ON THE NATURE OF GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION Текст научной статьи по специальности «Физика»

PHYSICAL SCIENCES

ON THE NATURE OF GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTION

Apanovich I.

Mining engineer-geophysicist. Siberian Production and Geological Association.

Krasnoyarsk

Abstract

The attraction and repulsion of magnetized bodies is very difficult to separate from moving them under the influence of gravitational forces. At the same time, the mechanisms of almost all natural processes are considered on the basis of force interaction. It is in this aspect that the article shows the fundamental role of radiation existing in indissoluble unity with any substance. A simple explanation of the physical nature of the electric charge is proposed, a definition of the force is given. Proton and neutron models are presented in the form of polar systems. The reason for the change in the interaction of nucleons with a change in the distance between them is shown.

Keywords: gravity as an exchange of momenta, vortex radiation, waves and corpuscles, magnetism, electric charge, protons and neutrons, the unity of nucleons with electrons.

If the fundamental statements are not true, then all subsequent theoretical constructions and conclusions cannot be true.

1. Force interaction and matter

Currently, many natural processes are described in the framework of the theory of "field physics". The theory is based on a clearly undefined concept of the "charge" of the body and the ability of a charge to form a special material substance - electromagnetic field (EMF) when moving. In fact, the energy of the field is transmitted from the source to the receiver without visible contact, but the properties of the transmitting substance are unknown. Maxwell proposed using EMF in 1864, and this allowed mathematicians to combine the results of many experiments. Later, the introduction of the theory was promoted by Albert Einstein, although his thoughts were not very logical. "An electromagnetic wave propagates in empty space. This is the new conclusion of this theory. If the oscillating charge stops moving, its field becomes electrostatic. But the series of waves created by the oscillation of the charge continues to spread". Of course, the movement of charge is transferred to another substance. When the body loses its charge, the studied energy disappears, and "emptiness appears on the scene".

The theory was created despite the fact that in Maxwell's constructions "there are no material participants in the action". The ether problem remained unresolved, and Albert Einstein suggested that "space has the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic waves", and you can "not care too much about the meaning of this statement". True, he perfectly understood that "space without ether is unthinkable" (A. Einstein: "Ether and Theory of Relativity", 1920). Indeed, in a complex phenomenon, the cause is not always visible. At one time, Isaac Newton was satisfied that his laws explain the features of "the motion of cosmic bodies and the oscillations of the sea". This served as an example for other scientists who also decided to "work" only with the investigation. A substance with an incomprehensible origin appeared on the basis of an almost complete denial of determinism. The absence of a "reason" allows us to

state that "the field here and now depends on the field in the immediate vicinity at the moment that has just passed".

One can imagine the material world with emptiness in its composition without any problems. Emptiness does not change the properties of matter. It is more difficult to replace real matter with emptiness. It is more difficult to find a substance suitable for eternal storage of the received impulse, capable of repealing the law of conservation of energy. For example, Walter Ritz considered dynamics to be the basis and put radiation "at the forefront". He believed that "any charged point emits fictitious particles in all directions at all times. These particles are infinitesimal and are launched at birth with the same radial velocity [of light]. They maintain their uniform motion, no matter what bodies they encounter". (Quotes from Walter Ritz's "ballistic theory" are based on the English version of Robert Fritzius. Translation of this work was done in 2005 by Sergey Semikov). It follows from what has been said (if a particle is generated by a particle) that an uncharged particle object does not emit. Real particles are emitted by all bodies, but they can not always be detected in experiment, and even more so to say that we are dealing with an electric charge.

In empty space, an object does not interact with anything, including with a measuring device. And if experience (by then) "did not reveal at least some trace of the medium that could exist in empty space free of matter", this still does not prove anything. Perhaps the device corresponding to the measurement object has not yet been created. Fictitious particles are proof of the existence of empty space. Theory allows such liberties. The presence of emptiness in the world of the eternal exchange of motion energy (gravitational) between any bodies is an attempt to create an unreal system, a denial of the transfer of motion energy, a complete rejection of the use of fundamental force interaction. "From all points of view on nature, only one that assumes the existence of a single matter and one power, and perfect uniformity in everything, is the most scientific and most likely true" (from a lecture by N. Tesla for employees of Columbia University; 1891) [8].

Perhaps the appearance of "emptiness" in the arsenal of researchers will be explained more simply if the definition of "force" is slightly clarified from the position of gravitational interaction. The simplest definition - force is "a measure of the impact on a given body from other bodies or fields". It is always a transfer of energy, but a direct measurement of force or energy is not possible. This was also noted by Walter Ritz. "Whether we measure forces by masses and accelerations, or by electric deformations, do we compare these effects with gravity effects, etc., but what we observe and measure in reality is displacement, or lack of it... Therefore, many experts, from the standpoint of pure logic and on a solid basis, excluded the concept of force from fundamental equations as useless". And really, does the force responsible for the acceleration of moving bodies change in natural processes?

We know that for a freely falling body the force of gravitational interaction is constant. Only the distance traveled (and time) and speed are changed. In our constructions, the mass of interacting objects is considered as the reciprocal of the speed of their movement. In this case, force is the ratio of acceleration to speed (F = a / u; [3; 4; 6]). Fixing the minimum speed of movement means that this body interacts with surrounding matter with maximum force. From the dimension obtained in the formula [1 / s], it follows that mathematically the force decreases from a maximum to zero over time. The dimension of force (1 / s) is corrected on the basis that the gravitational interaction is the exchange of unit momenta-gravitons [3; 6]. Adding such a unit, we obtain F = 1 (a / u). Strength is the product of momentum and the ratio of acceleration to speed: F = P (a / u). (If you are a fan of quantum mechanics, you may recall that "the velocity operator is the ratio of the momentum operator to mass"). After taking into account the momentum with dimensions, everything is in order, and you can give a "more dynamic" and physically more understandable definition of force. "Strength is the ratio of the momentum received by the object (momentum) to the time of the gravitational interaction of the object with the surrounding matter": F = P / t. (In quantum mechanics, the force operator also represents the ratio of the change in momentum to the change in time). But the impulse received by the object is consumed and represents the ratio of the interaction force to the process time: P = F / t. The change in momentum is inversely proportional to the square of time (dP / dt = -F(1 / t2). Representing time as the ratio of distance (S) to speed, we obtain the formula P = F • u / S. Given that the work of gravitational forces is constant (with the gravitational constant being unchanged), we can apply the constructions to the analysis of the momentum expenditure of our planet. The greater the distance traveled in orbit, the smaller the remaining momentum received by the planet during the ejection. (The orbital velocity of its motion can also decrease [3]).

