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 usu
  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
  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 ca
  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 pr
  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 t
  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 exp
  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 fu
  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 wi
  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 c
  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
  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 a
  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 gravitati
  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.