Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 89

Thread: The mystery of the 11-year solar cycle is probably solved

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I have no direct evidence yet, but I am working on it.
    Then your idea is dead right here, because we have tons of direct evidence that light does NOTHING like anything you are claiming it does. For all the good it will do you why not just claim that light moves at 3*10^8 m/s, but the Milky Way galaxy is only 10 light years across? Then it could get to the core and back in 11 years. And when someone says "but we know the Milky Way is a lot larger then that", then you can say "Well I have no evidence that every measurement humanity has ever made on the galaxy is wrong, but I am working on it!".

    I hope you can see how ridiculous of a claim that would be, and I hope you can see why your claim is just as ridiculous. The reason you have no evidence that light can travel at 1.5*10^12 m/s is because light can't travel that fast. You idea is wrong for this reason, and you will need to alter your theory to fit the evidence, not demand the evidence be ignored so it can fit your theory.

    Direct question: 1) Can you adjust your theory to allow for the speed of light to be 3*10^8 m/s? If not, then it contradicts known facts and is therefore proven wrong right here. If this is the case, then so be it but please admit so in your response to this. Thank you.

    Of course the Sun shines equally in all directions, therefore the Sun directs its light in all directions, including the center of our Galaxy. Why not?
    So you are just saying that a few photons from the sun will reach the black hole at the center of the Milky Way? Eh....ok sure, but that's just common sense, I don't see why it's significant. 2 direct questions for you:

    2) Please show your calculation for exactly how many photons from the sun will reach the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

    3) Please explain why that amount of photons is significant to your theory.

    Our spacecraft, wherever they are located (including near the Earth), are composed of earthly matter tuned to the Earth's physical constants.
    This is simply not true in any way. More questions:

    4) Please explain what the difference is between an atom from Earth and an atom from, say, Mars. Does carbon have a different number of protons in a Mars carbon atom? Are the protons made out of something besides up and down quarks on Mars? Is it something else besides electrons orbiting the nucleus? Please explain.

    5) Please explain what physical constants are different between the Earth and Mars, and also state what you think the value of those constants are on Earth vs on Mars.

    6) We have analyzed samples from Mars and found the elements are no different from the ones on Earth. This contradicts your claim that Mars matter is different from Earth matter. Please either explain this (with supporting evidence) or withdraw this claim.

    7) For your response to question #4 and 5, please provide supporting evidence for whatever your explanation is.

    Also, if you are unable to provide a response to any of those questions please admit so and retract that particular claim. Particularly question #1, as I feel at this point you NEED to retract that claim since you already admitted that you have no evidence to support it. Thank you.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,384
    @Nikolay Sukhorukov:

    All details aside, this seems to be the crux of your hypothesis.

    Can you recap simply how the 11-year cycle of the Sun is reconciled with the 27,000 light year distance to the galactic core?
    I could see if you were talking about a 54,000 year Sun cycle, but what does an 11 year cycle have to do with something that's 27,000 years (at c) away?

    Are you saying that sunlight travels (54,000/11=) 4,909 times as fast as light here on Earth?

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,122
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Our spacecraft, wherever they are located (including near the Earth), are composed of earthly matter tuned to the Earth's physical constants. Consequently, they observe and transmit the illusory reality. For example, if the length of the antenna of a rover, operating in trigger mode reception/transmission, is tuned to earthly frequency 1, but the speed of light in reality of Mars is different from c, then the antenna of a rover will receive the wrong frequency 2 (for earth matter of the antenna), because f=cM/lantenna But in the transmission mode, the antenna of the rover will transmit frequency 1 (f=c/lantenna) to the Earth, since the matter of a rover and the antenna equipment operate at earthly speed of light c.
    I missed this one. But we have Moon rocks. And Martian derived meteorites have been found. They didn't have different fundamental properties such as the speed of light. So how is that a rover or other small object can magically retain its 'Earthly properties' when on another planet but rocks can't?

    Edit: And Dave241 actually beat me to this. Should have finished reading the thread before posting.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I missed this one. But we have Moon rocks. And Martian derived meteorites have been found. They didn't have different fundamental properties such as the speed of light.
    We should add why the speed of light is the same as Earth rocks as in Moon rocks and Martian meteorites. It is probable that the actual speed of light is not been measured in these rocks. But we do date them. The oldest samples should originate from the early Solar System. The oldest samples are dated to similar dates. According to his ATM idea I would expect that quite different c would mean quite different radioactive decay rates and so quite different ages. The Moon would maybe be half the age of the Earth, Mars maybe twice Earth's age (or perhaps vice versa). That is an enormous problem because Earth and Mars were formed at the same time and the Moon a little later.

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by pzkpfw View Post
    There are 250 billion 150 billion stars in the milky way.

    What is special about our star that allows it to affect itself in this 11 year cycle, with that signal being distinguished from similar signals from all those others stars?

    (Others have pointed out how absurdly small such a signal would be over those distances (let alone how fast it could travel). Here I'm pointing out that the signal must be one of billions. How does that signal not get lost amid the noise?)
    There is such a wonderful phenomenon called "resonance". Like a radio antenna and a radio tuned to a certain frequency accurately receive the desired radio wave from electromagnetic noise, so any star radiating its electromagnetic wave to the center of the Galaxy will correctly receive it back. Since there are no absolutely identical stars, therefore there are no absolutely identical "star frequencies", and therefore there are no problems with identification of stars.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Unicorns should smooth the surface is just as likely ! What you imagine need not happen. Fantasies do not make measurements of Venus invalid. For a start volcanoes are made of rock.

    IF02: Show that the measurements of Venus from Earth and spacecraft are wrong using science or evidence.
    What makes the measurements of the volcanoes on Venus invalid?
    The temperature of the surface of Venus is about 500C. Note that this is only 3-4 times lower than the temperature in the blast furnace. The melting point of rock - basalt - is about 1000C. This means that the basalt, although not melted at once, becomes unstable, perhaps even viscous. How can such a rock create long-lived mountain ranges? It is impossible. Add acidity, presure (91 atm) and hurricane winds. Under such conditions, the surface of Venus should be similar to a viscous lava-like swamp, which is not actually observed.

    What makes the measurements of the atmospheric temperature on Venus invalid?
    But this is a more serious question. To answer it, I have to make sure that you understand my idea using the example of a rover, which I stated earlier:

    "For example, if the length of the antenna of a rover, operating in trigger mode reception/transmission, is tuned to earthly frequency 1, but the speed of light in reality of Mars is different from c, then the antenna of a rover will receive the wrong frequency 2 (for earth matter of the antenna), because f=cM/lantenna But in the transmission mode, the antenna of the rover will transmit frequency 1 (f=c/lantenna) to the Earth, since the matter of a rover and the antenna equipment operate at earthly speed of light c."

    Do you understand my idea?

    Anyone can see that this is numerology when the formula is too specific, e.g. uses the Earth's mass when the Earth is a rather physically insignificant body in the Solar System.
    In the third Kepler's law

    Name:  63230101873133-4.gif
Views: 348
Size:  257 Bytes

    T
    and a can be simultaneously used both for the planet and, for example, for a spacecraft whose mass is insignificant. But this does not mean that Kepler's third law is numerology. Or is it numerology? I do not categorically state that my formula is true, but your arguments are also unreliable.