Conclusions. In the real world, objects with an infinite lifetime do not exist. Any movement-interaction of course. Time cannot be interpreted as an absolute category. At a unit time, the force is equal to

the momentum (the initial amount of energy). The longer the time elapsed from the beginning of the interaction, the greater the energy of motion transmitted by the moving body of the surrounding matter. From the formulas it also follows that "time as the ratio of the initial impulse received by the object to the force of gravitational interaction is a characteristic of a specific process". Comparing the life time of the "twin brothers" on the planet and on a moving spaceship, remember the different strength of interaction associated with the speed of movement.

2. Gravitational radiation of all bodies and the problem of the "absolute" in physics

So, are any objects (including elementary particles) constantly emitting and absorbing energy (impulses)? It is almost impossible to prove the presence or absence of empty space with material geometric properties. The proposed hypothesis about the nature of gravity as an exchange of momenta in the world of perpetual motion also does not give a definite answer. After all, a moving object transfers its momentum to another body (if the number of such objects is finite), and this is enough. The mutual attraction of the suspended balls can be explained by the quenching of the flows of oncoming pulses and the formation of curved space. True, the advantage of our hypothesis is that force interaction is suitable for explaining all natural phenomena, and the "space-time" used to explain gravity is very similar to the influence of the "omnipresent Creator". Therefore, we will argue further.

Perhaps, observing the orientation of iron particles on paper over a permanent magnet, you asked yourself a question about the essence of the phenomenon. But the rotation of the autumn leaves of dry leaves was no mystery. How do hypothetical lines of force interact with grains of ferromagnetic material? Experience does not give an answer. The demonstration of a spherical drop of water in zero gravity is also a good and illustrative example. Here, the influence of other forces is practically reduced to zero, and one can think about the nature of the interaction in general and the gravitational interaction in particular. The mathematician will present a drop of water in the form of a set of elementary layers of the same power. Each inner layer in the water sphere is less in mass than the outer one. Will the test mass inside the sphere move to the outer layer, because at point 7 the force of attraction is greater than at point 6 (Fig. 1). But moving the test mass into the depths of a spherical and uniform body of density, the mathematician will find that from the surface to the center the attraction of each element of the external mass will always be compensated by the attraction of the same mass deeper than the measurement point. In the center of the ball, the same multidirectional forces will act on the test mass. In fact, this is a kind of mathematical paradox. Inside homogeneous matter, the attractive forces are zero. Indeed, as soon as multidirectional forces act on the test mass, its density will change, and the ball will cease to be homogeneous. This will be especially clear if you place a test mass with a non-zero radius in the center of the ball.

We assume that the test mass does not change the properties of the ball. From Figure 1 we see that, with the exception of its central part, in any inner region of the sphere, there is theoretically a differential attractive force, which tends to concentrate the substance of a given object. Such a force varies from zero at the center of a ball uniform in density to a maximum within its surface. This means that the intensity of the

concentration of the substance also decreases from the maximum on the surface to zero in the center of the object. And if pressure is considered a consequence of concentration, then in the center of our planet it can be close to zero. (In the modern model of the planet, the state of matter is characterized by a comprehensive compression modulus).

\

\

Uncompensated gravity

Masses at the measurement point

Compensated forces (repulsive forces)

Fig. 1. The distribution pattern of the forces of gravitational interaction inside a homogeneous spherical object: A - location of masses at measuring points; B - power distribution

Force of gravity

This means that the total gravitational pull, decreasing toward the center, should be the cause of the concentration of matter in this direction. With a drop of water, everything is a little easier. Classical physics will tell us that a drop does not decay, since there is (theoretically) a specific surface tension force acting only in a liquid. The planet is not liquid at all, but it functions as a single spherical body. How do we get out of this difficulty? Probably, even a very thorough analysis of the curvature of the space inside the ball will not help us.

In physics, universality should be preferred to specificity; therefore, it can be assumed that both internal and external gravitational forces participate in the formation of bodies. Attraction always exists, and it depends on a change in the density of a substance (in more general constructions, on a change in mass affecting a test body). And the fact that the force of attraction decreasing toward the center of the ball may not be the main reason for the concentration of matter in its central part convinces us that real objects are arranged somewhat differently. Indeed, the distribution of forces is explained without problems when the test mass is outside the attractive body. But inside a spherical object is another pole of gravity. The forces of

attraction turn into repulsive forces. (The presence of multidirectional forces during gravitational interaction was shown by the author back in 2002 [1; 2]). Everything is very logical. The repulsive forces vary from a maximum in the center of the sphere to zero on its surface. And if the force of action is always equal to the force of reaction, then only the flux of radiation pulses directed inside the sphere can provide repulsive force. Thanks to him, the test mass moves in the direction of increasing gravity. To change direction, turn the test mass inside out - turn it into antimatter. Theoretically - this is the simplest action! But matter cannot turn into antimatter for no reason. Therefore, the drop retains its shape due to the action of pulses generated in all directions by water atoms or their components. With the chaotic motion of matter, the effect of many pulses is mutually compensated. But objects are attracted to each other not in all directions, but only where directed flows of radiation particles (pulses) interact. Indeed, the radiation intensity (Pgr1) decreases on one side of the body (due to the interaction of counterpropagating radiation fluxes), and increases on the other (momentum P5 is greater than momentum P1; Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. The exchange of pulses of gravitational radiation as a cause of mutual attraction of objects

Orthogonally directed pulses (angle 9 = 90°) practically do not change in magnitude. If the pulses of radiation from surrounding matter (Pgr2) do not destroy the body, then striving to maintain its shape, it not only moves to a larger object, but also deforms. Geophysicists even estimate the amount of energy that our planet receives due to lunar attraction. The author has been considering the physically simplest gravity mechanism based on the interaction of particle-pulse flows for almost 20 years. During this time, it was possible to explain many physical and geophysical phenomena, the dynamics of which were not entirely clear. But here we turn to the problem of nature and the source of invisible radiation, which may be responsible for the existence of objects, and also represent the fundamental component of the material world. For example, it is claimed that neutrinos are recorded that penetrate the Earth without any problems. If this is true, it is only because they carry the energy of motion. Apparently, consideration of this property of all bodies will significantly reduce the degree of mystery of gravitational radiation.

To prove the presence of any radiation in real bodies is not very difficult. It is more difficult to imagine it in the form of gravitational. For example, heating a ball of ferromagnetic material (in surrounding matter with the same temperature) to a temperature of the "Curie point", we make sure that its weight does not disappear. Without throwing out "thermal quanta" and without generating pulses of vortex radiation, the ball does not lose its gravitational properties. After all, the heated domains of matter did not cease to radiate energy. Only the nature of the movement of particles of matter has changed. The contribution to the radial flux of the radiation from the object increased, and the intensity of the vortex flux of particle-momenta became smaller.

What is the logic of our reasoning? Due to the existence of force interaction, we can purposefully change the dynamics of the body, transfer to it (or select) the energy of motion, change the nature of the movement of its components. After heating, the magnetic ball stopped attracting grains of iron, as groups of atoms (domains) changed their properties, and the object became different. But the persistent gravitational property of the ball is not the reason for the search for gravitational radiation at a different level of matter structure. After all, we cannot find the boundary between gravity and magnetism precisely

because nature always offers us to analyze the true "reason" - the eternal interaction with the exchange of energy. Why is the interaction different? Imagine the opportunity to change the properties of individual protons in an atom. How will the properties of an atom change if protons are heated? This is a difficult question. We can only assume that the fundamental property of any matter — the ability to radiate motion energy in such a way as to ensure the functioning of an object as a separate system under given conditions — will be changed. The heating of protons is not only an increase in their motion up to the removal of existing gravitational forces from the region (this is the scattering of hydrogen atoms that originally entered the water molecule). This is a change in their radiation. By changing the parameters of the constituent parts of a substance, we form a new dynamic system.

What did we get? In our theoretical experiments, gravity and magnetism are one and the same process. It makes no sense to explain the characteristics of each interaction with its specific strength. After all, the whole point is in the nature of the motion of particles-pulses of radiation, although its nature is unknown. We can say that at our level of the structure of the world it is the radiation of the main components of the atom -protons and neutrons! And this is quite logical if you do not find out the nature of the components of the radiation flux of a proton or neutron. Nucleons as generators of gravitational radiation fluxes are poorly studied. The scale of proton radiation (as well as the earth) is unknown to us. There is no clear idea of the penetrating ability of the ejected particles-impulses and their interaction among themselves, surrounded by many such particles. An indirect proof of the presence of proton radiation can be the fact that these particles have no problems with gravitational interaction. They are the main builders of the atomic nucleus, and are present in a multitude in cosmic matter.

The neutron is a special particle ! Neutron radiation is indeed polar with respect to proton radiation. Neutrons cannot generate motion energy in a standard way. When atoms were formed, they accumulated with an excess of motion energy (1.293 MeV) in the inner part of the nuclei. When it gets into conditions when there are no bonds with other nucleons, the neutron after 888 seconds emits "excess" energy and turns into a proton. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the formation of neutrons occurred under conditions of hindered radiation of motion energy. Similarly, our

planet was transformed from a toroid into a ball with the formation of internal (core) and external (mantle and lithosphere) masses. This allows us to explain the obligatory conversion of a neutron into a proton. Indeed, if the radiation directed to the external region concentrates the object, then the proton exists without problems. Radiation directed inward, decompresses the body, facilitates the penetration of the energy of motion into the external (surrounding object) environment. But the main thing is that this radiation leads to a decrease in the total energy of the object in the presence of favorable conditions. This means that a free neutron emits concentrated (during formation) energy in the form of an electron and antineutrino ?, turning from an antiproton into a proton. Everything is extremely simple. By learning to change the properties of many protons, you will get a mysterious antigravity, but destroy the planet!

And yet, despite the logic of reasoning, the eternal problem remains. We did not find a limit in a number of objects of different ranks, but found an "absolute generator" of radiation necessary for mutual attraction. Is gravitational radiation capable of generating only protons and neutrons? With a proton size of 0.83 F, the radiation of planets, stars and galaxies is nothing more than the chaotic motion of momenta. Is it possible in this case to speak of directed radiation fluxes? Can proton radiation from many protons transform at a distance from the nucleus? There is no explicit ban on this. Indeed, the mutual cancellation of pulses of identical balls moving towards each other, or the transfer of momentum from a more energetic body to a less energetic one, is not determined by their size and amount of substance.

Recall the history of physics as a science. Not having discovered the gravitational interaction between elementary particles, physicists came up with other forces. There was no necessary theory of gravity, and the forces received a mathematical justification, although this contradicts the "Occam's rule". There was hope for a speedy discovery of the primary structureless particle and the construction of a complete picture of the world. Indeed, one can proceed from the absolute existence of many such particles moving at the speed of light and design mechanisms for combining them into larger objects. If the stock of particles is finite -consider it a reality to form them from virtual empty space. And for some reason everyone is sure that it is impossible to see the dynamics in the form of a single interaction in the world of ordinary objects. To do this, you need to look "into the underworld of the microworld". But if matter is one, infinite in space and infinite in time, then a single interaction is an everyday phenomenon. That is why we are trying to justify the existence of a single universal mechanism for combining particles, regardless of the complexity of their internal structure. And the presence of radiation in each object (as a polar structure) is the basis of our constructions. After all, you can search for a hypothetical monopoly, or you can show the polarity of gravitational forces without great difficulties.

