Einstein's theory failed. The world is entering a new reality.

Hello ATS! Today the text will be long but interesting.

The 21st century has truly begun. A truly fundamental discovery has been made that revolutionizes the foundations of physics. First there was Newton, then Einstein, and now the Korean Kyu Hyun Che has joined them. He discovered that in weak gravitational fields both classical physics and the theory of relativity are powerless. And also: no dark matter exists. Relax and stop looking for her. Can these findings be trusted? Let's get a look.

The work of the Korean researcher was publishedin the most authoritative The Astrophysical Journal, that is, it has passed all possible checks and does not contain the slightest inaccuracy. There are few scientific publications in the world that you can trust unconditionally. If we are talking about astronomy, then you can trust this magazine.

Let me briefly remind you of the background. When Newton published his theory in 1687, it worked perfectly. In 1846, based on it, using theoretical calculations, Neptune was discovered. Complete triumph.

It soon became clear, however, that the orbit of Mercury did not obey Newton. The study of Mercury ultimately gave rise to Einstein's theory of relativity and new physics in general. Mercury is close to the Sun, and with such strong gravity, Newton's laws fail.

Already in the 20th century, when studying galaxies, they found that they move differently from Newton’s, and not even from Einstein’s. To save both theories, dark matter was invented. It does not interact with ours in any way, and it cannot be detected, but it attracts. In fact, physicists are afraid like fire of something that “cannot be detected, but it exists.” As soon as ufologists or psychics say this, they are immediately accused of pseudoscience. But they believed in dark matter (though not all of them) and began to search intensively.

Meanwhile, the Gaia satellite has been rotating in orbit since 2013 and doing unnoticed work. It measures distances to stars, and star positions in general. It's just routine, the data never makes it into the mainstream press because it's so boring.

Astronomer from Seoul Kyu Hyun Che was not afraid of melancholy and asked his satellite for information about the orbits of double stars. In general, the fact that the Sun is lonely is rather rare; usually stars are double, triple or more. The Korean was interested in the orbits of relatively close binaries (up to 650 light years - such data are more accurate), and in total he analyzed 26,500 binary systems.

And what did he discover?

Imagine one star orbiting another. The forces of gravity prevent her from flying away. But are they big? Very, very weak. Vanishingly. The sun attracts Pluto much more strongly than the main star attracts its satellite.

It turned out that when gravity weakens so seriously, it... intensifies. This is very strange: you are flying away from the Sun, it weakens its grip, you are almost no longer held by its gravity... and suddenly the Sun seems to be clenching its claws, and you are again in captivity.

It is for this reason that systems of double stars do not fly apart. And we wondered why this was happening.

In science, the reliability of a discovery is assessed using so-called sigmas. The Korean has a 5 sigma level, and for most conclusions even more. This means that his calculations are correct with a probability of over 99.9%. Well, what can I say, everything is clear.

As of August 16, we know that there are now three theories of gravity:

- Newton - for “everyday life”: for example, Newton’s physics perfectly explains how stones fall and cars drive on Earth;

- Einstein - for high speeds and powerful fields. If you launched a satellite, you already need to take into account the theory of relativity. GPS systems do this automatically. If it weren't for Einstein, navigators wouldn't be able to work;

- Kyu Hyun Che – for very weak fields.

It's funny, but forty years ago the theorist Mordecai Milgrom predicted all this and formulated a “modified theory of gravity,” but few people paid attention to this. Thus, on Wednesday, August 16, a new physics, Hyun Che-Milgrom, was born. Milgrom has already commented on the event in the spirit that “it looks like a revolution in physics is happening right now.”

Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed now. Billions of dollars have been wasted on their research. The Universe does not need some kind of “agent” that influences and bends - the laws of nature themselves are flexible. In the same way, more than a century ago, the ether, which everyone believed in, like dark matter, was discarded. Einstein nailed the ether, Hyun Che nailed dark matter.

Continued below...

Time travel? Instant visit to any point in the Universe? Now you can talk about this without being considered a science fiction writer.

Gravity seems to be a very understandable thing. I'm sitting on a chair because of gravity. And yet this is the most mysterious force. And not strength at all.

Einstein proved that gravity is the curvature of space-time, that is, the “floor” on which everything in the Universe “walks,” you and me, the planets, the galaxies. In the twentieth century, quantum gravity appeared, which proves that there is no space and time as such, there is only a gravitational field that creates for the observer (for us) the illusion of “here and now.” But they could not detect a particle of gravity, a graviton, which transfers the force of gravity from me to the Earth, from the Earth to the Moon, and so on.