    My point was that your idea as written predicts that the mass of the Sun varies and will get small wen solar cycles vanish (your Ts doubles or more).
    IF03: When your T[SUB]s[/SUB needs to double or more during solar minimums, what happens to the constants in it, e.g. the Sun's mass.
    My formula does not use the mass of the Sun, and I do not understand why you decided that the mass of the Sun should change greatly during 11-year cycles. As for the double TS, this is impossible, since my formula assumes ideal conditions for the movement of a solar electromagnetic wave. Although I do not exclude the fact that during the movement of a solar electromagnetic wave in interstellar space, for various reasons, refraction may occur, which in turn may change aS, and, therefore, TS. Whether the Sun emits an electromagnetic wave to the center of the Galaxy during absolute minimum of activity, I cannot say for sure, but I suppose that the Sun radiates even during minimums.

    A fantasy that a ball of plasma (the Sun) is a transistor is not an answer to anything. Your ATM idea has no photons returning because imaginary mirrors do not reflect.
    May be. I agree that my idea needs additional evidence. Just calculating the 11-year solar cycle is not enough.

    Proxima Centauri and other nearby stars exist and its photon flux will be enormously bigger that this imaginary reflection. Millions of stars exist producing ing real photon fluxes that match that imaginary photon flux.
    I answered pzkpfw. Resonance works wonders.

    Quote Originally Posted by deadie148 View Post
    Since the core of the Milky Way is opaque to visible light at least, then certainly some minuscule amount would be reflected back. However you have not explained the mechanism by which those reflected photons, and those alone apparently, cause any kind of substantial change in solar activity.
    I do not know the mechanism yet. To understand it may take years. But life is unpredictable. If there is some practical use in my formula, I should have published it. I derived my formula a few months ago, waited and published it now. I think I did the right thing.

    Even if your math was correct, how have you ruled out simple coincidence?
    I have already derived several formulas using and fundamental constants that give correct results. Reality Check knows them. According to probability theory, it is unlikely that these are all simple coincidences. Although, categorically say that I am absolutely right, I certainly can not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    You do not need to fix any "contradiction or inaccuracy". Your formula being based on several physically invalid assumptions is what makes it wrong. Your formula predicting that we do not exist is what makes it wrong.
    I really have not managed to eliminate the contradictions in my hypothesis, but I am working on it. My formula does not predict that we do not exist. My hypothesis predicts that we see the distorted reality of the cosmos around us.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    For all the good it will do you why not just claim that light moves at 3*10^8 m/s, but the Milky Way galaxy is only 10 light years across? Then it could get to the core and back in 11 years. And when someone says "but we know the Milky Way is a lot larger then that", then you can say "Well I have no evidence that every measurement humanity has ever made on the galaxy is wrong, but I am working on it!".
    The Milky Way cannot have a width of 10 light years, since the distance to its center is measured, including, in a trigonometric way. X-ray radiation comes from the center of the Galaxy, which is detected from different points of the Earth's orbit and the distance is calculated using the parallax method. Geometry works for the entire Universe.

    I hope you can see how ridiculous of a claim that would be, and I hope you can see why your claim is just as ridiculous. The reason you have no evidence that light can travel at 1.5*10^12 m/s is because light can't travel that fast. You idea is wrong for this reason, and you will need to alter your theory to fit the evidence, not demand the evidence be ignored so it can fit your theory.
    I have already said that I found a contradiction in my hypothesis. If I fail to eliminate it, then I am wrong, in part or in full.

    Direct question: 1) Can you adjust your theory to allow for the speed of light to be 3*10^8 m/s? If not, then it contradicts known facts and is therefore proven wrong right here. If this is the case, then so be it but please admit so in your response to this. Thank you.
    No, I cannot. You understand that this is such an incredible theory that if it is true, then it can turn our world view? I am only at the beginning of the journey. Please do not expect answers from me that I do not know.

    2) Please show your calculation for exactly how many photons from the sun will reach the black hole at the center of the Milky Way.

    3) Please explain why that amount of photons is significant to your theory.
    No answer.

    4) Please explain what the difference is between an atom from Earth and an atom from, say, Mars. Does carbon have a different number of protons in a Mars carbon atom? Are the protons made out of something besides up and down quarks on Mars? Is it something else besides electrons orbiting the nucleus? Please explain.
    No answer.

    5) Please explain what physical constants are different between the Earth and Mars, and also state what you think the value of those constants are on Earth vs on Mars.
    My calculation of the fundamental physical constants for any space object, which has gravitational attraction and revolves around its power center in accordance with Kepler's laws, is based on the assumption that such fundamental constants as the Planck constant, the fine-structure constant, the specific electron charge, and the vacuum permittivity are universal for the entire Universe. Accordingly, the fundamental constants for a space object can be calculated by the following formulas:

    The speed of light in vacuum:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula26-3.GIF 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.9 KB 
ID:	24307
    The elementary charge (module):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula26-4.GIF 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.7 KB 
ID:	24308
    The electron rest mass:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula26-5.GIF 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.9 KB 
ID:	24309
    where c = 299792458 m/s is the speed of light in vacuum for the Earth, O is the gravitational parameter of a space object, E is the gravitational parameter of the Earth, ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, h is the Planck constant, α ≈ 1/137.04 is the fine-structure constant, e/me is the specific electron charge.

    For example, for the terrestrial planets, the calculation using the obtained formulas gives the following values of the fundamental physical constants:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PlTable.GIF 
Views:	21 
Size:	5.2 KB 
ID:	24310

    6) We have analyzed samples from Mars and found the elements are no different from the ones on Earth. This contradicts your claim that Mars matter is different from Earth matter. Please either explain this (with supporting evidence) or withdraw this claim.
    If you mean meteorites, logically, this can be explained by the factor of the duration of time. Meteorites can exist for millions of years. During this time, the matter of meteorites could partially "forget" the fundamental constants of its planet, as a result of which, if it falls to the Earth, the matter of meteorites is very quickly transformed into matter familiar to us. Of course, it sounds fantastic, but why not?

    As for rovers, space probes, etc., we can say that they have not yet managed to forget the fundamental constants of our planet and therefore consist of "earthly" matter. Something like this. As for the Moon, this is a special case. The Moon is very close to Earth. Maybe it has already become half "earthly"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Are you saying that sunlight travels (54,000/11=) 4,909 times as fast as light here on Earth?
    Exactly.
    Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jun-23 at 01:13 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    There is such a wonderful phenomenon called "resonance". Like a radio antenna and a radio tuned to a certain frequency accurately receive the desired radio wave from electromagnetic noise, so any star radiating its electromagnetic wave to the center of the Galaxy will correctly receive it back. Since there are no absolutely identical stars, therefore there are no absolutely identical "star frequencies", and therefore there are no problems with identification of stars.
    How does your theory account for the magnetic cycles of other stars that have wildly different cycle durations and intensity? If magnetic activity in a star is a result of a relationship between it's 'own speed of light' and its distance from the center of the galaxy, then you should be able to calculate this for other magnetically variable stars, no?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Norfolk UK and some of me is in Northern France
    Posts
    8,471
    Nikolay, i prefer the resonance of the Jupiter eccentricity which changes the radial thermal cells of the sun especially around its equator where Coriolis forces operate. This seems more plausible to me than your hypothesis, have you considered this gravitational tidal effect?
    sicut vis videre esto
    When we realize that patterns don't exist in the universe, they are a template that we hold to the universe to make sense of it, it all makes a lot more sense.
    Originally Posted by Ken G

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,577
    Nikolay, it is my opinion that your ideas have no more basis in physics than did the ancient belief that radiation from Sirius actually caused the scorching hot summer weather. Others here have addressed you in more specific detail, so I will not bother piling on at this point.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,739
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    There is such a wonderful phenomenon called "resonance". Like a radio antenna and a radio tuned to a certain frequency accurately receive the desired radio wave from electromagnetic noise, so any star radiating its electromagnetic wave to the center of the Galaxy will correctly receive it back. Since there are no absolutely identical stars, therefore there are no absolutely identical "star frequencies", and therefore there are no problems with identification of stars.
    It's impossible to take your proposal seriously when you invoke terms like "resonance" as a proxy for magic. Using a scientific word does not turn your fantasies into science, I'm afraid.