Can we talk about the emission of a single proton, considering the gravitational interaction of our planet

and the Sun? Yes, but this is only the microscopic part of the flow, although even the emission of an individual proton is a complex process (recall the heated domains of a ferromagnetic ball). Any stream is the result of the interaction of a huge number of pulses emitted by particles of different ranks depending on their role in the structure of the object. The flow of pulses of gravitational radiation from our Galaxy also consists of many elements. In this stream we can consider (at a given point) both the momentum of an individual proton and the stream of momenta of a planet or star, but the essence of the process does not change from this. The test body can be a spaceship or a single atom. If comparing a spacecraft to a local test body is incorrect, let us turn to other examples. Indeed, if a photon represents a portion of energy (quantum), then it interacts with other matter accordingly. In fact, the human body does not perceive thermal solar quanta directly. To transfer energy, a photon must interact with an object equal in amount of matter, interact in the region where the radiation flux densities are comparable. A photon interacts with the radiation of the constituent parts of your body - with the radiation of atoms. Ultraviolet energy quanta do not have absolute penetrating power. They are almost completely absorbed when interacting with radiation pulses of atoms of ordinary glass, but do not interact with the same substance of transparent quartz. Obviously, given the distances between the objects, their rank and structure, the apparent paradox of "the presence of an absolute generator of gravitational radiation" can be correctly explained. This means that the flow of pulses from any object exists, and it is he who determines all the properties of matter. By increasing the number of neutrons in the nucleus (this was successfully done by nature during the formation of atoms), we get an isotope - the same substance, but whose atoms have become less stable in surrounding matter. A change in the number of protons leads to the appearance of another substance. It is the gravitational radiation of protons that determines whether or not to be the right element!

The moon deforms our planet due to gravitational radiation, slightly increases its radius in the field of interaction and, it would seem, what more proof is needed! But look at how the results of studies of the dynamics of particles in the microworld are explained. "The properties of nucleons bound in the nucleus may differ from the properties of free nucleons. As experiments on deep inelastic scattering of leptons by nuclei show, the structural functions of nucleons in the nucleus, which characterize the momentum distribution of quarks in a nucleon, differ from the structural functions of free nucleons (EMC effect; European Muon Collaboration). One of the possible explanations for the EMC effect is based on the hypothesis of an increase in the radius of the nucleon in the nucleus compared to the free nucleon" [11].

Gravitational radiation of protons and neutrons is invisible to the observer, but if it exists, then this should be reflected in the dynamics of the "nucleon community". After all, it has been reliably established that when the distance between the nucleons changes,

the attraction can be replaced by repulsion. Without the ability to disperse and collide real particles, we will use the logic of reasoning. The proton can be represented as a symmetrical very stable object, the energy of the external radiation of which is greater than the internal (Fig. 3). For a neutron, on the contrary, the energy of internal radiation is shown to be greater than external. In fact, we do not know the true ratio of energy fluxes (after all, even in a free state, a neutron is able to maintain its properties for 888 seconds). But for our example, this is not very important. Recall that the vectors in the figure depict radiation pulses concentrating a material substance. Attraction is the result of damping the oncoming flows of momenta (quanta of motion). Repulsion occurs when pulses are added. At different distances between particles, either attraction or repulsion will prevail. A simple

explanation of the dynamics in the nucleus of an atom has become possible because the interaction of polar systems has been examined! The process is based on the exchange of radiation pulses, not mysterious nuclear forces. As a result, analyzing the results of known experiments and guided by logic, we can formulate the following conclusion. "The gravitational radiation of an object, which determines its interaction with other bodies, represents a stream of pulses (quanta of motion energy) generated by nucleons in different directions. In sum, such a flux is a superposition of momenta of the set of nucleons of a given object. The predominant nature of the movement of energy quanta in the flow (radial or vortex) depends on the composition of the substance, age and features of the formation of this object".

Our findings are the basis for declaring the presence of an internal structure not only for nucleons, but also for electrons. However, this is not an indication that the electron is a corpuscle. The wave motion of matter with a nonzero density is not only its longitudinal and transverse vibrations, but the formation of structures in the form of vortex clumps. After all, the electron-vortex also has the right to life, like the electron-ball (if you do not have a photo portrait of a real electron). At the beginning of the 19th century, neutrinos were invented to explain the differences in the energy of electrons emitted during beta decay (after all, they must be the same). This initially massless particle gradually "gained weight" and even began to contradict the Standard Model. Due to the alleged enormous penetrating power, the electric charge of the neutrino was equated to zero. Indeed, it is impossible to measure the particle velocity. If in studying the nature of such large objects as alpha particles (to determine the sign of the charge), a magnetic field with a strength of approximately 636620 A / m was used [9] (for comparison, a terrestrial magnetic field with a strength of approximately 48 A / m), then how to study the properties neutrino?

3. The problem of "charge" for electric current. Corpuscles and waves

At the beginning of the third millennium, we already know that electric current is not the movement of electrons moving in a conductor at a fraction of a millimeter per second. We also will not argue that current is the movement of charges, since it is most logical to consider a charge to be a property of matter. But in any experiment with electricity, there is always a transfer (from a generator to a receiver) of motion energy, and its carrier is matter. Solving this problem, the mathematician uses the "plus", "minus" and a number of abstract assumptions. A physicist who wants to understand the nature of the process is not enough. Often, scientists identify an electric charge with a particle. "A point charge is an electrified body whose dimensions are extremely small compared to the distance to another charged body" [10]. Considering the interaction, the same author claims that the carrier carrying out the interaction of charges are "electric fields of electrified bodies". "Therefore, the charges are the interacting electric fields of the bodies and their particles". The electromagnetic field is also not a simple substance. "This is moving non-material (structureless) matter, called material vacuum, field matter or ether. The movement of material (structural) matter (substance) sets in motion the field matter (vacuum matter). And vice versa, the movement of matter, called vacuum, or field, causes the movement of electric particles, atoms, molecules of substances, small and large bodies" [10]. The above reasoning is quite logical and does not contradict the available information. True, in the analysis there is something characterized both as a point electric field and as a charge and as a particle. Something needs to be sorted out.

The mutual attraction of any bodies is described by the law of universal gravitation. With respect to a moving body, one can always indicate the force acting

on it (the cause). If we consider this law to be universal, then the electric current can also be associated only with the energy of motion, with the directed movement of matter that received the momentum. Is there potential energy? Sails are able to set the ship in motion only in the presence of wind. Windless weather is an analogue of structureless chaotically moving matter. Potential energy cannot be detected without interaction. Energy can be detected when it produces work. But it will be kinetic energy - the energy of motion. Energy transfer of electromagnetic waves in cosmic matter occurs without problems in the absence of interference (external influence on the signal is minimal). Problems arise when a signal enters the area where specific structures have formed, where there is a directed motion of matter. And then the object-signal will either receive an additional impulse, or give up the available energy of motion.

So, the charge can be associated with a change in energy, with the directional movement of matter! Such a movement is widespread everywhere, and we, for example, speak of a "snow charge" in winter. It is more difficult to deal with subtle matter in the form of elementary particles, with their radiation, since the study of the real structure of the world does not always give a true result. For example, an electron-particle can poorly correspond to the concept of "charge". In fact, having informed the particles of matter the energy of motion, we charge the body (it has accumulated the energy of motion). You can imagine a flat river with its slow flow. The change in energy (charge) in the system is ensured by the conditions for the directed movement of matter (water), to complete the work. Indeed, only in the presence of directional motion can the process be viewed from the perspective of the action of force.

Therefore, we can refine the hypothesis about the nature of the charge [6]. A charge is a force characteristic of any material system that does not exist without the energy of motion, without the exchange of momenta (see formula 1). Change the state of the system of objects, and you will get a charge that will manifest itself when the system returns to its original state. The charge of any object is a measure of the stored energy of motion. This is the ability of an object to do work through the directed movement of an object as a whole body or the movement of its component parts, including matter and radiation. Water in the river moves slowly, overcoming the attraction of terrestrial matter. EMF energy is spreading at tremendous speed, and this seems surprising. However, why is the speed of a sound wave in a gas of hydrogen molecules 3.87 times greater than the speed of sound in air? Perhaps the whole thing is the mass of the body, the parameters of the impulse acting on it and the position of the receiver? In fact, is the shadow of an object material? After all, it exists! But the shadow is the lack of light. When the sun rises, you do not need to wait 8 minutes for the quanta of light to reach your body. A planet in a world without emptiness is immersed in an ocean of energy of motion.

Physicists often use a planetary model of atomic structure. Does our solar system have a charge? All of its objects emit a huge amount of particles. In the

"ballistic theory" it is this property that corresponds to the concept of "charge". We poorly imagine the dynamics of the solar system as a separate body, but we can assume that at the stage of formation it was a very active object, because then all the planets were created (thrown out). From the perspective of the proposed theory of gravity, it was a charged object. The argon atom is not capable of spontaneously decaying. The uranium atom emits gamma rays, electrons and helium nuclei. If the "God-given" charge is an absolute property of the body, then the principle of such selective endowment of bodies with a charge is not clear. It is more logical to say that charge is a property of the body that characterizes its transformation, its dynamics, and most importantly - the history of formation. "The primary substance, plunged into infinitesimal vortices of great speed, becomes dense matter, with the weakening of force, motion ceases, and matter disappears, returning to the previous state of the primary substance" (N. Tesla; The Greatest Achievements of Mankind, 1930; [8]). And of course, linking the concept of "charge" with perpetual motion, with the expenditure of energy, this property can be represented in the absolute and relative aspect. Absolutely - this is when each of the randomly moving particles does the work (for example, transfers thermal energy). Only mathematically, when moving along a closed path, is work equal to zero. In a relative aspect, we have the right to separate objects into "charged" and "uncharged".

An electron as a particle can also acquire a charge at "birth", because the electrification of the body is the transfer of motion energy to its particles. In what form is this happening? How does the structure of an electrified object change compared to its initial state? During the "generation of pairs", a photon interacting with the electromagnetic field of the nucleus forms both an electron and a positron. A very intense pulse gives rise to particles with polar charges: a generator particle and a receiver particle. And if we assume that in such a process matter has not disappeared, only the energy of motion can be radiated and absorbed. When combined, the particles give up the received energy (lose charge). Perhaps (using the concepts of thermodynamics) electrification is associated with an increase in entropy. When transferring the energy of motion, a set of local impulses is formed in the object, as well as many vortices of energy capable of active movement (see the statement by N. Tesla). The combination of such vortices and the transfer of energy to the receiving body is a discharge of electricity. Remember the water vapor that gives off the energy of movement during condensation or the toroidal ball lightning [5]. The neutron ejected by the nucleus of an atom also does the work thanks to the energy concentrated during the formation. Consuming the energy of motion, he changes the charge, changes his structure as a whole. So, the charge is really not an absolute property of the object, because the charge is born and disappears.

Thus, to create a unified theory in the future, we can assume that the charge is an indicator of the intensity of the exchange of momenta with the movement-interaction of matter and radiation of any

object. A dust particle (test body) will be attracted to an uncharged drop of water in zero gravity. The force of gravitational interaction between a test body and an electric charge (a property of the body) cannot be calculated. After all, the properties of objects do not participate in gravitational interaction. A speck of dust is like a droplet of oil in the experiment of R. Millikan, and if you call the property of a drop of water a positive charge, and specks of dust are negative, nature will not suffer from this. Historically, we characterize the interaction of two pieces of magnetite as magnetic, and the lead ball with a test unit mass as gravitational. In fact, the interaction is the same, but the nature of the motion of matter in the field of interaction is different [3]. Therefore, it can be argued that each born object has a common impulse, consisting of the momentum of the object as a whole body, its own motion in the form of interaction of matter and radiation, as well as radiation of each of its constituent parts. The last statement is not yet an axiom, so there is something to think about. Researchers have long been "assigned" particles responsible for various interactions. The theory is considered quite convincing, although other options for explaining the physics of processes are possible.

Example 1. The reason for the chemical activity of atoms of different elements lies in the properties of their electron shell, which is complexly constructed. In the presence of free vacancies in the shell and the same charge of electrons, atoms exchange particles differently. Atoms of inert elements (argon, neon) have a maximally filled external electron shell. An electrically neutral sodium atom differs from an electrically neutral argon atom in the number and arrangement of particles in its composition (chemical properties). Over 18 protons of the argon nucleus, 8 electrons of the third energy level function. In sodium, in the outer shell "carries service" only one electron. Can an electron shell serve as a screen quenching the proton radiation of a nucleus? To connect atoms, either nuclei (for example, hydrogen) or nuclei interact with electrons in molecules. Indeed, if the proton radiation of argon is shielded, then this is possibly the reason for the absence of its compounds (atoms between themselves or with atoms of other elements) under normal conditions. Of course, an experiment is needed! This is complicated, therefore information on the sequence of interaction of electrons will be useful (from the "Textbook of Chemistry"; § 4.7). "A calm line enters an empty bus. Each passenger initially takes one seat in a double seat, and when such seats run out, passengers begin to take seats in available seats to those already seated. For some reason, in the dining room, you choose a table at which no one is sitting, but when there are no such tables, you sit down second. Are the laws of quantum mechanics affecting the behavior of people? The Pauli principle and the Hund rule testify to an unknown and incomprehensible to us informational interaction between electrons. Each electron seems to know about the state of another electron in the atom (and, probably, in the molecule)". In fact, the movement of an object always takes place in an area without screens (bus passengers), where there is more

gravity, more intensity of gravitational radiation.

Example 2. There are various explanations of the physical nature of the interaction of diamagnetic and paramagnetic substances with an external magnetic field. Paramagnets interact well, their atoms are oriented in the direction of the field. Diamagnets strive to prevent the penetration of the field inside. True, pushing an inhomogeneous field, they themselves are pushed out of it. If in the experiment the researcher changes only the substance, then the reason for the differences is in the structure of its atoms. Classically, the effect of diamagnetism is explained simply. The fact is that an external magnetic field orientates the elementary circular currents of individual particles existing in the substance. (The presence of such currents is associated with the orbital rotation of the electron). The induction current of ordered particles forms a secondary magnetic field in the substance, which tends to neutralize the change in magnetic flux that caused it.

The magnitude of the interacting fields depends on the structure of the atoms of matter with magnetic moments. The magnetic moment of an atom is the sum of the magnetic moments of protons, neutrons, and electrons. This is not easy to imagine. (Perhaps that is why there are much fewer people wishing to study physics than, for example, economics). Indeed, the synthesis of a physically not very clear magnetic moment with the dynamics of a mysterious electron does not add clarity. Very persistent students will be advised to turn to quantum mechanics with its orbital and spin moments, and intra-atomic dynamics will not become easier.

Obviously, complex folding magnetic moments ultimately lead to the appearance of paramagnetic and diamagnetic properties of the substance. In our case, using the principle of force interaction and a simple mechanism for exchanging impulses of different sizes, we try to find a physically simple example. Let us turn to the experiment with suspended balls. Let a large ball (dynamically passive object), when it is almost in equilibrium, receive momentum from a small ball (dynamically active) catching up with it. A large ball with a very small additional impulse will reach the lower point of the trajectory, and a small one will

receive a backward impulse. Swap the balls. At the lower point of the trajectory, a large and heavy ball will give a significant impulse to a small one, but its direction of movement will not change. What is demonstrated in the experience? In the first case, before the interaction, there were two objects with unidirectional movement. After the interaction - left alone. In the second case, after the interaction, there were twice as many objects with unidirectional movement. This means that the total directional flow of pulses has changed. The structure of material substance has changed. We got an analog of the diamagnetic effect - the movement to the other side of a small ball.

The strong impact of a large ball on a small one characterizes the union of vortex structures - the paramagnetic effect. With this interaction, the energy is distributed over a larger volume of particles joined together. The movement becomes less complicated, the entropy of the system decreases. When combining vortex systems, there are fewer sections of the field with its maximum change. Everything is logical. However, questions remain. What is combined in a paramagnet substance - atoms, particles-electrons of complex structure, waves-electrons? You need to find out. After all, an "electron-charge" is an object with unknown properties, and the structure of the outer shells of many-electron atoms is a matter of discussion. What happens when an external magnetic field interacts with proton emission, because in a neutral atom there is one electron-charge for each proton? Firstly, it follows from experience with spheres that the diamagnetic and paramagnetic properties of matter exist simultaneously and independently from each other, like the gravitational and magnetic fields of the planet (this is clearly seen from Figure 4). After all, a small ball still transmitted some momentum to a large ball. In addition, in the same magnetic field, different substances are magnetized differently. The same substance also reacts differently to magnetic fields of different intensities. (Recall the creation of a magnetic field with a voltage of 636620 A / m to detect alpha particle deviation). Most likely, the field of pulses of radiation of the atom as a whole is involved in the interaction.

Indeed, it is well known that the elements of the first half of the periods (in the table) are most often paramagnets, the second diamagnets. But it is precisely the elements of the first half of the periods that the electronic shells are "unfinished". The radiation fields of these atoms are vortex, they are less symmetrical in comparison with the fields of other atoms. Perhaps it is precisely the vortex structures that are sometimes considered in the form of "intra-atomic electronic dipoles" [10]. The directed radiation of an external magnetic field easily unfolds them, forming extended chains connected by a general vortex motion of an electromagnetic field. Indeed, vortex structures are dynamically the most active objects capable of intense interaction. But the easiest way is to expand the atoms of the outer layer of the conductor; inside the conductor, the atoms are more closely connected to each other (they are more like atoms of a diamagnet). And if paramagnets are conductors, then there is no electric field inside the conductor. If the receivers are connected in series (for example, in one long chain), the current in such a chain is the same throughout. The energy of movement gets the opportunity to "flow" along such chains with a very high speed. This is a well-known electric current.

It is very difficult to magnetize (rebuild) a substance of a diamagnet (magnetic susceptibility is close to zero). After all, the best diamagnetics are more inert elements, the atoms of which almost do not interact with other atoms. These are dynamically passive objects like the heavy balls (screens for the momentum flow) from the classical experience. This means that the flux of radial radiation of a diamagnet (an object with almost no vortex radiation) interacts with a directed flow of pulses between the poles of the magnet. Probably, in this case, the diamagnetic body simply moves to the region of damping of the oncoming pulses, to the region of a weaker field of motion energy. This occurs at any position of the spherical diamagnetic body. The total magnetic field does not remain unchanged. A diamagnet as a magnetically inert

substance acts as a screen - and the field decreases. In fact, this is recorded in the form of creating a field of self-induction with the opposite direction with respect to the external field.

So, the most important factor is the nature of the movement of radiation pulses in the stream. In the case of gravitational interaction, the force changes in proportion to the square of the distance; in the magnetic case, to the cube of distance. This means that already at a small distance the test body will perceive pulses not of vortex, but of radial radiation in the stream. The dynamics of any real objects is such that at each point there is an addition of pulses of vortex and radial radiation. Figure 4 shows that the dimensions of the region with almost zero interaction (with orthogonal orientation of the pulses) will vary depending on the structure of the vortex field (the changed trajectory of the pulses is shown by a dashed line). A good example would be our planet. Its rotation in the field of gravitational radiation of the Sun characterizes the law of universal gravitation. However, the vortex radiation of the Earth, which changes during evolution, (the general magnetic field) interacts with the field of the Sun. In addition, the axis of the Earth's magnetic dipole does not coincide with the axis of rotation of the planet. The axis of rotation has a slope relative to the plane of the ecliptic. Without taking these features into account, all discussions about terrestrial evolution are not worthy of attention.