Now everyone will find it. They will learn to control gravity and time. We lacked something to take a decisive step. Now this something has appeared. Gravity appeared before us in all its manifestations. Theorists will have to understand exactly how it all works, experimenters will have to confirm it, engineers will have to make devices for the home, for the family.

A new era has begun.

But, what is most interesting, back in 1985, a young Soviet physicist from Novosibirsk made a number of breakthrough discoveries in physics that had not happened for a long time, but most of his discoveries have still not received either recognition or refutation.

Vasily Yanchilin, using a method that would now be called “Halls of the Mind,” tried to simulate experiments in the absence of space and matter, they turned out to be successful and allowed him to derive the Formula of Light - describing most of the processes in the universe.

From this formula it was possible to draw many conclusions which, in my humble opinion, are very consonant with mythology and some philosophical and religious ideas, I will try to tell you briefly:


Formula of Light: “C” squared is the speed of light. "Ф" is the gravitational potential of the Universe.

So, beyond the boundaries of the universe there is no time or space at all. Time exists only for us, thanks to the masses of stars and planets, their movement, space and time itself arise. The further you move away from the Earth and other masses, the slower time flows. Even moving 100 meters from the surface, you can detect a slight time lag using atomic clocks.

This is well described in the Bible, where it is said that one day of God is like a hundred years on Earth (Second Peter 3:8)

Black holes do not exist - since the greater the mass of the object, the higher the speed of light, based on the formula above. Black holes are crutches supporting an old incorrect theory

Huge amounts of money have been spent on the search for black holes - and in the end we got only a vague photograph - which may simply be a photograph of a Star with a cooler core and a hotter corona.

Our world - our universe is just a crumb in the surrounding chaos, beyond the boundaries of the universe there is chaos, where there are no masses, and therefore time and space, any object that gets there will move and change chaotically, since there are no laws there that tell the body how it needs to behave lead

I strongly associate such a description with the worlds of Roger Zelazny. Where in the center there is ordered Amber - our universe, and its reflections, where everything is distorted and over time turns into Chaos.

Continued below...

The boundary of the universe has been a logical problem for many years, because if there is a boundary, it can be broken through or bypassed. Vasily describes it this way: there is a border only on one side, on ours, if you go outside the universe, you will not be able to return - there will be neither a door nor a direction where to go. There will also be no time and you will not know when you came out or will only come out in the future.

Exile beyond the borders of the world is a common device in mythology, and I was always surprised why the villain could not return. Now it is clear that there is simply no door that needs to be opened in order to return.

The world description of everything that exists from the point of view of physics by Vasily Yanchilin made a strong impression on me and turned out very well, like the final puzzle in the scheme of the world order.

Despite the fact that Vasily Yanchilin has published a dozen books, his works have not received wide recognition, is it worth saying why? Hundreds of scientific organizations are simply feeding on “black holes” and are not going to lose them. What is the value of one hadron collider where they discovered dozens of new particles invisible to the eye - but in fact just fragments of the nucleus. Now they are going to build a collider 3 times larger.

These discoveries undermine the authority of gravity experts and undo everything they have done over the past half century.
This is a huge amount of money - to accept Yanchilin’s theory means to lose everything. For example, his only conclusion is that a man on the Moon can jump not 6 times higher, but 11 times, which already casts doubt on the entire lunar program.

Vasily Yanchilin refutes Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, and in a religion called “Science” this is the same as rejecting Jesus and the Prophet Muhammad, but they cannot refute them either. Therefore, it is clear that until cardinal reforms take place in academic science, this picture of the world order will never be accepted.

Thank you.

Again I will repeat myself and you don't need any scientist to prove it to you. GRAVITY IS NOT A WEAK FORCE! Gravity is the strongest force in the Universe. I'll make it real simple. What keeps the Moon orbiting around the Earth/ What keeps the Earth and the Moon orbiting around the sun. Moons, Planets etc. etc. Objects that weigh gazillions of tons, not one but hundreds, these are held virtually precisely in place and has done for hundreds of thousands of years. THAT'S GRAVITY. It aint weak. And it permeates the entire Universe and if one cares to extrapolate gravity is the "zero" point energy man is always searching for. Because if man could harness gravity manipulation, not negating gravity but manipulating??????????

This hypothesis opens the door for others to refute or confirm this new study on modified gravity and I look forward to future studies on this subject.

It always helps me to have a visual tool and other explanations to get a better grasp on these highly complex topics.

Interesting theory. Does this mean the voyager satellite is going to eventually return back near Earth as it takes an orbit like a far out comet? Gets pulled back by gravity.

I don't like the dark matter stuff. Black holes not existing, maybe? See them more like a seed for a star, just sitting there feeding as it pulls in and brakes down everything it can. Something big is going on at the center of the galaxy.

I do like the presentation about a boundary to the universe. Will have to sleep on that one, thanks.

Fascinating, well written, a great read.

Thank you.

a reply to: RussianTroll
Gosh, that was an interesting read RT

I certainly can't add any value to your thread, but thanks for giving me much to investigate myself...I've replied mainly so this thread appears in 'myATS', but I hope I see this thread regularly at the top of 'recent post's' now!

a reply to: AdultMaleHumanUK

I am glad that I was able to provide food for thought and pleasure to ATS members. This is why I loved this forum)))
Thanks everyone!

a reply to: RussianTroll

Very interesting indeed. Not altogether sure about the MOND angle. The guy seems very sure of his data -- he's made it all public 'to ensure transparency and for the sake of other interested parties.'

More detailed story here

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: RussianTroll

Very interesting indeed. Not altogether sure about the MOND angle. The guy seems very sure of his data -- he's made it all public 'to ensure transparency and for the sake of other interested parties.'

More detailed story here

The study finds that when two stars orbit around with each other with accelerations lower than about one nanometer per second squared start to deviate from the prediction by Newton's universal law of gravitation and Einstein's general relativity.

So now we have spooky action at lower accelerations.

Or, Gravity is an electromagnetic field occurring at the atomic/subatomic level, not a universal force governed by mass.

Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity.

Gravity would be strongest at it's "poles", and the areas in between would have weakening gravity to the farthest point along the hemispheres...

So basically, celestial bodies would be locked to each other at the gravitational field poles, and traveling between those poles you would experience varying degrees of gravity based on the distance from the poles/hemisphere.

i am no science buff...but after a qwik skin over your post...a fleeting thought crossed my mind...then another and another..

if the universe is expanding at an increasing rate due to gravity being a product of light speed from observable matter....

seems that an expanding universe would be finite yet infinite in potential.

since the speed of light has its speed limit directly related to the observer..this boundrie would be un obsevable and that in it self would be the unbreakable boundry.

matter would be traveling fatser than light (away from us).....in this not visible boundry....because of the increasine rate of expansion

ANYTHING TRAVELING FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT WOULD BE IN THIS OUTSIDE PART OF THE ....WHATEVER IT IS ...A VOID

does light from the beginings of the universe reach areas of space where matter is speeding faster than light due expansion and increasing velocity?
no way in no way out
could all of this explain why i dont give a f about my typos??

or am i just too lazy to learn to spell and take TIME. ....to correct

I THINK THE ANSWER IS _____O B V I O U S-----

no way in no way out

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
Or, Gravity is an electromagnetic field occurring at the atomic/subatomic level, not a universal force governed by mass.

Tesla's Dynamic Theory of Gravity.

Gravity would be strongest at it's "poles", and the areas in between would have weakening gravity to the farthest point along the hemispheres...

So basically, celestial bodies would be locked to each other at the gravitational field poles, and traveling between those poles you would experience varying degrees of gravity based on the distance from the poles/hemisphere.

So are we getting back to quantum mechanics?

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Gravity is stronger at the poles on Earth because it is an oblate sphere not a circular sphere. It is slightly flatter at the top and bottom (polar regions) and bulges at the equator.

I'm not sure gravity would be stronger at the poles of a regular sphere though.

a reply to: RussianTroll

Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed now. Billions of dollars have been wasted on their research. The Universe does not need some kind of “agent” that influences and bends - the laws of nature themselves are flexible. In the same way, more than a century ago, the ether, which everyone believed in, like dark matter, was discarded. Einstein nailed the ether, Hyun Che nailed dark matter.

Gotta love the Scientific Community

They refuse to say " I don't know " . This is how 'Dark Matter' came about , It's the Hypothetical solution to an otherwise unexplainable variable .

Just like the "Electron" To this day there is zero proof of the Electrons existence , It's the Variable needed to complete the equation nothing more.

Great OP mate , This is ATS Gold.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
Hello ATS! Today the text will be long but interesting.

The 21st century has truly begun. A truly fundamental discovery has been made that revolutionizes the foundations of physics. First there was Newton, then Einstein, and now the Korean Kyu Hyun Che has joined them. He discovered that in weak gravitational fields both classical physics and the theory of relativity are powerless. And also: no dark matter exists. Relax and stop looking for her. Can these findings be trusted? Let's get a look.

