Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 61 to 90 of 90

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

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    answered this question for Reality Check (math is obvious here):
    No math in this cartoon but some ignorance.
    The top of the cartoon is ignorant about black holes. Black holes absorb all light that falls on them. A "standing wave" between the Sun and a black hole is impossible.
    The bottom of the cartoon is ignorant about standing waves and dark matter. Standing waves happen when 2 oppositely directed but otherwise similar waves pass through each other. Dark matter does not emit any light, especially the same light as the Sun! Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically and cannot reflect light from the Sun.
    Even the word "the" in "the standing electromagnetic wave" may be wrong! An incoherent source like the Sun if placed next to an imaginary reflector should produce multiple standing waves with a variety of wavelengths.

    Putting "" around the dark part of dark matter does not make the empirical evidence about dark matter vanish. For example, when galaxy clusters collide, normal matter collides (interacts electromagnetically) and we detect the x-rays from normal matter heating up. But dark matter passes through the normal matter with no interaction.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    The speed of light in reality of Mars (and the Sun, Moon, Asteroids, other stars and quasars) is the same as c!
    Everything with a temperature emits light - planets, gas, stars, galaxies, quasars. According to your ATM idea this light will travel at speeds that are not c and have spectra that do not match what we measure (different c = different fine structure of spectra and/or different e = different spectra). We measure the spectrum of hydrogen. We see the same spectrum of light from the Sun, other stars, gas planets and interstellar gas. Ditto for helium, etc. Ditto for light from molecules.
    ETA: We send spacecraft made of "earth matter" to planets, moons, asteroids and comets and their detectors work with light from "planets/moon/asteroid/comet matter".

    The first measurement of the speed of light was RÝmer's determination of the speed of light in 1676 using light emitted from Jupiter's moon Io as it was eclipsed by the shadow of Jupiter. Io has a mass of 0.015 Earths. I will let you calculate what value we should get.
    Note that with this rough technique RÝmer was only 26% lower than c and in 1809 Delambre got a much closer result of a little more than 300,000 kilometres per second.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2019-Jul-05 at 03:43 AM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    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.
    There really is.

    We don't need to literally enter the Sun to know it is powered by hydrogen fusion into helium. It is quite well understood.
    This Wiki article entry goes into depth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

    "[The Sun] generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second."

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The Sun emits light. Stars emit light. That light can be reflected or refracted.
    You replace concepts. The Sun and stars do not emit light, but electromagnetic radiation. It is possible that electromagnetic radiation is a disturbance of the electromagnetic field. It is possible that electromagnetic radiation is a perturbation of the hypothetical ether. Perhaps this is something else, for example, a disturbance of the hypothetical information field. But please don't add shortwave photons here. For example, if a radio antenna emitting long electromagnetic waves is very hot, it will also emit visible light. But at the same time, the antenna will not cease to emit long waves, will it? Also, the Sun emits both visible light and long waves. And in order to "see" very long waves, we need very "long" antennas, which we do not have. But just like when receiving invisible long waves with a radio antenna, we observe the release of energy in the form of alternating electric current, as well as when the Sun receives its own invisible long waves, we also observe the release of energy in the form of periodic solar activity.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Black holes are black because they do not let any light escape. Dark matter is dark because it does not interact electromagnetically.
    This is just one of the hypotheses. In my last post, I suggested another. Thatís all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    There is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun so your theory is wrong.
    May be.

    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.
    I meant the amplitude modulation of 11-year cycles. It's obvious if you read the article Solar cycle. In addition, my formula calculates minimums, not maximums. These are probably different things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    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.
    So how does it not have? I read in Photon:

    "In chemistry and optical engineering, photons are usually symbolized by , which is the photon energy, where h is Planck constant and the Greek letter ν (nu) is the photon's frequency.[17] Much less commonly, the photon can be symbolized by hf, where its frequency is denoted by f."

    But after all, any frequency f and wavelength λ of light are related by the fundamental relation f = c / λ. So the light quantum must have a length. If academic physics does not like this, this is a problem of academic physics.

    How many of these photons do you think will get to the galactic core[/B]. 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?
    Sorry, I'm not on an exam. Since your photons, apparently, are irrelevant to the solar electromagnetic wave with the length of 5∙1020 m, I am no longer interested in discussing photons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Dark matter does not interact electromagnetically and cannot reflect light from the Sun.
    ...
    Putting "" around the dark part of dark matter does not make the empirical evidence about dark matter vanish. For example, when galaxy clusters collide, normal matter collides (interacts electromagnetically) and we detect the x-rays from normal matter heating up. But dark matter passes through the normal matter with no interaction.
    In general, black holes and dark matter are unusual space objects. But if so, then they may have unusual properties. I just assume that one of such unusual properties is their ability to absorb ordinary light and reflect long electromagnetic waves. Why not. It does not seem to contradict the observations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The first measurement of the speed of light was RÝmer's determination of the speed of light in 1676 using light emitted from Jupiter's moon Io as it was eclipsed by the shadow of Jupiter. Io has a mass of 0.015 Earths. I will let you calculate what value we should get.
    Note that with this rough technique RÝmer was only 26% lower than c and in 1809 Delambre got a much closer result of a little more than 300,000 kilometres per second.
    This is what makes me stumped. These experiments could not be a fake?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    We don't need to literally enter the Sun to know it is powered by hydrogen fusion into helium. It is quite well understood.
    This Wiki article entry goes into depth:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

    "[The Sun] generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second."
    This is a very plausible hypothesis, but it is just a hypothesis.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    18,342
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    "[The Sun] generates its energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium. In its core, the Sun fuses 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second."
    This is a very plausible hypothesis, but it is just a hypothesis.
    No, sorry, it is much more than just a hypothesis. For decades now, there has been direct observation of solar neutrinos that, based on other experiments, are established as coming from fusion. There are many other lines of evidence for fusion in our sun and other stars, but that is direct evidence that fusion is occurring in the sun now. You said "If there really is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun, then my theory is wrong." It's wrong.

    Incidentally, one famous example of a solar neutrino observatory would be:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbur...no_Observatory

    "The problem with quotes on the Internet is that it is hard to verify their authenticity." ó Abraham Lincoln

    I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

    The Leif Ericson Cruiser

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    This is a very plausible hypothesis, but it is just a hypothesis.
    OK, so this is problematic.

    Your idea about sun cycles has now become dependent - not only on utterly falsifying a century of science theory, experiments and data about the speed of light - but also on utterly falsifiyng the very core of stellar physics.

    So here's a question: does your idea do a better job of explaining - our observations of both the speed of light and the physics of stars - than the current standard model?

    Note that
    1] You freely admit that you don't have a lot of core answers (or math) for your idea.
    2] You don't have a model of how your 'variable speed of light' idea works using known physics.
    3] Your idea does not even attempt to address stellar physics - let alone provide a better model for it.


    Which do you think is more likely to require modification?
    Last edited by DaveC426913; 2019-Jul-06 at 07:11 PM.

  7. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by Van Rijn View Post
    No, sorry, it is much more than just a hypothesis. For decades now, there has been direct observation of solar neutrinos that, based on other experiments, are established as coming from fusion. There are many other lines of evidence for fusion in our sun and other stars, but that is direct evidence that fusion is occurring in the sun now. You said "If there really is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun, then my theory is wrong." It's wrong.
    There are some problems with the "thermonuclear" hypothesis. The Sun is probably a powerful source of protons, which are part of the solar wind. This means that the "fusion reactor" sprays its own fuel into the interstellar space. That is a very irrational and questionable phenomenon for an extremely rational nature. In addition, in accordance with the theory of the evolution of stars, as their thermonuclear fuel burns out, they should smoothly change from one spectral class to another, but in fact the star classification has a well-defined discreteness, which is very strange. There are other problems with the star thermonuclear hypothesis.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    So here's a question: does your idea do a better job of explaining - our observations of both the speed of light and the physics of stars - than the current standard model?

    Note that
    1] You freely admit that you don't have a lot of core answers (or math) for your idea.
    2] You don't have a model of how your 'variable speed of light' idea works using known physics.
    3] Your idea does not even attempt to address stellar physics - let alone provide a better model for it.
    From the very beginning of this thread I did not pretend to have an exact knowledge of the physics of stars, since I am not an astronomer. But yesterday I had a crazy idea how to explain the contradiction of my hypothesis with RŲmer's experiment. I hardly have time to do this in detail in this thread, but in a nutshell my idea is as follows: for any space object there are two speeds of light - the “nuclear” speed of light, which determines the fundamental constants of a space object and which is valid for the entire Universe (but not physically works within the gravitational sphere of action of a space object), and there is the "orbital" speed of light, which acts only within the gravitational sphere of action of a space object, with some reservations. In some cases (for example, for black holes) these speeds of light are equal to each other. That is, this means that for a solar wave reflecting from the Galaxy's core, the speed of light is 1.44∙1012 m/s, but within the gravitational sphere of the Sun (including the Solar System, but not planets!) the speed of light is 299792458 m/s. Something like this. How do you like my idea? I understand that this sounds fantastic, but I really have a very rich imagination, sorry. Of course, I do not have math to prove this hypothesis, since I came up with it only yesterday.
    Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jul-07 at 05:42 AM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    There are some problems with the "thermonuclear" hypothesis. The Sun is probably a powerful source of protons, which are part of the solar wind. This means that the "fusion reactor" sprays its own fuel into the interstellar space. That is a very irrational and questionable phenomenon for an extremely rational nature. In addition, in accordance with the theory of the evolution of stars, as their thermonuclear fuel burns out, they should smoothly change from one spectral class to another, but in fact the star classification has a well-defined discreteness, which is very strange. There are other problems with the star thermonuclear hypothesis.
    Have you ever seen an HR diagram? The closest you have to discreteness is when a star changes state (say to a red giant). Your argument is thus rather like saying "There are serious issues with our ideas about thermodynamics because when you heat or cool water you should just see it get hotter or colder on a continuum, but we see ice and steam form".

    As for the "very irrational" bit... Are you claiming stars are conscious now and choose how to behave? The solar wind accounts for about 20 quadrillionths of a solar mass per year. Yup, 0.0000000000002 solar masses per year. If we assumed it was constant over its whole lifetime that is about a quarter of a percent of its mass. Its negligible. You may as well claim that humans are impossible because we choose to breath out moisture which we need to live.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    How do you like my idea? I understand that this sounds fantastic, but I really have a very rich imagination, sorry. Of course, I do not have math to prove this hypothesis, since I came up with it only yesterday.
    I think it is a terrible idea. Yet another attempt to ignore the fact that there is very solid evidence that your claims are wrong and come up with some magic hand-waving reason why they are actually right, despite all appearances. Its probably even worse than the idea that the speed of light in a material changes in just the right way to mean that all our observations are wrong because we didn't look at the right time.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    There are some problems with the "thermonuclear" hypothesis. The Sun is probably a powerful source of protons, which are part of the solar wind. This means that the "fusion reactor" sprays its own fuel into the interstellar space. That is a very irrational and questionable phenomenon for an extremely rational nature.
    Do you know what anthropomorphism is?

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    You replace concepts. The Sun and stars do not emit light, but electromagnetic radiation. ....
    All bodies in the universe emit light which everyone knows is electromagnetic radiation. The Sun emits light. Stars emit light. That light can be reflected or refracted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    This is just one of the hypotheses.
    Wrong, Nikolay Sukhorukov, it is mainstream physics. GR predicts that black holes exist. GR has passed every test for a century now. A large body of empirical evidence says that we have detected black holes.

    There is a thermonuclear reaction inside the Sun so your theory is wrong. Once again, it is mainstream physics. Astrophysics tells us that a ball of plasma such as the Sun has to have an internal heat source. Astronomers spent maybe a century proposing what that heat source was and finding that they did not work, e.g. chemical reactions, gravitational collapse and radioactivity all gave a Sun that did not last long enough. The discovery of fusion provided the only feasible heat source. The temperatures and pressures in the core of the Sun tell us that fusion has to happen there. We detect the neutrinos from that fusion !

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I meant the amplitude modulation of 11-year cycles
    There are no "11-year cycles". There are cycles that average out to be ~11 years. There are times when there are no cycles! Your numerology does not even get that average: Numerology selected to get 71 years. Solar minimums happen ~11 years apart.

    Read what I wrote and the Photon article, Nikolay Sukhorukov, your ATM equation does not appear. 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.
    Max Planck died on 4 October 1947 and it is impossible to for him to know about your ATM idea. It is very probable that no mainstream scientist knows about your ATM idea otherwise you would have cited the papers you and they have published on your ATM idea. Anyone who knows about physics can see the fatal flaw in your idea - it makes the Sun and stars not exist !

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    In general, black holes and dark matter are unusual space objects
    Another mistake, Nikolay Sukhorukov. Black holes and dark matter are usual, textbook astronomy. They have known and observed properties that include only absorbing light (black holes) and not interacting with light (dark matter).

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    This is what makes me stumped. These experiments could not be a fake?
    It is not good to imply that scientists faked results with no evidence, Nikolay Sukhorukov. These observations were repeated and published. The speed of light measured at Jupiter using Io is the same as the speed of light on Earth. Your ATM idea is even less valid than it was at the start this thread.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251

    The speed of light is measured to be c throughout the universe

    The speed of light is measured to be c throughout the universe. For example:
    1. Sun
      No difference in spectra, especially their fine structure.
      Your "c" makes the Sun explode so the Sun and stars cannot exist !
    2. Earth
    3. Moon
      Lunar rocks have the same radioactivity as Earth rocks since the oldest ones have a similar age.
    4. Mars
      Martian meteorites have the same radioactivity as Earth rocks since the oldest ones have a similar age.
    5. Asteroids
      Meteorites have the same radioactivity as Earth rocks since the oldest ones have a similar age.
    6. Other stars
      No difference in spectra, especially their fine structure.
      Stars exist and your ATM idea says they do not !
    7. Quasars
      No difference in spectra, especially their fine structure (other than red shift)
    8. The speed of light measured from eclipses of Io at Jupiter is close to that measured on Earth.
    9. Spacecraft exist and there is no evidence of their clocks changing (c is the same throughout the Solar System)
      An "earth matter" story is just that - see Martian meteorites and other meteorites.
    10. Comets?
      We have dust grains from a comet coma (Stardust mission) - no dates but they are what is expected. Your ATM idea would have these specks of dust with very enormously different speeds of light. Why is this not obvious?

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    This is a very plausible hypothesis, but it is just a hypothesis.
    This is a hypothesis, Nikolay Sukhorukov. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    There are some problems with the "thermonuclear" hypothesis. The Sun is probably a powerful source of protons, which are part of the solar wind....
    Nothing to do with the fusion at the core of the Sun and stars (textbook physics says it happens, we predict what happens, we measure confirmation of those predictions).

    The solar wind has protons from the simple fact that the photosphere is hot hydrogen gas that is partially ionized into protons ad electrons! It is a "very irrational and questionable phenomenon" for protons from the core of the Sun to travel 696,342 km to the surface of the Sun when a there is a little thing called gravity acting!

    Stellar classification. The classification of stars is a classification! We take a continuous property (spectra) and split it up into discrete ranges. Complaining about this is almost like claiming light does not exist because we split the electromagnetic spectrum into various parts with different labels.
    The Morgan-Keenan (MK) system classifications are linked to star mass and so are fairly constant during most of the lifetime of a star. Stars do lose mass and so may change a classification. At the end of a star's lifetime is when dramatic changes in the star happen, e.g. a red giant phase or collapse to a neutron star or black hole.

    What you imagine is irrelevant for an ATM idea.

  14. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    Do you know what anthropomorphism is?
    I know what factology is. Facts are a stubborn thing, and the fact that nature is extremely rational and always chooses the most simple way of development is a fact. No need to produce complex entities (I call it "props"), if there are more simple (math) explanations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    It is not good to imply that scientists faked results with no evidence, Nikolay Sukhorukov. These observations were repeated and published. The speed of light measured at Jupiter using Io is the same as the speed of light on Earth. Your ATM idea is even less valid than it was at the start this thread.
    You shamed me.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    ... Why is this not obvious?
    Because I do not believe in a whole series of "random" math coincidences in my equations. The human mind can be subjective. Math cannot.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I know what factology is. Facts are a stubborn thing, and the fact that nature is extremely rational and always chooses the most simple way of development is a fact.
    Anthropomorphism is giving things that are not human, human properties, Nikolay Sukhorukov, such as saying that an unthinking universe (nature) is extremely rational and has the ability to choose. The fact is the universe does not think or choose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Because I do not believe in a whole series of "random" math coincidences in my equations. The human mind can be subjective. Math cannot.
    Your ATM idea in this thread is the 1 coincidence that an equation gives a value of ~11 years. You made a subjective choice to make that value the length of a solar cycle. The rest of the idea is a physically invalid story to attempt to justify your choice.

