Theory of gravitation and creation Universe

I thought I just try myself to re-introduce this topic, because I want to comment on it, and the original poster seems to have left it.http://www.arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0410/0410365.pdf"PRINCIPLES OF THE THEORY OF VORTEX GRAVITATION
S. A. Orlov
Petrozavodsk State University""Therefore, the black hole is the center of rotation of the space torsion. As a result of this rotation and the gravitation created, a new celestial body must appear. That is, a black hole is not a collapse of a celestial body, but it is a newly-created space torsion."So that's what's I've been saying all along, more or less. See a rock fall to the ground, see the space between the rock and the ground disappear, into the ground. Understood comparitively as water (space) swirling into a sponge (planet). Now I may have to really start believing what I've been saying.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.This was originally proposed by Orlov himself, and the topic was not promoted as it was given only as a bare link. Orlov then left and did not return. This proposal is acceptable, as it now gives a brief extract and comment.This message has been edited by AdminSylas, 02-03-2005 00:45 AM

SyamsuIwould like to know if you can explain how they acquired the density pressure and temperature of the ether they base their theory upon.They also claim to use these parameters in their calculationsThey also make an assumption of pressure decrease and vorticity being caused by some thermodynamic process which they fail to elaborate upon.. So perhaps you could find reference to astrophysicists who have determined that there is a center to the universe that are claimed to have been confirmed by them?We will begin with these.Show references please.ThanksThis message has been edited by sidelined, 02-03-2005 08:39 AM

It looks like he derived those numbers by applying aerodynamics and other normal vortex laws, to get to the results he knows to be observed.In astrophysics the center of the universe is only denied in so far as that the universe doesn't have sides. And he's not saying the universe has sides, he's just claiming a center of rotation of the universe, believed to be in a black hole.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The results are not observed. The article is nonsense; and though the maths looks superficially nice, the bits I understood contained trivial errors; such as getting the Schwartzschild radius pf the Earth wrong by a bit over three orders of magnitude. Not promising!A quote from Orlov's paper. There are so many things wrong with this that debate is futile. How did arrant nonsense like this get into arxiv??Another: Both claims are nonsense; no such "confirmation" exists.The citations are to Russian texts I do not know.The reference for an increasing mass to the earth is "Atsukovski V A. General Etherodynamics (Moscow, 1990)".This does appear in limited contexts, under the homonym Atsukovsky; it seems to be an ether theory; and complete nonsense.The reference for rotations of galaxies around the universe is "Kadyrov S K. General Physical Theory of Universal Field (Bishkek, 2001)". Have no idea about this; I'm betting its seriously weird crank notions about a revolution to everything in physics by an Einstein wannabe.Nothing worth looking at here; it's complete nonsense.Cheers -- Sylas

Please note that although the majority of papers on arxiv.org are also submitted to peer reviewed journals a few crank papers are not. arxiv.org does not act in a peer review sense. It is primarily a way for researchers to get the word out about their research before waiting for the journals to publish.

Dear SirI can to answer your questons. I ask you to write simple word and sentense. I know English not well.Sergey Orlov. ion@onego.ru

Your article contains many incorrect claims. We have already mentioned two of them in the thread.You claim that galaxies rotate around the center of the universe.But as far as we can see, the universe on large scales is expanding, with all galaxies moving away from all other galaxies. There is no center, and no rotation around a center. The expansion rate indicates that they have been expanding for about 13.7 billion years... 7 times less than your proposed rotation time of 100 billion years.The other claim is that celestial bodies increase in mass. You even give a figure; 1.6*10¹⁵ kg per year for the Earth.The real rate of increase is around 10⁷ to 10⁹ kilograms per year.The total mass of the Earth is about 6*10²⁴ kilograms, so the massive rate of increase you propose would be sufficient to form the earth in about 4*10⁹ years... about the age of the Earth. Are you simply saying that the Earth is increasing linearly in mass over its history?Cheers -- Sylas

orlov Ok what is the ether?

Many claims of my article are product any scientists. I point out it.
Main goal of my theory is new principle of gravitation.
Classical models claims that celestial body create gravitation.
My model claims — gravitation create stars, planets Gradient of pressure is reason of gravitation.
If my model is truth then mass of celestial body, its age and movement will be other.
I try to make approximate calculation. It prove that Universe press.
Big bang was not never.
My model propose new astrophysic. I am volunteer and unemployed and cannot prove it. Espessialy in my country. I need allys.
Please read my calculation of force gravitation. It is main.
I hope that you understand my English.
Regards
Sergey Orlov.
P. S. My son Anton put record of Giunesse book in powerlifting at 7 years old. So he is strongest boy in the world.

Hi Orlov,You didn't address any of Sylas's very specific points. Is this your son here? http://home.onego.ru/~ion/book_eng.html--Percy

Yes it is.

And what about the questions Sylas raised?--Percy

I don't understand word "Sylas".

It's one of our members that asked you a question in Message 8.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion