On a parlé dans le paragraphe précédent de plans gravitationnels

Ce terme est en fait répertorié en physique sous le terme de disques d’accrétion

Dans la nature on retrouve ces disques d’accrétion au niveau des atomes , et des planètes , et des étoiles , et des galaxies et même très probablement au niveau de l’univers ( bien qu’on ne dispose à ce jour aucune image qui pourrait le confirmer : faudra juste attendre la prochaine mise en service des prochains télescopes plus performants !!! )

Ces disques d’accrétion sont une composante basique et essentielle de la gravité . Ils se mettent en place spontanément et automatiquement dans toutes les formations matérielles .Il n’y a l’implication d’aucune autre force que la gravité dans la formation de ces disques d’accrétion

En fait libre à chacun de penser et de dire ce que bon lui semble 💕💕💕

Composantes de la gravité

La gravité est connue comme une force d’attraction réciproque entre différents éléments matériels

En fait c’est bien plus que cela :

Cela comprend aussi tous les composants que l’on peut trouver par exemple sur la planète Saturne , avec toutes les forces associées à ces composants 

Cela concerne donc le disque d’accrétion avec ses anneaux et toutes les forces qui font tourner les composants de ces anneaux en les maintenant en orbite 

Ces systèmes gravitationnels sont universels et on les retrouve partout dans l’univers

Ils se forment spontanément et automatiquement sans l’intervention d’aucune autre force . Il n’y a aucune intervention de matière noire , ni d’énergie noire , ni de systèmes relativistes 

La gravité n’est donc pas une force isolée , mais c’est tout un ensemble de forces d’intensités et de directions différentes que l’on peut représenter par un graphique qui a très exactement la forme de la planète Saturne avec ses anneaux 

Ceci concerne aussi bien le monde du très petit que le monde du très grand

En résumé :

La gravité est un ensemble complexe de forces d'attraction et ( +++ )de rotation , d’intensités et de directions différentes , qui s’organise toujours selon le même modèle représenté par la planète Saturne avec ses anneaux . Les forces de rotation qui entraînent des mises en orbite à l’intérieur des disques d'accrétion font partie intégrante de la gravité . On retrouve cette même organisation avec les planètes et les étoiles et les galaxies . Il n’y a aucune exception à cette règle , qui est la base et le fondement de toute la physique fondamentale . Jusqu’à ce jour il n’existe aucune observation astrophysique venant contredire cette présentation de la gravité .Cette vision de la gravité est plus complète que celle présentée par les physiciens , et la probabilité qu’elle soit exacte et fidèle à la réalité est très élevée

Ainsi soit-il ! 💫

Spéculations sur la lumière

On a vu que dans l’univers tout ce qui existe doit pouvoir être compté . On a parlé de la lumière qui existe et qui se déplace selon des trajectoires rectilignes . Jusqu’à présent on ne connaissait  pas dans l’univers de configurations rectilignes que l’on puisse compter et qui auraient pu être en rapport avec la lumière 

Hors on vient de voir  ( paragraphe orientations de l’univers ) que la gravité s’organise selon des plans gravitationnels . Ces plans correspondent par définition à de potentielles trajectoires rectilignes 

On peut donc émettre cette spéculation que les « lignes » de lumière que l’on pourrait compter , et que l’on recherche , correspondraient à ces différents plans gravitationnels qui sont présents dans la totalité de l’univers

Ainsi on pourrait bien compter les « lignes » du champ vectoriel Vitesse de la lumière ( voir le chapitre champs vectoriels)

Et finalement tous les champs vectoriels de l’univers auraient bien un support matériel dont on pourrait compter chaque élément 

Cette spéculation théorique correspond bien au « cahier des charges » , mais en ce qui concerne la lumière , il n’y a aucun élément de méthode expérimentale qui aille dans ce sens  ( en fait c’est surtout à défaut d’avoir cherché dans cette direction !! )

On peut juste dire que c’est possible , et pour l’instant c’est déjà pas mal ❤❤❤

Conduite à tenir pour les physiciens par rapport à cet abrégé

La solidité de cet abrégé se fonde sur la correction d’une erreur de compréhension que les physiciens ont fait sur l’origine des arcs-en-ciel

Si la réflexion et l’expérimentation ne devaient pas confirmer qu’il y a bien une erreur alors tous les messages de cet abrégé n’auraient plus de sens et il n’y aurait plus qu’à s’en débarrasser 

Il en résulte la suggestion de méditer sur ce point là en priorité

A noter que cette erreur de compréhension sur les arcs-en-ciel est du domaine de la physique traditionnelle , mais si elle devait être confirmée , cela remettrait en cause toute la physique fondamentale actuelle !!!

Par ailleurs l’interprétation érronée des physiciens sur l’origine des arcs-en-ciel est vérifiable par tout le monde avec une petite réflexion et sans la moindre expérimentation . C’est paradoxalement du domaine de l’évidence !!😀😀😀

Les explications des physiciens pour expliquer la formationt des arcs-en-ciel sont une parodie de la logique , agrémentée de calculs d'angles complexes , mais dont le point de départ est tout simplement faux !!!

En fait si quelqu'un ne comprend pas c'est peut-être qu'il a simplement décidé qu'il n'a pas envie de comprendre .Allez c'est pas grave , on va trouver d'autres sujets de méditation !🙃🙃🙃

A +

Bien cordialement

( voir ces points dans " Para Physique , Un peu de bon sens +++" et dans " Physique théorique" , les passages sur les arcs-en-ciel  )

Avenir de cet abrégé

Pour faire reconnaître des connaissances scientifiques on peut demander un avis critique aux autorités scientifiques en place , ce qui parait être la méthode la plus simple et la plus logique

Mais en pratique la « gouvernance » scientifique actuelle ne semble pas disposée à remettre en cause quoique se soit dans ses acquis , ce qui rend problématique toute perspective de progression

Donc à supposer que les raisonnements présentés dans cet abrégé soient justes , ou du moins se rapprochent de ce qui est juste , il ressort que la seule manière de faire avancer les choses soit de faire circuler ce lien sur internet pour que la vérité finisse par s’imposer d’elle-même 

Il faut bien comprendre que ce n’est pas une théorie qui s’oppose à une autre théorie , mais c’est seulement une erreur de compréhension que les physiciens ont fait sur les arcs-en-ciel qui a entraîné beaucoup d’autres erreurs . Cette erreur n’a jusqu’à présent jamais été rectifiée 

La réalité de cette erreur est quasiment certaine , et une fois qu’elle sera corrigée , c’est alors tout l’édifice de la physique fondamentale qui pourrait s’écrouler 

Une autre manière de faire progresser la physique fondamentale dans la bonne direction serait de reconnaître que toutes les étoiles sont en orbite autour de trous noirs au centre de chaque galaxie exactement de la même manière que les planètes du système solaire sont en orbite autour du Soleil +++

Ainsi le début des explications de la connaissance sur les galaxies serait correcte et les autres connaissances pourraient se greffer facilement sur cette bonne base de réflexion 

Voilà une règle d’or qui ne connaît aucune exception en astrophysique :

Tout disque d’accrétion correspond très exactement à un phénomène gravitationnel et un seul , avec la réciproque qui est vraie également :

À tout phénomène gravitationnel correspond un disque d’accrétion et un seul même si celui-ci n’est pas directement visible

Si tu es intéressé de faire avancer les choses, même si tu n’as pas tout compris ( ce sera un acte de foi +++ )😀😀😀 , merci de partager ce lien internet 

TRADUCTION EN ANGLAIS

Politically correct

In this world that is what it is, it is good to think like everyone else

Except the previous messages are in complete opposition to traditional fundamental physics

In fact, the goal is not to oppose what already exists, but it is simply that the official version of fundamental physics does not hold up!!

This is what has been demonstrated in the previous pages:

- Relativity theories are wrong

- The theory of gravitational waves is false (despite the recent official recognition that has been granted to them!!! )

- The theory about rainbows is wrong

Note that theories of relativity, 100 years after their creation, are still theories and they have not become laws: we have never heard of the laws of relativity!!

In contrast to Newton's laws, 300 years after their creation are still laws and their merits have never been questioned!

In summary, all the basics of traditional fundamental physics are false

(Note once again that all descriptive physics is perfectly accurate, with the only exception of optical theories on the diffraction of light at the origin of rainbows)

The fundamental physics model presented on the previous pages has the advantage of existing, on the one hand, and on the other hand and until proven otherwise, it is the only model that has never been taken in default (at least to this day!! )

So the goal is not to oppose in a spirit of contradiction

But the goal is to tell only the truth, and that the truth makes its way

And if there are errors in these previous messages, let these errors be manifested by those who have the ability to express it (and thank you for this cooperation!)

And if there are no mistakes, then there are no mistakes

So be it!! (LOL! )

Error is human

Error is human

Mistakes made by traditional fundamental physics

This has been demonstrated in the previous pages, and here is a small summary:

1- Relativity theories are false because they refer to infinity that does not exist in the real world

Infinity belongs to the imaginary world and everything that uses infinity as a support for reflection remains in the imaginary domain

Thus the theories of relativity will never become a law of physics

Quote from the famous French physicist Maurice ALLAIS (December 2000)

"In fact, the blind and fanatical intolerance of some supporters of the theory of relativity have caused physical thought to lose a century"

2- The theory of gravitational waves is false, because for gravity to act at a distance through waves, any element of matter would have to have both the functions of emission and reception of waves

This is impossible, given the very basic nature of any material element

Moreover, these gravitational waves are a theory that derives from the theories of relativity, which we have just seen are completely false!!

3-The theories of the dispersion of light through water droplets, leading to the formation of rainbows are false because (among other things...) we have never been able to take the slightest photo of water droplets confirming the dispersion in this form, and this despite the current optical technology which is particularly sophisticated

Not very clear all this!!

Not very clear all this!!

Contribution to fundamental physics of previous pages

Gravity is the basis of all fundamental physics

Gravity acts at a distance not with waves (which is impossible as we have just said), but this action at a distance is done by matter that fills the galactic space. This matter, which can also be called white matter or white energy, is present everywhere and therefore has a permanent action, variable according to its position, at each point of the galaxy

Scientists are looking for dark matter that has the property of exerting a gravitational force, but they have not understood that this sought-after dark matter is actually very precisely gravity. They are misled by wrongly looking for this gravity in the form of a wave

This white matter, or gravity, is not visible to our eyes, it is organized in a spherical way around the earth and all celestial bodies and we can prove its existence by the observations that can be made on rainbows and on different planets such as Saturn

To use a quote from Nikola Tesla (03/02/1892):

"In a few generations our machines will be animated thanks to energy available at any point in the universe. Indeed in space there is a form of energy. Is it static or kinetic? If it is static, all our research will have been in vain. If it is kinetic - and we know it is - it is only a matter of time, and men will succeed in connecting our machines to the wheels of nature"

This dark matter and dark energy (or gravity), which fills the universe is what Mr. Tesla had prophesied

We may have more to do is learn to control it

Pa trakacé!!!

Pa trakacé!!!

Newton's Third Law

It has been shown in the previous pages that in space, gravitational interactions are not necessarily reciprocal for celestial bodies in stable orbits with respect to each other

This formally contradicts Newton's third law

We could actually specify that this 3rd law applies perfectly to all physics of "human dimension" but it no longer applies for example to a star the size of the moon

Indeed, if the gravitational attraction of the moon reached the center of the earth, it would be strictly impossible for the earth to have a stable orbit around the sun

We can illustrate it with this example, which is not a demonstration:

Consider an apple on the surface of the earth. This apple is subject to terrestrial gravity. It is also easy to understand that the center of gravity of this apple will not exert an attraction on the center of gravity of the earth located 6000 kilometers away. We can thus "understand" that there are exceptions to Newton's third law

And this explanation of non-reciprocity of gravity could then explain certain astronomical phenomena that would otherwise remain incomprehensible

And to conclude, this quote from FENELON (1651 - 1715):

"Most of men's mistakes are not so much due to the fact that they reason badly from true principles, but rather to the fact that they just reason from false principles or incorrect judgments"

The balance of forces

The balance of forces

Intellectual path of these pages

To arrive at the conclusions previously set out, here is the path followed:

1 Infinity is not compatible with fundamental physics +++

2 So all physical reality must be able to be counted +++ (1, 2, 3, 4 ............etc)

3 So the search for a theoretical model of which we can count all the elements has led to the model of gravity organized in individualized layers, like the rings of the planet Saturn

4 This theoretical model is largely confirmed by the observations that can be made on rainbows

5 The current explanations given by physicists on the formation of rainbows are false, and they do not resist reasonable reflection. So in all cases they must be reviewed and corrected +++

6 So the reasoning presented in this basic physics summary has a high probability of being right

7 Consequently, the structure of gravity in concentric layers like Saturn's rings is probably exact

8 Note that the structure in concentric layers of gravity is not demonstrated in this summary, even if it is probable, and if it was not validated by physicists it would then be necessary to find an equivalent explaining the dispersion of light at the origin of rainbows (finally, if, it is demonstrated in the chapter: Conclusion - Point 17!!! And also in the chapter: A photo a proof, and also in the chapter: Demonstration, by an experimental method

And further in the chapter entitled: "Rainbow"

, and ........ that's all!!!)

9 The other information presented in this abstract is secondary and given for information purposes only

10 So in this summary, in all simplicity, a version of the universe that "sticks" a little better with the probabilities (see preface to the chapter "theoretical physics")

Mo pé write slowly, mo conné to not capable lir lives

Mo pé write slowly, mo conné to not capable lir lives

Orientations of the universe

When we observe the magnificent images of the universe communicated by scientists, we can notice that almost all the celestial clusters composed of different spheres are oriented according to a preferential plane that passes through the center of the largest sphere, which is located in the center of this cluster

Thus the rings of Saturn are all in a plane passing through the center of Saturn, which in this case allows them to be observed from Earth

The same is true for the rings of the planets Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus

The planets and celestial bodies of our solar system also orbit in a single plane (which passes through the center of the Sun, the Sun itself located at the center of the solar system)

The stars of our galaxy also orbit in a plane, which allows us to visualize some of them at night while observing the Milky Way. This plane passes to the center of the Black Hole which is itself at the center of the galaxy. Our galaxy finally has the shape of a disk

For confirmation, hundreds of stars were observed in our galaxy that exploded into gas clusters. The gaseous results of these explosions have oriented strictly in the same way while they are located billions of kilometers from each other. This confirms, if necessary, that all these stars are under the same gravitational influence of the Black Hole which "imposes" by its gravity a preferential plane and a precise orientation to the entire galaxy

The other galaxies are also "flat". They are also centered each by a Black Hole

We can therefore think that the spherical structure of gravitational clusters always combines according to certain preferential planes that could be called: gravitational planes

It is an astronomical observation that seems universal and is an integral part of the nature of gravity

In the very small world, we could also imagine that the electronic layers could be organized in a plane passing through the center of the atomic nucleus. Why make it complicated when you can make it simple?

We could also think, and just for "fun", that all galaxies also orbit in a gravitational plane. Who said the Earth is flat? But no, it's just the universe that is flat!! LOL Come on, so as not to make people unhappy, we will specify that the universe could be flat and that the limits would be round! In this hypothesis never verified by observation, the galaxies would themselves be in orbit around a "super Black Hole" (larger than all the Black Holes of all galaxies combined, in the same way that the Sun is larger than all the planets combined) and it is the whole universe that would be located in a "plane" passing through the center of this Super Black Hole, and therefore this Super Black Hole would be the center of the universe. The universe would look a bit like a fried egg, the egg yolk being the Super Black Hole. Hoping that there won't be a big creature to eat it!And finally the atom in the world of the very small, and the universe in the world of the very large would have exactly the same structure +++. Why another faith to make it complicated when you can do it very simply? In the name of what principle should the universe be complex?

This suggests that on Earth too there must be a preferential gravitational plane as on Saturn!! Damage that we could never visualize: there could also have been rings on our good old Earth! In fact, by dint of swinging junk in space, we will end up having these rings!

And the black hole must also have its own gravitational rings. Who said that the laws of physics should change when we move in space? It's not because we don't see these rings that they don't exist!!!

Spheres and planes combine in the universe

Spheres and planes combine in the universe

Accretion disc

We talked in the previous paragraph about gravitational planes

This term is actually listed in physics under the term accretion disks

In nature we find these accretion discs at the level of atoms, and planets, and stars, and galaxies and even most likely at the level of the universe (althowe have no image to date that could confirm it: we will just have to wait for the next commissioning of the next more efficient telescopes!!! )

These accretion discs are a basic and essential component of gravity. They are set up spontaneously and automatically in all material training. There is no involvement of any force other than gravity in the formation of these accretion discs

In fact, everyone is free to think and say what they see fit

The truth is sometimes very simple

The truth is sometimes very simple

Components of gravity

Gravity is known as a reciprocal force of attraction between different material elements

In fact, it's much more than that:

This also includes all the components that can be found for example on the planet Saturn, with all the forces associated with these components

This therefore concerns the accretion disk with its rings and all the forces that rotate the components of these rings by keeping them in orbit

These gravitational systems are universal and are found everywhere in the universe

They form spontaneously and automatically without the intervention of any other force. There is no intervention of dark matter, nor dark energy, nor relativistic systems

Gravity is therefore not an isolated force, but it is a whole set of forces of different intensities and directions that can be represented by a graph that has exactly the shape of the planet Saturn with its rings

This concerns both the world of the very small and the world of the very large

In summary:

Gravity is a complex set of forces of attraction and (+++) of rotation, different intensities and directions, which is always organized according to the same model represented by the planet Saturn with its rings. The rotational forces that cause orbiting inside the accretion disks are an integral part of gravity. We find this same organization with the planets and stars and galaxies. There is no exception to this rule, which is the basis and foundation of all fundamental physics. To date, there is no astrophysical observation that contradicts this presentation of gravity. This vision of gravity is more complete than that presented by physicists, and the probability that it is exact and faithful to reality is very high

So be it!

Gravity is more complex than appearances could suggest!

Gravity is more complex than appearances could suggest!

Speculations about light

We have seen that in the universe everything that exists must be able to be counted. We talked about the light that exists and that moves along straight paths. Until now we did not know in the universe of rectilinear configurations that we can count and that could have been related to light

Except we have just seen (paragraph orientations of the universe) that gravity is organized according to gravitational planes. These planes correspond by definition to potential rectilinear trajectories

We can therefore issue this speculation that the "lines" of light that we could count, and that we are looking for, would correspond to these different gravitational planes that are present in the entire universe

Thus we could count the "lines" of the vector field Speed of light (see the vector fields chapter)

And finally all the vector fields of the universe would have a material support of which we could count each element

This theoretical speculation corresponds well to the "specifications", but with regard to light, there is no element of experimental method that goes in this direction (in fact it is mainly in the absence of having looked in this direction!! )

We can just say that it's possible, and for now it's already not bad

The light would also have a material support that is not infinite and that can be counted

The light would also have a material support that is not infinite and that can be counted

Conduct to be taken by physicists in relation to this abbreviation

The solidity of this abbreviation is based on the correction of an error of understanding that physicists made about the origin of rainbows

If reflection and experimentation were not to confirm that there is indeed an error then all the messages of this summary would no longer make sense and there would only be a need to get rid of them

This results in the suggestion to meditate on this point as a priority

Note that this error of understanding on rainbows is in the field of traditional physics, but if it were to be confirmed, it would call into question all current fundamental physics!!!

Moreover, the erroneous interpretation of physicists on the origin of rainbows is verifiable by everyone with a little reflection and without the slightest experimentation. It is paradoxically from the domain of evidence!!

The physicists' explanations to explain the formation of rainbows are a parody of logic, embellished with complex angle calculations, but whose starting point is simply wrong!!!

In fact, if someone doesn't understand, it may be because he has simply decided that he doesn't want to understand. Come on, it doesn't matter, we'll find other meditation topics!

A+

Sincerely

(See these points in "Para Physics, A little common sense +++" and in "Theoretical Physics", the passages on the rainbows)

The middle ground

The middle ground

Future of this summary

To have scientific knowledge recognized, we can ask for a critical opinion from the scientific authorities in place, which seems to be the simplest and most logical method

But in practice, the current scientific "governance" does not seem willing to question anything in its achievements, which makes any prospect of progress problematic

So assuming that the reasoning presented in this abbreviation is right, or at least close to what is right, it appears that the only way to move things forward is to circulate this link on the internet so that the truth ends up imposing itself

It must be understood that it is not a theory that opposes another theory, but it is only an error of understanding that physicists made on rainbows that led to many other mistakes. This error has never been rectified so far

The reality of this error is almost certain, and once it is corrected, it is then the whole edifice of fundamental physics that could collapse

Another way to advance fundamental physics in the right direction would be to recognize that all stars are in orbit around black holes at the center of each galaxy in exactly the same way that the planets of the solar system are in orbit around the Sun +++

Thus the beginning of the explanations of knowledge about galaxies would be correct and other knowledge could easily be grafted on this good basis for reflection

Here is a golden rule that knows no exception in astrophysics:

Any accretion disc corresponds very exactly to a gravitational phenomenon and only one, with the reverse which is also true:

To any gravitational phenomenon corresponds an accretion disc and only one even if it is not directly visible

If you are interested in moving things forward, even if you have not understood everything (it will be an act of faith +++), thank you for sharing this internet link

Very friendly

A découvrir dans le chapitre : Démonstrationune expérimentation de dernière minute qui est définitivement concluante +++

Traduction en Anglais

Politically correct

In this world that is what it is, it is good to think like everyone else

Except the previous messages are in complete opposition to traditional fundamental physics

In fact, the goal is not to oppose what already exists, but it is simply that the official version of fundamental physics does not hold up!!

This is what has been demonstrated in the previous pages:

- Relativity theories are wrong

- The theory of gravitational waves is false (despite the recent official recognition that has been granted to them!!! )

- The theory about rainbows is wrong

Note that theories of relativity, 100 years after their creation, are still theories and they have not become laws: we have never heard of the laws of relativity!!

In contrast to Newton's laws, 300 years after their creation are still laws and their merits have never been questioned!

In summary, all the basics of traditional fundamental physics are false

(Note once again that all descriptive physics is perfectly accurate, with the only exception of optical theories on the diffraction of light at the origin of rainbows)

The fundamental physics model presented on the previous pages has the advantage of existing, on the one hand, and on the other hand and until proven otherwise, it is the only model that has never been taken in default (at least to this day!! )

So the goal is not to oppose in a spirit of contradiction

But the goal is to tell only the truth, and that the truth makes its way

And if there are errors in these previous messages, let these errors be manifested by those who have the ability to express it (and thank you for this cooperation!)

And if there are no mistakes, then there are no mistakes

So be it!! (LOL! )

Error is human

Error is human

Mistakes made by traditional fundamental physics

This has been demonstrated in the previous pages, and here is a small summary:

1- Relativity theories are false because they refer to infinity that does not exist in the real world

Infinity belongs to the imaginary world and everything that uses infinity as a support for reflection remains in the imaginary domain

Thus the theories of relativity will never become a law of physics

Quote from the famous French physicist Maurice ALLAIS (December 2000)

"In fact, the blind and fanatical intolerance of some supporters of the theory of relativity have caused physical thought to lose a century"

2- The theory of gravitational waves is false, because for gravity to act at a distance through waves, any element of matter would have to have both the functions of emission and reception of waves

This is impossible, given the very basic nature of any material element

Moreover, these gravitational waves are a theory that derives from the theories of relativity, which we have just seen are completely false!!

3-The theories of the dispersion of light through water droplets, leading to the formation of rainbows are false because (among other things...) we have never been able to take the slightest photo of water droplets confirming the dispersion in this form, and this despite the current optical technology which is particularly sophisticated

Not very clear all this!!

Not very clear all this!!

Contribution to fundamental physics of previous pages

Gravity is the basis of all fundamental physics

Gravity acts at a distance not with waves (which is impossible as we have just said), but this action at a distance is done by matter that fills the galactic space. This matter, which can also be called white matter or white energy, is present everywhere and therefore has a permanent action, variable according to its position, at each point of the galaxy

Scientists are looking for dark matter that has the property of exerting a gravitational force, but they have not understood that this sought-after dark matter is actually very precisely gravity. They are misled by wrongly looking for this gravity in the form of a wave

This white matter, or gravity, is not visible to our eyes, it is organized in a spherical way around the earth and all celestial bodies and we can prove its existence by the observations that can be made on rainbows and on different planets such as Saturn

To use a quote from Nikola Tesla (03/02/1892):

"In a few generations our machines will be animated thanks to energy available at any point in the universe. Indeed in space there is a form of energy. Is it static or kinetic? If it is static, all our research will have been in vain. If it is kinetic - and we know it is - it is only a matter of time, and men will succeed in connecting our machines to the wheels of nature"

This dark matter and dark energy (or gravity), which fills the universe is what Mr. Tesla had prophesied

We may have more to do is learn to control it

Pa trakacé!!!

Pa trakacé!!!

Newton's Third Law

It has been shown in the previous pages that in space, gravitational interactions are not necessarily reciprocal for celestial bodies in stable orbits with respect to each other

This formally contradicts Newton's third law

We could actually specify that this 3rd law applies perfectly to all physics of "human dimension" but it no longer applies for example to a star the size of the moon

Indeed, if the gravitational attraction of the moon reached the center of the earth, it would be strictly impossible for the earth to have a stable orbit around the sun

We can illustrate it with this example, which is not a demonstration:

Consider an apple on the surface of the earth. This apple is subject to terrestrial gravity. It is also easy to understand that the center of gravity of this apple will not exert an attraction on the center of gravity of the earth located 6000 kilometers away. We can thus "understand" that there are exceptions to Newton's third law

And this explanation of non-reciprocity of gravity could then explain certain astronomical phenomena that would otherwise remain incomprehensible

And to conclude, this quote from FENELON (1651 - 1715):

"Most of men's mistakes are not so much due to the fact that they reason badly from true principles, but rather to the fact that they just reason from false principles or incorrect judgments"

The balance of forces

The balance of forces

Intellectual path of these pages

To arrive at the conclusions previously set out, here is the path followed:

1 Infinity is not compatible with fundamental physics +++

2 So all physical reality must be able to be counted +++ (1, 2, 3, 4 ............etc)

3 So the search for a theoretical model of which we can count all the elements has led to the model of gravity organized in individualized layers, like the rings of the planet Saturn

4 This theoretical model is largely confirmed by the observations that can be made on rainbows

5 The current explanations given by physicists on the formation of rainbows are false, and they do not resist reasonable reflection. So in all cases they must be reviewed and corrected +++

6 So the reasoning presented in this basic physics summary has a high probability of being right

7 Consequently, the structure of gravity in concentric layers like Saturn's rings is probably exact

8 Note that the structure in concentric layers of gravity is not demonstrated in this summary, even if it is probable, and if it was not validated by physicists it would then be necessary to find an equivalent explaining the dispersion of light at the origin of rainbows (finally, if, it is demonstrated in the chapter: Conclusion - Point 17!!! And also in the chapter: A photo a proof, and also in the chapter: Demonstration, by an experimental method

And further in the chapter entitled: "Rainbow"

, and ........ that's all!!!)

9 The other information presented in this abstract is secondary and given for information purposes only

10 So in this summary, in all simplicity, a version of the universe that "sticks" a little better with the probabilities (see preface to the chapter "theoretical physics")

Mo pé write slowly, mo conné to not capable lir lives

Mo pé write slowly, mo conné to not capable lir lives

Orientations of the universe

When we observe the magnificent images of the universe communicated by scientists, we can notice that almost all the celestial clusters composed of different spheres are oriented according to a preferential plane that passes through the center of the largest sphere, which is located in the center of this cluster

Thus the rings of Saturn are all in a plane passing through the center of Saturn, which in this case allows them to be observed from Earth

The same is true for the rings of the planets Jupiter, Neptune and Uranus

The planets and celestial bodies of our solar system also orbit in a single plane (which passes through the center of the Sun, the Sun itself located at the center of the solar system)

The stars of our galaxy also orbit in a plane, which allows us to visualize some of them at night while observing the Milky Way. This plane passes to the center of the Black Hole which is itself at the center of the galaxy. Our galaxy finally has the shape of a disk

For confirmation, hundreds of stars were observed in our galaxy that exploded into gas clusters. The gaseous results of these explosions have oriented strictly in the same way while they are located billions of kilometers from each other. This confirms, if necessary, that all these stars are under the same gravitational influence of the Black Hole which "imposes" by its gravity a preferential plane and a precise orientation to the entire galaxy

The other galaxies are also "flat". They are also centered each by a Black Hole

We can therefore think that the spherical structure of gravitational clusters always combines according to certain preferential planes that could be called: gravitational planes

It is an astronomical observation that seems universal and is an integral part of the nature of gravity

In the very small world, we could also imagine that the electronic layers could be organized in a plane passing through the center of the atomic nucleus. Why make it complicated when you can make it simple?

We could also think, and just for "fun", that all galaxies also orbit in a gravitational plane. Who said the Earth is flat? But no, it's just the universe that is flat!! LOL Come on, so as not to make people unhappy, we will specify that the universe could be flat and that the limits would be round! In this hypothesis never verified by observation, the galaxies would themselves be in orbit around a "super Black Hole" (larger than all the Black Holes of all galaxies combined, in the same way that the Sun is larger than all the planets combined) and it is the whole universe that would be located in a "plane" passing through the center of this Super Black Hole, and therefore this Super Black Hole would be the center of the universe. The universe would look a bit like a fried egg, the egg yolk being the Super Black Hole. Hoping that there won't be a big creature to eat it!And finally the atom in the world of the very small, and the universe in the world of the very large would have exactly the same structure +++. Why another faith to make it complicated when you can do it very simply? In the name of what principle should the universe be complex?

This suggests that on Earth too there must be a preferential gravitational plane as on Saturn!! Damage that we could never visualize: there could also have been rings on our good old Earth! In fact, by dint of swinging junk in space, we will end up having these rings!

And the black hole must also have its own gravitational rings. Who said that the laws of physics should change when we move in space? It's not because we don't see these rings that they don't exist!!!

Spheres and planes combine in the universe

Spheres and planes combine in the universe

Accretion disc

We talked in the previous paragraph about gravitational planes

This term is actually listed in physics under the term accretion disks

In nature we find these accretion discs at the level of atoms, and planets, and stars, and galaxies and even most likely at the level of the universe (althowe have no image to date that could confirm it: we will just have to wait for the next commissioning of the next more efficient telescopes!!! )

These accretion discs are a basic and essential component of gravity. They are set up spontaneously and automatically in all material training. There is no involvement of any force other than gravity in the formation of these accretion discs

In fact, everyone is free to think and say what they see fit

The truth is sometimes very simple

The truth is sometimes very simple

Components of gravity

Gravity is known as a reciprocal force of attraction between different material elements

In fact, it's much more than that:

This also includes all the components that can be found for example on the planet Saturn, with all the forces associated with these components

This therefore concerns the accretion disk with its rings and all the forces that rotate the components of these rings by keeping them in orbit

These gravitational systems are universal and are found everywhere in the universe

They form spontaneously and automatically without the intervention of any other force. There is no intervention of dark matter, nor dark energy, nor relativistic systems

Gravity is therefore not an isolated force, but it is a whole set of forces of different intensities and directions that can be represented by a graph that has exactly the shape of the planet Saturn with its rings

This concerns both the world of the very small and the world of the very large

In summary:

Gravity is a complex set of forces of attraction and (+++) of rotation, different intensities and directions, which is always organized according to the same model represented by the planet Saturn with its rings. The rotational forces that cause orbiting inside the accretion disks are an integral part of gravity. We find this same organization with the planets and stars and galaxies. There is no exception to this rule, which is the basis and foundation of all fundamental physics. To date, there is no astrophysical observation that contradicts this presentation of gravity. This vision of gravity is more complete than that presented by physicists, and the probability that it is exact and faithful to reality is very high

So be it!

Gravity is more complex than appearances could suggest!

Gravity is more complex than appearances could suggest!

Speculations about light

We have seen that in the universe everything that exists must be able to be counted. We talked about the light that exists and that moves along straight paths. Until now we did not know in the universe of rectilinear configurations that we can count and that could have been related to light

Except we have just seen (paragraph orientations of the universe) that gravity is organized according to gravitational planes. These planes correspond by definition to potential rectilinear trajectories

We can therefore issue this speculation that the "lines" of light that we could count, and that we are looking for, would correspond to these different gravitational planes that are present in the entire universe

Thus we could count the "lines" of the vector field Speed of light (see the vector fields chapter)

And finally all the vector fields of the universe would have a material support of which we could count each element

This theoretical speculation corresponds well to the "specifications", but with regard to light, there is no element of experimental method that goes in this direction (in fact it is mainly in the absence of having looked in this direction!! )

We can just say that it's possible, and for now it's already not bad

The light would also have a material support that is not infinite and that can be counted

The light would also have a material support that is not infinite and that can be counted

Conduct to be taken by physicists in relation to this abbreviation

The solidity of this abbreviation is based on the correction of an error of understanding that physicists made about the origin of rainbows

If reflection and experimentation were not to confirm that there is indeed an error then all the messages of this summary would no longer make sense and there would only be a need to get rid of them

This results in the suggestion to meditate on this point as a priority

Note that this error of understanding on rainbows is in the field of traditional physics, but if it were to be confirmed, it would call into question all current fundamental physics!!!

Moreover, the erroneous interpretation of physicists on the origin of rainbows is verifiable by everyone with a little reflection and without the slightest experimentation. It is paradoxically from the domain of evidence!!

The physicists' explanations to explain the formation of rainbows are a parody of logic, embellished with complex angle calculations, but whose starting point is simply wrong!!!

In fact, if someone doesn't understand, it may be because he has simply decided that he doesn't want to understand. Come on, it doesn't matter, we'll find other meditation topics!

A+

Sincerely

(See these points in "Para Physics, A little common sense +++" and in "Theoretical Physics", the passages on the rainbows)

The middle ground

The middle ground

Future of this summary

To have scientific knowledge recognized, we can ask for a critical opinion from the scientific authorities in place, which seems to be the simplest and most logical method

But in practice, the current scientific "governance" does not seem willing to question anything in its achievements, which makes any prospect of progress problematic

So assuming that the reasoning presented in this abbreviation is right, or at least close to what is right, it appears that the only way to move things forward is to circulate this link on the internet so that the truth ends up imposing itself

It must be understood that it is not a theory that opposes another theory, but it is only an error of understanding that physicists made on rainbows that led to many other mistakes. This error has never been rectified so far

The reality of this error is almost certain, and once it is corrected, it is then the whole edifice of fundamental physics that could collapse

Another way to advance fundamental physics in the right direction would be to recognize that all stars are in orbit around black holes at the center of each galaxy in exactly the same way that the planets of the solar system are in orbit around the Sun +++

Thus the beginning of the explanations of knowledge about galaxies would be correct and other knowledge could easily be grafted on this good basis for reflection

Here is a golden rule that knows no exception in astrophysics:

Any accretion disc corresponds very exactly to a gravitational phenomenon and only one, with the reverse which is also true:

To any gravitational phenomenon corresponds an accretion disc and only one even if it is not directly visible

If you are interested in moving things forward, even if you have not understood everything (it will be an act of faith +++), thank you for sharing this internet link

Very friendly

Now you just have to read the last chapter: Conclusion

Now you just have to read the last chapter: Conclusion

To be discovered in the chapter: Demonstration a last-minute experiment that is definitely conclusive +++

Le chapitre Démonstration , à lire +++ , valide définitivement cet abrégé

The demonstration chapter , to be read +++ definitively validates this summary