The work of the Korean researcher was publishedin the most authoritative The Astrophysical Journal, that is, it has passed all possible checks and does not contain the slightest inaccuracy. There are few scientific publications in the world that you can trust unconditionally. If we are talking about astronomy, then you can trust this magazine.

Let me briefly remind you of the background. When Newton published his theory in 1687, it worked perfectly. In 1846, based on it, using theoretical calculations, Neptune was discovered. Complete triumph.

It soon became clear, however, that the orbit of Mercury did not obey Newton. The study of Mercury ultimately gave rise to Einstein's theory of relativity and new physics in general. Mercury is close to the Sun, and with such strong gravity, Newton's laws fail.

Already in the 20th century, when studying galaxies, they found that they move differently from Newton’s, and not even from Einstein’s. To save both theories, dark matter was invented. It does not interact with ours in any way, and it cannot be detected, but it attracts. In fact, physicists are afraid like fire of something that “cannot be detected, but it exists.” As soon as ufologists or psychics say this, they are immediately accused of pseudoscience. But they believed in dark matter (though not all of them) and began to search intensively.

Meanwhile, the Gaia satellite has been rotating in orbit since 2013 and doing unnoticed work. It measures distances to stars, and star positions in general. It's just routine, the data never makes it into the mainstream press because it's so boring.

Astronomer from Seoul Kyu Hyun Che was not afraid of melancholy and asked his satellite for information about the orbits of double stars. In general, the fact that the Sun is lonely is rather rare; usually stars are double, triple or more. The Korean was interested in the orbits of relatively close binaries (up to 650 light years - such data are more accurate), and in total he analyzed 26,500 binary systems.

And what did he discover?

Imagine one star orbiting another. The forces of gravity prevent her from flying away. But are they big? Very, very weak. Vanishingly. The sun attracts Pluto much more strongly than the main star attracts its satellite.

It turned out that when gravity weakens so seriously, it... intensifies. This is very strange: you are flying away from the Sun, it weakens its grip, you are almost no longer held by its gravity... and suddenly the Sun seems to be clenching its claws, and you are again in captivity.

It is for this reason that systems of double stars do not fly apart. And we wondered why this was happening.

In science, the reliability of a discovery is assessed using so-called sigmas. The Korean has a 5 sigma level, and for most conclusions even more. This means that his calculations are correct with a probability of over 99.9%. Well, what can I say, everything is clear.

As of August 16, we know that there are now three theories of gravity:

- Newton - for “everyday life”: for example, Newton’s physics perfectly explains how stones fall and cars drive on Earth;

- Einstein - for high speeds and powerful fields. If you launched a satellite, you already need to take into account the theory of relativity. GPS systems do this automatically. If it weren't for Einstein, navigators wouldn't be able to work;

- Kyu Hyun Che – for very weak fields.

It's funny, but forty years ago the theorist Mordecai Milgrom predicted all this and formulated a “modified theory of gravity,” but few people paid attention to this. Thus, on Wednesday, August 16, a new physics, Hyun Che-Milgrom, was born. Milgrom has already commented on the event in the spirit that “it looks like a revolution in physics is happening right now.”

Neither dark matter nor dark energy are needed now. Billions of dollars have been wasted on their research. The Universe does not need some kind of “agent” that influences and bends - the laws of nature themselves are flexible. In the same way, more than a century ago, the ether, which everyone believed in, like dark matter, was discarded. Einstein nailed the ether, Hyun Che nailed dark matter.

Continued below...

But dark matter and dark energy have not been proven yet to exist. We pretend they do because there is good evidence to support the hypothesis made for their existence. And that's mostly for dark matter. If you modify Einstein's Field Equations then you no longer need dark matter.

Its quite possible that every particle has a centroid and at some point of it centripetal and centrifugal forces flip based on the matter in it's field explaining both the weak and strong forces.

Don't ever count "Newtonian" physics as out... Is a good rule of thumb.

Light I am sorry to say is a constant based on the cosmic background radiation sure there are some theoretical exotic particles that move faster than the "photon" in theory which helps the model they keep forcing to be correct and doing so only allows light to have a so called "speed"... To fit that model.

Fabric is not a good idea to call such weak and strong particle forces swapping a throw and a grab in their inversions... Looking at a rainbow and prysmatic is where such thought experiments arose.

Here's whats funny... People have that as mentioned above just the same since they are also particle based and give of various wave forms of attraction and repulsion either aware of it or not and whats neat is the mind is what inverts as that attraction or repulsion as a force when such other particle masses get near.

