex, then it is at the center of any celestial body or celestial system.

[yor_on]

Seems there are different versions of your papers. If Halck would give us back the link he originally made then that was where I read it? Downloaded it but I seem to have misplaced it, or just opened it. Could look in my temp files I guess if it doesn't link anymore?

[yor_on]

" According to the theory of vortex gravitation and the laws of mechanics, the Universe should be in the state of compression and twisting, not expansion. This is proved under the following conditions:
 
– The Universe ether and galaxies rotate around the center; 
- all the celestial bodies increase their masses permanently.
 
These regularities are confirmed by astrophysicists: the galaxies rotate around the center of the Universe completing one turnover per 100 billion years [4]. The mass of Earth increases by 1.6·1015 kg a year [1].  "

[sorlov (OP)]

"Согласно теории вихревой гравитации и законам механики, Вселенная должна находиться в состоянии сжатия и скручивания, а не расширения. Это доказывается при следующих условиях:

This issue cannot be resolved unambiguously. All celestial bodies whose orbits are located close to the plane of the ether vortex should approach the center. If the orbit has large inclinations to the vortex plane, then these bodies (including galaxies) can be removed. This is described in detail in my articles. For example, the Earth is approaching the Sun, and the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Here, the age of the object still matters.
You can search the Internet for my main article, Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony.

[sorlov (OP)]

By the way, my name is Sergey Orlov

[yor_on]

Ah, thanks for that, but it still doesn't define this center you're postulating? That's why I would like you to expand on it.

[jeffreyH]

Какое у вас образование в области науки? Мне просто любопытно.

I'm just an engineer. I propose that I discuss the topic - vortex gravity, and not my personality and theory of relativity.

So you could be described as a have-a-go hero then. How difficult can it be, this relativity? You can skim all the surface information of popular as science and feel you know enough. Not good enough.

People study for years just to get a grasp of the sciences. Then they tend to specialise because there is simply too much for one person to know.

You cannot simply ignore relativity and refuse to discuss it. That would make you a dishonest actor. Unless the reason is you don't know anything about it at all. I await your reply with great anticipation.

[Kryptid]

In my theory, the law of conservation of mass is not violated. Where did you find this violation?

It seemed to be what you were implying when you said "all the celestial bodies increase their masses permanently" and "The mass of Earth increases by 1.6·10¹⁵ kg a year". Where does the extra mass come from?

The speed of ether in each orbit is determined by the force of gravity in this orbit

So in order to calculate the force of gravity in your model, you need to know the speed of the ether in the orbit. In turn, you have to know the force of gravity at that radius in order to determine the speed of the ether. That sounds like circular reasoning to me.

just like the gravitational constant is determined, which in reality is a reduction coefficient and has no physical meaning.

Its physical meaning is that the gravitational force is directly linked to the mass of the object in question, contradicting your claim that they are not linked.

I repeat again - look at my comparative calculations to determine the forces of solar gravity and maybe you will understand whose equation is true.

Given that you have more than one article, it would be nice to know exactly where these calculations you speak of are. Can you quote it?

Translation - Neutrinos can travel as much as they like, but exceeding the speed of light of a neutrino means the collapse of the theory of relativity.

And since such superluminal velocity does not actually happen, relativity has not collapsed.

[sorlov (OP)]

Вы не можете просто игнорировать относительность и отказываться обсуждать ее. Это сделало бы тебя нечестным актером. Если только причина не в том, что вы вообще ничего об этом не знаете. Я жду вашего ответа с большим нетерпением.

I know my theory of vortex gravity. On the theory of relativity, I have cited only a few facts that are known to all honest scientists. I will not discuss this relative composition anymore.

[jeffreyH]

Вы не можете просто игнорировать относительность и отказываться обсуждать ее. Это сделало бы тебя нечестным актером. Если только причина не в том, что вы вообще ничего об этом не знаете. Я жду вашего ответа с большим нетерпением.

I know my theory of vortex gravity. On the theory of relativity, I have cited only a few facts that are known to all honest scientists. I will not discuss this relative composition anymore.

So, basically then, you are a dishonest actor. You intend your 'theory' to supercede relativity without even discussing it. Doesn't that even bother you? That sounds rather delusional to be honest.

I await your reply with great anticipation.

[sorlov (OP)]

Именно это вы имели в виду, когда сказали: "все небесные тела постоянно увеличивают свою массу" и "масса Земли увеличивается на 1,6·10 15 кг в год". Откуда же берется лишняя масса?

"Extra mass" is created in the center of each etheric torsion or celestial body. That is, in the center there is turbulence in the ether flows and micro torsions arise in which the ether is condensed and atoms are created from it. Thus, this excess mass and atoms appear from the ether. This is described in detail in my article - Genesis of the planet Earth
S. ORLOV. Search the Internet or request my e
mail. Unfortunately, the forum is not allowed to make links to the exact address.