4. On the nature of the electron-charge

Despite the fact that the movement of any substance represents energy transfer, the role of the electron-wave or electron-particle in the structure of matter is not entirely clear. Let's try to start the analysis of the situation by considering photons. If the photon is a wave, then even the student knows the answer. Set the "photon sea" in motion and you will get a wave of "photon liquid". However, having taken away the rest mass from the photon, the researchers turned it only into a wave. Complexity arises with the properties of the "building material" for the photon sea. After all,

even knowing the density of water, we can not accurately determine the mass of the sea wave. In fact, the scale of the transfer of energy of motion by both the particle and the wave depends on the magnitude of the momenta. The tsunami wave breaks the light construction into chips, and the huge reinforced concrete building does not suffer. Obviously, the same can be said for the wave of photon matter? In one case, ultraviolet rays change the properties of cells of biological organisms, in the other they are not able to overcome a thin sheet of paper. If in your experiment "an electromagnetic wave is visible", then at that time it cannot be a corpuscle. And getting a photon-corpuscle is difficult. For this, it is necessary to crush the photonic liquid and give its fragment an impulse for independent long-term movement.

An electron is considered to be a stable particle, probably because "the decay of a free electron into neutrinos and photons is hindered by the law of conservation of electric charge, and decay by other elementary particles is hindered by the law of conservation of energy" (classical postulates of physics). You can believe in it, but do not forget that in nature there is perpetual motion with the exchange of impulses, but there are no laws. Nevertheless, it is necessary to find the source of electrons in beta decay of the nucleus. Electromagnetic radiation is considered the result of frequent changes in the electron of its atomic orbit. But the theory claims that the electron does not have a trajectory of its motion. In any case, the experiments have not proved the opposite. Therefore, one must choose: either there is a particle with its own trajectory of motion (albeit very complex), or there is a quantum of energy inextricably linked with a real particle (nucleon). An electron as a vortex radiation of a nucleon looks physically more logical. Firstly, such a whirlwind does not need an orbit. Secondly, the problem of finding an electron (as well as a photon) in the nucleus of an atom disappears. Thirdly, the conclusion is logical that in the polar world of real objects, the neutron and proton are one and the same particle, but with different energies. If these arguments are enough, then the situation looks like this. The force of action is always equal to the force of reaction, therefore, any act of radiation of an energy quantum is a momentum with a return that changes the geometry of the nucleus and the state of nucleons with their vortex radiation (electrons). Electrons are eternal like gravity is eternal - the exchange of momenta, but the lifetime of an individual electron is a function of a particular process. "There is no other energy in matter besides its energy from the environment" (From a statement by Nikola Tesla to the press on the occasion of the 81st anniversary of birth; [8]).

Many experiments have established that the energy difference between the neutron and proton is 1.293 MeV (939.569-938.276). The proton energy with its vortex radiation (electron) is 938.787 MeV (938.276 + 0.511). To turn into a proton, a neutron emits an energy of 0.782 MeV (939.569-0.782 = 938.787). It is this energy that emitted electrons possess when its loss on reactive recoil is almost absent. (This is the

maximum boundary energy of the spectrum of the emitted electrons). Indeed, the energy of a vortex-electron can be different due to the fact that at the moment of ejection both the atom and the proton are not absolutely motionless. A continuous spectrum of the energy of radiation quanta is formed due to the addition of pulses of different directions. Therefore, it is always necessary to take into account the fact of the formation and subsequent evolution of any objects. In one case, pulses with an unknown structure are emitted, in the other - vortex energy clusters. In different fields of motion energy, they change in different ways: they break up or unite. For example, if vortex structures are born during the interaction, then both the electron and the positron are bipolar vortex pulses, since the fact is their almost instantaneous combination - annihilation. But energy is not destroyed. Another question is why the coexistence of these antipodes is forbidden in nature?

The answer was partially given when considering the dynamics of the neutron. The answer is simple, but consists of two parts. One part of the explanation is the existing dependence of the speed of movement of particles on their mass [3; 6]. This simple conclusion was obvious for a long time. "Kaufman's excellent experiments on the electrical and magnetic deflection of p-rays emitted by radiation led to the conviction that the mass of particles or electrons depends on their speed..." (from Walter Ritz's "ballistic theory"). Elementary particles exist as separate objects as long as they have a speed of movement that prevents their maximum gravitational interaction with the surrounding matter. This means that if the electron and positron formed in the Wilson chamber move slowly, then they quickly combine to give rise to photons. Physically, the annihilation mechanism is uncomplicated. The formation of an electron-positron pair was previously presented by the author in the form of an asymmetric dynamic event (Fig. 5). Water molecules, hydrogen and oxygen atoms - the receiver of the energy of motion, the source material for the formation of electrons and positrons. An energetic gamma-ray gives its energy to form two polar vortex formations. Together, they return energy in the form of two less energetic gamma rays.

The other part of the explanation is philosophical. Our world is one of the poles of a more global system (remember the other pole of the atom). If it is a galaxy, then the other pole is in its center. The solar system is an integral part of the outer mass of the Galaxy. If there is a direction in the evolution of matter, antiparticles cannot form here (including - there can be no free neutrons). There is no anti-movement in the world of the existing movement! A flying projectile cannot spontaneously change direction. At the stage of the existing movement of our world, the energy of the movement-interaction in this part of the system is dissipated. After all, this is why vortex cyclones exist in the atmosphere, but there are practically no such anticyclone vortices. Nature never violates "its principles of existence".

Thus, we propose to consider that each "nucleon generator" also has its own electron as its own vortex radiation of a fine substance. At this stage of the consideration of the problem, we can assume that this is gravitational radiation (GR). In itself, it represents a fundamental and clearly visible phenomenon, but not an absolute, since the world is infinite! At the same time, this means that each nucleon can exist as a dipole (vortex structure). After all, trying to justify any interaction (magnetic, electrical), scientists again and again construct dipoles - polar structures. And most often, the dynamics of the latter are not very similar to planetary. Roughly it looks like this. "A dipole consists of two point (single) charges: positive and negative. The carrier of a point charge in the conductor is an electron. Therefore, there are two electrons and two charges in a dipole..." [10]. In another case, a dipole is considered as a system of positive and negative electric charges, but the lines of force between them are depicted not in the form of rays, but as a vortex structure [7].

In fact, the number of protons (in the nucleus) is equal to the number of their vortex momenta (for an atom in a neutral state). The external energy of motion interacts with vortex-momenta, and rebuilds the atom. Imagine that the influence of a pulse stops the rotation of a proton and its radiation (an atom is ionized). You can say that an ion, for example, of hydrogen in this case has a positive charge, since it already interacts differently with the magnetic field. This is true, since not only the structure of the object has changed. Its mass has also changed. A protium ion was formed - a proton without vortex rotation. Due to the conservation of momentum, the vortex rotation almost completely became radial. So, the ability to unite has changed. Proton ions are more free objects, and there are many such particles in cosmic matter.

Summarize. The interaction of energy flows of

motion as the cause of the rearrangement of atoms is an important factor in proving the possible wave nature of the electron. Often an electron does not have to interact otherwise. In powerful beams of generated radiation, such pulses are more like corpuscles. The result of their exposure to the receiver depends on the conditions of the particular experiment (or the features of the instruments used). For us, two circumstances are important. Firstly, when we "laid out" the particle energy values, we "lost" the neutrino with its amazing properties. Secondly, we did not use positive charges in our thoughts, since their "positivity" is always associated only with the magnitude of "negativity". An anticyclone is the absence of a cyclone. The polar atom model (with external and internal masses) is more like our planet.

Everything looks logical if nature is represented only by material objects of different ranks, capable of exchanging impulses at any moment. A force interaction occurs and the law of conservation of energy does not require revision. Call subtle matter ether, uniform radiation, a sea of photons, an electromagnetic field. This is not very important. Amounts of energy (inextricably linked with material objects) always interact in the form of impulses-corpuscles or impulses-waves. If you can imagine the existence of an eternal world without the principle of preserving the energy of motion, feel free to replace thin matter with emptiness. Nature will not notice that you have found an "unattainable absolute". The main thing is that impulses are real objects of the material world. Their registration is impossible without appropriate receivers, without the correct choice of a base for research. A lead ball is easier to weigh than a protium ion. The problem is the ability to use the desired particle signal for measurements. The size of the pulse in the interaction matters!

Our short analysis is almost complete, but one

important point regarding the energy problem cannot be ignored. In popular programs, you can hear the opinion of scientists about both amplification and attenuation with the time of energy generation by the Sun. They try not to recall the problem of thermonuclear fusion in such transfers (in the center of the star there is no necessary temperature for this). Neutrons of the nuclei of radioactive elements or nuclei of isotopes of other substances decay spontaneously. Simply, under the appropriate conditions, the energy of motion stored by atoms is generated. The scale of its separation is different, but most likely depends on the ratio of the external and internal masses of the atomic nucleus. After all, 54 "additional" overflowing neutron energies, for example, 238U exist. In our model of the Earth, the mass of the outer shells (mantle and lithosphere) is 2.3 times larger than the inner shells (core) [4]. Perhaps that is why our world is stable and suitable for the development of many organisms, including those thinking about this world.

On Venus, this ratio may be different (although this information is not yet available) and may be the reason for the existence of very harsh physical conditions. Is this assessment of dynamics applicable to stars? Earlier, we calculated that the external masses of the Sun are 1.13 times larger than the internal masses [4]. Can such a ratio indicate intensive activity on the release of energy by the internal masses of the solar core? I would answer in the affirmative. After all, you can not only solve the problem of solar thermonuclear fusion. Imagine a young star that quickly turned from a toroid into a ball and accumulated excess internal energy. It is enough for a star to get into the field of intense gravitation of another object, and the luminary will explode. Get a "new" or "supernova" star. Under normal conditions, an explosion does not threaten a star, since over time the energy of "stellar neutrons" decreases, and the "protective" outer shells increase in mass. If you think that there is logic in such reasoning, that's good!

Conclusion

The movement and exchange of momenta is a fundamental (and absolute) process in a heterogeneous world. This is a gravitational interaction, inextricably linked with the energy of motion emitted by all objects. This means that gravitational radiation is the energy of motion carried by any matter.

Our ideas about matter and radiation, about the conversion of matter into energy always depend on the choice of a reference frame. An electron as a corpuscle is an object that appears only in a specific process. The

magnitude of the real impulse depends on how much material substance and with what acceleration is set in motion, at what stage of evolution the object is, how the components of its total flow of gravitational radiation interact. The "electron problem" will be finally solved when researchers understand that the mass of the object exists in a single connection with gravitational interaction, and not thanks to hypothetical bosons. "Polarity" and "interaction" (gravitational) are synonyms. For a more complete picture of the structure of the world, it is necessary to learn to weigh not only matter, but also the movement-interaction associated with it.

REFERENCES:

1. Apanovich I.A. On a possible variant of the Earth's internal structure and the location of the planets of the Solar System based on an analysis of the distribution of gravity and the nature of gravitational interaction//Russian Geophysical Journal. Vol. 21-22, 2001.- P. 115-122.

2. Apanovich I.A. Gravity as a multidirectional motion of matter//Russian Geophysical Journal. № 2728, 2002.- P. 99-105.

3. Apanovich I.A. Geodynamics. Problems and prospects. Krasnoyarsk, 2010.- 230 p.

4. Apanovich I.A. Unknown Land. Why do we die?- Krasnoyarsk, 2016.- 128 p.

5. Apanovich I.A. Climate and man. Opposition or natural stage of the earth's evolution? Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science. № 26/2019. Part 1. Oslo, Norway, p. 12-28.

6. Apanovich I.A. 66 postulates and hypothesis about the device of the world. Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science. № 27/2019. Part 2. Oslo, Norway, p. 8-14.

7. Kaganov M.I., Tsukernik V.M. The nature of magnetism.- M.: Science, 1982.- 192 p.

8. Crook D.E. Nikola Tesla. Awakening of power. Get out of the matrix.- SPb: LITEO, 2017.- 624 p.

9. Lipson G. Great experiments in physics.- M.: Mir, 1972.- 215 p.

10. Fedyukin VK. The solution to the problem of "superconductivity" of electric current and superdiamagnetism. Monograph.- Engineering and Economic University of St. Petersburg, 2011.- 342 p.

11. Physical Encyclopedia. T. 5. M.: Scientific. publishing house "Big Russian Encyclopedia".- 1998.757 p.