Here's something funny but yeah no not really... If a hermit is someone that wants to be alone? Why is a hermitage often built around them? The less it seems someone likes people and pour them self into their work the more they have to beat the bricks off and say leave me alone!

the so called speed is only limited by our observation is it not?

anything faster...we would not see

originally posted by: crowf00t
Its quite possible that every particle has a centroid and at some point of it centripetal and centrifugal forces flip based on the matter in it's field explaining both the weak and strong forces.

Don't ever count "Newtonian" physics as out... Is a good rule of thumb.

Light I am sorry to say is a constant based on the cosmic background radiation sure there are some theoretical exotic particles that move faster than the "photon" in theory which helps the model they keep forcing to be correct and doing so only allows light to have a so called "speed"... To fit that model.

Fabric is not a good idea to call such weak and strong particle forces swapping a throw and a grab in their inversions... Looking at a rainbow and prysmatic is where such thought experiments arose.

Here's whats funny... People have that as mentioned above just the same since they are also particle based and give of various wave forms of attraction and repulsion either aware of it or not and whats neat is the mind is what inverts as that attraction or repulsion as a force when such other particle masses get near.

Here's something funny but yeah no not really... If a hermit is someone that wants to be alone? Why is a hermitage often built around them? The less it seems someone likes people and pour them self into their work the more they have to beat the bricks off and say leave me alone!

originally posted by: RussianTroll
The work of the Korean researcher was publishedin the most authoritative The Astrophysical Journal, that is, it has passed all possible checks and does not contain the slightest inaccuracy. There are few scientific publications in the world that you can trust unconditionally. If we are talking about astronomy, then you can trust this magazine.

The article is certainly well done and deserved to be published, but the bias in your reporting of this is over the top.

You fail to mention that another analysis of binary stars has come to the opposite conclusion, to an even higher confidence level, an overwhelmingly important point which cannot be left out if you want an unbiased take on this subject.

It's too soon to say which of the papers have the correct conclusions, or maybe none do, because of the variables involved and the relatively short observation times. Here is a less biased article on the topic which points out the other study coming to the opposite conclusion, to a very high confidence level, without trying to ultimately decide which is correct. We just don't know yet, but it's far less certain than your posts imply, to be sure.

Do binary stars prove modified gravity?

Previous studies, using Gaia and earlier data, have shown that binary stars that are separated by a specific amount — with revolutionary periods of a few hundred years or less — do obey Newton’s and Einstein’s laws: they orbit one another as you’d expect them to. When wide binaries with separations from 2,000 AU (where 1 AU is the Earth-Sun distance) out to 30,000 AU (about half a light-year) are considered, and only the nearest stars (within about ~1,000 light-years) are considered, the latest Gaia data indicates that Newtonian-like gravity is completely sufficient, and that the MOND-like behavior, which should take over in the low acceleration regime if the idea is correct, is absent. It’s absent, in fact, at the ~16-sigma level: a tremendous significance.

So the previous study done on binary stars, also from GAIA data, show to a confidence level of 16 sigma that MOND is not needed to explain gravitational accelerations.

Now along comes Chae's paper saying the data from binaries does support MOND, to over 5 sigma. So which is correct? That's not a simple question to answer, but I think this article gives the best explanation:

One thing that’s important to note is that Chae and Hernandez select their samples differently from one another and from Banik (who led the earlier study that showed no deviation from Newtonian behavior), and that’s likely the reason why they draw radically different conclusions...

For the wide binary stars in the Gaia catalog, although we have several years of data, it would literally require centuries or even millennia of data to make (high) precision characterization of their orbits. As it turns out, there isn’t even one single system among the Gaia wide binaries that we can point to and say, confidently, “This is what the long-term orbit of this system looks like.”

Those two paragraphs explain why we can get completely opposite conclusions from looking at binaries in GAIA data. A lot of assumptions are made since the observation periods are too short to give high accuracy for such distant objects, and either set of assumptions could be in error.

Fortunately, as observations continue to be made, over many years, the certainty of these orbital measurements and calculations will increase. Until then, I don't think we can say for certain whether the study supporting MOND, or the study refuting MOND is correct. MOND has a number of problems we didn't even get into here, but it's alluded to in the article I linked:

All efforts to modify gravity run into enormous difficulties on cosmic scales, but one specific modification, despite its large-scale cosmic failures, has proven itself more successful than dark matter on galactic scales: MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.

I'm talking of course about the "large-scale cosmic failures" of MOND, which I think is worth mentioning, but that could be a completely separate thread, and I think we should be open to accepting where the data leads us, whether for MOND or against MOND. We need more time to improve the orbital measurements to resolve discrepancies like those mentioned above.