    And there are no "star frequencies" except in your imagination. Conjuring one bit of nonsense to "explain" your invoking of magical resonance shows us that you are just making things up as you go along. Why not just say that cosmic fairies make it so? It would be simpler, and possess the same explanatory power.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    @Nikolay Sukhorukov:
    Are you saying that sunlight travels (54,000/11=) 4,909 times as fast as light here on Earth?
    Exactly.
    If I step out into my backyard and measure the speed of sunlight, will I get a value of approximately 914 million miles per second?

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    The temperature of the surface of Venus is about 500C. ...
    Irrelevant and inaccurate stories about Venus. The mean temperature of the surface of Venus is 462 C. A story that this melts basalt which he states has a meting point of 1000 C is wrong. A story of "long-lived mountain ranges". What we actually observe on Venus is good evidence of ongoing volcanic eruptions (volcanoes building up) and volcanoes that are the result of past volcanic activity. What we actually observe on Venus are thousands of impact craters and "about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition". They have not been affected by anything Nikolay Sukhorukov imagines.

    IF02: Show that the measurements of Venus from Earth and spacecraft are wrong using science or evidence.

    A fantasy about a rover on Mars or Venus is not an answer.
    Kepler's third law apples to any body orbit around any body. My point was that making Earth special by inserting it's and only it's mass into a formula is a sign of numerology.
    Incorrect statement about his Ts equation which does have the mass of the Sun in it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    ... derived by the formula:

    The S and E are GMS and GME where M are the mass of the Sun and Earth and G are the gravitational constant. Division gets rid of G and we have the ratio of the mass of the Sun and Earth.
    IF03: When your Ts needs to double or more during solar minimums, what happens to the constants in it, e.g. the Sun's mass.
    The choices seem to be
    • The mass of the Sun more than doubles while the Earth's mass stays the same.
    • The mass of the Sun stays the same while the Earth's mass more than halves.
    • A combination of 1 and 2.

    Merely writing the word resonance is not science.
    IF04a: Give your scientific evidence that a relatively few photons can alter the Sun's output by "resonance".
    Note that the Sun is powered by fusion at its core which is shielded from light hitting its surface. These photons will be absorbed by the photosphere and emitted in all directions as different photons.

    Also variable stars exist such Cepheid variables used for distance measurements. So a related question:
    IF04b: Why do the changing photon fluxes from variable stars not alter the Sun's output by "resonance" to create 1 to 50 day solar cycles.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-25 at 01:28 AM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    The Milky Way cannot have a width of 10 light years, since the distance to its center is measured, including, in a trigonometric way. X-ray radiation comes from the center of the Galaxy, which is detected from different points of the Earth's orbit and the distance is calculated using the parallax method. Geometry works for the entire Universe.
    But saying "the size of the galaxy is only 10 light years across, and all of humanity is wrong when they claim they have measured it to be bigger" (my claim) is just as ridiculous and unfounded as saying "the speed of light is 1.5*10^12 m/s, and all of humanity is wrong when they claim they have measured it to be lower" (your claim). Why are you ok arguing for one insane proposal with zero evidence supporting it, but when I come up with some other equally insane proposal with zero evidence supporting it you try to claim I am wrong? Neither idea has anything to support it, and both are proven wrong by every possible test you could come up with.



    I have already said that I found a contradiction in my hypothesis. If I fail to eliminate it, then I am wrong, in part or in full.
    What is this wrong bit that you found, and does this now mean you accept that light cannot move as fast as you are claiming?



    No, I cannot.
    Then please withdraw your theory until you are able to. I know this may be hard for you, but the fact that you are admitting that you have no evidence that light moves as fast as you think it does AND that your theory cannot survive with the speed of light being what we measure it to be means that the only honest thing to do is admit that you are wrong.


    You understand that this is such an incredible theory that if it is true, then it can turn our world view?
    No, sorry I don't see this theory as incredible in any way. I only see it as blatantly wrong.

    I am only at the beginning of the journey. Please do not expect answers from me that I do not know.
    Sorry, but I will expect answers. If you are going to claim that modern science is wrong and YOU are correct, then yes I will absolutely expect answers from you. Some very detailed answers. You are the one trying to overturn a cornerstone of physics, not me, and that obviously requires a LOT of work and a lot of answers.

    No answer.
    If you don't know how many photons will reach the black hole, then you cannot claim that it has any significance. Also, if you don't even know what amount of photons would even be significant to your theory then you cannot make any claims about.....well anything that you think they may effect. Since you cannot answer these questions, please withdraw the claim that photons from the sun will have a significant effect on the sun when they reach the center of the Milky Way.

    No answer.
    If you don't know what difference an atom from Earth will have compared to an atom from Mars, then please withdraw the claim that Earth matter will react differently from Mars matter.


    My calculation of the fundamental physical constants for any space object, which has gravitational attraction and revolves around its power center in accordance with Kepler's laws, is based on the assumption that such fundamental constants as the Planck constant, the fine-structure constant, the specific electron charge, and the vacuum permittivity are universal for the entire Universe. Accordingly, the fundamental constants for a space object can be calculated by the following formulas:

    The speed of light in vacuum:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula26-3.GIF 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.9 KB 
ID:	24307
    The elementary charge (module):
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula26-4.GIF 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.7 KB 
ID:	24308
    The electron rest mass:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula26-5.GIF 
Views:	15 
Size:	1.9 KB 
ID:	24309
    where c = 299792458 m/s is the speed of light in vacuum for the Earth, O is the gravitational parameter of a space object, E is the gravitational parameter of the Earth, ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, h is the Planck constant, α ≈ 1/137.04 is the fine-structure constant, e/me is the specific electron charge.
    Why should I accept these formula as correct? For instance, I don't know what the gravitational parameter of a space object is supposed to be or how you calculate it. How do I know these formulas aren't just being made up?

    For example, for the terrestrial planets, the calculation using the obtained formulas gives the following values of the fundamental physical constants:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PlTable.GIF 
Views:	21 
Size:	5.2 KB 
ID:	24310
    And we know for a fact those values are wrong. This doesn't seem very complicated to me, you've made up bad formulas and those are giving you wrong answers.

    If you mean meteorites, logically, this can be explained by the factor of the duration of time. Meteorites can exist for millions of years. During this time, the matter of meteorites could partially "forget" the fundamental constants of its planet, as a result of which, if it falls to the Earth, the matter of meteorites is very quickly transformed into matter familiar to us. Of course, it sounds fantastic, but why not?
    But you've already admitted that you have no evidence that Mars matter is any different from Earth matter, so how can you continue to make claims that you've already admitted are wrong? Please withdraw this claim.

