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

## Recommended Posts

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 µ, 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.

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.

##### Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

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.

Isn't this the same as in your other thread? Different speed of light and elementary particle differences is not what is measured when space probes are sent to various locations in solar system. I'll suggest this is moved to speculations.

##### Share on other sites

I'd suggest moving to Trash...

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

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)

Why would Kepler’s laws stay the same?

##### Share on other sites

Must be the 'new' way of doing science...

You pull a bunch of unrelated numbers and constants out of your a*s, put them together in a way that gives the approximate result you're looking for, and call it a breakthrough.

##### Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

How on their basis to imagine the physical reality of other planets is not yet clear.

How about we plan to send some space probes there to investigate. Maybe we could even land robotic vehicles to do some science there.

It's a mad idea, but it might just work.

##### Share on other sites

9 hours ago, swansont said:

Why would Kepler’s laws stay the same? ﻿

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.

11 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Yes, it is close to that topic.

5 hours ago, MigL said:

Must be the 'new' way of doing science...

You pull a bunch of unrelated numbers and constants out of your a*s, put them together in a way that gives the approximate result you're looking for, and call it a breakthrough.﻿﻿

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.

4 hours ago, Strange said:

How about we plan to send some space probes there to investigate. Maybe we could even land robotic vehicles to do some science there.

It's a mad idea, but it might just work﻿

##### Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Yes, it is close to that topic.

Ok. Then here are some comments:

According to the idea an asteroid formed by matter from a distant part of the solar system has a set of elementary particles that differs from the ones here at earth. But the asteroids that are collected and investigated here on earth seems to consist of regular particles. What process transforms the asteroids' elementary particles to match the earth's elementary particles, so that our investigations show "earth matter" made from "earth particles"?

It means that for instance the Mars rovers sent by Nasa becomes "marsly". The rovers and hence the rovers' instruments* are transformed by some unknown process so that they are different on a fundamental level.  And yet the rover** instruments are able to deliver reliable results. Can you provide some details why it is worth investigating?

Also please explain one of the more complex scenarios where a space probe measures various properties near, at, or in between celestial bodies, sometimes relaying the signals via a second space probe, while all signals seem to behave consistently and without flaws. Please no hand waving or vague guesses but a detailed analysis that could open up for some genuine and interesting discussions.

54 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Then please use more details this time.

Edited by Ghideon
Minor grammar issue
##### Share on other sites

You can put any numbers in equation in such a way, they will give you something you want.. It's called numerology.

##### Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Kepler's third law is

It is not directly related to the formula I derived:

Kepler’s laws are equivalent to Newton’s law of gravitation.

Varying c is inconsistent with special relativity.

You need to establish the bona-fides of this equation before you advance to the next steps.

5 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Yes, it is close to that topic.

Which brought you a caution not to bring the topic up again, correct?

##### Share on other sites

Sorry for not answering for a few days. Because of MigL's comments, I was depressed.

On 6/9/2019 at 2:51 PM, Ghideon said:

Ok. Then here are some comments:

According to the idea an asteroid formed by matter from a distant part of the solar system has a set of elementary particles that differs from the ones here at earth. But the asteroids that are collected and investigated here on earth seems to consist of regular particles. What process transforms the asteroids' elementary particles to match the earth's elementary particles, so that our investigations show "earth matter" made from "earth particles"?

If such a process really exists, then it is still a mystery.

On 6/9/2019 at 2:51 PM, Ghideon said:

It means that for instance the Mars rovers sent by Nasa becomes "marsly". The rovers and hence the rovers' instruments* are transformed by some unknown process so that they are different on a fundamental level.  And yet the rover** instruments are able to deliver reliable results. Can you provide some details why it is worth investigating?

Also please explain one of the more complex scenarios where a space probe measures various properties near, at, or in between celestial bodies, sometimes relaying the signals via a second space probe, while all signals seem to behave consistently and without flaws. Please no hand waving or vague guesses but a detailed analysis that could open up for some genuine and interesting discussions.

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.

On 6/9/2019 at 7:04 PM, Sensei said:

You can put any numbers in equation in such a way, they will give you something you want.. It's called numerology.

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.

On 6/9/2019 at 7:06 PM, swansont said:

Kepler’s laws are equivalent to Newton’s law of gravitation.

I agree, subject to the modification of Newton's formula to the form F = µ1M2 / r

On 6/9/2019 at 7:06 PM, swansont said:

Varying c is inconsistent with special relativity.

If STR is correct, then STR may be of limited scope - only in the sphere of influence and perception of the Earth.

On 6/9/2019 at 7:06 PM, swansont said:

Which brought you a caution not to bring the topic up again, correct?

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.

##### Share on other sites

I said:

Quote

Pl﻿﻿ease﻿﻿﻿﻿ no hand waving or vague guesses

And you post:

12 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

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.

I think you need do try again.

no I have not opened the link.

##### Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I agree, subject to the modification of Newton's formula to the form F = µ1M2 / r

That’s not a modification, per se, since you’ve just rewritten GM. But G is, and must be, a constant. And if you contend otherwise you must show that to be the case, before applying the concept elsewhere

51 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

If STR is correct, then STR may be of limited scope - only in the sphere of influence and perception of the Earth.

Again, something you must demonstrate.

51 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

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.

That’s not a viable strategy, and is inconsistent with our rules on speculations.

##### Share on other sites

"Sorry for not answering for a few days. Because of MigL's comments, I was depressed. "

I apologize.
Didn't mean to stress you out.
but I see no evidence, rhyme, or reason, for the relations you presented.

##### Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I think you need do try again

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•10Hz (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•10Hz, but at the same time the rover will transmit information to Earth that it still receives 5.45•10Hz. 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?

17 hours ago, swansont said:

But G is, and must be, a constant.

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.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

but I see no evidence, rhyme, or reason, for the relations you presented.﻿

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.

Edited by Hamster22
##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

Ok, if everyone is lazy

It's not so much about laziness; to investigate new ideas takes time and there are plenty of new (and invalid) ideas around. To spend time on your idea you need to show that there is some aspect of it that is worth looking at.

But the response allows for some more analysis, thanks for that! Note that it is exactly the same issues that you failed to address in an earlier thread.

2 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

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•10Hz (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•10Hz, but at the same time the rover will transmit information to Earth that it still receives 5.45•10Hz. 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.

Lets analyse this in steps to highlight some issues. I'll use "" around concepts that are not defined yet in your idea, I use terms that I find suitable to communicate the point I try to make without going into details of each concept (yet).

First:

2 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Now suppose that some time after landing on Mars the rover became "marsly" and its matter began to obey the "marsly" fundamental constants

That requires that the "process", what ever it is that makes a rove "marshy", takes some time. Matter from one celestial body is "transformed" during some extended amount of time. Note that there have been rovers on mars operating for several years*.

2 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Accordingly, the earth apparatus will no longer detect the rover signal and it (the rover) will simply disappear from the radar.

I am unaware of a rover disappearing in that way. That means that a foreign device such as a rover, operating in an utterly alien physical environment on where even physical constants are not the same, still can measure its surroundings exactly as on earth. I'm unaware of any measurements providing any hint of physical constants not being the same on mars. Then, since the "transformation" takes several years, we have the issue of other exchanges of material among celestial bodies. None of the space probes sent through the solar system would have had time to be "transformed", yet none of them have provided any kind of measurement supporting your idea? So far the space probe issues, now down to earth. Consider all the particles hitting earth all the time from photons and neutrinos to large meteorites. How come there are not discoveries of any particle or meteorite that deviates from the expected? There should be plenty of meteorites "partly transformed"? And for small particles, registered fractions of seconds after entering earth surroundings, I'm aware of no evidence supporting your idea. The current explanation you provide seems to make the idea logically impossible according to confirmed observations. Or it requires some mysterious forces or magic making it undetectable and hence unscientific?

2 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Of course, this principle also applies to the rover photocells. They will also incorrectly process the color rendition of the Mars surface.

So a telescope on earth, a Mars surveillance probe in orbit and a rover camera will not register the same colours? Can you provide some evidence? And the spectral lines / colours of a meteorite for instance, changes over time? The analysis provided looks like a few guesses about some specific aspects of the issues with the proposed idea. But since the idea is an attack on very general concepts of physics you need to provide evidence and analysis on a much more fundamental level.

Since quite a lot of physics, confirmed by many experiments, states that your idea is incorrect and the fact that zero valid evidence have been provided, what is the probability that the idea just happen to be completely wrong?

My guess is the probability is 1: You have a cool idea where some numbers seems to add up to some other unrelated numbers by using some non mainstream equations. To be able to generalise your idea a few basic things about physics must be changed. For instance speed of light need to be unique around each celestial body. While arguing for this concept of "planet specific physics" a lot of contradictions are presented. More and more of mainstream physics have to be changed to allow your idea to survive. I think this makes the idea look very wrong to anyone with a science background. The result is that none of the arguments provided supports the idea, it just looks like a set of internally inconsistent statements. Lots of more details, and rigorous treatment, is required to support these fundamental changes to theoretical models and the interpretations of all the observations that supports the current models.

*)Example: 14 years, https://www.space.com/18289-opportunity-rover.html

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Ok, if everyone is lazy  ,

It's not laziness. We aren't telepathic, so you need to explain your version of physics, and provide evidence to support it, starting with the first non-mainstream concept. You don't get to jump in at step 12, assuming all of the earlier steps are given, when they are not part of well-tested, accepted physics.

Quote

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.

What is "carrier electron frequency﻿"? I Google on that phrase and I get 4 results, and they all refer to majority carrier electron frequency and in solid-state physics papers.

Quote

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:

You need to justify the supposition that the elementary charge is different on Mars, before worrying about anything else. How do you test this supposition, within the context of mainstream physics? i.e. how would this show up with existing data from past experiments? What observations might you make to confirm it?

Quote

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.

We have robots and probes on Mars. We have had no issues communicating with them that could be attributed to this alleged effect.

Quote

Do you disagree with the formulas

Yes. c is an invariant.

Where did these equations come from? (pretty sure you have been asked already)

Quote

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.

I will disagree with anything that implies that c varies in an inertial frame, and you need to justify — not just assert — any claim contrary to mainstream physics.

!

Moderator Note

You need to do much better complying with the rules (especially of the speculations section) if you expect to be able to continue posting. Starting immediately.

##### Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Now﻿ suppose that some time after landing on Mars the rover became﻿ "mars﻿ly"﻿ a﻿﻿﻿﻿nd its matter began to obey the "marsly" fu﻿nda﻿mental con﻿stants﻿

There are all sorts of problems with this.

Even ignoring the fact it is something you have made up, with no evidence or theoretical basis, just to get around the fact that existing evidence proves you wrong.

But even if it were true, what about the fact that Mars probes (and those to other planets, moons, comets and deep space) continue to function correctly on the journey, when they first arrive and after becoming magically transformed to the “local physics”. The sensitive electronics would not work if fundamental constants were constantly changing.

Your claim that “everything is different but carefully contrived to appear the same” is logically equivalent to solipsism or Last-Thursdayism (the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old).

In other words it cannot be proved or disproved and therefore is not science. It is barely even pseudoscience.

Your argument “but the equations work” is equally meaningless. It is trivial to invent arbitrary equations to fit any result you want.

Science is not the process of inventing fairy tales about the universe just because you like the story. You need to learn how science works before/instead of making up nonsense like this.

23 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Unfortunately﻿ ﻿for academic physicists, these formulas do not contain numerical coefficients, so I cannot ﻿be accused o﻿f﻿ numerology.

Numerology includes arbitrary curve fitting as well as playing around with numbers

##### Share on other sites

My "inconvenient" arguments regarding the mountain ranges on Venus were again ignored.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

Matter from one celestial body is "transformed" during some extended amount of time. ﻿Note that there have been rovers on mars operating for several years*﻿﻿

"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.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:
On 6/15/2019 at 3:27 PM, Hamster22 said:

Accordingly, the earth apparatus will no longer detect the rover signal and it (the rover) will simply disappear from the radar.

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.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

Consider all the particles hitting earth all the time from photons and neutrinos to large meteorites. How come there are not discoveries of any particle or meteorite that﻿ deviates from the expected?

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.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

Or it requires some mysterious forces

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 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

So a telescope on earth, a Mars surveillance probe in orbit and a rover camera will not register the same colours?﻿

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?

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

But since the idea is an attack on very general concepts of physics you need to provide evidence and analysis on a much more fundamental level.

I am working on it.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

what is the probability that the idea just happen to be completely wrong?

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.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

I think this makes the idea look very wrong to anyone with a science background

I understand it. That is why I am working to get practical results and practical benefits from this idea.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:18 PM, Ghideon said:

Lots of more details, and rigorous treatment, is required to support these fundamental changes to theoretical models and the interpretations of all the observations that supports the current models.﻿

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.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:54 PM, swansont said:

What is "carrier electron frequency﻿"? I Google on that phrase and I get 4 results, and they all refer to majority carrier electron frequency and in solid-state physics papers.﻿﻿

It was an absolutely random frequency. I chose it just for illustration.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:54 PM, swansont said:

How do you test this supposition, within the context of mainstream physics? i.e. how would this show up with existing data from past experiments? What observations might you make to confirm it?

I do not know it yet.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:54 PM, swansont said:

We have robots and probes on Mars. We have had no issues communicating with them that could be attributed to this alleged effect

I answered this question in my comment for Ghideon.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:54 PM, swansont said:

Where did these equations come from?

Intuition, based on my previous experience.

On 6/15/2019 at 6:54 PM, swansont said:

I will disagree with anything that implies that c varies in an inertial frame, and you need to justify — not just assert — any claim contrary to mainstream physics.

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".

6 hours ago, Strange said:

But even if it were true, what about the fact that Mars probes (and those to other planets, moons, comets and deep space) continue to function correctly on the journey, when they first arrive and after becoming magically transformed to the “local physics”. The sensitive electronics would not work if fundamental constants were constantly changing.

I answered this question in my comment for Ghideon.

6 hours ago, Strange said:

In other words it cannot be proved or disproved and therefore is not science. It is barely even pseudoscience.

Maybe yes, maybe not. Future will tell.

Edited by Hamster22
##### Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I answered this question in my comment for Ghideon.

No you didn't. You just waved your hands, ignored the realities of physics and pretended it didn't matter.

Now, if you could do some actual calculations and show that a particular set of values of fundamental constants could change but cause no perceptible effect, then that would be an answer. A non-scientific one, but an answer. Saying "why should it matter" is (a) not an answer and (b) a demonstration of your ignorance.

44 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Maybe yes, maybe not. ﻿Future will tell﻿﻿.

Nope. Because if the changes you claim happen in a magic way that means the change is undetectable, then it cannot be detected and it is not science. Not now, not in the future. It is just a fairly tale you have invented (presumably because making up random stuff is easier than actually learning some science).

46 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

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.

Nope.

Making up fairy tales as "evidence" for other fairy tales is not how science works.

47 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

The same applies to the spectral lines of meteorites, planets, stars, etc. Interesting, isn't it?

So it comes back to your magic that makes your theory untestable. And, no, it isn't interesting. It is a little bit sad, to be honest.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hamster22 said:

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

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.

##### Share on other sites

On 6/14/2019 at 10:57 AM, Hamster22 said:

I agree, subject to the modification of Newton's formula to the form F = µ1M2 / r

That’s not a modification, per se, since you’ve just rewritten GM. But G is, and must be, a constant. And if you contend otherwise you must show that to be the case, before applying the concept elsewhere

Quote

If STR is correct, then STR may be of limited scope - only in the sphere of influence and perception of the Earth.

Again, something you must demonstrate.

Quote

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.

That’s not a viable strategy, and is inconsistent with our rules on speculations.

!

Moderator Note

As you have no evidence, this is closed. Do not open new threads in (or containing) speculations that are not compliant with our requirements

##### Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
×