Is the mass constant in space-time

A new thesis on gravity, which connects astronomical forces with those in the inner atomic area.

Today it is considered presumptuous to express doubts about Albert Einstein's theory of gravity, because it has been tried and tested many times, not only by deflecting a beam of light that "curved" past the sun, but also through numerous experiments with satellites. The deflection of the light beam can also be explained differently, namely by a suction effect of the sun, which, due to its mass, exerts an attraction on space-time. Another disadvantage of Einstein's theory is obvious: the inability to reconcile the forces in the field of astronomy with the theories of the forces of cohesion in the atomic field. The following thesis serves this aim. To this end, our understanding of space-time and mass must be redefined;

Spacetime

In the journal Bild der Wissenschaft, in an article by Rüdiger Vaas from February 2018, space-time - after the first measurements of gravitational waves - is described as follows (very unscientific):

Spacetime can stretch, compress, bend and even turn inside out as if it were made of rubber - even though it is actually a myriad times harder than steel. It brings light on crooked tours, swallows matter in dark dungeons and smashes the crushed cores of burned-out stars on top of each other at too insane speed. As a result, the four-dimensional structure of space is shaken and literally made to vibrate. It swirls wildly and makes waves as fast as light that plow through the entire universe. The earth is an island in this roaring ocean, bathed in mysterious news, some of which originate from the beginning of time. (Wow)

So much for the "image of science" in a thoroughly unscientific language with which - even the "educated layman" - cannot form an image of space-time. The choice of words may be justified for observations of catastrophes in space such as orbiting black holes or dying neutron stars. In contrast to this I would like to describe spacetime - decidedly more soberly - as an incompressible medium in the normal case, and the word incompressible means infinitely hard, which avoids the term "myriads of times harder than steel" - (in which we walk around every day?) - and the term: "It wobbles wildly and creates waves of lightning speed" is more reminiscent of a liquid anyway, so for me the room itself is in motion. The term "space-time" is to be understood as moving space. And it is the moving space that makes the effects of forces understandable and not a curvature of the space! So I compare space-time with an "incompressible fluid", which fluid mechanics has long known as frictionless "potential flow" and is often used to represent sources and sinks (cf. literature reference after the 3 images on the following page). Only additional properties like invisibility have to be mentioned, which also applies to Einstein's spacetime, curved or uncurved. But we feel it when it moves with "relativistic speed" in the atoms or quark particles in our body, and movements cause forces: namely weight, gravity and inertia.

Another property depends on the speed with which it moves: It flows massless at low speeds, far below the speed of light, and gains "mass character" when approaching the speed of light.

Dimensions

With the achievement of relativistic speed, space-time gains properties of mass. If we enlarge the structures of masses, we come to the limit of atoms with their electron shells. Even the distances between the atomic nuclei and the electrons are huge, and if we zoom in further we see individual neutrons or positrons in the structures of the nuclei and, depending on their position in the periodic system of the elements, finally discover a single element. The sum of the spaces in between is so enormous that one can conclude that everything is actually "space", in other words space-time. But what does the inertia of the masses do? When a light wind blows, we feel it. A storm can do a lot of damage. But when space-time, which appears massless at normal speeds, moves with relativistic speed, i.e. close to the speed of light, in a "sink flow" with the smallest cross-section in the anti-space-time, then even tiny space-time flows are summed up billions of times according to the number of quarks in the atoms cause a mass inertia.

This is the basic thesis of this work: mass is also a flow phenomenon according to the thesis of Heraclitus: "everything flows". (Panta Rhei)

Calculation of the velocity of the medium "space-time" when it enters the earth:

A brief preliminary remark: Since gravity has nothing to do with electricity, we can or must ignore electrical effects even in the atomic range. When quarks are mentioned, the inner-atomic building blocks are meant, of which there are many variants, Top and Bottom, Strange and Charm, and others, for which there are color names due to a lack of special physical properties.

What is certain is that it has not yet been possible to make a single quark particle visible. In this work it is assumed that they are flow phenomena in space-time, in particular sinks, and thus cause the (inhalation) of matter. Every piece of matter needs a constant influx of space-time for its existence.

The space-time requirement of the earth's mass is enormous. Every quark particle "lives" through the influx of space-time. We start at the center of the earth and first define (due to the lack of mathematical symbols on my laptop):

Multiplication: (*), division (/), powers to the base 10 (E), square roots (sqr), the number Pi (Pi)

We assume that the flow of the suction wind is a frictionless and incompressible flow (not visible and only felt as gravity)

Quark particles are understood as extremely small (quasi) "punctiform" depressions

in space-time with corresponding source currents in anti-space-time.

They transport space-time volumes into anti-space-time with relativistic

Speed. As sinks, they produce their own anti-space-time sources coupled with theirs

own sink existence, connected as sinks and sources result in strong binding forces with

neighboring quark particles, especially if a rotation is added, the

if the direction of rotation is in the opposite direction, strong binding forces are also generated.

No "stopgap gluons" are needed, their binding forces anyway

be doubted.

The speed in a spherical sink flow with an incompressible volume flow

H (m³ / sec) decreases with the square of the radius, whereby the spherical surface through which the air flows is as a function of the spherical radius 4PiR²:

Vr = dR / dt = H / 4Pi R² = (H / 4Pi) * 1 / R²

dVr / dR = - 2 * (H / 4 Pi) * 1 / R³

- H / 2 Pi * 1 / R³

The acceleration in a spherical sink flow is then with dR / dt = Vr:

dVr / dt = dVr / dR * dR / dt

= - H / (2 Pi R³) * Vr (m³ / sec / m³ * m / se = m / sec²)

- H / (2 Pi R³) * (H / 4Pi) * 1 / R²

= - H² / (2 Pi R³) * 1 / 4Pi R²

The acceleration dVr / dt is known for the earth's surface, namely 9.81 m / sec², and thus results for H² at the earth's radius Re:

H² = 9.81 * 2 Pi Re³ * 4Pi Re²

H² = 774.57 * Re³ * Re² for Re = 6E6 m we get:

= 774.57 * 2.16E20 * 3.6E13

= 6.023E36

H = 2,454 E 18 m³ / sec

This is the total amount of space-time sucked into the earth per second, and we can use it to calculate the suction speed by dividing by the earth's surface:

Vre = H / 4Pi Re² = 2,454 E18 / 12,566 * 36E12 m³ / sec / m²

Vre = 5,425 * 10³ m / sec or 5425 m / sec

that is so far away from the speed of light (o, oooo18 * speed of light) that we don't feel anything of it with our normal sensors, only the quarks of our atoms. In the quark particles of the atoms, the suction effect of parts of the space-time located at 5425 m / sec in the vertical direction is diverted into a horizontal direction. We feel the momentum change as weight, and the corresponding source currents into the anti-world or anti-space-time is the missing antimatter, which is not perceived as antimatter, since the source currents repel each other and only "normal" anti-space time remains. But we can divide the total sucked in amount H by the mass of the earth and get the amount of space-time per kg sucked in: The mass of the earth is: 6E24 kg 2.454E18 / 6E34 = 4.1 E-7 m³ / sec / kg That's just a "touch" that we do not perceive.

The moon in the earth's gravity field.

What is left of the 5425 m / sec gravitational pull of the earth at a distance to the moon when this suction decreases in the square of the distance? A corresponding invoice is reproduced in the English unabridged version. It turns out that the earth (apparently) cannot keep the moon on its orbit, and there are several reasons for this:

1. The calculation of the gravitational pull of the earth with the acceleration

9.81 m / sec² at the surface of the earth leads to far too small results for

Distances greater than the earth's radius Re. That's because the measured

Value 9.81m / sec² does not take into account that the huge earth masses around

the measuring point does not come into effect at all or only under one more or

less acute angle.

2. The attraction of the moon and its effect on your own

Orbit is not included.

3 The influence of the sun on the moon and earth (three body problem) can not

be ignored.

The advances in the new gravity thesis are as follows:

1. The force of gravity is seen as a consequence of the processes in the atomic realm, and

as a space-time flow phenomenon.

2. This unifies the theory inside the atoms with gravitational

Processes carried out in space.

3. The missing antimatter consists of the sources in the fourth dimension, the

correspond to the sinks in the third dimension,

4. The force effects are not going to an (ominous?) Curvature of space-time

traced back, but rather to accelerations or decelerations of space-time,

and thus to Newtonian force effects.

5. A normal higher education is sufficient for understanding the theory

Basic knowledge of physics and elementary differential calculus.

6. A 30 year old Texas Instruments calculator was sufficient for all calculations.