    There is such a wonderful phenomenon called "resonance". Like a radio antenna and a radio........
    Let me stop you right there. You are correct that a radio can amplify a signal. And should someone ask an engineer "how can it do that from only a few radio photons?" do you know what he will say? He will give you a detailed description of exactly HOW a radio can amplify a signal so that we can hear it. Things like what sort of power the signal would need to be, what effect that power would have on the radio, why that particular threshold is needed and not some other one, what effect the frequency will have on it, what the range of frequencies is, how sensitive the device is to the frequency being 0.01% different, things of that sort. That's because radios actually exist are aren't a fantasy that lack any specifics. And yet when we ask you the same question regarding your proposed mechanism for how the sun amplifies such a feeble signal from the Milky Way core, which type of answer do we get?

    Do we get the answer of someone describing a real phenomenon that they actually understand, with details and calculations and specifics on how each part works? Or do we get the answer of someone describing a fantasy, with no details and just a vague description of what they hope might happen?

    The fact that you can't provide any level of detail at all is very telling. Can you please either withdraw this claim, or provide a LOT more detail on how stars act like radio receivers?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    The Milky Way cannot have a width of 10 light years, since the distance to its center is measured, including, in a trigonometric way. X-ray radiation comes from the center of the Galaxy, which is detected from different points of the Earth's orbit and the distance is calculated using the parallax method. Geometry works for the entire Universe.
    Not quite right, Nikolay Sukhorukov. Stellar parallax is only useful for relatively short distances because it needs the measurement of very small angles. Stellar parallax is not used to measure distances outside of the Milky Way - that is mostly the domain of standard candles. Up until the Gaia mission stellar parallax was reliable out to 10,000 light years. Gaia is much more accurate so it can measure some tens of thousands of light years.

    Read Distance to the Galactic Center which explains how uncertain the distance is.
    See The Distance to the Center of the Milky Way for an interesting variation of stellar parallax using Very Long Baseline Interferometry and quasars to get a distance to Sgr B2 (close to the galactic center) in 2009 of 7.9 +/- 0.8 kpc.

  14. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by deadie148 View Post
    If magnetic activity in a star is a result of a relationship between it's 'own speed of light' and its distance from the center of the galaxy, then you should be able to calculate this for other magnetically variable stars, no?
    Exactly. But I am not a professional astronomer. Therefore, I implicitly suggested in my initial post to use the formula I derived to calculate the distances of some Cepheids to the Galaxy's center. But it turned out that this is contrary to the rules of the forum. Well, if the rules are more important than deeds, so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by profloater View Post
    Nikolay, i prefer the resonance of the Jupiter eccentricity which changes the radial thermal cells of the sun especially around its equator where Coriolis forces operate. This seems more plausible to me than your hypothesis, have you considered this gravitational tidal effect?
    No, but I suppose that Jupiter having a powerful magnetic field, like a radio pulsator, should generate electromagnetic radiation with the frequency of approximately 0.009 Hz (the period of 111.5 seconds). Probably the amplitude of this signal is small compared to other electromagnetic waves emitted by Jupiter, so this signal is hardly distinguishable. I cannot calculate the amplitude of this signal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    It's impossible to take your proposal seriously when you invoke terms like "resonance" as a proxy for magic. Using a scientific word does not turn your fantasies into science, I'm afraid.
    I just do not want to seem smarter than I really am. I am self-taught, that is, I do not have a special physical education, fortunately. Therefore, it gives me freedom of scientific creativity, which is impossible without fantasies. My knowledge is extensive, but superficial. I am not a guru. I am a scout.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    If I step out into my backyard and measure the speed of sunlight, will I get a value of approximately 914 million miles per second?
    No, because, according to my theory, sunlight falling into the sphere of influence of the Earth becomes "earthly" light. Consequently, its speed changes from cS≈1.44∙1012 m/s to c=299792458 m/s. The exact value of the sphere of influence of the Earth, where sunlight is converted into "earthly" light, is still unknown to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Irrelevant and inaccurate stories about Venus. The mean temperature of the surface of Venus is 462 C. A story that this melts basalt which he states has a meting point of 1000 C is wrong. A story of "long-lived mountain ranges". What we actually observe on Venus is good evidence of ongoing volcanic eruptions (volcanoes building up) and volcanoes that are the result of past volcanic activity.
    This debate may go on forever. If you place basalt in a blast furnace at a constant temperature of 462C, wait a couple of million years and after that the basalt and blast furnace will not collapse, then it will mean you were right. I find it incredible.

    What we actually observe on Venus are thousands of impact craters and "about 85% of the craters are in pristine condition". They have not been affected by anything Nikolay Sukhorukov imagines.
    That is why I claim that the real temperature on Venus is much less than 462C, but I cannot say the exact value.

    The S and E are GMS and GME where M are the mass of the Sun and Earth and G are the gravitational constant. Division gets rid of G and we have the ratio of the mass of the Sun and Earth.
    I am sorry, these are your fantasies. I did not give you the authority to change to GM in the formula I derived.

    Merely writing the word resonance is not science.
    I think that science and scientific work are different things.

    IF04a: Give your scientific evidence that a relatively few photons can alter the Sun's output by "resonance".
    Note that the Sun is powered by fusion at its core which is shielded from light hitting its surface. These photons will be absorbed by the photosphere and emitted in all directions as different photons.
    I do not yet have such evidence, but I guess solar photons are not "earthly" photons. "Earthly" fundamental constants are not applicable to them. By the way, what are photons in general? Wave? Particle? Or the so-called "dualism'? Academic physics cannot really answer even such a question, and says that the human mind does not understand. This answer does not suit me.

    Also variable stars exist such Cepheid variables used for distance measurements. So a related question:
    IF04b: Why do the changing photon fluxes from variable stars not alter the Sun's output by "resonance" to create 1 to 50 day solar cycles.
    It is because, according to my theory, stars can organize a resonant system only with the core of the Galaxy, and not with each other.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Stellar parallax is not used to measure distances outside of the Milky Way.
    But the core of the Milky Way is inside the Milky Way. So to calculate the distance to the core, we can use a parallax method? In your link The Distance to the Center of the Milky Way, the method of a trigonometric parallax is described, if I understood correctly.

    Read Distance to the Galactic Center which explains how uncertain the distance is.
    ...
    Sgr B2 (close to the galactic center) in 2009 of 7.9 +/- 0.8 kpc.
    If suddenly, like the distance from Earth to the Sun, I manage to get the exact distance from the Sun to the center of the Galaxy using fundamental constants and , will astronomers agree with the value of this distance?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    Why are you ok arguing for one insane proposal with zero evidence supporting it, but when I come up with some other equally insane proposal with zero evidence supporting it you try to claim I am wrong? Neither idea has anything to support it, and both are proven wrong by every possible test you could come up with.
    Well, one indirect evidence - the calculation of the 11-year solar cycle - already exists.

    What is this wrong bit that you found, and does this now mean you accept that light cannot move as fast as you are claiming?
    Rmer's determination of the speed of light reflected from of the Jupiter moon Io. The delay of light of 22 minutes does not fit into my theory. Consequently, either my calculation of the speed of sunlight cS≈1.44∙1012 m/s is incorrect, or there are some factors unknown to me.

    Then please withdraw your theory until you are able to. I know this may be hard for you, but the fact that you are admitting that you have no evidence that light moves as fast as you think it does AND that your theory cannot survive with the speed of light being what we measure it to be means that the only honest thing to do is admit that you are wrong.
    In ancient times, man used, for example, fire without knowing any theory about chemical reactions, oxidation, conservation law, etc. Why now we should abandon the study of phenomena, only because there is no theory for them yet?

    Sorry, but I will expect answers. If you are going to claim that modern science is wrong and YOU are correct, then yes I will absolutely expect answers from you. Some very detailed answers. You are the one trying to overturn a cornerstone of physics, not me, and that obviously requires a LOT of work and a lot of answers.
    In my home laboratory, I think I got the evidence of the connection between the macroworld and the microworld. It gives me confidence that I am on the right way. I am not ready yet to publish the results, sorry. In addition, that does not apply to the subject of the 11-year solar activity. And, of course, my dream is to get an anti-gravity effect. Expect, please ...

    If you don't know how many photons will reach the black hole, then you cannot claim that it has any significance. Also, if you don't even know what amount of photons would even be significant to your theory then you cannot make any claims about.....well anything that you think they may effect. Since you cannot answer these questions, please withdraw the claim that photons from the sun will have a significant effect on the sun when they reach the center of the Milky Way.
    No, I cannot withdraw my claim. As I already answered Reality Check, solar photons are different from "earthly" ones. Consequently, the process of movement of solar photons toward the center of the Galaxy cannot be viewed by "earthly" standards. Maybe someone will ever be able to understand and describe this process, but it is simply not interesting to me. I am busy with more important things.

    If you don't know what difference an atom from Earth will have compared to an atom from Mars, then please withdraw the claim that Earth matter will react differently from Mars matter.
    Before withdrawing my claim, I must try to see and understand the reality of other planets. Too suspicious is the fact that we still have not found another intelligent life in the Universe. Unfortunately, my resources are limited.

    Why should I accept these formula as correct? For instance, I don't know what the gravitational parameter of a space object is supposed to be or how you calculate it. How do I know these formulas aren't just being made up?
    These formulas are only my attempt to approach the other reality. I have not worked closely with them yet. You may try to do it yourself. The formulas are based on the assumption (actually a postulate) that some fundamental constants (the Planck constant, the fine-structure constant, the specific electron charge, and the vacuum permittivity) are universal for the entire Universe.

    And we know for a fact those values are wrong. This doesn't seem very complicated to me, you've made up bad formulas and those are giving you wrong answers.
    Anything can happen.

    But you've already admitted that you have no evidence that Mars matter is any different from Earth matter, so how can you continue to make claims that you've already admitted are wrong? Please withdraw this claim.
    I have no direct evidence, but I think that I have indirect evidence. For example, my arguments about the reality of Venus, which may not be as hellish as we think. I think that by substituting the fundamental constants from the table

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	PlTable.GIF 
Views:	13 
Size:	5.2 KB 
ID:	24330

    for example, in the formula mec2 = hf, we can probably simulate the structure of atoms, and therefore, the reality of another planet.

    Or do we get the answer of someone describing a fantasy, with no details and just a vague description of what they hope might happen?
    Exactly. I cannot grasp the immensity.
    Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jun-27 at 08:19 AM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,244

    Having read through the answers, above, I cannot but conclude that there is a lot of your "theory" that is unknown, untested and incompatible with observational results.
    There is also no derivation of the equations that are supposed to support your ideas. And basically the answers given here are lacking in explanation.

    closed pending moderator discussion
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,244

    After discussion we have decided to let this thread run its 30 days.
    Howerver, there need to be a streamlining, this is about the 11 year solar cycle, which, incidentally varies between as little as 9 and as much as 14 years long. Nikolay Sukhorukov will fully explain how he got to his equations, including derivations and such, and give detailed answers to the questions that are put to him. However, comments like above, that "ancient civilizations had no science to explain fire" and that would give any nowadays researcher the right to just discard what we have learned since ancient times, is not helping your case, Creativity: yes, gladly, but know that new ideas will have to fit in the frame of longtime observations and investigations.
    His opponents here in the thread will concentrate on this. We do not want to see any discussions about the surface of Venus and whether or not there can be mountains, or any other sidesteps.
    Have fun, you have 17 more days.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  17. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
    Howerver, there need to be a streamlining, this is about the 11 year solar cycle, which, incidentally varies between as little as 9 and as much as 14 years long.
    I think that in part these discrepancies (9-12 years) can be explained by the refraction of solar waves in interstellar space. Partially they can be explained by reflection from an unknown substance (maybe so-called "dark matter"). We cannot exclude the errors of observations in the Middle Ages (the radiocarbon method cannot provide 100% guarantee). And finally, these discrepancies can be explained by some transient processes of secular solar cycles (Gleissberg cycle), the average value of which, in the first approximation, can be calculated using the formula I derived today:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula27-1.GIF 
Views:	18 
Size:	4.5 KB 
ID:	24343

    where aS ≈ 2.4976∙1020 m is the distance from the Sun to the Galaxy's center, MW ≈ aSvo2 ≈ 1.2089∙1031 m3/s2 is the gravitational parameter of the Galaxy in the first approximation (vo ≈ 220000 m/s is the average galactic orbital speed of the Sun), E ≈ 3.9860∙1014 m3/s2 is the gravitational parameter of the Earth, e /me is the specific electron charge, h is the Planck constant, c = 299792458 m/s is the speed of light in vacuum for the Earth, ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, α ≈ 1/137.04 is the fine-structure constant.

    This calculation is based on the assumption that the amplitude modulation of the solar cycle is caused by the radial oscillation of the Sun relative to the Galaxy's center during the movement of the Sun along its galactic orbit.

    The average period of known solar minimums (Wolf minimum - 70 years, Sprer minimum - 90 years, Maunder minimum - 70 years, Dalton minimum - 40 years) is approximately 68 years, which is in good agreement with the obtained value of 72 years.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Sunspot_Numbers.png 
Views:	12 
Size:	57.1 KB 
ID:	24344

    Thus, we can assume that there is one more indirect evidence that the gravitational parameters of space objects are directly related to the microworld of these objects.

    Nikolay Sukhorukov will fully explain how he got to his equations, including derivations and such, and give detailed answers to the questions that are put to him.
    I derived my first equation intuitively. But my intuition was based on a combination of various hypotheses, as well as on the basis of my previous equations, using the gravitational parameters of space objects, and which well calculate the average Earth radius:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula11.GIF 
Views:	13 
Size:	4.2 KB 
ID:	24345

    the first Schumann frequency:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula23.GIF 
Views:	11 
Size:	3.1 KB 
ID:	24346

    and the average distance between the Earth and the Sun:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula12.GIF 
Views:	12 
Size:	2.8 KB 
ID:	24347

    I tried to explain these equations in my previous threads here, but no one understood my explanations, or no one wanted to understand them, since my explanations contradict academic physics. Probably, only practical use of the equations derived by me can prove or disprove their truth or falsity. By the way, Planck also first intuited his law. Why do not I have the right to do the same?

    As for formulas



    and



    they are obtained from the formulas for determining the fine-structure constant and the specific electron charge. I did not think that here it is necessary to explain the obvious things.
    Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jul-01 at 05:43 PM.

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I think that in part these discrepancies (9-12 years) can be explained by the refraction of solar waves in interstellar space. Partially they can be explained by reflection from an unknown substance....
    This is a story with no evidence, not support for your ATM idea, Nikolay Sukhorukov. If space was filled with an unknown substance that had physical effects such as reflecting light from the Sun, the substance would not be unknown! It should be easy to detect it, for example we would see sunlight being reflecting back to us in all of our telescopes. That unknown substance is not dark matter which has well known properties which include not interacting with light (it is dark).

    Another equation cannot make an ATM idea correct when it has been wrong from start of the thread - changing the speed of light changes the Sun to be not what we observe. I will emphasize this with a formal question:
    IF05: What does your speed of light for the interior of Sun do to the Sun?

    We measure the neutrino flux of the Sun and this tells us how much fusion is happening. The mass of the Sun balances the pressure produced by this fusion to produce a star that has been about the same size for 4.6 billion years. Each fusion reaction produces energy according to E = mc^2. You have 1.44∙10^12 m/s for the Sun. The speed of light we have measured everywhere in the universe is 2.998e+8 m/s. That is a 10^6 increase. Square it. That means the fusion in the Sun is giving off 10^12 times more energy than needed to keep it stable at its measured size. The Sun has just exploded !

    Another point that needs emphasis is that we measure the speed of light throughout the universe and it is constant.
    IF06: What happens to the fine-structure constant when your ATM idea changes the speed of light and is this observed?

    The fine-structure constant contains the speed of light c and determines the fine structure of spectra. A question scientists ask is "is the fine-structure constant actually constant?". The answer is to look at the spectra from distant objects such as quasars and see if the fine structure in their spectra varies. The answer is that any changes are very small, e.g. 1 part increase in a million. But the problem for your ATM idea is that quasars have different masses and it should predict large changes in the fine structure constant.
    Your ATM idea predicts that the fine structure of the Sun's spectra will be different from local stars with different masses.

    IF01: What does your theory predict for the effect on radio signals from the Mars rovers? Answered with a story of "earth matter" retaining its speed of light but debunked by the fact that we have Martian meteorites, Lunar rocks and meteorites with that have the same maximum ages as Earth matter. Thus radioactivity on Earth, Mars, asteroids, and the Moon has had the same rate since the formation of the Solar System and the speed of light is the same on Earth, Mars, asteroids, and the Moon!

    IF03: When your Ts needs to double or more during solar minimums, what happens to the constants in it, e.g. the Sun's mass.

    IF04a: Give your scientific evidence that a relatively few photons can alter the Sun's output by "resonance".
    IF04b: Why do the changing photon fluxes from variable stars not alter the Sun's output by "resonance" to create 1 to 50 day solar cycles.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    ...well calculate the average Earth radius:
    That is an example of science numerology that we have been explaining to you, Nikolay Sukhorukov. That is a formula putting together physics constants mostly unrelated to the Earth to get the wrong value for the average Earth radius!
    Earth's mean radius = 6371.0 km (3958.8 mi).

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    the first Schumann frequency.
    Schumann resonances are not astronomy and are irrelevant to the Sun's "solar waves", the orbit of the Sun in the galaxy and thus your ATM idea.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    By the way, Planck also first intuited his law. Why do not I have the right to do the same?
    Planck's law.
    Planck learned about ~40 years of physics on thermal radiation with its empirical data and partially successful empirical laws. Planck combined the laws to produce a successful empirical law. Then Planck gave a physical explanation for how that empirical law worked (which we now call quantization of energy) by considering different physical explanations.

    Scientists do use their physics and mathematics knowledge and intuition but do not stop with equations based only on that physics and mathematics knowledge and intuition. They explore what the equations mean physically. They throw them away when they are obviously wrong. They keep them when the evidence is that they are correct.

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Well, one indirect evidence - the calculation of the 11-year solar cycle - already exists.
    That is just as much evidence for my insane idea. Remember, My crazy idea is that the galactic core is only 5.5 light years away, and every measurement that humanity has made is just wrong. This is every bit as unsupported as your claim that the speed of light is actually 1.5*10^12 m/s and every measurement humanity has made is just wrong. So I will repeat my assertion that "Neither idea has anything to support it, and both are proven wrong by every possible test you could come up with.".

    The notion that the core of our galaxy is only 5.5 light years away is equally invalid as claiming that the speed of light is 1.5*10^12 m/s. Both are wrong.


    The delay of light of 22 minutes does not fit into my theory. Consequently, either my calculation of the speed of sunlight cS≈1.44∙1012 m/s is incorrect, or there are some factors unknown to me.
    It sounds like you are admitting that the speed of light does not move at 1.5*10^12m/s, because your qualifier of "unless there is something unknown to me" is always true, so it doesn't add anything here. Therefore the only conclusion you are able to draw is stated right here, that your calculation is wrong since it disagrees with experiments. Since this is the case, I believe you have effectively admitted that your ATM proposal is wrong. Correct?


    In ancient times, man used, for example, fire without knowing any theory about chemical reactions, oxidation, conservation law, etc. Why now we should abandon the study of phenomena, only because there is no theory for them yet?
    Because unlike lighting something on fire, your theory doesn't work. And you have admitted it. If you want an analogy with the discovery of fire, it would be like a bunch of cavemen discussing how to make fire, and then you stand up and declare that if you pour water onto wood it will light on fire. Even though nobody else knows anything about chemistry or oxidation they are still able to declare that such obviously false things are false. Just because we don't know 100% about everything doesn't mean we therefore know 0%.


    In my home laboratory, I think I got the evidence of the connection between the macroworld and the microworld. It gives me confidence that I am on the right way. I am not ready yet to publish the results, sorry. In addition, that does not apply to the subject of the 11-year solar activity. And, of course, my dream is to get an anti-gravity effect. Expect, please ...
    If you aren't ready to discuss it, then you shouldn't be announcing it for discussion. Either we are going to discuss your idea here or not, it's your choice.

    No, I cannot withdraw my claim. As I already answered Reality Check, solar photons are different from "earthly" ones.
    And I refuse to accept this until you can back it up. But my question was a far simpler one, it was simply asking you how many photons from our sun you think will reach the galactic core. If you are unable to calculate this, then you cannot claim that they will have any effect because you are admitting that you don't know. For instance:

    Will 10,000 photons per second reach the core? You don't know. What effect will this many photons have? You also don't know.
    Will 1,000 photons per second reach the core? You don't know. What effect will this many photons have? You also don't know.
    Will 1 photon per second reach the core? You don't know. What effect will this many photons have? You also don't know.

    What if it's less then 1 photon per second? Do you even know if it is? If you cannot calculate this, why can't you? It's not very difficult to do, but it sounds like you never even bothered to try. Why?

    Consequently, the process of movement of solar photons toward the center of the Galaxy cannot be viewed by "earthly" standards.
    What "Earthly" standard do you think I am requiring? I am just asking that given how many photons leave the surface of the sun each second (you can calculate this if you try), and given how far away we are from the core, and given that the photon flux will fall off according to the inverse square law, and given the size of the black hole at the galactic core (again, something you can calculate), you can figure out how many photons will reach the black hole. And.......this is an "earthly" standard to you? Well too bad, because as we've already established that makes no difference.

    Until you can answer the question, you cannot make any claims about what will happen when the photons from the sun reach the core of our galaxy. Either answer the question or withdraw this claim in your next response to me. Thank you.

