# Hamster22

Members

15

-7 Poor

• Rank
Quark

• Website URL

## Profile Information

• Interests
All
• Favorite Area of Science
physics

## Recent Profile Visitors

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

1. ## Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity. Other reality

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.

3. ## Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity. Other reality

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. ## Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity. Other reality

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. ## Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity. Other reality

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. ## Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity. Other reality

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. ## Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

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?

9. ## Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

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.

11. ## Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

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!

13. ## Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

//"... 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. ## Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

"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. ## Infinite gravity

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.
×