[sorlov (OP)]

Поэтому для того, чтобы рассчитать силу тяжести в вашей модели, вам нужно знать скорость эфира на орбите. В свою очередь, вы должны знать силу тяжести на этом радиусе, чтобы определить скорость эфира. Это звучит как круговое рассуждение для меня.

You know, Newton or his students found their gravitational constant also, by the known force of gravity. I will add that my equation is equivalent to the classical ones, but only when determining gravity in the plane of the gravitational torsion bar. The difference is that 1) in my theory, gravity does not depend on the mass of the body to which the attractive forces are directed and there are no reduction factors with ridiculous physical units. 2) when determining gravity at points having deviations from this plane, in my equation there is another factor equal to the cosine of the angle of this deviation in the cube. Read my articles. I worked on them for 16 years, their total volume is hundreds of pages and it’s hard for me to tell about all the details.

[sorlov (OP)]

Учитывая, что у вас есть несколько статей, было бы неплохо точно знать, где находятся эти расчеты, о которых вы говорите. Вы можете его процитировать?

Full list of my articles
1. EQUIVALENCE OF ENERGY AND ATOMIC GRAVITATION
2. ON OPTIMAL TRAJECTORY IN SPACE FLIGHT
3. Gravitational Properties of Atom
4. ON INVARIANT SPEED OF LIGHT
5. REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF THE MOON
6. PHOTON MASS
7. Origin and physical properties of the Black Hole
8. Genesis of the planet Earth
9. Paradoxes of the theory of gravity
10. GRAVITATION - FLAT POWER FIELD
11. Masses of celestial butts
12. The Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony

[sorlov (OP)]

Итак, в основном, тогда вы нечестный актер. Вы хотите, чтобы ваша "теория" вытеснила теорию относительности, даже не обсуждая ее. Неужели тебя это даже не беспокоит? Честно говоря, это звучит довольно бредово.

So, basically then, you are a dishonest actor. You intend your 'theory' to supercede relativity without even discussing it. Doesn't that even bother you? That sounds rather delusional to be honest.

But you do not know my theory, therefore you are the same dishonest actor.

[jeffreyH]

So you are dodging the issue then. That speaks volumes about how weak your ideas are. If they could stand up to scrutiny you would show in detail how they supercede and improve on relativity. Since you won't do that I would advise everyone to ignore everything you say.

[sorlov (OP)]

вы бы подробно показали, как они превосходят и улучшают относительность. Поскольку вы этого не сделаете, я бы посоветовал всем игнорировать все, что вы говорите.

In my theory, everything is proved without the hypothesis of the relativity of time, speed, mass, and other devilry. Why should I discuss it. Einstein’s network has a huge army of relativists. Let them discuss.

[Kryptid]

"Extra mass" is created in the center of each etheric torsion or celestial body. That is, in the center there is turbulence in the ether flows and micro torsions arise in which the ether is condensed and atoms are created from it. Thus, this excess mass and atoms appear from the ether. This is described in detail in my article - Genesis of the planet Earth
S. ORLOV. Search the Internet or request my e
mail. Unfortunately, the forum is not allowed to make links to the exact address.

If you are saying that mass is created where there was no mass before, then that is indeed a violation of conservation of mass.

You know, Newton or his students found their gravitational constant also, by the known force of gravity.

That's because they actually measured both the mass and the force of gravity produced by the mass. Have you measured the velocity of the ether?

I will add that my equation is equivalent to the classical ones

This is the very thing I am trying to determine. I cannot do that if I don't know what the velocity of the ether is. But I already know that your equations cannot be equivalent to the contemporary ones because of this one little detail right here:

in my theory, gravity does not depend on the mass of the body

In contemporary gravitational equations, doubling the mass of an object will double the gravitational strength felt by a second object at the same distance. If your equation does not make the same prediction, then it is not equivalent to existing equations.

Read my articles. I worked on them for 16 years, their total volume is hundreds of pages and it’s hard for me to tell about all the details.

I'm not going to waste my time reading "hundreds of pages" looking for some specific information. You have to be more specific than that.

Full list of my articles
1. EQUIVALENCE OF ENERGY AND ATOMIC GRAVITATION
2. ON OPTIMAL TRAJECTORY IN SPACE FLIGHT
3. Gravitational Properties of Atom
4. ON INVARIANT SPEED OF LIGHT
5. REASONS FOR REMOVAL OF THE MOON
6. PHOTON MASS
7. Origin and physical properties of the Black Hole
8. Genesis of the planet Earth
9. Paradoxes of the theory of gravity
10. GRAVITATION - FLAT POWER FIELD
11. Masses of celestial butts
12. The Foundation of vortex gravitation, cosmology and cosmogony

This is nowhere near specific enough for me to find that one specific "proof" about your calculations of solar gravity . You claim that you found the proof, so the burden is on you to show us that proof.

11. Masses of celestial butts

LOL, what?