    Before withdrawing my claim, I must try to see and understand the reality of other planets. Too suspicious is the fact that we still have not found another intelligent life in the Universe. Unfortunately, my resources are limited.
    No, you have it backwards. Until you can "try to see and understand the reality of other planets", then you MUST withdraw this claim. As it currently stands, this is an unsupported claim. When you can support it, THEN and only then can you make this claim. As such, please withdraw this claim in your next response to me.

    These formulas are only my attempt to approach the other reality. I have not worked closely with them yet. You may try to do it yourself.
    I'll pass, thanks.

    I have no direct evidence, but I think that I have indirect evidence. For example, my arguments about the reality of Venus, which may not be as hellish as we think. I think that by substituting the fundamental constants from the table
    But we know you are wrong about Venus. In fact, this just supports our contention that you are wrong, because look how badly you are wrong about Venus. You claim your theory predicts a more hospitable Venus. We know Venus is a hellish landscape that is exactly the way it's described. Therefore, this disproves your theory. You cannot hold up evidence that proves you are wrong and say "Look how correct I am, I'm in disagreement with this set of evidence also!"

    for example, in the formula mec2 = hf, we can probably simulate the structure of atoms, and therefore, the reality of another planet.
    I claim you cannot. Prove me wrong.

    Exactly. I cannot grasp the immensity.
    Bolded mine. So you admit that you are only describing a fantasy? Then it's not a theory, this is a science fiction story.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    83
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I think that in part these discrepancies (9-12 years) can be explained by the refraction of solar waves in interstellar space.
    Please either show how, with math, or withdraw this claim. You claim they can be explained by refraction. So please do exactly this. Explain them using refraction. This involves more then just saying "The waves refract." Good luck.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    IF06: What happens to the fine-structure constant when your ATM idea changes the speed of light and is this observed?
    Another observation for you: We measure the fine structure of light emitted from Earth matter. We measure the fine structure of light emitted from the Sun's matter. The fine structure is the same. The fine-structure constant is the same on Earth as it is on the Sun. The speed of light is c on the following bodies:
    • Sun (no difference in the fine structure, your "c" makes the Sun explode)
    • Earth
    • Moon (lunar rocks have the same radioactivity as Earth rocks)
    • Mars (Martian meteorites have the same radioactivity as Earth rocks)
    • Asteroids (meteorites have the same radioactivity as Earth rocks)
    • Other stars (no difference in the fine structure, stars exist and your ATM idea says they do not)
    • Quasars (no difference in the fine structure)
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-03 at 02:55 AM.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,384
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    If I step out into my backyard and measure the speed of sunlight, will I get a value of approximately 914 million miles per second?
    No, because, according to my theory, sunlight falling into the sphere of influence of the Earth becomes "earthly" light. Consequently, its speed changes from cS≈1.44∙1012 m/s to c=299792458 m/s. The exact value of the sphere of influence of the Earth, where sunlight is converted into "earthly" light, is still unknown to me.
    And our satellites in Solar orbit - that could be as much as 186 million miles from Earth's influence (on the opposite side of the Sun) - do you expect they detect light from the Sun with a delay of only 0.09 seconds - 8 minutes and 19 seconds before it reaches us here on Earth?

    If that were true, we could forget looking up at the Sun from Earth completely. The satellite would give us data 8 minutes and 18.99 seconds sooner than we could ever get it here.

  26. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    If space was filled with an unknown substance that had physical effects such as reflecting light from the Sun, the substance would not be unknown! It should be easy to detect it, for example we would see sunlight being reflecting back to us in all of our telescopes. That unknown substance is not dark matter which has well known properties which include not interacting with light (it is dark).
    You forget about such a thing as the length of a light (electromagnetic) wave. I asked you what the photon is, but you did not answer, because academic physics and you, as its representative, do not know that. I don't know that too. Can you imagine a photon with the wavelength equal to twice the distance from the Sun to the center of the Galaxy? I cannot. So let's forget about photons and move on to wave optics. The solar standing electromagnetic wave has a length of approximately 5∙1020 m. This length has nothing to do with the wavelength of visible light, so neither we nor our telescopes will ever see reflected sunlight with such a wavelength. Moreover, such a wave, in accordance with the laws of movement of any waves, can interact (and therefore be reflected) only with sufficiently large space objects. Such objects, in addition to black holes, can be, in my assumption, arrays of dark matter that absorb short electromagnetic waves (visible light), but reflect long ones. That is why we see neither black holes nor dark matter. But this does not mean that they can not reflect long-wave solar radiation. I have schematically depicted the movement of the solar electromagnetic wave on the figure below:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sunmovment.GIF 
Views:	19 
Size:	13.3 KB 
ID:	24349

    It is such a reflection and refraction that can change the distance traveled by the wave, and, consequently, TS, i.e. solar cycle period.

    What does your speed of light for the interior of Sun do to the Sun?
    I have no answer yet.

    Each fusion reaction produces energy according to E = mc^2. You have 1.44∙10^12 m/s for the Sun. The speed of light we have measured everywhere in the universe is 2.998e+8 m/s. That is a 10^6 increase. Square it. That means the fusion in the Sun is giving off 10^12 times more energy than needed to keep it stable at its measured size. The Sun has just exploded
    If there really is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun, then my theory is wrong. It remains only to send an expedition into the Sun to confirm your correctness.

    Another point that needs emphasis is that we measure the speed of light throughout the universe and it is constant.
    IF06: What happens to the fine-structure constant when your ATM idea changes the speed of light and is this observed?

    The fine-structure constant contains the speed of light c and determines the fine structure of spectra. A question scientists ask is "is the fine-structure constant actually constant?".
    As I said, I consider the fine-structure constant to be constant for the entire Universe. This means that, in accordance with the formula:
    Name:  pts.GIF
Views: 78
Size:  1.4 KB
    the change of c changes the elementary charge e accordingly. And this is a completely another story.

    IF01: What does your theory predict for the effect on radio signals from the Mars rovers? Answered with a story of "earth matter" retaining its speed of light but debunked by the fact that we have Martian meteorites, Lunar rocks and meteorites with that have the same maximum ages as Earth matter. Thus radioactivity on Earth, Mars, asteroids, and the Moon has had the same rate since the formation of the Solar System and the speed of light is the same on Earth, Mars, asteroids, and the Moon!
    I have already answered this question in this thread. I have nothing to add yet.

    "For example, if the length of the antenna of a rover, operating in trigger mode reception/transmission, is tuned to earthly frequency 1, but the speed of light in reality of Mars is different from c, then the antenna of a rover will receive the wrong frequency 2 (for earth matter of the antenna), because f=cM/lantenna But in the transmission mode, the antenna of the rover will transmit frequency 1 (f=c/lantenna) to the Earth, since the matter of a rover and the antenna equipment operate at earthly speed of light c."
    ...
    "If you mean meteorites, logically, this can be explained by the factor of the duration of time. Meteorites can exist for millions of years. During this time, the matter of meteorites could partially "forget" the fundamental constants of its planet, as a result of which, if it falls to the Earth, the matter of meteorites is very quickly transformed into matter familiar to us. Of course, it sounds fantastic, but why not?

