Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on 01/01/2021 16:32:10
-
The nature of light.
A photon has energy and momentum (weight) but no mass. It is obvious that light is vibrations of some medium (ether). This environment cannot but have resistance, damping or absorbing light vibrations with time and distance. I will describe the essence in simple words so as not to complicate and not drag out the explanation.
1) Water waves.
They spread longer (in time) than sound, but at a shorter distance (at a lower speed). Distribution medium: water.
2) Sound waves.
The lifetime of sound waves is shorter than that of water waves, but the speed (and distance) is greater. Distribution medium: atmosphere (gas).
3) Light waves.
By analogy, the lifetime of light waves should be much shorter than the lifetime of sound waves, but since the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s - the propagation distance is greater. Distribution medium: aether.
(https://i.ibb.co/LJVDKqn/pt.jpg)
(a schematic representation of a photon - a conventional unit of oscillation (wave) of the aether) Image text translation: The movement of one light wave (photon) from the source to complete attenuation and / or absorption by the medium (aether).
At the beginning of the 20th century, scientists rejected the completely plausible hypothesis of the Tired Light, began to carry out fortune-telling by redshifts of the spectrum (like on coffee grounds, only by the spectral emissions), and billions of light years, black holes, dark energies, and distant-distant galaxies rushed.
Light years?
A photon cannot exist not only for years, but even for minutes. Example. Standing in the lake. You throw a stone. First you hear the sound, later the waves come. Waves on water, sound waves in a gaseous medium and light waves in ether are phenomena of the same nature, but of different orders due to the environment. If waves on water “live” for minutes, and sound waves in a gaseous medium “live” for seconds, then light waves in their medium (ether) “live” for a fraction of a second. All this depends on the power of the source of wave oscillations, so it can be assumed that light waves from the Sun can exist for several seconds, but not more (not minutes, and even less years).
Even if in the space environment (vacuum) there is no resistance, there is no heat exchange, then the distance is overcome (volume expansion with distance), which cannot occur absolutely without energy consumption. In addition, the space of the cosmic vacuum cannot be absolutely empty. There cannot but be certain, albeit minimal, resistance and heat transfer. Light years and 8 light minutes from Sun to Earth are physically impossible.
Again. Attentively. This is very important to understand. Overcoming distance in any environment, that is, regardless of the environment, cannot occur without energy consumption (or with zero energy consumption). Since a photon has a very low energy charge, and a very high speed of movement, and no medium (including space) can have absolutely zero resistance, then, accordingly, the lifetime (life) of one photon (wave oscillation of the medium - ether) is very short, not exceeding at least one minute.
Definition. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
Since the aether is not scientifically recognized, it turns out that a photon is a conventional unit of wave oscillations of an incomprehensible medium? A photon has weight (energy and momentum), but no mass - it is obvious that this is an oscillation (wave) of some medium (aether).
Addition.
If the distance from the Earth to the Sun were 150,000,000 km, that is, 8 light minutes, then the STEREO Ahead and STEREO Behind spacecraft would simply be impossible to control, and it would be impossible to receive any data from them. For example. STEREO A (itself being in constant motion in orbit) sends a signal to the Earth that flies in space for 8 minutes, and during this time the Earth moves in orbit for 8 minutes. * 60 sec. * 30 km/s = 14 400 km. Not to mention the enormous degree of radio signal scattering over distances of tens of millions of kilometers or several light minutes.
(https://i.ibb.co/zF1spMX/pt2.gif)
(animation of the movement of STEREO spacecrafts around the Sun)
There is a photo animation on the web that shows a solar flare in the direction of one of these satellites. The STEREO Ahead spacecraft supposedly moves along the Earth's orbit, that is, at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth. This is an animation of STEREO A photos from July 23, 2012.
(https://i.ibb.co/QKNxyHY/pt3.gif)
The solar flare flew exactly in the direction of STEREO A. It began at almost exactly 03:00 (UTC), and the first visible particles of coronal matter (white ripples in the animation) flew to STEREO A at about 07:00 (UTC). If the distance from the Sun to the Earth's orbit (on which the STEREO spacecraft are located) were 150,000,000 km, as is officially believed, then the speed of coronal material particles would be 150,000,000 km. / 4 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = about 10,000 km / s. - this is 3% of the speed of light, which is hardly physically possible.
The solar wind is a stream of ionized particles (mainly helium-hydrogen plasma) flowing out from the solar corona at a speed of 300-1200 km/s into the surrounding space.
In addition, it is generally known that the flow of coronal matter from a solar flare reaches the Earth's orbit (in which the STEREO spacecraft are supposedly located) in an average of 150,000,000 km. / 750 km / s / 60 sec. / 60 min. / 24 hours = ~ 2.5 - 3 days. But in fact, the animation of the photos turns out to be 07:00 (UTC) - 03:00 (UTC) = 4 hours. Looks like it turns out this way, because STEREO spacecrafts are located on the orbit of Venus (around the Sun), and SOHO spacecraft is located in common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun in the Solar System (Universe) with approximately the same parameters as in the schematic image below.
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg)
(ProtoEarth, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars; common center of mass between Earth and Sun; distance to the Moon is about 100 000 km., distance to the Sun is about 300 000 km.; Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe where all the "stars" and "galaxies" located; the diameter of the Universe does not exceed one light minute)
The rotation of the Earth and the Sun, as two commensurate objects, around a common center of mass, is difficult to describe in words and to draw schematically - therefore, I end the article with a corresponding animation, in which the size ratios are close to reality (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).
(https://i.ibb.co/f0dhyW7/p11.gif)
-
This topic is being posted on multiple sites, in violation of the rules of this site.
The latest has earned the author a suspension for failing to use anything but ignorance to support the ignorance presented, being evasive resorting only to repetition. The post is just soapboxing.
Had the topic been posted in New Theories, I would have left it there, but since it was posted in the mainstream section, it has been moved to 'That Can't Be True" section.
-
This is painfully wrong...
-
Had the topic been posted in New Theories, I would have left it there, but since it was posted in the mainstream section, it has been moved to 'That Can't Be True" section.
Dear moderator Halc, would you please be so kind to move two my topics "New model of the Universe." and "The nature of light and the size of the Universe." to the section "New Theories". I honestly haven't seen that section. I just scrolled the section till I saw "Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology" and didn't scrolled below it. This is my fault for my carelessness. I apologize and please move my two topics to a more appropriate section of this forum: "New Theories", please.
-
Dear moderator Halc, would you please be so kind to move two my topics "New model of the Universe." and "The nature of light and the size of the Universe." to the section "New Theories".
Can do if the assertions made are accompanied by evidence. You've a reputation for not providing such, hence this forum seems to be the appropriate classification.
The topic is already under discussion on other sites under various categories of 'speculations'. Continue the discussion there if you will.
-
The topic is already under discussion on other sites under various categories of 'speculations'. Continue the discussion there if you will.
Dear Halc, these two my topics are deleted from three forums: space.com, livescience.com and physicsforums.com. These two my topics are only on scienceforums.net but they are both closed there now. That's my falut that I didnt scroll down your forum lower and didn't notice the propper section for my topics "New Theories". Please forgive me my carelessness and move these two my topics to the section "New Theories". There is logic and argumentation in my suggestions, they are theories, or at least hypothesis. I promise to be more attentive and consistent and not violate the rules of your forum. Is it so hard for you to do . . . please.
-
There is logic and argumentation in my suggestions
Very, very poor ones that don't align with known physics.
-
It is obvious that light is vibrations of some medium
Wrong.
-
First you hear the sound, later the waves come.
Wrong
-
Even if in the space environment (vacuum) there is no resistance, there is no heat exchange,
Wrong
-
I did not post this information in the "Ask a question" section, because it is impossible to add photos there, without which the questions would be incomprehensible.
1) First question.
It is comet NEOWISE on both STEREOs and SOHOs photos. Here is a link to the article with confirmation of this fact: The tale of a comet's tail http://www.stce.be/news/489/welcome.html But how is it possible considering the SOHOs and STEREOs interposition (location in space) an their fields of view?
(https://i.ibb.co/3Rg09Kh/neowise.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/yBkF0RZ/neowise2.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/HDPTVjF/neowise3.gif)
2) Second question.
Why there is no Moon near the Earth on the STEREOs photos? Considering that Mercury is clearly visible in the same photos, the Moon should be seen at least as a bright bulge on the side of the Earth. The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point. Diameters for better representation of ratios: Mercury - 4.8; Moon - 3.5; Earth - 12.7.
(https://i.ibb.co/XY2RCzP/evidence2.jpg)
How is it possible that there is a Moon near the Earth on MESSENGERs photos, but no Moon near the Earth on STEREOs photos?
(https://i.ibb.co/r5v6m09/evidence3.jpg)
-
The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point.
Why not?
Why couldn't the moon be "hidden" behind the Earth?
-
The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point.
Why not?
Because of: 1) the ratio Earth - 12.7, Moon - 3.5; 2) The distance between Earth and Moon is 384 000 kilometers.
Why couldn't the moon be "hidden" behind the Earth?
Photo animation for 8 days, during which the Moon cannot hide behind the Earth or be all this time in front of the Earth.
(https://i.ibb.co/6nsZJ6S/stereo-gif-a2e35ccb2a1812a78e834d85ee1dce15.gif)
Link to STEREO photo archive: https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images
-
Why there is no Moon near the Earth on the STEREOs photos?
I don't know how the images are generated, but they do not appear to be photos. A stereoscopic sensory system generates a 3D maps of a region, not a photo, which would only be 2D.
It is possible that the image is generated as a 2D slice of that 3D map along the orbital plane. It may be that the moon is well outside that plane, and being so close, it not in the cross section at all.
My argument does not explain the funny curved part that seems to intersect the sun, and the blank 'shadow' region off to the right, nor the fact that Venus seems to track almost straight toward's Earth during the 1-week animation. Also, Mars is portrayed as being inside the orbit of Earth, which implies more of a point-of view choice (from well to the side, but again in the orbital plane) from which the 2D image is created from the 3D map. The image point of view might have been chosen in this case to put the comet in the cross section generated.
Just some thoughts. As I said, I don't know how the images are generated from the data gathered by the STEREO probes.
-
I don't know how the images are generated, but they do not appear to be photos. A stereoscopic sensory system generates a 3D maps of a region, not a photo, which would only be 2D.
STEREO HI-1 and HI-2 - Heliospheric Imagers - are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.
A heliospheric imager is a wide-field camera that is designed to image the solar wind in interplanetary space, far from the Sun itself. The solar wind is composed of plasma and contains both ions and free electrons. The electrons, in particular, scatter incident sunlight via Thomson scattering, and clouds of plasma can therefore be photographed using visible light. Heliospheric imagers are simple in principle - they are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.
Heliospheric imager: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliospheric_imager
-
STEREO HI-1 and HI-2 - Heliospheric Imagers - are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.
But just looking at the pictures makes it clear that we are not seeing a simple photograph, are we?
The images are obviously processed and , since we don't know what processing has been done, we can't really comment on what might have happened.
But. if the Moon wasn't there, and it should have been, don't you think the scientists on the project would have noticed?
-
Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 18:45:35
STEREO HI-1 and HI-2 - Heliospheric Imagers - are simple visible light cameras placed inside deep optical baffles.
But just looking at the pictures makes it clear that we are not seeing a simple photograph, are we? The images are obviously processed and, since we don't know what processing has been done, we can't really comment on what might have happened.
Since STEREO images are photos - not 2D slices of 3D map of region, post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.
-
But. if the Moon wasn't there, and it should have been, don't you think the scientists on the project would have noticed?
Of course they are aware of this, and I'm sure they have a "well-reasoned" "explanation" for this discrepancy. But the most important thing - scientists on the project - is a narrow circle of well-paid people from society, in which, moreover, there should be information of different levels of access and a nondisclosure subscription with very harsh sanctions for violation.
-
post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.
Nonsense.
Have you ever seen photoshop?
-
in which, moreover, there should be information of different levels of access and a nondisclosure subscription with very harsh sanctions for violation.
Why should there be?
Why not just make the information available to anyone?
After all, the taxpayers funded it.
-
post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.
Nonsense.
Have you ever seen photoshop?
If STEREOs, SOHOs and other space photos are photoshopped, moreover with the addition, removal or displacement of space objects in these photos, then welcome to my New model of the Universe (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81336.0), which you praised so much in the first commentary to it: "Wow! Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible."
-
Since STEREO images are photos - not 2D slices of 3D map of region, post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.
They are not photos, since the cameras are nowhere near the point of view presented (which is something like Jupiter, depending on where in its orbit that is).
I notice that the image you post is about 300 pixels across, and with Earth in the center, perhaps 150-180 pixels between Earth and the sun. Earth, Venus, Mercury, and even the comet seem to consume several pixels, meaning the image does not have these object focused down to their actual size.
The moon is a light-second away and the sun is about 500 seconds away, making the moon about a 3rd of a pixel from Earth. That means it isn't in the picture because it's too close to distinguish the two at the resolution presented.
-
post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.
Nonsense.
Have you ever seen photoshop?
If STEREOs, SOHOs and other space photos are photoshopped, moreover with the addition, removal or displacement of space objects in these photos, then welcome to my New model of the Universe (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81336.0), which you praised so much in the first commentary to it: "Wow! Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible."
Are you saying that, with photoshop, we could get the real world to look like your "model"?
That seems an odd point to make.
-
Are you saying that, with photoshop, we could get the real world to look like your "model"?
That seems an odd point to make.
Official space photos are photoshopped.
My model of the Universe has more logic and better argumentation than official one.
-
My model of the Universe have more logic and better argumentation than official one.
Well... if it has, why didn't you present it here rather than the stuff you have posted?
-
I notice that the image you post is about 300 pixels across, and with Earth in the center, perhaps 150-180 pixels between Earth and the sun. Earth, Venus, Mercury, and even the comet seem to consume several pixels, meaning the image does not have these object focused down to their actual size.
The moon is a light-second away and the sun is about 500 seconds away, making the moon about a 3rd of a pixel from Earth. That means it isn't in the picture because it's too close to distinguish the two at the resolution presented.
Link to STEREO photo archive with images up to 2048*2048 resolution:
https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images
(https://i.ibb.co/GkjgQqm/stereofov.jpg)
-
It began at almost exactly 03:00 (UTC), and the first visible particles of coronal matter (white ripples in the animation) flew to STEREO A at about 07:00 (UTC).
Do you have a reference for those times? This reference says that particular coronal mass ejection took 18.5 hours to reach Earth's orbit, not 4 hours: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016ApJ...833..216G/abstract#:~:text=The%20backside%20coronal%20mass%20ejection,transit%20time%20(18.5%20hr).
-
Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on 01/01/2021 16:32:10
It began at almost exactly 03:00 (UTC), and the first visible particles of coronal matter (white ripples in the animation) flew to STEREO A at about 07:00 (UTC).
Do you have a reference for those times? This reference says that particular coronal mass ejection took 18.5 hours to reach Earth's orbit, not 4 hours:
I have a better thing than reference - actual evidence for those times.
Look attentively. I slowed down the animation. White ripples (solar plasma particles) appeared (hit the camera) no longer than 6 hours after the beginning of the solar flare.
(https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/stereoflare.gif.929fd810b596087c0a1cd912b6ec5d14.gif)
Official sources have lack 12 hours of frames of this animation - that is very suspicious.
1) https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/fast-cme.html
2) https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/how-to-read-a-stereo-image
Complete animation of this CME can be found only as gif animation in Google pictures section.
Here is another comparison of two data sources with contradiction.
Solar plasma (white ripples) reaches SOHO in several hours after start of solar burst, but schematical animation shows that solar plasma reaches Earth (and SOHO) only in about 3 days after start of solar burst.
(https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c3.gif.bd656fee20e7e8cb5f367c0f05577905.gif) (https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/cmegif.gif.6723a6e41c97b26360b12ffbc600d89e.gif)
-
White ripples (solar plasma particles) appeared (hit the camera)
First of all, how do you know those ripples are particles hitting the camera? Second of all, you should know that not all components of a coronal mass ejection are going to travel at the same velocity. According to the earlier link I posted, that event was accompanied by protons with an energy above 10 mega-electronvolts. Kinetic energy calculations show that a proton with such a kinetic energy level would be traveling above 14% the speed of light https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/relativistic-ke (the proton's rest mass is 1,836 electron rest masses, if you wish to use this calculator yourself). So those particular protons could have made the journey in less than an hour, easily capable of reaching the telescope within your stated time frame. So the bulk of the flare could indeed have taken 18.5 hours while the most energetic of the protons made it to the telescope in a fraction of that time.
Official sources have lack 12 hours of frames of this animation - that is very suspicious.
So now you're a conspiracy theorist?
-
(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/orbit-viewer-snapshot-18-1024x682.jpg)
-
Since STEREO images are photos - not 2D slices of 3D map of region, post-processing can only be in the form of color filters, and can in no way affect objects (adding or erasing) and their relative position to each other.
They are not photos, since the cameras are nowhere near the point of view presented (which is something like Jupiter, depending on where in its orbit that is).
I notice that the image you post is about 300 pixels across, and with Earth in the center, perhaps 150-180 pixels between Earth and the sun. Earth, Venus, Mercury, and even the comet seem to consume several pixels, meaning the image does not have these object focused down to their actual size.
The moon is a light-second away and the sun is about 500 seconds away, making the moon about a 3rd of a pixel from Earth. That means it isn't in the picture because it's too close to distinguish the two at the resolution presented.
Yep.
Is there any shading on the earth?
-
you praised so much in the first commentary to it: "Wow! Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible."
I think it was very faint praise.
See: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=761004524793441&set=gm.3746532775368424
Ok, lets call it sarcasm.
-
There is something very strange about the lighting on the Perseverance landing video.
1) Reflection of the “Sun” on the surface of “Mars” as if from a searchlight (too small bright spot). The height of the device at the time of this reflection hitting the frame is 9.5 km.
2) This reflection should be exactly under the Sun, that is, perpendicular to the surface of Mars, that is, point exactly at noon, but judging by the smooth movement of the shadow (on the separating heat shield) in the northeast direction (diagonally at 13:30), there is some kind of contradiction with lighting. The movement of the shadow over the heat shield indicates the position of the Sun in the southwest direction (19:30 hours) relative to the vehicle. The reflection of the "Sun" on the surface of "Mars" indicates the position of the Sun in an easterly direction (15:00 hours) relative to the vehicle.
Perseverance Rover’s Descent and Touchdown on Mars (Official NASA Video) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4czjS9h4Fpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/Jk3GxHx/ezgif-3-cc50997a6900.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/4FFkXNV/ezgif-7-5fcc6bebdabf.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/smM5S6S/ess.jpg)
There is nothing glinting on the Mars' surface accorting to official surface photos of that area. The more - there are no round shaped "bright spots" on the surface of that area of Mars.
1) https://www.google.com.ua/maps/space/mars/@18.4982121,77.6169751,26455m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru
(https://i.ibb.co/pxYCbzZ/gm.jpg)
2) https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/where-is-the-rover/
(https://i.ibb.co/472KMrq/pl.jpg)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/R2qTLpb/hseng.jpg)
-
This isn't a conspiracy thread, is it?
-
Here is a more complete video.
I see that the direction of maximum reflection on the heat shield seems to rotate as the heat shield falls further ahead of the parachute payload.
- This suggests that the reflection will move, depending on how the heat shield wobbles
-
This isn't a conspiracy thread, is it?
Exactly. Factual data analysis only.
-
I see that the direction of maximum reflection on the heat shield seems to rotate as the heat shield falls further ahead of the parachute payload.
- This suggests that the reflection will move, depending on how the heat shield wobbles
The first few seconds (which I am talking about), the heat shield falls straight and without significant wobblings.
-
Ghideon from scienceforums.net gave the answer to one of my questions.
Link to Ghideon's post on scienceforums.net. (https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/124460-lighting-questions-on-the-perseverance-landing-video/?do=findComment&comment=1169450)
@AlexandrKushnirtshuk you may look a few seconds further into the video you linked to. The heat shield is probably just wobbling after being dropped? That makes the heat shield look oval from the camera's point of view and reflections are moving.
(https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2021_02/image.png.3da5164e77970ccab68a4a9fd6c949fb.png) (https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2021_02/image.png.7568c4fd5730e456ada0c13f8c159a29.png)
There is another interesting question. Sorry for the many images, but they are all necessary.
Is it possible to explain such a small size sun reflection on the surface of Mars? Yellow dot on the image below is the size of Jezero Crater on Mars. Bright spot on the animation below is reflection of the Sun (from Perseverance landing video), which located inside the Jezero Crater and makes up no more than 10% of the area of Jezero Crater. Last (third) image shows how sun reflection spot looks like on Earth's surface.
(https://i.ibb.co/YZXBP6q/jc.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4FFkXNV/ezgif-7-5fcc6bebdabf.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/MP16pND/Ess.jpg)
Location and size of bright spot (Sun reflection), from animation above, inside Jezero Crater. That bright spot is not in the middle of the crater, and there is nothing bright in that area on two photos of that area, which are posted in the first message of this thread.
(https://i.ibb.co/yNN0WXF/jcref.jpg)
-
Exactly. Factual data analysis only.
No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.
-
I think the moon landing deniers must be having a field day when they see how cunningly live and simulated videos are contrived today.
I am not a denier of course I have no doubt that the moon landings were genuine
-
(https://i.ibb.co/R2qTLpb/hseng.jpg)
The heat shield is curved, the sun is shining onto the heat shield from beneath. The shadow and glare are in the right place. If the glare was beneath and the shadow above then I would say impossible when looking into the concave shape. If it was convex the scenario you have outlined would be impossible.
If it was flat parallel surface you would not see any glare at all due to reflection, so to call this suspicious is not creditable. The angle of the sun versus the slope of the heat shield do not appear equal, the distance and angle from the sun to the heat shield versus the distance and angle from the camera to the heat shield are not equal, yet you expect the point of observation to be equal. If everything that light hit gave glare like it was a flat perpendicular surface life would be fairly difficult.
-
The first few seconds (which I am talking about), the heat shield falls straight and without significant wobblings.
From the image you posted from the vehicle assembly room, the heat shield is a fairly shallow dish. It doesn't take much of a wobble to change the angle of reflection significantly.
(third) image shows how sun reflection spot looks like on Earth's surface
The images of Earth show the Sun reflecting off areas of ocean. While not a mirror-smooth surface, the ocean does have a component of specular reflection (like a mirror).
There is no liquid surface water on Mars, so the surface is dominated by a dusty, rocky surface, which leads to a more diffuse reflection.
-
Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
(https://i.ibb.co/4FFkXNV/ezgif-7-5fcc6bebdabf.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/bXtbwtW/Image.png)
But in that case, the shadow on the animation below should move in the diametrically opposite direction.
(https://i.ibb.co/Jk3GxHx/ezgif-3-cc50997a6900.gif)
-
Please answer my quesiton:
No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.
-
Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
It is interesting that you seek to illustrate that something must be a sphere by showing a picture that looks like a sphere, but is, of course, on a flat screen.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for an answer to this
Exactly. Factual data analysis only.
No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.
-
Please answer my quesiton:
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 17:22:02
No, I'm asking if you are accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.
I want to understand the nature of the bright spot on the surface of Mars in the video of the Perseverance landing. And I am not accusing NASA of being involved in some kind of deception.
-
Okay, good.
-
Distrust, lifted up to a truth, isn't it :)
and the moon landing
And coca cola. I mean, who knows what that recipe contains?
Alexandr Kushnirtshuk :)
you have to accept that some things are done exactly as described, while other things are questionable. Not exactly NASA as they try to be pretty much 'unpolitical' although steered by politics. If you were talking about the NSA it would be another matter.
-
Sun reflection on Earth from 400 km. and Mars from 10 km. I have nothing to add to this thread.
(https://i.ibb.co/NKfbK3x/ezgif-6-119cfe46615c.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/4FFkXNV/ezgif-7-5fcc6bebdabf.gif)
ISS animation source: Over Earth - Incredible Space Views from ESA Astronaut Alexander Gerst (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNbMKrLfvQQ)
-
Artist’s impression of Mars four billion years ago (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBdioF65wNQ)
(https://i.ibb.co/Vt3pq3w/ezgif-4-bb120b98a6cd.gif)
Size of Jezero Crater on Mars, and size of Sun reflection inside that crater, which makes up less than 10% of Jezero Crater area.
(https://i.ibb.co/YZXBP6q/jc.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/4FFkXNV/ezgif-7-5fcc6bebdabf.gif)
Same bright spot size on Curiosity landing video.
Complete Mars Curiosity Descent - Full Quality Enhanced HD 1080p Landing + Heat Shield impact (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZX5GRPnd4U)
(https://i.ibb.co/cLbnQnR/ezgif-4-15cb0235f967.gif)
-
Asked this question on NASA forum: Lighting questions on the Perseverance landing video. (https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53173.0)
-
Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
So what are you arguing then? That Mars is much smaller than NASA says it is?
-
Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
So what are you arguing then? That Mars is much smaller than NASA says it is?
According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.
Moon: 500-700 km. Sun: 2500-3000 km. Earth and Sun rotating around common center of mass approximately like on animation below. Mercury and Venus are direct satellites of the Sun, to what at least 3 following facts indirectly indicate:
- Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
- Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 9, 10 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 17, 16 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.
(https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c11.gif.bd3fb41fea3601564900036f2d853e2a.gif) (https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c5.jpg.77be636896a402decdf86ce73f6a4c07.jpg) (https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c6.gif.66f184e08bdebe8296f8b9abd9deb192.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/z8bv2h5/ezgif-2-e19f653bc9fe.gif)
(https://i.ibb.co/56KX3jn/ume2.jpg)
This is only my personal hypothetical assumptions. You asked me, and I just honestly answered to your question.
-
Opposition Effect (Seeliger effect) | Aerial video examples (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0MRM8ViXdQ)
-
According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.
According to measurements (and thus, to reality) the diameter is 6,779 km.
So, well done, you had a testable hypothesis. (That's a lot better than some people manage)
It has been tested.
It is not true.
You can forget about it now and do something else.
-
According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.
Are you serious? How do you expect Mars to have 0.38 times the gravity of Earth and hold onto an atmosphere at such an incredibly tiny size? Besides, Bored Chemist has already pointed out that it's been measured to have a much larger diameter than that.
This belongs in New Theories. Time to move it.
-
This belongs in New Theories. Time to move it.
I disagree.
I think it belongs in "that can't be true".
(Well, really, it belongs in the trash can...)
-
I disagree.
I think it belongs in "that can't be true".
(Well, really, it belongs in the trash can...)
I suppose that's true. If another moderator thinks it needs to be moved yet again, they can handle it.
After using a couple of online calculators, I calculated what Mar's density would need to be in order for it to have a surface gravity of 0.38 G and a diameter of 20 kilometers: https://planetcalc.com/1758/ and https://www.vcalc.com/wiki/KurtHeckman/Sphere+-+Density
The result is that it would need to have a density of about 1,337 grams per cubic centimeter, which is 59 times more dense than osmium. It's completely infeasible.
-
According to my hypothetical assumptions, the diameter of Mars is about 15-20 km.
Have you ever looked at Mars through a telescope?
- I have an 8-inch reflector, and at <20km, Mars would be quite invisible
- Phobos is 22km across, and I can't see that in my telescope (unlike 4 moons of Jupiter, which are quite visible)
-
What is dark matter?
An incomprehensible substance evenly scattered throughout the Universe, or is it the border of the Universe behind the Oort cloud, from where the sunlight is simply not reflected?
Astronomers Use New Data to Create Extraordinary Dark Matter Map
(https://scitechdaily.com/astronomers-use-new-data-to-create-extraordinary-dark-matter-map/)
(https://scitechdaily.com/images/Astronomers-Create-Unprecedentedly-Wide-and-Sharp-Dark-Matter-Map-777x275.jpg)
The distance to the most distant galaxy is supposedly 13.4 billion light years. This means that the light travels all the distance without hindrance. This is supposedly a straight line, along which there are no objects: stars, galaxies, nebulae, dust, gas - nothing blocking light in a straight line 13.4 billion light years long ... This is hardly possible.
-
is (dark matter) the border of the Universe behind the Oort cloud, from where the sunlight is simply not reflected?
It is good that you understand that long-period comets on an elliptical orbit come from the Oort cloud, and so it physically exists (ie it is not outside the universe).
- Long ago, astronomers were able to measure the distance to the nearer stars, using the technique of parallax as the Earth orbits the Sun. The nearest star is about 4 light years away, well beyond the Oort Cloud.
- The recent passage of Oumuamua (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CA%BBOumuamua) through the Solar System followed a hyperbolic path, so it came from well outside the Oort Cloud.
- The Gaia spacecraft is in the process of using parallax to measure the distance to about a billion stars in our galaxy. It has measured the distance (and velocity) of the nearby Sculptor Dwarf galaxy at 272,000 light years, which is far beyond the Oort Cloud.
- The Gaia spacecraft is also measuring the position of some stars in the Andromeda Galaxy, which is much farther again.
- By methods like Cepheid variables and supernova brightness, the distance to even farther objects have been estimated.
Conclusion: There are real objects in our universe far beyond the Oort Cloud
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)#Significant_results
nothing blocking light in a straight line 13.4 billion light years long ... This is hardly possible.
You don't seem to understand the concept of intergalactic space being a very good vacuum
- And observations suggesting that the galaxy clusters are arranged as a thin web bordering large voids containing an extremely good vacuum.
- Even if 90% of the photons from a distant quasar strike an atom on the way, and are absorbed/deflected, that is still enough photons to detect the quasar on a photograph, and to capture its spectrum, and measure its red shift
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy_filament
-
This is hardly possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
-
Please keep posts like this to "New Theories". This contradicts mainstream science and you know it.
-
Please keep posts like this to "New Theories". This contradicts mainstream science and you know it.
There are many contradictions in official science, you should also be aware of this.
Since you moved this topic to "New Theories", then I will allow myself to post links to my theory which explain the contradictory theory of dark matter, and many other contradictions of the official model of the Universe.
1) New model of the Universe. (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81336)
2) The nature of light and the size of the Universe. (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81337)
-
Perhaps we should move this to "that can't be true" on the basis that... it can't be true
-
Perhaps we should move this to "that can't be true" on the basis that... it can't be true
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
I think one transfer of this topic is enough.
-
The OP is copied from other sites, where the topics get quickly locked, due to lack of evidence, but mostly due to poor presentation of an idea.
-
The OP is copied from other sites, where the topics get quickly locked, due to lack of evidence, but mostly due to poor presentation of an idea.
You're right. Many good ideas get rejected, not because the idea isn't true. but because it's been poorly presented.
This is why courts sometimes send innocent people to prison. Their lawyer didn't present their case competently..
-
The OP is copied from other sites, where the topics get quickly locked, due to lack of evidence, but mostly due to poor presentation of an idea.
You're right. Many good ideas get rejected, not because the idea isn't true. but because it's been poorly presented.
This is why courts sometimes send innocent people to prison. Their lawyer didn't present their case competently..
Presentation may be important but in this case he's just failing to put lipstick on a pig.
It wouldn't matter how well he presented it, because it's wrong.
Obviously, since good (or even competent) presentation in science includes having evidence, and he hasn't got any, he is going to struggle.
-
There are many contradictions in official science, you should also be aware of this.
Since you moved this topic to "New Theories", then I will allow myself to post links to my theory which explain the contradictory theory of dark matter, and many other contradictions of the official model of the Universe.
1) New model of the Universe.
2) The nature of light and the size of the Universe.
Your model is wrong, at least in part, because it gets sizes and distances incredibly wrong. Your argument for that is flawed because you make an incorrect analogy about light. The physics of light is rather different than the physics of waves in water. An individual photon would have no problem traversing empty space because there is nothing in the way for it to transfer its energy to (unlike the molecules in a wave of water).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Bored Chemist is not using the argument from incredulity. He's saying that it can't be true because all of the evidence we have points to your idea being wrong.
It sure would be nice if you actually stuck around for a while and debated with us about the specific points of your idea.
You're right. Many good ideas get rejected, not because the idea isn't true. but because it's been poorly presented.
Well, that's not true in this particular case. AlexandrKushnirtshuk thinks that Mars is only a few tens of kilometers across (I forget the exact number).
-
An individual photon would have no problem traversing empty space because there is nothing in the way for it to transfer its energy to (unlike the molecules in a wave of water).
I will answer briefly. Overcoming the distance without spending energy (that is, with zero energy expenses) is impossible a priori. The existence of a medium with absolutely zero resistance is impossible, a priori impossible.
-
Well, that's not true in this particular case. AlexandrKushnirtshuk thinks that Mars is only a few tens of kilometers across (I forget the exact number).
Mars' diameter is about 15-20 km. according my assumptions.
-
I will answer briefly. Overcoming the distance without spending energy (that is, with zero energy expenses) is impossible a priori.
It's a vacuum: there is nothing to "overcome".
The existence of a medium with absolutely zero resistance is impossible, a priori impossible.
First of all, whether a vacuum is a "medium" is debatable. Secondly, we do know of mediums with zero resistance (superfluid helium, for example).
Mars' diameter is about 15-20 km. according my assumptions.
An assumption refuted by measurements.
-
It sure would be nice if you actually stuck around for a while and debated with us about the specific points of your idea.
My several other thoughts to the important issues directly related to the structure of the Universe.
1) The actual (real) structure of the Universe is the key to a correct understanding of the origin of life, its nature, as well as the essence of paranormal phenomena, UFOs, so called "aliens", and the key to the correct worldview.
2) There are no extraterrestrials (in the sense that they are not from other planets - not EXTRAterrestrials ). I think that the Earth is the only planet in the Universe. The Sun is the only star in the Universe. "Aliens" (all their alliances and races) are, roughly speaking, angels / demons. Entities that somehow, for some time manage to avoid incarnation. Their influence on humanity is insignificant on the physical plane (paranormal or subtle phenomena interact very weakly with matter), but enormous in terms of mental (religion, worldview). Most of all, they affect the mind through fear of death and ignorance. "Aliens" is a psychophysical, subtle, noosphere phenomenon.
3) Is the Universe local?
Yes. Moreover, it is absolutely local. This comes from the name itself. If besides the Universe there is something else, then without this something it is no longer the Universe. Within the framework of the Universe, the existence of something local is impossible, that is, absolutely without any interaction with the rest of the Universe. In short, this supposedly difficult question, in fact, is a priori very unambiguous: the Universe is absolutely local, within the Universe, conditionally (relatively) local phenomena or regions (space) can exist, for example: a soundproof room, an airtight container, water-air, etc. .P. impermeable containers. But it is impossible to create an absolutely impenetrable space within the framework of the Universe itself for absolutely nothing. In short, the Universe is an absolutely local space, within which the existence of any other absolutely local space is impossible.
4) Is it possible to know the future?
No. Knowledge of the future itself influences (changes) this future. Example. You find out that something bad is about to happen, even if you try to do nothing to fix it or avoid it, then at least your behavior and thinking will change. In short, it is impossible to know the future, because knowledge of the future itself affects the future, that is, changes it. There are certain trends and expectations of the future, but nobody knows 100% of it, although it is likely that it can be 100% predetermined.
5) The only infinite parameter (in the full sense) in the Universe is time. Energy and matter, like consciousness and space, are limited, but indestructible ... in short, here you need to understand well the Law of Conservation of Energy and its consequences, because this is essentially one of the fundamental properties of the Universe: Nothing appears from nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but is only redistributed and / or transformed from one state to another.
6) Religious worldviews.
The first and most important thing to understand is that the existence of 100% truth, or 100% lies, is impossible. Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism. . .) - sinners in hell, the righteous in heaven - game over - nonsense. But this does not mean that these religions are completely false.Hinduism and Buddhism, like probably Taoism and Shintoism with the concepts of karma and rebirth, in general, are closer to reality. But this does not mean that these religions are absolutely true.That is, with regard to religion and worldview, it is important to understand to what extent this or that question or phenomenon corresponds to reality, is logical, plausible, and viable.
-
Overcoming the distance without spending energy (that is, with zero energy expenses) is impossible a priori.
or, we can look at Newton's first law which says "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force. ".
Are you saying Newton was wrong about that?
-
That's nice and all, but I'd like to focus on what you've already posted. The resistance of a vacuum, for one. What do you think there is in a vacuum that would drain a photon's energy as it travels?
-
Overcoming the distance without spending energy (that is, with zero energy expenses) is impossible a priori.
or, we can look at Newton's first law which says "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force. ".
Are you saying Newton was wrong about that?
Probably Newton did not take into account all possible reaction forces (and/or the way that forces interact). Perhaps some negligible, but still not zero forces, which he neglected/disregarded.
-
Probably Newton did not take into account all possible reaction forces (and/or the way that forces interact). Perhaps some negligible, but still not zero forces, which he neglected/disregarded.
Again, what forces are there in a vacuum?
-
That's nice and all, but I'd like to focus on what you've already posted. The resistance of a vacuum, for one. What do you think there is in a vacuum that would drain a photon's energy as it travels?
Gravity. Gravitational field. The total interaction (the sum) of the gravitational fields of the objects in the Universe.
-
Again, what forces are there in a vacuum?
Gravity. And this force is everywhere in the vacuum. Gravity makes cosmic medium to have not zero resistance.
-
Gravity. Gravitational field. The total interaction (the sum) of the gravitational fields of the objects in the Universe.
Gravitational fields in the space between star systems are pretty weak. There are three main things that they would do to photons: red shift them (if the photons are traveling against the field), blue shift them (if they are traveling into the field) or deflect them (if they are traveling in any direction perpendicular to the source). Those gravitational fields might modify the photon energy to some extent, but they won't absorb the photons. They are in no way a hindrance to photons traveling through space (unless they travel into black holes or whatever).
-
First of all, whether a vacuum is a "medium" is debatable. Secondly, we do know of mediums with zero resistance (superfluid helium, for example).
Are you 100% sure that superfluid helium have zero resistance, but not any negligible (and/or disregarded) resistance value, but still not absolutely zero resistance?
-
Are you 100% sure that superfluid helium have zero resistance, but not any negligible (and/or disregarded) resistance value, but still not absolutely zero resistance?
Given that experiments can't measure arbitrarily small values, it can't be ruled out completely. I am not aware of any measurements of such resistance, however.
-
Again, what forces are there in a vacuum?
Gravity. And this force is everywhere in the vacuum. Gravity makes cosmic medium to have not zero resistance.
On average there is as much stuff in front pulling forwards as there is stuff behind you pulling back.
So, the net effect is zero.
Overcoming the distance without spending energy (that is, with zero energy expenses) is impossible a priori.
or, we can look at Newton's first law which says "an object in motion will stay in motion unless acted on by a net external force. ".
Are you saying Newton was wrong about that?
Probably Newton did not take into account all possible reaction forces (and/or the way that forces interact). Perhaps some negligible, but still not zero forces, which he neglected/disregarded.
So, you don't understand that it's a general principle then...?
-
First of all, whether a vacuum is a "medium" is debatable. Secondly, we do know of mediums with zero resistance (superfluid helium, for example).
Are you 100% sure that superfluid helium have zero resistance, but not any negligible (and/or disregarded) resistance value, but still not absolutely zero resistance?
Real science say "we are not absolutely sure"
But you say The existence of a medium with absolutely zero resistance is impossible, a priori impossible.
So, we know you are not doing science.
Why are you here on this forum?
-
Gravitational fields in the space between star systems are pretty weak. There are three main things that they would do to photons: red shift them (if the photons are traveling against the field), blue shift them (if they are traveling into the field) or deflect them (if they are traveling in any direction perpendicular to the source). Those gravitational fields might modify the photon energy to some extent, but they won't absorb the photons. They are in no way a hindrance to photons traveling through space (unless they travel into black holes or whatever).
You forgot dark matter and dark energy for a complete set of the official, if I may say so, theory of the structure of the Universe.Thanks for the conversation. All the best. Bye.
-
You forgot dark matter and dark energy for a complete set of the official
No, I didn't. Any gravity produced by dark matter or dark energy (if it even produces gravity) would affect photons just as I described. The one and only place that a photon can be red shifted out of existence due to gravity is a black hole.
Thanks for the conversation. All the best. Bye.
I hope you're planning on coming back and finishing this conversation later.
-
Real science say "we are not absolutely sure"
But you say
Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 20:23:45
The existence of a medium with absolutely zero resistance is impossible, a priori impossible.
So, we know you are not doing science.
Why are you here on this forum?
Real science has an axiomatic foundation. Science is impossible without one hundred percent true or false, a prioral, knowledge (assertions, statements).
I'm going to sleep. Bye.
-
Science is impossible without one hundred percent true or false, a prioral, knowledge (assertions, statements).
Please provide a citation from a reputable source to back this statement up. Last time I checked, science is about evidence, not proof.
-
Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
-
Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
You didn't take part in a discussion. You just soapboxed a bit and looked foolish.
-
Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Then I don't want to see you promoting your model here any longer. This is a discussion board. Take a look at the rules: https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
You have been on the verge of doing exactly this for many of the threads you have started. You make a starting post and then give few if any replies when other members try to correct your misunderstandings. Well, I'm not letting you do that any longer. From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.
So either keep it a discussion or don't talk about it at all. This is not the place for you to advertise.
-
From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.
I wish I would have such opportunity, before my thread was closed without any warning by Halc :*(
-
From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.
I wish I would have such opportunity, before my thread was closed without any warning by Halc :*(
Please don't hijack threads, it is against the rules and a distraction.
-
From now on, if you decide to make any more threads about your model, you will discuss it and reply to objections against it. If you do not, this will be interpreted as "evangelising your own pet theory", the thread will subsequently be locked and you will be given a warning about it. If you do this too much, you will be seen as a spammer and be subject to the appropriate moderator action.
I wish I would have such opportunity, before my thread was closed without any warning by Halc :*(
Please don't hijack threads, it is against the rules and a distraction.
Sorry! I will try not to.Although I might sometimes respond to somone in a thread other than my own. On the other hand even I saw, that it went too far in the already closed thread about gravity and intended to start a new thread to further discuss this subject there - what I did... Compared to my posts from there, my short reply to Kryptid doesn't actually look like an attempt of hijacking someone's else thread. If you wouldn't response to it, I probably wouldn't post nothing more in here :)
-
my thread was closed without any warning
You were warned when you signed up.
-
my thread was closed without any warning
You were warned when you signed up.
Sure, but I don't understand why in this case I was treated differently than others - in the negative sense. If I would have some warning I would at least try to do something to prevent the closure of my thread. Am I really the worst one among all other users of this forum? In the difference to others, I try at least to support my controversial ideas with scientifically valid sources...
I hope that Origin won't treat this response as another of my attempts to hijack this thread... :P
-
Sure, but I don't understand why in this case I was treated differently than others
Different moderators may have different approaches. I'm not even sure which thread you are talking about.
-
Sure, but I don't understand why in this case I was treated differently than others
Different moderators may have different approaches. I'm not even sure which thread you are talking about.
This one:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82070.200
I admit, that I got slighly irritated during my discussion with Origin, since I got quite tired of endlessly repeating things, that should be quite obvious to any one, who deals with theoretical physics in his everyday life. Still I don't think that I went too far in my responses to him. And if so, after a simple warning I would probably try to be slightly nicer towards him - it's not that I have some grudge against him and I would admit of being wrong if his objections would be actually valid (but they weren't)...
-
I admit, that I got slighly irritated during my discussion with Origin, since I got quite tired of endlessly repeating things, that should be quite obvious to any one,
Let's not forget that the things you were repeating were obviously wrong to anyone with any knowledge of physics and quite frankly the ideas were rather stupid.
I guess we have completely hijacked this thread, but I guess it is OK since this thread is as idiotic as the thread we are now discussing...
-
I admit, that I got slighly irritated during my discussion with Origin, since I got quite tired of endlessly repeating things, that should be quite obvious to any one,
Let's not forget that the things you were repeating were obviously wrong to anyone with any knowledge of physics and quite frankly the ideas were rather stupid.
I guess we have completely hijacked this thread, but I guess it is OK since this thread is as idiotic as the thread we are now discussing...
Sorry to dissapoint your expectations, but this is only how you're seeing all of this
Le's just say that in this particular case i don't exactly trust in your superior understanding of this subject, since basic knowlege regarding relative motion is enough to see, that you're just unable to comprehend the simple idea, that every observer CAN exist simultaneusly in a moving and in a rest frame.
That's why before I admit , that my model actually violates my own postulates, I want to hear couple other opinions from people with some authority...
-
Colin2B seems to be a reasonable guy and has some knowledge of this subject - I would like to hear,, what he has to say about this. If he will be able to prove me, that you was right all along, I will "officialy" admit your superiority over me
-
I guess we have completely hijacked this thread...
Yes, so let's stop that right now and drop the matter. If you two want to argue about a closed thread, do it over PMs.
-
The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes. The duration of the total phase of the lunar eclipse is 108 minutes. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. Therefore, the diameter of the Moon is 12 742 * (7.5 / 108) = 885 km.
(https://i.ibb.co/wRV6KvS/moonsize.jpg)
Additional evidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/qMTJmY0/ezgif-4-1d2a6806ddf3.gif)
The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs (http://eos.org/features/the-unsolved-mystery-of-the-earth-blobs)
(https://i.ibb.co/fqyvNW9/sunmoon.jpg)
The coincidence of the angular sizes of the Sun and the Moon indicates that their sizes are proportional to the distances relative to the Earth. In addition, the Sun and the Moon have the same axial rotation periods - 27 days. In the earth's mantle there are two huge diametrically opposite formations (one is larger, the other is smaller), both are displaced to the east. On the surface of the Earth there are two huge diametrically opposite tracks (one larger, the other smaller), both shifted to the east. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is approximately 3 to 1.
-
the Sun and the Moon have the same axial rotation periods - 27 days.
No
25 is not 27
The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes.
Or just a few seconds, depending where you are.
-
Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Remember when you said this? There are still issues that we brought up about your model that haven't been resolved. So let's focus on that before you start a discussion about something else.
You still need to provide a citation that science is about 100% knowledge of whether something is true or false. You also have not addressed the fact that the gravitational fields of stars, galaxies, planets and so on cannot stop photons. The most they can do is red shift them, not dissipate them into nothingness.
-
the Sun and the Moon have the same axial rotation periods - 27 days.
No
25 is not 27
The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes.
Or just a few seconds, depending where you are.
Quotes from Google.
1) The Sun rotates on its axis once in about 27 days.
2) The moon orbits the Earth once every 27.322 days. It also takes approximately 27 days for the moon to rotate once on its axis.
3) A total lunar eclipse can last as long as an hour and three-quarters, but for a solar total eclipse maximum duration of totality is only 71/2 minutes.
Diameter of the Moon is 12 742 * (7.5 / 108) = 885 km, and it exactly matches the size of the track between South America and Antarctica in the image above.
-
Have nothing to add. Topic closed. Thanks for participating in the discussion.
Remember when you said this? There are still issues that we brought up about your model that haven't been resolved. So let's focus on that before you start a discussion about something else.
You still need to provide a citation that science is about 100% knowledge of whether something is true or false. You also have not addressed the fact that the gravitational fields of stars, galaxies, planets and so on cannot stop photons. The most they can do is red shift them, not dissipate them into nothingness.
Do you know what circumstantial (indirect) evidence is? So in my model of the Universe, there are already more than enough of them.
-
Do you know what circumstantial (indirect) evidence is?
Yes.
Do you know that people have been to the Moon and that, we therefore know where it is and how big?
Or are you the sort of ... *individual*... who claims we never went there?
-
No, you did not directly address what I said. I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.
-
This is not a theory and not a topic for "That CAN'T be true!" section.
This is a very weird fact and my version of explanation of that fact.
Here is a link to a video with a selection of episodes in which astronauts were hanging on ropes, and an animation of one of the episodes.
Hidden ropes on ISS. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyL7eB6ALuo)
(https://i.ibb.co/bFLPFtw/ezgif-6-f5934343f1b1.gif)
For some reason, astronauts on the ISS are hanging on ropes - this is a fact. The ropes are hidden by video editing, that is, they tried to hide it - this is a fact. Why would they?
My version. I think that there are no people on space stations due to the likelihood of being destroyed by a meteorite or space debris at any time. Such a probability, although negligible, but given the complete absence of any protection against destruction by a meteorite, it makes no sense, both the stay of people in the earth's orbit, and the colonization of space (Moon, Mars ...) in principle.
-
For some reason, astronauts on the ISS are hanging on ropes - this is a fact.
No they are not, and no, it is not.
And if one of the mods could move this thread to "That can't be true", that would improve the site a little.
Thanks
-
There are ropes on the ISS, so that astronauts can move around on the outside, without floating away into space.
But just playing a short video segment backwards and forwards does not demonstrate that there are ropes that have been removed by editing.
- It shows that there is cyclic motion that has been added by editing
Anyway, astronauts posing for a video would try to maintain themselves in the center of the image, rather than drifting out of the field of view...
Conclusion: It can't be true!
-
For some reason, astronauts on the ISS are hanging on ropes - this is a fact. The ropes are hidden by video editing, that is, they tried to hide it - this is a fact. Why would they?
I see one astronauts finger get momentarily hooked on another astronauts pocket. You see a grand conspiracy involving space flight, governments and science in general.
I think you have an over active imagination.
-
It is a well kept secret that gravity acts sideways in space. There are two men in white coats outside my door as I write.
-
It is a well kept secret that gravity acts sideways in space. There are two men in white coats outside my door as I write.
I'd agree with the OP, but there's a bunch of men in a black helicopter circling above my house.
-
I don't know what you think that animated GIF is supposed to show.
I think that there are no people on space stations
That's a conspiracy theory, in which case it absolutely does belong in "That CAN'T be true!"
-
I think that there are no people on space stations
That's a conspiracy theory, in which case it absolutely does belong in "That CAN'T be true!"
And can get the OP banned if he persists in this ridiculous nonsense.
If he’s right I’ll eat my tinfoil hat.
-
Such a probability, although negligible, but given the complete absence of any protection against destruction by a meteorite, it makes no sense, both the stay of people in the earth's orbit, and the colonization of space (Moon, Mars ...) in principle.
The overwhelming majority of meteorites in LEO are like grains of sand. They have Whipple bumpers on the ISS that catch meteorites of that size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
If they didn't have those, then they would be punctured quite regularly.
-
The overwhelming majority of meteorites in LEO are like grains of sand. They have Whipple bumpers on the ISS that catch meteorites of that size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
If they didn't have those, then they would be punctured quite regularly.
How many hits can such a shield withstand? What size objects? How to protect numerous and huge solar panels? The Pioneers and Voyagers allegedly flew vast distances, including the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, and never collided with anything in space? This is statistically impossible. Not to mention the degree of diffusion (scattering) of the radio signal proportional to the distance.
-
The Pioneers and Voyagers allegedly flew vast distances........and never collided with anything in space?
That's why it is called "space" - it is mostly empty.
-
Whipple shields cover an insignificant area of the spacecraft. How about meteorites hitting the exposed parts of the satellite? How about wear and tear of whipple shield?
(https://spaceflightnow.com/stardust/images/031230drawing1.jpg)
-
The Pioneers and Voyagers allegedly flew vast distances
No, they actually flew vast distances.
This is statistically impossible.
Show us the math.
-
That's why it is called "space" - it is mostly empty.
Space is almost empty, but despite this, thousands of meteors burn out in the earth's atmosphere in just one night? None of the rovers recorded a single meteorite fall on the surface of Mars, given that its official size is not much smaller than that of Earth, and the atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's. That is, much more meteorites should reach the surface of Mars, including objects of such sizes that burn up in the earth's atmosphere.
<Link Removed> explains all the paradoxes of the official one.
Mod edit: Keep all of the talk about your model confined to the thread that I told you to keep it confined to.
-
Space is almost empty, but despite this, thousands of meteors burn out in the earth's atmosphere in just one night?
Yes. Even something as small as a grain of sand can produce a visible shooting star.
Now how about showing us your math?
-
Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 22:52:06
This is statistically impossible.
Show us the math.
Look. A very expensive scientific project - the launch of a spacecraft over a long distance, during which (with a certain probability) this spacecraft can be destroyed by a meteorite at any moment, not to mention numerous other breakdowns and failures that can disable this very expensive spacecraft.The feasibility of such a project is zero. Such a project is senseless and impractical.
-
Look. A very expensive scientific project - the launch of a satellite over a long distance, during which (with a certain probability) this spacecraft can be destroyed by a meteorite at any moment, not to mention numerous other breakdowns and failures that can disable this very expensive spacecraft.The feasibility of such a project is zero. Such a project is senseless and impractical.
Show.
Us.
The.
Math.
-
Space is almost empty, but despite this, thousands of meteors burn out in the earth's atmosphere in just one night? None of the rovers recorded a single meteorite fall on the surface of Mars
That's the difference between a meteor (that burns up completely - very common) and a meteorite (that makes landfall - very rare).
-
Farewell. This is my personal ban to your site.
-
Farewell. This is my personal ban to your site.
Does this mean you are going to stop posting science denialism on our website? If so, thank you.
-
How about meteorites hitting the exposed parts of the satellite? How about wear and tear of whipple shield?
Happens all the time, which is why nothing lasts for ever. There is a finite probability of an airplane colliding with a meteor, a bird, or even another plane, but at any moment there are on average 10,000 planes in the sky because flight is not considered senseless or impractical.
-
None of the rovers recorded a single meteorite fall on the surface of Mars
None of the rovers were equipped with a seismometer - but they were equipped with motors and noisy nuclear heating systems that would have made seismic detection impossible.
But the Insight Mars Lander was, and it waited 128 days for the first rumble.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/first-marsquake-detected-nasa-mars-insight-lander-space
The atmosphere of Mars at ground level has about 1% the pressure of Earth's atmosphere at ground level.
Most meteors approaching Earth burn up at an altitude of around 100km, where the pressure is about 0.2% of Earth's surface pressure. So most meteors would also burn up in Mars' atmosphere. One would have to land pretty close to produce measurable seismic waves.
However, the Moon has no atmosphere, and Moonquakes have been detected from impacting space debris.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_seismology#Moonquakes
Whipple shields cover an insignificant area of the spacecraft.
The Wikipedia article mentions that there are over 100 different configurations of Whipple Shield on the ISS.
For a space station that is composed of around 30 modules (plus lots of solar panels), that sounds like they have tried to cover almost all of the ISS with Whipple shields.
It's true that you can't cover the front of a solar cell with an aluminium Whipple shield - but it is possible to build in redundancy, so that if one solar cell fails (eg due to a micrometeorite impact), it is switched out of circuit.
My model of the Universe explains all the paradoxes of the official one.
And since it is supported by evidence that can't be true, then this theory can't be true, either...
-
Farewell. This is my personal ban to your site.
Can you take this guy with you ?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.0
And
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=5520.0
-
That's why it is called "space" - it is mostly empty.
Space is almost empty, but despite this, thousands of meteors burn out in the earth's atmosphere in just one night? None of the rovers recorded a single meteorite fall on the surface of Mars, given that its official size is not much smaller than that of Earth, and the atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's. That is, much more meteorites should reach the surface of Mars, including objects of such sizes that burn up in the earth's atmosphere.
Nope. The Earth is a meteorite magnet. The Earth is much bigger than Mars or space probes and so its gravitational field attracts the meteorites so very much more and it gets many more impacts. Because of that the ISS is smothered in Whipple shields, and they have to occasionally go around and replace ones that have been too badly damaged.
The astronauts regularly hear impacts pinging off the hull in fact, both natural as well as man made space debris.
-
Farewell. This is my personal ban to your site.
Thank you, that will improve the forums overall quality.
-
Space is almost empty, but despite this, thousands of meteors burn out in the earth's atmosphere in just one night? None of the rovers recorded a single meteorite fall on the surface of Mars, given that its official size is not much smaller than that of Earth, and the atmosphere is much thinner than Earth's. That is, much more meteorites should reach the surface of Mars, including objects of such sizes that burn up in the earth's atmosphere.
Surface area of Earth = 5e8 sq km. If only 1/2 of that is hit by meteors in a night, and 10,000 meteor hit per night, then we are looking at 1 meteor per every 2.5e 4 sg km (an area ~ 160km x 160km) That's spread out pretty thinly. Put another way, it would take 68.5 years of steady nightly bombardment to bring the average up to 1 meteor per sq km.
"Thousands of meteors per night" sounds like a huge number, but it is pretty insignificant when compared to the size of the the target they are spread across.
Plus, the vast of majority of those meteors are particles the size of a grain of and or smaller. Even if most of them reached the ground on Mars, you'd practically have to be on top of the impact point to notice it( since the Escape velocity of Mars is a ~45% of Earth's, the average impact of those micrometeorites would have ~1/5 the energy) . Your grasp of the relative numbers involved is way off.
-
Show.
Us.
The.
Math.
Math 1
There is a photo animation on the web that shows a solar flare in the direction of one of these satellites. The STEREO Ahead spacecraft supposedly moves along the Earth's orbit, that is, at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth. This is an animation of STEREO A photos from July 23, 2012.
(https://i.ibb.co/tMcpxgv/ezgif-7-ea9b6fb93154.gif)
The solar flare flew exactly in the direction of STEREO A. It began at almost exactly 03:00 (UTC), and the first visible particles of coronal matter (white ripples in the animation) flew to STEREO A at about 07:00 (UTC). If the distance from the Sun to the Earth's orbit (on which the STEREO spacecraft are located) were 150,000,000 km, as is officially believed, then the speed of coronal material particles would be 150,000,000 km. / 4 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = about 10,000 km / s. - this is 3% of the speed of light, which is hardly physically possible.
The solar wind is a stream of ionized particles (mainly helium-hydrogen plasma) flowing out from the solar corona at a speed of 300-1200 km/s into the surrounding space.
In addition, it is generally known that the flow of coronal matter from a solar flare reaches the Earth's orbit (in which the STEREO spacecraft are supposedly located) in an average of 150,000,000 km. / 750 km / s / 60 sec. / 60 min. / 24 hours = ~ 2.5 - 3 days. But in fact, the animation of the photos turns out to be 07:00 (UTC) - 03:00 (UTC) = 4 hours. Looks like it turns out this way, because STEREO spacecrafts are located on the orbit of Venus (around the Sun), and SOHO spacecraft is located in common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun in the Solar System (Universe) with approximately the same parameters as in the schematic image below.
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg)
Math 2
The duration of an eclipse is directly proportional to the size of the object, all other things being equal (distance and speed). The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes (the Moon completely covers the Sun for 7.5 minutes). The duration of the total phase of the lunar eclipse is 108 minutes (the Earth completely covers the Sun for 108 minutes). With the same distance between the Moon and the Earth. At the same speed of the Moon (the orbit of the Moon moves with the speed of the Earth). The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. Therefore, the diameter of the Moon can be calculated using the following formula: 12 742 * (7.5 / 108) = 885 km. The official diameter of the Moon is 3,474 km. