Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

-7 Poor

About Hamster22

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Interests
  • Favorite Area of Science

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry, I would like to clarify that this works provided that a telescope receives information about an object that is in the sphere of influence of the Earth.
  2. My "inconvenient" arguments regarding the mountain ranges on Venus were again ignored. "Transformation" of matter does not mean the destruction of the structure of the body - a spacecraft, a rover, or a meteorite. Why should the crystal lattice of solids be destroyed when the sizes of elementary particles change? This is not a fact. I am unaware of a rover disappearing in that way. It was a figurative expression. I meant losing radio communication with a rover. The loss of a carrier frequency through which radio communication with spacecraft is realized is an usual thing in cosmonautics. It was the ignorance of the fact that when approaching other planets there is some effect on the matter of spacecraft, resulting in a change in the carrier frequency of radio communications, was the main reason for the loss of most Soviet and American interplanetary stations during approach to Mars and Venus, at the beginning of the space era. Then this reason was detected and most of the space missions became successful. So far, logically, this can be explained in two ways: 1) The factor of the duration of time. Meteorites are not rovers or space probes operating just a few decades. Meteorites can exist for millions of years. During this time, the matter of meteorites could partially "forget" the fundamental constants of its planet, as a result of which, if it falls into the sphere of influence of the Earth, the matter of meteorites is very quickly transformed into matter familiar to us. Fantasy? Yes. Is it logical? Why not. 2) The illusion factor that I described in my comment yesterday. We observe an unauthentic (untransformed) meteorite with the help of our instruments and sense organs, which are not able to see the authentic matter of a meteorite or any other cosmic matter — neutrinos, photons, etc. Honestly, I am skeptical about this factor. I prefer factor 1. But why not factor 2? Fantasy? Yes. Is it logical? Why not. It may be still mysterious. Religious obscurantism comes around the world. It is time for science to work hard and make a decisive breakthrough, otherwise human civilization may end badly. On the contrary, they will register the same color. Now I will try to explain the simplified model of color transmission in more detail. Assume that a photocell of a rover is a small antenna operating in trigger receive/transmit mode. At the time of reception, the photocell registers one color (according to the formula f = cM / l, where l is, relatively speaking, the length of the photocell, cM is the speed of light for Mars), and at the time of transmission, the photocell transmits a different color (according to formula f = c / l, where c is the speed of light for the Earth. Here it is assumed that the matter of the rover remains "earthly"). A photocell of a Mars surveillance probe is in the sphere of influence of Mars, therefore it works in the same trigger mode. But a photocell of a telescope on the Earth is in the sphere of influence of the Earth, therefore it will work only at one frequency f = c / l when receiving and transmitting, where c is the speed of light for the Earth. Well, the human eye is about the same photocell, therefore it also works (on the Earth) at a frequency f = c / l. The same applies to the spectral lines of meteorites, planets, stars, etc. Interesting, isn't it? I am working on it. I derived a few formulas using gravitational constants µ, and giving results that are in perfect agreement with reliably established experimental data. According to probability theory, this cannot be a coincidence. So I should continue my work in order to get not only theoretical results, but also practical ones. I understand it. That is why I am working to get practical results and practical benefits from this idea. I agree. But this is only Hollywood makes Superman and Supergeny from a single researcher. Real science is done by collective effort. Why don't some professional astronomers test the formula to check the distances of Cepheids to the center of the Galaxy? I can not afford such a test. I'm busy with more important things. It was an absolutely random frequency. I chose it just for illustration. I do not know it yet. I answered this question in my comment for Ghideon. Intuition, based on my previous experience. I am working on it. So far I have only the formula After all, my main subject is "Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity". I answered this question in my comment for Ghideon. Maybe yes, maybe not. Future will tell.
  3. Ok, if everyone is lazy , I will try to approach understanding of the other reality. Suppose the earth rover and the earth apparatus tracking the rover are tuned to the carrier electron frequency fc=mec2/(2h) ≈ 6.18•1019 Hz. Now suppose that some time after landing on Mars the rover became "marsly" and its matter began to obey the "marsly" fundamental constants according to the data of the table: This means the carrier frequency of the rover will be changed and become equal to fc=4.33•10-31•(6.78•107)2/(2h) ≈ 1.50•1018 Hz. Accordingly, the earth apparatus will no longer detect the rover signal and it (the rover) will simply disappear from the radar. Now suppose that the earth rover, after landing on Mars, did not become "marsly" and began to regularly transmit some information. But because of the discrepancy between the fundamental constants of the Earth and Mars, the information received by the rover will be distorted. For example, if the radio antenna of the rover is tuned to the frequency f=c/l ≈ 5.45•109 Hz (where l =5.5 сm is the antenna length), then due to the fact that the speed of light for Mars is 6.78•107m/s , the rover antenna will receive the frequency 1.23•109 Hz, but at the same time the rover will transmit information to Earth that it still receives 5.45•109 Hz. After all, the antenna length is associated to this earth frequency. Of course, this principle also applies to the rover photocells. They will also incorrectly process the color rendition of the Mars surface. Something like that. In addition, I would like to remind my arguments about Venus from my previous topic, to which no one responded. Earth equipment detects on Venus a very high temperature, tremendous pressure, acidity and hurricane winds. Under these conditions, the surface of Venus should be smooth like a billiard ball. But at the same time, terrestrial radars confidently detect huge mountain ranges on Venus. How is this possible? Is this not indirect evidence that earthly instruments are wrong? Issac Newton has not even heard of G. Cavendish and his followers introduced this constant into physics, as well as into GTR/STR , with which not all is rosy in the opinion of many researchers. I badly understand GTR/STR, so I do not want to delve into this subject. For orbital mechanics, it is sufficient to apply µ. Do you disagree with the formulas and ? But after all, these formulas give an absolutely correct result In calculating the 11-year solar cycle. Is this not physical evidence? Unfortunately for academic physicists, these formulas do not contain numerical coefficients, so I cannot be accused of numerology.
  4. Sorry for not answering for a few days. Because of MigL's comments, I was depressed. If such a process really exists, then it is still a mystery. Do you like science fiction stories? If so, please take a look at this text of other authors (sorry for my english translation): https://drive.google.com/open?id=17zWiqMH3o6_t50ct3_CaD4hNnZkycdwN . It just concerns the subject you have touched. You forget that in almost all the formulas derived by me, not only numerical values, but also units of measure are correct. An amazing coincidence, isn't it? Only in the formula for calculating the distance from the Earth to the Sun, I entered the matching coefficient C = 1 m/s. It came out as a result of simplifying the expression c / 299792458, which I obtained from my electron model. By the way, this may mean that the decision to equate the speed of light to a integer was absolutely correct. I agree, subject to the modification of Newton's formula to the form F = µ1M2 / r2 If STR is correct, then STR may be of limited scope - only in the sphere of influence and perception of the Earth. The burden of proof is heavy. Especially when I myself am only at the beginning of the path. Therefore, I would like other researchers to also build some assumptions and hypotheses.
  5. Kepler's third law is It is not directly related to the formula I derived: but at the same time, there is some good analogy. It seems to me not by chance. Nature is rational. It is a fact. Yes, it is close to that topic. Do you refuse to admit that at once two derived formulas perfectly calculate the 11-year solar cycle? It is your right. I think that only an attempt to calculate the activity, for example, Cepheids with the help of derived formulas can prove or disprove the proposed method and theory. I have already briefly talked about this in my previous topic.
  6. 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 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. In addition, I managed to get another approximate method for calculating the 11-year solar activity cycle. Initially, I empirically derived the curious formula that may be indirect evidence of the connection between the microworld and the macroworld. This formula connects (with a small uncertainty) the ratio of the gravitational parameters of the Sun and the Earth (µS , µE) and the mass ratio of the electron to the proton (me , mp) with the “golden” number φ = (1+√5)/2 ≈ 1.618 : (4) Accordingly, solving the system of the equations (3) and (4), we can approximately calculate the 11-year cycle of solar activity by the following formula: (5) where aS ≈ 2.4976∙1020 m is the distance from the Sun to the Galaxy's center. It is still difficult to say whether it is possible to use the proposed methods to calculate the activity cycles of other stars, planets or space objects. If these methods are 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: (6) 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. PDF source: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jZmmedFV2s4_s-hrYien3a6Ewol3FW5R P. S. Although that does not correspond to this topic, 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. In addition, knowledge of the speed of light for any space object theoretically allows us to define other fundamental constants of a space object and, possibly, another physical reality of a space object. Assuming that the Planck constant, the fine-structure constant, the specific electron charge and the vacuum permittivity are universal for the entire Universe, we can calculate the speed of light, the elementary charge, and the electron mass of a space object by using the formulas: where c = 299792458 m/s is the speed of light in vacuum for the Earth, µO is the gravitational parameter of a space object, µE ≈ 3.9860∙1014 m3/s2 is the gravitational parameter of the Earth (the geocentric gravitational constant), ε0 is the vacuum permittivity, h is the Planck constant, α ≈ 1/137.04 is the fine-structure constant, e /me is the specific electron charge. For example, for the terrestrial planets, the calculation using the obtained formulas gives the following values of the fundamental physical constants: These are the predictions of math. How on their basis to imagine the physical reality of other planets is not yet clear. Thanks.
  7. I agree. Such an explanation has little to do with science. I think this is just the beginning. I have no exact answer. Maybe our spacecraft remain connected with the Earth through some information channel (such as intraplanetary vision) and regularly transmit distorted information about the reality of other planets. Of course, these are only assumptions, not science. Exactly. In a sense, yes, it is a kind of geocentrism. The Universe that we see inside the sphere of influence of our planet, is our "earthly" Universe. I warned at the beginning of this topic that my explanation is not entirely physical, but in many ways philosophical. I was not forbidden to continue. This is related to your question "what would prove you wrong?" Since the Universe is probably infinite, then according to probability theory there should be an infinite number of civilizations of a very different level of development and, accordingly we should register an almost infinite number of intelligent electromagnetic signals. But nothing like this happens. According to the theory of probability, to assume that our civilization is the only one is absurd. Consequently, the reason why we do not observe other civilizations, as I assume, is that the life of these civilizations obeys other physical constants, and they are simply invisible to us, just like electromagnetic waves of one frequency are invisible to a radio tuned to another frequency. That is, if another civilization used the same constants for its vital activity as our civilization, then, according to the probability theory, we would certainly find it. Something like this. Please look at my video. In this video the electromagnetic coil is suspended above the 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 3 law, 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 the swinging coil is small, but the amplitude of the swinging magnet is huge. Is this breaking Newton's Law 3? Or I do not understand something? No evidence. Only the hypothesis. As far as I know, the two-body problem is solved as if one body is absolutely motionless. That is, it is assumed in advance that Newton's 3 law does not work. Let's argue. Maybe it really does not work In the case of gravitational long-range? The formula F = GM1M2 / r2 suggests that the two bodies mutually attract each other. But mathematically the same formula F = µ1M2 / r2 assumes that only one body (which has the gravitational parameter) attracts, but the second body behaves like a passive block, but at the same time the two-body problem is performed! Even the matching coefficient G is not needed. I do not know about you, but I see deep meaning in the formula F = µ1M2 / r2. I did not understand your question. Do you mean the pressure of light?
  8. Exactly. Spectral lines from the Sun are electromagnetic waves (or photons) that we observe in the sphere of influence of the Earth, earthly instruments and our earthly eyes. These observations may be incorrect. I have direct (almost) experimental evidence that c is have been changing. Please wait a few weeks when I plan to publish my work in the Internet. Knowing the speed of light for a space object and assuming that the fine structure constant and the Planck constant are universal for the Universe, we can calculate the elementary charges, electron masses and all the other fundamental constants for the space object. I guess so, of course. I did not quite understand your question. Our rockets are also subject to the laws of Kepler, in which there is no mass. If you mean the Newton correction like , then it is negligible for rockets. The equations, I derived, giving correct results are evidence. At least, indirect evidence. Where are these equations derived? As for the proton magnetic radius and the highest-intensity harmonic of the Schumann resonance, as I have already warned here, I am not yet ready to tell in details how they were derived. But you can see the method of calculating the absolute radius of the Earth in my PDF here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B90mGmUYbDopMXlTaWVMVTB5LVU Because these are other planets, stars, galaxies, universes. Ok, but why the average solar cycle is exactly 11 years? Thanks for the links. It was very helpful to me. Live and learn. it is difficult to grasp the immensity. But I will try. Exactly! I am sure that there is science, and there is scientific work. These are different things. Scientific work is a craft. Science is creativity. Scientific work is not free as it depends on sponsors, the opinions of colleagues, the fear of losing reputation, position, etc. Science is absolute freedom. Quote: "Playing it safe seldom leads to new discoveries. ("Nothing ventured, nothing gained.")" But science and scientific work can not do without each other, since science is the tip, but scientific work is reliable rear. Something like this. Thanks for the good question. I think that the most important evidence of the fallacy of the theory developed by me would be the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilization like the human civilization, with the help of our ordinary (uncorrected to other constants) sense organs and instruments.
  9. Cannot yet. This is a minor issue for me. Such observable evidence does not yet exist, since the mass of a spaceship is insignificant compared to the Earth's mass, and the mass (more precisely, the gravitational parameter) of Mercury is insignificant compared to the Sun's gravitational parameter. I have no direct evidence of this yet. I just assume that gravity is not transmitted by direct force action, but algorithmic one. At the same time, the gravitational force of a space object is created by its mass and is formed inside the circular gravitational radius (do not confuse with the usual gravitational radius 2µ / c2) of the object Rog = µo / co2 (where co is the speed of light for the space object, µo is the gravitational parameter of the space object). Therefore, I assume that instead of formula F = GM1M2 / r2 it is more correct to use formula F = µom / r2. To begin with, here is F = µom / r2. An equation in which there are only gravitational parameters µ1 and µ2 I do not yet have. The evidence obtained by Hans Dehmelt in his work "Experiments with an Isolated Subatomic Particle at Rest" confirms this: No, I have not. In a sense, this is true. It is difficult for me to understand what can happen in the mechanisms of rovers or other earthly spacecraft. Maybe they need a long time to become "martian". Maybe they have already become "martian", but transmit incorrect information, which we consider correct. For example, according to information obtained by earthly instruments and spacecraft, the temperature on the surface of Venus is about 500 ° C. This is a very sizeable temperature. At the same time there are high mountains on Venus. Why have these mountains not razed to the surface of Venus over hundreds of millions of years? Maybe Venus is not as hot as we think? Of course, it sounds fantastic and unscientific, but we were born to make a fairy tale come true. I do not consider myself the truth in the highest instance, and I think that other researchers are unlikely to be able to investigate this, since for this it is necessary to have very specific logic. Only a bottom line can confirm any theory. It is on getting practical results that I mainly spend my energy now. Nevertheless, I consider it normal to publish my intermediate results such as the formulas for calculating the distance from the Earth to the Sun, the absolute radius of the Earth, the radius of the proton, the highest possible number of the periodic table of elements, and others. Maybe it will prepare people for the perception of another reality.
  10. Yes, I have. These are the three laws of Kepler. You (and other members) probably misunderstood my hypothesis. When I said "Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work", I meant the small objects of the Solar system, which I listed earlier - "asteroids, plutoids, Mars, and also Mercury". Perhaps I have not accurately expressed my idea. Sorry. If the gravitational spheres of objects overlap, they interact with each other in accordance with the laws of Kepler. No problems. For example, Pluto and Charon rotate around their center of mass, Jupiter and the Sun rotate around their center of mass, the Moon and Earth rotate around their center of mass, an electron and a proton in an hydrogen atom rotate around their center of mass, etc., but a spaceship and the Earth DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, Mercury and the Sun DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, etc. This is not an absolute fact. For example, there are Intrinsic variables stars whose periodical brightening and darkening are not caused by exoplanets. By the way, the Sun also changes its luminosity every 11 years. What does the exoplanets here? I defined more exactly my idea in reply to Bufofrog. Mars really does not affect the Sun, but Jupiter is affected. I assume that when calculating the motion of space objects, it is necessary to apply not GM but µ. That’s all. Is it really unscientific? May be. I do not want to seem smarter than I really am. The future will show what people study. Atoms that spectroscopy studies are in the sphere of the Earth and belong to the Earth. So, the fundamental physical constants of the Earth are valid for the atoms (with some reservations). By the way, meteorites that fall to the Earth become "earthly" and their atoms also begin to obey the fundamental physical constants of the Earth. Of course, this is still a hypothesis. I find it hard to strictly prove it. The fundamental constants are different but the ratio of these constants (which is the fine structure constant) is unchanged. That is, the fine structure constant is universal for the entire Universe. I answered your question in my reply to swansont. The physics of the transformation process is still unknown to me. To calculate the motion of space objects in the first approximation, Kepler's theory is quite sufficient. If you mean the equation F = GM1M2 / r2, then I consider it incorrect, since the experiments of Cavendish and his followers, who determined G, are unreliable. I think to calculate a gravitational attraction, it is necessary to use an equation using gravitational parameters instead of masses of objects. By the way, are you absolutely sure that you know what mass is? Probably not. How can you be absolutely sure of the truth of Newton's equation? A stick has two ends. If an education is based on incorrect theories, it is useless. To remind you how in the Middle Ages "educated" geocentrists taught that the Universe revolves around the Earth? I like science, but I don't like scrupulous scientific work. This is about how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - you either see the horizon or drown in details, and cannot see beyond your nose. I prefer to see the horizon. To each his own. I am more or less confident in my models of the atom and in my theory because they are confirmed by independent experimental evidences made by modern experimental science. In addition to the electron radius, which I have already published here, my theory, for example, allows to calculate experimentally confirmed the magnetic proton radius experimentally confirmed the Earth's average radius experimentally confirmed the highest-intensity harmonic of the Schumann resonance Now I am preparing for publication the formula that calculates and explains experimentally confirmed the 11-year cycle of Sun's activity. Do you really think that these are all unscientific coincidences? Or do you think that I poke my finger at the sky and then get the correct results? Maybe so, but maybe not. It all depends on the interpretation of experiences. Personally, I think that comparing an electron with a ball is more correct than comparing an electron with a math abstraction such as wave functions. We measure the fundamental constants on the Earth with earthly instruments, and analyze these measurements by our earthly sense organs, which belong to our earthly bodies. Thanks for an interesting conversation, Mr. Strange. Bye-bye! If gravitational force is not produced by power way (i.e. by the direct attraction of a force center) but algorithmic one (by transmitting a weak informational gravitational impulse to a falling body), then the concept of “the energy of the gravitational field” needs to be corrected.
  11. Exactly! I share the opinion of other researchers who argue that gravity is not a force effect, but an algorithmic one. That is, Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work!
  12. I doubt the truth of the Newton's formula because Newton could not know the masses of the Earth and the Sun. The experiments of Cavendish and his followers could be incorrect. Criticizing these experiences is not my topic, but I can give you the reference where other researchers criticize these experiences. This is just a hypothesis. We cannot directly observe the formation of planetary systems of other stars. Interpretations of astronomical observations vary between different astronomers at different times. Humans tend to make mistakes. It is presumptuous to believe that we now know the absolute truth about the birth of the Solar system. For example, if the giant planets of the Solar system were formed from approximately one gas-dust cloud, why are these planets so different from each other? And why do the satellites of the giant planets differ from each other (atmosphere, temperature, chemical composition etc.)? After all, according to logic, they should be built from almost one substance. And why is the Moon so strikingly different from the Earth? Etc. Sorry, I initially posted my comments in the topic "Infinite gravity", and I did not plan to start new topic. This is a long matter, because to explain how I derived this formula, I will have to explain my theory of the structure of the hydrogen atom, proton, and electron. Since this theory has not yet passed the test of time, I am not ready to fully explain it, but in short I can tell the general idea of this theory. This is not fully my original theory. Initially, I learned about it from other authors about 25 years ago and then I began to develop it. Its main idea is as follows: any planet is a self-sufficient system in which the whole (the planet itself) and the particulars (elementary particles) are similar to each other in many ways, and the fundamental physical constants (the speed of light, the electron mass and some others) are valid only for this planet. Further, I assumed (in accordance with the arguments given by me in my previous comments) that the scope of a planet’s influence is limited. Next, I ratiocinated as follows: if the physical constants are related to a planet, then they must be related to the gravitational parameter µ of the planet. Next. If the scope (radius) of influence of the planet is limited, then it must also be related with the gravitational parameter of the planet. But the average radius of an orbit, in which any small body rotates around the planet, is related with its average orbital speed accordingly to the formula √(µ/Ro). That is, the orbital speed of a body related to the maximum radius of the sphere of influence of the planet must be as low as possible. And I thought: could such a minimum speed also exist in the microworld of the planet (for example, the Earth), that is, in atoms, nuclei, and electrons? I think I found such a minimum speed in the electron. Assuming that the electron model is approximately as follows, I derived the formula for the electron radius which give a value close to the electron radius obtained by Hans Dehmelt in 1989 year. Then, in my electron model, I discovered the speed of 51 m/s, and supposed that it is the minimum orbital speed of a body revolving around the Earth along a circular orbit, which exactly corresponds to the radius that is, the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. I would like to say that later I came to the conclusion that there is an even more minimal speed, which, as I suppose, corresponds to the maximum radius of the sphere of gravitational action of the Earth. Now this minimum speed passes the test of time. This is a good question. One could answer that the Sun's gravity rotates the planets (the sphere of the Sun's gravitational action, according to my formula, is at least not less than 5.03 * 1016 m, but I think that is not so simple. I'm still thinking about this question. I am sorry. Instead of the word "you" I should probably have written the word "they". English is not my native language. I am sorry. In listing "asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury", I forgot to mention Mars. Of course, as I suppose, the sphere of the gravitational action of Mars also does not reach the Sun. Therefore, Mars has a significant eccentricity. In addition, there is an assumption that Mars (and Ceres) are part of the asteroid belt, which may additionally affect their eccentricities, but that is another topic. I assume that the formula that calculates the maximum radius of gravitational action of planets (as well as stars, black holes, etc.) is universal, but the formula that calculates the average distance from the Earth to the Sun is unique. Perhaps this makes the Earth a unique space object, in a sense, maybe even the center of the Universe (since I assume that the fine-structure constant is universal).
  13. //"... but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding."// If you stick to classical physics, in any case you will not accept an alternative theory. I am a realist and I understand that the best proof of any theory is its practical use. That is what I try to do now in my home laboratory. I already have some interesting results. Of course, yes. You see our spacecraft without problems go into planetary orbits. Ok, I am ready to provide here a formula that I have already published on the Internet - the calculation of the average distance from the Earth to the Sun. This formula is close to the formula that calculates the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, according to the theory that I develop: where µ is the Earth's gravitational parameter (the geocentric gravitational constant), α-1 ≈ 137.04 is the fine-structure constant, C = 1 m/s is a matching coefficient. The logic by which I got this formula is not quite physical. This logic is more philosophical. Are you ready to accept philosophical logic in a physical forum? P.S. I will be out of the Internet for several days, so I will not be able to answer questions here. Sorry.
  14. "Blessed is he who believes". Do not substitute physics for mathematics. Any matter has some limiting resource, which we call "energy" (or "mass"). Therefore, if matter creates a gravitational field, then it cannot be infinite. I am sure that you make a mistake by comparing gravity with electromagnetic waves (or light), since we can screen electromagnetic waves, but gravity cannot. For example, according to the theory that I develop, the gravitational fields of the big planets of the Solar system reach the Sun. Therefore, the orbits of these planets are close to a circle. But the gravitational fields of small objects of the Solar system (asteroids, plutoids, and also Mercury) do not reach the Sun. Therefore, their orbits have large eccentricities. I derived the exact formula for calculating the radius of the gravitational action of any planet, but I would not want to publish it, since it has not yet passed the test of time, in my understanding.
  15. I like your thoughts about a limited range of gravity. I think you are right. This is logical and reasonable. If matter has the limiting energy mc ^ 2, this means that a radius of action of gravity cannot be infinite. I also develop a theory of a limited range of gravity and even got the formula that approximately calculates the maximum radius of action of the gravity of a space object by its gravitational parameter. I hope soon to publish some of details of this theory. I am pleased that I am not alone in my ideas. Thank.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.