    As for rovers, space probes, etc., we can say that they have not yet managed to forget the fundamental constants of our planet and therefore consist of "earthly" matter. Something like this. As for the Moon, this is a special case. The Moon is very close to Earth. Maybe it has already become half "earthly"? "

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Scientists do use their physics and mathematics knowledge and intuition but do not stop with equations based only on that physics and mathematics knowledge and intuition. They explore what the equations mean physically. They throw them away when they are obviously wrong. They keep them when the evidence is that they are correct.
    How about my equation that successfully calculates the average of the known solar minimums:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula27-1.GIF 
Views:	13 
Size:	4.3 KB 
ID:	24351

    I hope you do not think that I poked my finger into the sky and then got the correct formula numerologically.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    This is every bit as unsupported as your claim that the speed of light is actually 1.5*10^12 m/s and every measurement humanity has made is just wrong. So I will repeat my assertion that "Neither idea has anything to support it, and both are proven wrong by every possible test you could come up with.".

    The notion that the core of our galaxy is only 5.5 light years away is equally invalid as claiming that the speed of light is 1.5*10^12 m/s. Both are wrong.
    How about my equation that successfully calculates the average of the known solar minimums:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	formula27-1.GIF 
Views:	13 
Size:	4.3 KB 
ID:	24351

    I got this formula using exactly the speed of 1.44∙1012 m/s, which I applied in the formulas of "the other reality", which I have already described in this thread.

    It sounds like you are admitting that the speed of light does not move at 1.5*10^12m/s, because your qualifier of "unless there is something unknown to me" is always true, so it doesn't add anything here. Therefore the only conclusion you are able to draw is stated right here, that your calculation is wrong since it disagrees with experiments. Since this is the case, I believe you have effectively admitted that your ATM proposal is wrong. Correct?
    I find it hard to admit. I cant believe that all my equations, which give correct results, were a coincidence. I will explore them further.

    And I refuse to accept this until you can back it up. But my question was a far simpler one, it was simply asking you how many photons from our sun you think will reach the galactic core. If you are unable to calculate this, then you cannot claim that they will have any effect because you are admitting that you don't know.
    To calculate the number of photons that will reach the center of the Galaxy and come back, we first need to know what the photon is. In accordance with the Planck formula E = hcS/2aS = h/11years, the length of one emission quantum (ie, a photon) must be equal to double the distance from the Sun to the Galaxy core. I do not believe in this absurdity. Consequently, it does not make sense to discuss photons. The solar electromagnetic wave is a completely different entity. Which one? I have no exact answer.

    Until you can answer the question, you cannot make any claims about what will happen when the photons from the sun reach the core of our galaxy. Either answer the question or withdraw this claim in your next response to me. Thank you.
    I think that the shortwave solar photons, reaching the core of the Galaxy, will be absorbed by the black hole, and the longwave solar radiation will be reflected from the black hole. Why is that? I think that the answer may be in the structure of the substance of the black hole, and, possibly, of the substance of dark matter.

    No, you have it backwards. Until you can "try to see and understand the reality of other planets", then you MUST withdraw this claim. As it currently stands, this is an unsupported claim. When you can support it, THEN and only then can you make this claim. As such, please withdraw this claim in your next response to me.
    Ok, I temporarily withdraw this claim.

    I claim you cannot. Prove me wrong.
    I can not yet. Therefore, at this point in time, you have the right to consider yourself right.

    So you admit that you are only describing a fantasy? Then it's not a theory, this is a science fiction story.
    Partially No. Partially Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave241 View Post
    Please either show how, with math, or withdraw this claim. You claim they can be explained by refraction. So please do exactly this. Explain them using refraction. This involves more then just saying "The waves refract." Good luck.
    I answered this question for Reality Check (math is obvious here):

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sunmovment.GIF 
Views:	19 
Size:	13.3 KB 
ID:	24349

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    And our satellites in Solar orbit - that could be as much as 186 million miles from Earth's influence (on the opposite side of the Sun) - do you expect they detect light from the Sun with a delay of only 0.09 seconds - 8 minutes and 19 seconds before it reaches us here on Earth?

    If that were true, we could forget looking up at the Sun from Earth completely. The satellite would give us data 8 minutes and 18.99 seconds sooner than we could ever get it here.
    I see this contradiction, but I cannot explain it. Maybe I'm wrong. I need time to comprehend this question.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    You forget about such a thing as the length of a light (electromagnetic) wave.....
    I did not forget about the fact that wavelength of 'light (electromagnetic) wave" varies and is irrelevant to your already very wrong ATM idea. I ignored an irrelevant question but since you insist: Anyone who has read a physics textbook, can read Wikipedia and "academic physics and me , as its representative", know what a photon is: photon is
    The photon is a type of elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force (even when static via virtual particles). Invariant mass of the photon is zero; it always moves at the speed of light within a vacuum.
    I wrote
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is a story with no evidence, not support for your ATM idea, Nikolay Sukhorukov. If space was filled with an unknown substance that had physical effects such as reflecting light from the Sun, the substance would not be unknown! It should be easy to detect it, for example we would see sunlight being reflecting back to us in all of our telescopes. That unknown substance is not dark matter which has well known properties which include not interacting with light (it is dark).
    And got a repeat of your "solar waves" story. The Sun emits light. Stars emit light. That light can be reflected or refracted. Imaginary "solar waves" can do whatever we imagine. I think they do nothing at all.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-04 at 11:19 PM.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    ...That is why we see neither black holes nor dark matter.
    Black holes are black because they do not let any light escape. Dark matter is dark because it does not interact electromagnetically. We do "see" black holes and dark matter, just not by any light that they emit.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I have no answer yet.
    Until you have an answer we have the mainstream answer - the Sun explodes, no stars exist.
    IF05: What does your speed of light for the interior of Sun do to the Sun?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    If there really is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun, then my theory is wrong.
    There is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun so your theory is wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    As I said, I consider the fine-structure constant to be constant for the entire Universe. ... And this is a completely another story.
    Just changing the speed of light makes the fine-structure constant and spectra fine structure change. A different story about the electron charge changing to make the fine-structure constant constant has worse consequences. Changing the electron charge changes the entire spectrum of stars! The electron charge appears in the Schrodinger equation that gives atomic spectra.
    IF06: What happens to the fine-structure constant when your ATM idea changes the speed of light and is this observed?
    IF06: What happens to the spectra of stars when your ATM idea changes the speed of light and the electron charge and is this observed?

    Repeating an unsupported and easily debunked "earth matter" story is not an answer to my question. The speed of light in reality of Mars (and the Sun, Moon, Asteroids, other stars and quasars) is the same as c! Your story is thus wrong.
    IF01: What does your theory predict for the effect on radio signals from the Mars rovers?

    Wrong "average of the known solar minimums" irrelevance. Numerology selected to get 71 years. Solar minimums happen ~11 years apart. Grand solar minima and maxima are different.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-05 at 03:15 AM.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,170
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    To calculate the number of photons that will reach the center of the Galaxy and come back, we first need to know what the photon is. ...
    We know that: Photon.
    A very wrong "In accordance with the Planck formula" fantasy. No mainstream physics (which Planck worked on) has a formula with your ATM idea in it. Photons have variable lengths and this is irreverent. The question is: The Sun emits X photons per second in all directions. How many of these photons do you think will get to the galactic core. To make the question even simpler - start with the Sun emitting 10^45 photons in 1 second. What is the number of photons at the galactic core arriving in 1 second from the Sun?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •