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

1. ## The mystery of the 11-year solar cycle is probably solved

The proposed method, explaining the 11-year solar cycle, is based on an unusual theory, according to which some fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in vacuum c, which we consider universal for the entire Universe, have different values in the spheres of influence of other stars, planets or space objects. Analyzing this theory, I assumed that for any two space objects that have gravitational attraction and revolve around their power centers in accordance with Kepler's laws, their speeds of light c1 and c2, and gravitational parameters µ1 and µ2 are interconnected by the following relationship:
(1)

According to this relationship, the speed of light in vacuum for the Sun can be calculated by the following formula:

(2)

where c = 299792458 m/s is the speed of light in vacuum for the Earth, µS ≈ 1.3271∙1020 m3/s2 is the gravitational parameter of the Sun, µE ≈ 3.9860∙1014 m3/s2 is the gravitational parameter of the Earth (the geocentric gravitational constant).

Since the Sun, without doubt, is a powerful source of electromagnetic radiation (and light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum), it is logical to assume that this radiation can be directed to the center of our galaxy (the Milky Way). If we assume that the solar electromagnetic radiation has a pulsating character due to discrete movement of the Sun along its galactic orbit, and if we assume that the Galaxy's core is capable of reflecting electromagnetic waves, then, knowing the distance from the Sun to the Galaxy's center aS ≈ 2.4976∙1020 m, and knowing the speed of light cS for the Sun, calculated by the formula (2), we can approximately calculate the time of movement TS of a solar electromagnetic wave to the Galaxy's center and back. Schematically, such a movement may be represented as follows:

(3)

The resulting value – 11 years – almost coincides with the average period of observed solar activity that allows us to confidently determine its cause: the 11-year solar cycle is determined and synchronized by the time of movement of the solar electromagnetic wave reflected from the Galaxy's core and returned back to the Sun.

Of course, the formula (3), derived by me, is approximate. Since the real movement of the Sun around the galactic center occurs probably along a complicated elliptical trajectory; the orbital speed of the Sun is not constant; various obstacles can be present, appear and disappear on the path of the solar electromagnetic wave in the interstellar space, consequently the period of solar activity cannot be constant in time and constant in intensity. This probably explains the maximums and minimums of solar activity, calculated and observed in past historical periods.

It is still difficult to say whether it is possible to use the proposed method to calculate the activity cycles of other stars, planets or space objects. If this methods is correct, then using the relationship (1) – which, according to the theory under consideration, is universal – and knowing the speed of light c for the Earth, the geocentric constant µE, the semi-major axis aO and the gravitational parameter µO of the space object that interests us, we could calculate its speed of light and its period (frequency) of orbital electromagnetic radiation by the formulas:

(4)

For example, for Jupiter, which has a powerful magnetic field, the calculation using these formulas gives the following values: the speed of light cJ = 1.3962∙1010 m/s ; the period of orbital electromagnetic radiation (relative to the Sun) TJ = 111.53 seconds; the frequency fJ = 0.009 Hz. An experimental detection of electromagnetic radiation with such a period (frequency) in the Solar system could be an important evidence of the validity of both the method described in this work, which explains the 11-year cycle of solar activity, and the theory, which asserts that some fundamental physical constants have different values in other worlds, which, in turn, can open up new opportunities for us to further explore nature.

P.S.

It is curious that if the obtained value of the speed of light cS ≈ 1.44∙1012 m/s for the Sun is approximately equal to the speed of gravity in the sphere of influence of the Sun, then this value more reliably explains the stability of the Solar system.

Since the formula (2) does not contain numerical coefficients, it is difficult to accuse me of numerology. I understand that skeptics are unlikely to agree with the statement that the speed of light may be different in the spheres of influence of different space objects. I understand that this is a very serious statement. That is why it would be important to test the formulas (4), for example, to calculate the distances of some Cepheids to the Galaxy's center. It is difficult for me to do this, since I am not a professional astronomer, and I do not know, for example, how to convert the magnitude to a gravitational parameter. Can someone help and give me useful links?

Thanks.

2. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Jun 2006
Posts
4,822

## Variable c? I Don't Think So.

Nikolay Sukhorukov, as you present it here, your theory has too many assumptions and too much numerology. Can you cite any observations to support your ideas?
Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2019-Jun-18 at 02:43 PM.

3. Established Member
Join Date
Jun 2015
Location
Houston
Posts
1,359
Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Nikolay Sukhorukov, as you present it here, your theory has too many assumptions and too much numerology. Can you cite any observations to support your ideas?
I agree with that. In addition (s)he has made four assumptions in his discussion any of which should negate the theory.

4. Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Nikolay Sukhorukov, as you present it here, your theory has too many assumptions and too much numerology. Can you cite any observations to support your ideas?
Yes, I can. The fact is that according to the theory I am developing, space objects can have not only their own speeds of light, but also some fundamental constants, namely, the electron mass, the elementary charge, and possibly some others. In fact, this means other physical reality of space objects, in relation to the Earth. Now suppose that Venus is another space object. Earthly equipment detects on Venus a very high temperature, tremendous pressure, high acidity and hurricane winds. Under these conditions, the surface of Venus should be smooth like a billiard ball. But at the same time, earthly radars detect huge mountain ranges on Venus. How is this possible? Is this not indirect evidence that earthly instruments are wrong? If so, then this fact is, at least, indirect evidence of the theory that I develop.

Originally Posted by 21st Century Schizoid Man
Not sure why you didn't just use the masses on the right-hand side.
Because in my theory of gravity µ is used instead of GM. This is a fundamental difference of my theory.

But, just to make sure I understand this theory correctly - the speed of light on the ISS should be maybe a fraction of a millimetre per second? Did I do that right?
No, because according to my theory of gravity, in order to have µ, a space object must have the circular gravitational radius Rog = µ / co2 (where co is the speed of light for a space object, µ is the gravitational parameter of a space object). ISS does not have Rog, but at the same time, ISS consists of atoms that have very small Rog and µ (with some reservations).

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Varying the speed of light is a very bad idea, Nikolay Sukhorukov, especially for the Sun. E = mc^2 controls fusion, the Sun is powered by fusion and you have just made the Sun collapse or expand.
Good point. Are you sure that the mass of the Sun is as huge as you think? For example, forget about GM and replace it with µ. In orbital mechanics, it almost nothing will change. Accordingly, if in the formula E = mc2 high speed of light and small mass will be used, the Sun will not explode, fortunately.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
The "consider universal" is incorrect, Nikolay Sukhorukov. That forms part of the basis for special relativity.
I badly understand STR and I do not want to delve into this subject. Other authoritative researchers strongly criticize this theory, therefore, not everything is so rosy with STR.

Tests of special relativity are indirect tests that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. We also do direct tests. The speed of light in vacuum is measured to be constant everywhere that we can measure it thus "universal for the entire Universe".
You probably confuse the speed of light in vacuum, measured on Earth, with the speed of light in vacuum in the sphere of influence of other space objects. As I answered John Mendenhal, the sphere of influence of other space objects is other reality. Earthly experiments are not applicable to it. As for astronomical methods of calculating the speed of light, for example, the Romer method, here we must keep in mind that the speed of light cO of a space object is determined not only by the time of its movement Tm, but also by the time of its detection Td:

cO = a/(Tm+Td),

where a is some astronomical distance (for example, the distance from a satellite of Jupiter to the Earth). That is, if we assume that the sunlight reflected from Jupiter reaches the Earth very quickly, but this sunlight ("alien" for the Earth) is detected by earthly matter about 5000 times slower, then as a result we have the illusion that the light moves with the speed c = 299792458 m/s. I still do not understand the exact mechanism of this process and I cannot provide exact formulas for calculation, since my main subject of this thread is the calculation of the 11-year solar cycle, and not a discussion of other reality, but I hope my general idea is understood.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
The Sun emits light in all directions so physically light goes everywhere. The center of Milky Way is not special in receiving that light.
It is not true. The Galaxy's center probably contains a black hole. So it is a very specific place. I did not say that only the Galaxy's center can receive and reflect a solar electromagnetic wave. But it is precisely the distance between the Sun and the Galaxy's center forms a resonant system, which modulates the 11-year solar cycle, according to my hypothesis.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
We cannot assume that - we need evidence. What we know is that the Sun emits light constantly and there is nothing that we know to make it "pulsate" along its galactic orbit.
We do not know yet. For this there are hypotheses. Yes, the Sun emits light constantly, but its intensity changes on average every 11 years. It is a "pulsating" fact.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
This is wrong, Nikolay Sukhorukov. The Galaxy core is made of stars and gas that emit light, not mirrors. Light can be absorbed and different light emitted.
May be. Actually, I thought that the Galaxy's core consists of a black hole, and a black hole is mystery. It may be able to reflect star electromagnetic waves. It was just my guess, based on the amazing exact coincidence of the 11-year value, derived by the formula:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is wrong, Nikolay Sukhorukov. The "the time of movement TS of a solar electromagnetic wave to the Galaxy's center and back" is the distance to the center in light years times 2 or ~50,000 years.
If the speed of a solar electromagnetic wave is 1.4401∙1012 m/s then the time of movement is 2∙2.4976∙1020 m / 1.4401∙1012 m/s ≈ 3.4686∙108 s ≈ 10.9911 earthly years.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Numerology is combining constants to get what that you want. But constants can be arranged to give just about any value. Want the mass of an electron? Then combine constants until you get that mass. There is no physics, just numbers. Thus we call this numerology.
And you are not confused by the fact that when combining different constants, not only numerical values, but also units of measure coincide? Of course, if the 11-year value came out with a combination of the mass of the Eiffel Tower, the speed of the Nile river, etc., it would look strange. But the combination of object's constants (the Sun), which have something to do with the 11-year cycle, makes one doubt such an accident.

5. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Originally Posted by John Mendenhall
Nikolay Sukhorukov, as you present it here, your theory has too many assumptions and too much numerology. Can you cite any observations to support your ideas?
Yes, I can. The fact is that according to the theory I am developing, space objects can have not only their own speeds of light, but also some fundamental constants, namely, the electron mass, the elementary charge, and possibly some others. In fact, this means other physical reality of space objects, in relation to the Earth. Now suppose that Venus is another space object. Earthly equipment detects on Venus a very high temperature, tremendous pressure, high acidity and hurricane winds. Under these conditions, the surface of Venus should be smooth like a billiard ball. But at the same time, earthly radars detect huge mountain ranges on Venus. How is this possible? Is this not indirect evidence that earthly instruments are wrong? If so, then this fact is, at least, indirect evidence of the theory that I develop.
Why would Venus be "smooth like a billiard ball" because of high temperature, high pressure, etc.? Why would that smooth out the surface? Does your theory predict Venus should be smooth, and if so, why? How do these observations prove Earth instruments are wrong and your idea is right? When you say "Earthly instruments are wrong" do you mean instruments that are actually on Earth, because we have also sent probes to Venus orbit and the surface of Venus and these confirm the observations of Venus conditions.

6. Originally Posted by Swift
Why would Venus be "smooth like a billiard ball" because of high temperature, high pressure, etc.? Why would that smooth out the surface?
Huge soil erosion should smooth the surface.

How do these observations prove Earth instruments are wrong and your idea is right?
Everything is simple - if there are mountains on Venus, then in reality "the inhabitants of Venus" on Venus have not very high temperatures, not very high acidity, etc.

When you say "Earthly instruments are wrong" do you mean instruments that are actually on Earth, because we have also sent probes to Venus orbit and the surface of Venus and these confirm the observations of Venus conditions.
All earthly tools. On the Earth and in space.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
A basic fact about black holes is that they are black.
Exhaustive knowledge. Thank you.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Nikolay Sukhorukov, The evidence shows Venus is not "smooth like a billiard ball" because Venus has volcanic activity and slower tectonic activity (the volcanoes are not recycled). What you think about "a very high temperature, tremendous pressure, high acidity and hurricane winds" does not make volcanoes vanish.
That is a moot point. Volcanic activity and tectonic activity are strongly stretched in time, and the estimated enormous temperature, pressure, acidity, etc. act constantly for millions of years.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
That is numerology. Make up a formula and see that it produces a value that happens in the universe and assign this undue significance. That is the similar to taking a bunch of constants combining them to get an electron mass. It works numerically.
You are probably a very educated person. To make it clear to me that I am a fool, please make an equation yourself, which with great accuracy derives some well-known physical value from a random set of physical constants. I am an extremely rational person and I do not like "blah blah blah". Thank you.

We have sent spacecraft to the Moon, other planets, comets, asteroids, etc. We get radio signals from the spacecraft abut the data they collect and telemetry (internal data) including time stamps from their clocks.IF01: What does your theory predict for the effect on radio signals from the Mars rovers?
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.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
You may want to read about the 11-year solar cycle again, Nikolay Sukhorukov. It is not an "10.9911 earthly year" cycle. It is an on average 11 year cycle. Solar cycle 23 lasted 11.6 years. It is a cycle that vanishes for decades, e.g. Maunder Minimum.
ETA: An implication from your Ts formula having the mass of the Sun in it is that sometimes the Sun changes mass by a lot to change Ts and explain the variations in the cycle lengths!

"Of course, the formula (3), derived by me, is approximate. Since the real movement of the Sun around the galactic center occurs probably along a complicated elliptical trajectory; the orbital speed of the Sun is not constant; various obstacles can be present, appear and disappear on the path of the solar electromagnetic wave in the interstellar space, consequently the period of solar activity cannot be constant in time and constant in intensity. This probably explains the maximums and minimums of solar activity, calculated and observed in past historical periods."

Originally Posted by Dave241
Direct question: Please show your evidence that light can move at 1.5*10^12 m/s, and list any experiments that back this up. If no experiments have ever shown this, please say so explicitly. (hint: no experiments have ever shown this).
I have no direct evidence yet, but I am working on it.

Originally Posted by Dave241
How in the world did you get to this conclusion?
This idea (of other fundamental constants for other planets and stars) was inspired by the article of other authors that I read about 25 years ago + my intuition.

How in the world is the sun "directing" it's sunlight in any direction at all? It shines equally in all directions, so it's not being directed anywhere.
Maybe I inaccurately expressed my thought (English is not my native language). 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?

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Why would this tiny amount of light have any effect on the Sun even if it "pulsates" with a period of 10.9911 years?

Space is not empty. It is full of dust and gas that absorbs and scatters light. Not all of the light in your idea will get to the hypothetical mirror or return from it. Why would this even tinier amount of light have any effect on the Sun even if it "pulsates" with a period of 10.9911 years?
Do you know how a transistor works? Even a few electrons fed to the base of a transistor are able to open the transistor and it will start to pass a huge electric current. Why should a small number of reflected solar photons not open the Sun-"transistor" approximately every 11 years? But, as I wrote in my initial post, various obstacles may appear on the path of solar photons — dust, gas, etc. Consequently, the solar cycle will also be unstable, up to almost complete extinction (Maunder Minimum). Of course, I am not yet ready to provide an exact quantitative description of this process. I am not a wunderkind, sorry.

This ATM idea gets close to stating that turning a searchlight on and off on Earth makes the Sun get more or less intense! More seriously, what about light from above ground nuclear bomb tests turning solar activity on or off?
Any radiation, including radiation from a nuclear bomb, is EARTHLY radiation due to EARTHLY fundamental constants. But the algorithm of the 11-year solar cycle obeys the SUN fundamental constants. In other words, solar photons can influence the solar cycle, but eartly photons cannot (almost).

Note!

I found a contradiction or inaccuracy in my formula cO = a/(Tm+Td), which can kill my hypothesis. Therefore, I will not object to temporarily or permanently end my thread. But if readers are interested, I can continue the discussion.
Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jun-20 at 06:17 AM.

7. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,277
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
You are probably a very educated person. To make it clear to me that I am a fool, please make an equation yourself, which with great accuracy derives some well-known physical value from a random set of physical constants. I am an extremely rational person and I do not like "blah blah blah". Thank you.
I did that for you in one of your last threads here. I'm crushed that you have forgotten.

Remember? The mass of my car and the heights of Carrie-Ann Moss or Shaquille O'Neil predict the fine structure constant to a good degree of accuracy
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...16#post2468916
https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthr...40#post2469040

8. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Huge soil erosion should smooth the surface.....
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? What makes the measurements of the atmospheric temperature on Venus invalid?

An ATM idea author demanding things of other posters is not done in an ATM thread.
One last time: We see numerology in ATM ideas. The mathematical fact is that a set of numbers can be combined to make just about any other number. So we see numerology such as finding a formula that returns the mass of an elect ton or other fundamental particles. Anyone can see that this is numerology from the lack of any physics or evidence to justify the formula. 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. Anyone can see that this is numerology when the formula predicts that the universe we see does not exist.

A "earthly matter tuned to the Earth's physical constants" fantasy is not an answer to:
IF01: What does your theory predict for the effect on radio signals from the Mars rovers?

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.

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.
We can imagine a perfect mirror ball sitting at the center of the galaxy then the photon flux that is received back at the Sun is too small to be physically significant to the Sun. 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.

9. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
I found a contradiction or inaccuracy in my formula...
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.

10. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
150
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
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.

11. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Mar 2010
Location
United Kingdom
Posts
7,277
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
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.

12. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Good point.....
It is a good point that you cannot make us not exist by making the Sun smaller or larger! That is the easiest to understand example of many measurements that say that c is c. The universe that we see makes your ATM idea wrong. End of thread?

You misunderstood my posts and made more mistakes.
• We do not assume that the speed of light is c throughout the universe. We have measured that the speed of light is c throughout the universe. That makes your ATM idea wrong.
• I do not confuse the speed of light - we have measured that the speed of light is c throughout the universe. That makes your ATM idea wrong.
• The Sun does emit light in all directions and so the center of the Milky Way getting light from the Sun is not special. Stars are not mirrors. Gas is not a mirror. The supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way is not a mirror!
There are no mirrors in the center of the Milky Way and thus none of your reflection!
• The Sun is 27,200 light years from the center if the Milky Way so any imagined "reflection" takes 54,000 years to return. 50,000 years is not 11 years.
• The Sun takes 225–250 million years for 1 galactic orbit. 225–250 million years is not 11 years.
• Imagining that impossible reflection + times of 54,000 years and 225–250 million years somehow give 11 years is not even an ATM idea. That makes your ATM idea wrong.
• The "core" of the Milky Way is the galactic bulge. Sagittarius A* is at the center of that bulge.
• Black holes are extremely well understood.
A basic fact about black holes is that they are black. They absorb everything that falls into then including light,.
• You cannot explain solar cycles by saying there are solar cycles!
• Numerology of an "amazing coincidence" is not science.
• Repeats ignorance about what your speed of a "solar electromagnetic wave" means - you have made the universe we see not exist, you have made us probably not exist. The universe that we see makes your ATM idea wrong.

13. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
...derived by the formula:

That is numerology. Make up a formula and see that it produces a value that happens in the universe and assign this undue significance. That is the similar to taking a bunch of constants combining them to get an electron mass. It works numerically. The units match. This is not science.

If you want to continue with your ATM idea after the problems with it have been listed then start with this formal question. We have sent spacecraft to the Moon, other planets, comets, asteroids, etc. We get radio signals from the spacecraft abut the data they collect and telemetry (internal data) including time stamps from their clocks.
IF01: What does your theory predict for the effect on radio signals from the Mars rovers?

I look at formula 2 and the signals should be faster than the speed of light c. They should arrive here before we expect them to arrive.

14. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
150
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
If the speed of a solar electromagnetic wave is 1.4401∙1012 m/s then the time of movement is 2∙2.4976∙1020 m / 1.4401∙1012 m/s ≈ 3.4686∙108 s ≈ 10.9911 earthly years.
I highlighted a very important word in your statement: IF. We know the speed of light moves at 3*10^8 m/s, not at 1.5*10^12 m/s. The speed you are claiming is not a small increase, it is actually 5 THOUSAND times larger the the measured speed of light. That's like claiming that you can run at 50,000 mph when you actually only run at 10 mph. Not many people will believe you unless you can show them. So you are getting way ahead of yourself here, you first need to prove that light moves as fast as you claim it will.

Direct question: Please show your evidence that light can move at 1.5*10^12 m/s, and list any experiments that back this up. If no experiments have ever shown this, please say so explicitly. (hint: no experiments have ever shown this).

There are a LARGE number of other problems with your theory, but this one right here will kill it outright so I don't see any point of going further unless you can actually demonstrate any evidence for this claim.

15. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Not sure why you didn't just use the masses on the right-hand side.

But, just to make sure I understand this theory correctly - the speed of light on the ISS should be maybe a fraction of a millimetre per second? Did I do that right?

16. Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
I understand that skeptics are unlikely to agree with the statement that the speed of light may be different in the spheres of influence of different space objects. I understand that this is a very serious statement. That is why it would be important to test the formulas (4), for example, to calculate the distances of some Cepheids to the Galaxy's center. It is difficult for me to do this, since I am not a professional astronomer, and I do not know, for example, how to convert the magnitude to a gravitational parameter. Can someone help and give me useful links?
Nikolay Sukhorukov,

The Against The Mainstream forum is not intended as a collaborative or developmental environment for your ideas. This is where you present, defend, and answer questions about your claim. If you need help developing the ideas, you'll have to do that somewhere else.

17. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
The proposed method, explaining the 11-year solar cycle, is based on an unusual theory, ...
Varying the speed of light is a very bad idea, Nikolay Sukhorukov, especially for the Sun. E = mc^2 controls fusion, the Sun is powered by fusion and you have just made the Sun collapse or expand.

18. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
... including the speed of light in vacuum c, which we consider universal for the entire Universe.
The "consider universal" is incorrect, Nikolay Sukhorukov. We start with a postulate that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. That forms part of the basis for special relativity. Tests of special relativity are indirect tests that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. We also do direct tests. The speed of light in vacuum is measured to be constant everywhere that we can measure it thus "universal for the entire Universe".
See What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?

19. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
... it is logical to assume that this radiation can be directed to the center of our galaxy (the Milky Way).
The Sun emits light in all directions so physically light goes everywhere. The center of Milky Way is not special in receiving that light.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-19 at 04:43 AM.

20. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
If we assume that the solar electromagnetic radiation has a pulsating character due to discrete movement of the Sun along its galactic orbit,
We cannot assume that - we need evidence. What we know is that the Sun emits light constantly and there is nothing that we know to make it "pulsate" along its galactic orbit.

21. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
...and if we assume that the Galaxy's core is capable of reflecting electromagnetic waves, then...
This is wrong, Nikolay Sukhorukov. The Galaxy core is made of stars and gas that emit light, not mirrors. Light can be absorbed and different light emitted.

22. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
T...The resulting value – 11 years
That is wrong, Nikolay Sukhorukov. The "the time of movement TS of a solar electromagnetic wave to the Galaxy's center and back" is the distance to the center in light years times 2 or ~50,000 years.

23. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Since the formula (2) does not contain numerical coefficients, it is difficult to accuse me of numerology.
Numerology is combining constants to get what that you want. But constants can be arranged to give just about any value. Want the mass of an electron? Then combine constants until you get that mass. There is no physics, just numbers. Thus we call this numerology.

24. By the way, while I know what you mean by "smooth like a billiard ball", our own BA has demonstrated that the Earth is actually smoother.

The Earth has a diameter of about 12,735 kilometers (on average, see below for more on this). Using the smoothness ratio from above, the Earth would be an acceptable pool ball if it had no bumps (mountains) or pits (trenches) more than 12,735 km x 0.00222 = about 28 km in size.

The highest point on Earth is the top of Mt. Everest, at 8.85 km. The deepest point on Earth is the Marianas Trench, at about 11 km deep.

25. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Nikolay Sukhorukov, The evidence shows Venus is not "smooth like a billiard ball" because Venus has volcanic activity and slower tectonic activity (the volcanoes are not recycled). What you think about "a very high temperature, tremendous pressure, high acidity and hurricane winds" does not make volcanoes vanish.
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-19 at 09:34 PM.

26. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
The proposed method, explaining the 11-year solar cycle, ...
You may want to read about the 11-year solar cycle again, Nikolay Sukhorukov. It is not an "10.9911 earthly year" cycle. It is an on average 11 year cycle. Solar cycle 23 lasted 11.6 years. It is a cycle that vanishes for decades, e.g. Maunder Minimum.

ETA: An implication from your Ts formula having the mass of the Sun in it is that sometimes the Sun changes mass by a lot to change Ts and explain the variations in the cycle lengths!
Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jun-20 at 01:31 AM.

27. Established Member
Join Date
Jul 2018
Posts
150
Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov
Since the Sun, without doubt, is a powerful source of electromagnetic radiation (and light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum), it is logical to assume that this radiation can be directed to the center of our galaxy (the Milky Way).
Ok, so I know I said my last question was the only one I needed to focus on, but after making that post I noticed this claim and I just had to ask you about it: How in the world did you get to this conclusion? How in the world is the sun "directing" it's sunlight in any direction at all? It shines equally in all directions, so it's not being directed anywhere. Are you thinking that there is a giant, sun-sized mirror on one side of the sun that is directing the sunlight into the galactic center? Is the sun acting as a massive laser and firing a large percent of it's sunlight directly into the galactic core? Or did you mistype the sentence and you actually meant something completely different, and this was just a goof? (If it's the last one, that's fine I make funny typos all the time.)

Anyway, I was mostly just curious as to what you are picturing is actually happening to direct a stars light to......well anything really.

28. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
That "directed" comment by Dave241 reminded me of a couple of things that you have skipped over, Nikolay Sukhorukov.
The inverse square law. Light from the Sun decreases in intensity according to the inverse square law. There may be billions of photons per second passing through a square meter 1 light year away. That might be a handful by the time the light gets to a hypothetical mirror at the center of the Milky Way and maybe a few photons a year if the light returns. Why would this tiny amount of light have any effect on the Sun even if it "pulsates" with a period of 10.9911 years?

Space is not empty. It is full of dust and gas that absorbs and scatters light. Not all of the light in your idea will get to the hypothetical mirror or return from it. Why would this even tinier amount of light have any effect on the Sun even if it "pulsates" with a period of 10.9911 years?

This ATM idea gets close to stating that turning a searchlight on and off on Earth makes the Sun get more or less intense! More seriously, what about light from above ground nuclear bomb tests turning solar activity on or off?

29. 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?)

30. Order of Kilopi
Join Date
Aug 2008
Location
Wellington, New Zealand
Posts
4,412
Originally Posted by pzkpfw
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?
Here is another "what is special" question": What is so special about the Earth that the Earth's mass appears in his formula? Is he suggesting that future Lunar or Martian colonists would measure solar cycle that did not average out to 11 years?

The speed of light being c is not special to Earth as he now knows. We have measured the speed of light to be c throughout the universe.