    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..

    IF05: What does your speed of light for the interior of Sun do to the Sun (mainstream physics says it explodes as do all stars)?

    IF06: What happens to the fine-structure constant when your ATM idea changes the speed of light and is this observed? was answered with the worse assertion that e changes to make it constant. Now you have the main structure of spectra such as Lyman series changing between stars which is not seen. Also think about helium which was detected in the Sun by its spectrum being the same as it is on Earth - e and c are the same on Earth and in the Sun!

    Your ATM idea is obviously invalid.
    Your ATM idea destroys all of the stars including the Sun.
    The speed of light is measured to be c throughout the universe so your ATM idea with a varying c is invalid.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    731
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    There are some problems with the "thermonuclear" hypothesis. The Sun is probably a powerful source of protons, which are part of the solar wind. This means that the "fusion reactor" sprays its own fuel into the interstellar space. That is a very irrational and questionable phenomenon for an extremely rational nature.
    So explosives are all fake?

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    I know what factology is. Facts are a stubborn thing, and the fact that nature is extremely rational and always chooses the most simple way of development is a fact.
    Your method of argument is profoundly inadequate to persuade others. Without evidence, you call into question many established bits of mainstream physics, but somehow you expect us to agree with your stance nonetheless. Your threshold for accepting mainstream physics is markedly higher than the threshold you apply in accepting your own hypotheses. That favoritism is a key reason you have utterly failed to convince anyone here that you have anything resembling a scientific theory. A good scientist is skeptical of his or her own ideas.

    Also, simply questioning mainstream theory is a fundamentally flawed strategy (especially if your entire argument is "I don't believe in mainstream theory"). Even if you were somehow to show mainstream theory to be incorrect, that would in no way prove your idea to be correct. You overlook the possibility of other options.

    Overall, you seem mainly interested in simply declaring your beliefs, and perhaps discussing them with others. There may be other places on the intertoobz better matched for what you seem to be interested in doing.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,472
    Worth repeating:
    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Your threshold for accepting mainstream physics is markedly higher than the threshold you apply in accepting your own hypotheses.
    You're willing to doubt the speed of light and stellar fusion - things for which we have a preponderance of evidence - but you're not wiling to doubt your own un-evidenced ideas. Does that not strike you as a bit anti-science?

  19. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Anthropomorphism is giving things that are not human, human properties, Nikolay Sukhorukov, such as saying that an unthinking universe (nature) is extremely rational and has the ability to choose. The fact is the universe does not think or choose.
    This is just a terminology. It does not change the essence. The mind of the universe can be understood as the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy, which is extremely rational and, therefore, reasonable.

    I tried as best I could to answer these questions in this thread. I have nothing to add yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Abaddon View Post
    So explosives are all fake?
    No, there are problems with the number of neutrinos that should be released during thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. They are not registered enough, which contradicts thermonuclear theory. To eliminate this contradiction, academic physics explains it by the impossibility of registering some types of neutrinos, i.e. come up with "props". There are problems with the energy source of quasars. Academic physics tries to connect this energy with black holes, but so far it looks unconvincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    Your method of argument is profoundly inadequate to persuade others.
    ...
    Also, simply questioning mainstream theory is a fundamentally flawed strategy (especially if your entire argument is "I don't believe in mainstream theory"). Even if you were somehow to show mainstream theory to be incorrect, that would in no way prove your idea to be correct. You overlook the possibility of other options.
    Let's see what you say when my equations will be suitable for measuring the periods of activity of other stars and, possibly, big planets. Mainstream is not a dogma. Everyone can be wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    You're willing to doubt the speed of light and stellar fusion - things for which we have a preponderance of evidence - but you're not wiling to doubt your own un-evidenced ideas. Does that not strike you as a bit anti-science?
    May be. But I have to believe in my ideas in order to achieve a practical result. Without faith in yourself, no development is possible.
    Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jul-15 at 04:19 AM.

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,147
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    This is just a terminology. It does not change the essence. The mind of the universe can be understood as the laws of nature. For example, the law of conservation of energy, which is extremely rational and, therefore, reasonable.
    Except conservation of energy is only a local thing. On a large scale, in your terminology, the universe is irrational. And this is still an unscientific argument. What seems rational to you may not to me, it is a subjective metric. Yet you use it to determine which components of physics you will accept or not. Its no better than saying "I believe this because it feels right to me". If this is your strongest argument as to why you accept some bits of physics and not others you have no argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    No, there are problems with the number of neutrinos that should be released during thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. They are not registered enough, which contradicts thermonuclear theory. To eliminate this contradiction, academic physics explains it by the impossibility of registering some types of neutrinos, i.e. come up with "props". There are problems with the energy source of quasars. Academic physics tries to connect this energy with black holes, but so far it looks unconvincing.
    There was a problem twenty years ago. And after the Sudbury experiments were fully analysed a couple of years back there were no issues. We directly observed what you are calling a prop. Whereas your props (two speeds of light, the speed of light 'ied to a bit of matter magically changing at arbitrary points in space and time, other constants changing in just the right way to protect your ideas from evidence that disproves them...) have absolutely no justification in theory or experiment and exist solely for the purpose of preventing your ideas from being exposed as demonstrably false.

    And another example of bias. The quasar as powered by a black hole hypothesis is much more convincing than anything you have proposed here. It comes with predictions and models based on testable physics and offers ways to disprove itself. Your entire argument so far is more like the patter of a stage magician than a scientist. You pulled an equation out of your top hat and are now trying to convince the audience that they didn't see you trying to hide it in your sleeve earlier.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Errors can make all.
    Something scientists accept about their work but you don't about yours, ironically.

    I hate posting these 'rebuttal' posts - I'd rather focus on the science. But you are steadfastly refusing to accept any science contrary to your beliefs and making things up on the spot to 'explain' why the evidence against your ideas isn't evidence against them.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,744
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Let's see what you say when my equations will be suitable for measuring the periods of activity of other stars and, possibly, big planets. Mainstream is not a dogma. Everyone can be wrong.
    That's a uselessly trivial observation. Everyone can be wrong, but for the purposes of this subforum, the mainstream is correct. Your job is simple: Show scientifically that you are right. It is a waste of time to repeat that everyone else could be wrong. Show it. If you can't, say so and this thread can be closed.

    I share with Shaula an impatience with your continuing habit of simply asserting that mainstream physics is wrong, or could be wrong. That is a complete waste of time. Your burden here is to convince us that you are correct, not feebly declare that you could be right. You seem to think erroneously that mere repetition of your belief in yourself satisfies that burden. So here is a direct request, which you are obligated to answer:

    GK1: Are you able to provide any evidence to support your assertions? Do not merely restate more assertions. Provide evidence of the same fidelity and consistency with other observational evidence as is provided by mainstream science.

  22. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    I hate posting these 'rebuttal' posts - I'd rather focus on the science. But you are steadfastly refusing to accept any science contrary to your beliefs and making things up on the spot to 'explain' why the evidence against your ideas isn't evidence against them.
    Well, don't do what you hate. Maybe you are just jealous that someone did something that you could not. Publishing my equations, I, first of all, tried to awaken the fantasy of other more experienced researchers. Science and scientific work are not done by brilliant singles, but by collective efforts. I think so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Kaplan View Post
    GK1: Are you able to provide any evidence to support your assertions? Do not merely restate more assertions. Provide evidence of the same fidelity and consistency with other observational evidence as is provided by mainstream science.
    I derived at least five equations using gravitational parameters, which give quite accurate results consistent with the observations:

    1) Calculation of the absolute radius of the Earth
    2) Calculation of the distance from the Earth to the Sun
    3) Calculation of the highest-intensity harmonic (7.85 Hz) of the Schumann resonance
    4) Calculation of the 11-year solar cycle
    5) Calculation of the average secular oscillation of the solar cycle

    This is a mathematical evidence. If this is not evidence for you, then what is evidence for you? Any sane researcher will doubt that a whole series of formulas that give correct results can be ordinary numerology and will definitely reflect on these formulas. That is what I am doing.
    Although this does not apply to the topic of this thread, but I would like to say that conducting experiments with an electromagnetic coil, I managed to fix an unusual phenomenon - a violation of Newton's third law. The video of experiment is:



    In this video an electromagnetic coil is suspended above a flat circular magnet that is attached to the weakly fixed rod. The mass of the coil is less than the mass of the magnet and the rod. In accordance with Newton's law 3, when a low-frequency signal is applied to the coil, it and the magnet should begin to swing in the opposite direction. Moreover, the amplitude of swinging the light coil should be larger. But nothing like this happens. The amplitude of swinging the coil is small, but the amplitude of swinging the magnet is huge. Is this not evidence that even in ordinary things there is still a lot of mystery?

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    49,148
    There seems to be an increasing number of off-topic comments about such things as how right or wrong mainstream science is, and what people should or should not be posting on CQ.
    All these comments are to stop now. Everyone will stick narrowly to the specific topic of this thread.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    4) Calculation of the 11-year solar cycle
    This is the topic of this ATM thread. You did not calculate the 11-year solar cycle. You made up an equation that produced a value of 11 years and assumed that this was the length of the solar cycle which is still wrong. That equation is physically invalid. A Sun that does not exist, does not have any solar cycle !
    The solar cycle is not 11 years long - that number is an average duration. The solar cycle varies (cycle 23 was 11.6 years long) and can vanish for decades. Your ATM idea is an equation that gives 11 years always and thus is wrong.
    Your ATM idea destroys all of the stars including the Sun.
    The speed of light is measured to be c throughout the universe so your ATM idea with a varying c is invalid.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    For example, the law of conservation of energy, which is extremely rational and, therefore, reasonable.
    Another law, E=mc^2, destroys your ATM idea since your ATM idea destroys all the stars including the Sun by making c enormous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    No, there are problems with the number of neutrinos that should be released during thermonuclear fusion in the Sun. They are not registered enough, which contradicts thermonuclear theory. To eliminate this contradiction, academic physics explains it by the impossibility of registering some types of neutrinos, i.e. come up with "props".
    There are no problems with neutrinos today. This looks like the solved solar neutrino problem. It was solved by the detection of neutrino oscillation starting in 1998. We have actually detected all 3 types of neutrinos from the Sun and the sum matches the amount of fusion needed to power that Sun. That is empirical evidence.

    There are problems with the energy source of quasars. Academic physics tries to connect this energy with black holes, but so far it looks unconvincing.
    Quasars are irrelevant however: There are no problems with the energy source of quasars. The best physically convincing energy source is the accretion disks around supermassive black holes.
    Quasar
    A quasar (/ˈkweɪzɑːr/) (also known as a quasi-stellar object abbreviated QSO) is an extremely luminous active galactic nucleus (AGN), in which a supermassive black hole with mass ranging from millions to billions of times the mass of the Sun is surrounded by a gaseous accretion disk. As gas in the disk falls towards the black hole, energy is released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, which can be observed across the electromagnetic spectrum. The power radiated by quasars is enormous: the most powerful quasars have luminosities thousands of times greater than a galaxy such as the Milky Way.[2]
    This produces the amount of energy that is detected. This agrees with the variation of energy from quasars. This produces the kinds of electromagnetic radiation we observe.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3,472
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    This is the topic of this ATM thread. You did not calculate the 11-year solar cycle. You made up an equation that produced a value of 11 years and assumed that this was the length of the solar cycle which is still wrong. That equation is physically invalid. A Sun that does not exist, does not have any solar cycle !
    The solar cycle is not 11 years long - that number is an average duration. The solar cycle varies (cycle 23 was 11.6 years long) and can vanish for decades. Your ATM idea is an equation that gives 11 years always and thus is wrong.
    Yes, this is damning.

    If the period of the solar cycles were fixed by the distance to the galactic centre, then the only thing that could possibly alter its period is a change in that distance.

    And the period isn't changing smoothly - it's not slowing steadily or speeding up steadily - as you might be able to handwave by inventing some radial motion of the sun. It is sometimes sooner, sometimes later.

    Look here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_cycles


    Essentially the period ranges between 9 and 12.4 years - or more than 35%.

    So, if your idea were correct, then sun's distance from the core changes by 35% over the course of time, back and forth. That's about 9000 light years! We would be able to watch the stars sweep across the sky with the naked eye.


    Never mind the details - the very core of your idea is physically impossible simply on the face of it.

    Nicely done RC.

  27. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    Your ATM idea destroys all of the stars including the Sun.
    ...
    Another law, E=mc^2, destroys your ATM idea since your ATM idea destroys all the stars including the Sun by making c enormous.
    ...
    The solar cycle is not 11 years long - that number is an average duration. The solar cycle varies (cycle 23 was 11.6 years long) and can vanish for decades.
    Please stop endlessly asking the same questions that I have already answered you before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    ... Are you sure that the mass of the Sun is as huge as you think? For example, forget about GM and replace it with Ķ. In orbital mechanics, it almost nothing will change. Accordingly, if in the formula E = mc2 high speed of light and small mass [of the Sun] will be used, the Sun will not explode, fortunately.
    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 (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)...


    Quote Originally Posted by DaveC426913 View Post
    If the period of the solar cycles were fixed by the distance to the galactic centre, then the only thing that could possibly alter its period is a change in that distance.
    ...
    Essentially the period ranges between 9 and 12.4 years - or more than 35%.
    Please look at my previous answer to Reality Check and take a look at the picture below:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	sunmovment.GIF 
Views:	21 
Size:	13.3 KB 
ID:	24406

    and, I hope, you understand why the distance traveled by a solar wave and, accordingly, the period of solar activity changes. By the way, with some reflection of a solar wave from "dark" matter, the solar wave may not return at all to the Sun, which, accordingly, may "turn off" 11-year cycles (for example, the Maunder minimum).


    I would also like to say a few words about my video in my previous post. If you look at it carefully, you will notice that the oscillation frequencies of the electromagnetic coil and the round magnet are the same, but the amplitudes of the oscillations are very different. That is, it can be assumed that the effect of the light coil on the heavy magnet is not produced by force, but ALGORITHMIC - the coil transmits a weak control signal to the magnet, which begins to make powerful oscillations, probably due to its internal energy. Now remember how I compared the Sun to a transistor, which is synchronized by its own relatively weak electromagnetic wave, reflected from the center of our Galaxy, and periodically "turns on" the average 11-year cycle. I think here there is some analogy with my experiment with the coil and the magnet. Of course, I do not yet know the exact mechanism of such algorithmic control, but the general idea seems attractive to me.
    Last edited by Nikolay Sukhorukov; 2019-Jul-16 at 04:34 AM.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    Please stop endlessly asking the same questions that I have already answered you before.
    You have not answered the questions which is why I reminded you. What you think in stories is not an answer for questions asking for science and/or evidence. N.B. a valid answer is that you have no answer.
    Your refraction story is just that - 2019-Jul-01: This is a story with no evidence, not support for your ATM idea.

    The science and evidence is that your ATM idea is wrong: Destroys stars, the speed of light is c everywhere, no way to vary or stop your 11 years value.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    4,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by Nikolay Sukhorukov View Post
    ...Are you sure that the mass of the Sun is as huge as you think?
    The mass of the Sun is as huge as we measure it. Your ATM idea destroys all stars including the Sun because it increases the energy from fusion by many orders of magnitude. c is 2.998e+8 m/s, put your cs = 1.44∙10^12 m/s into E = mc^2 and the energy produced increases 100,000,000 times! To balance that the Sun probably becomes so massive, it is a black hole.

    N.B. Your ATM idea makes stars not exist rather than existing stars exploding. As soon as a cloud of gas collapses to far enough to cause fusion in a proto-star, it will explode. Thus no stars.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    9,292

    Time's up

    If for any reason someone thinks this thread should be reopened, please report this message with a good description of what this reason is.
    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

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
  •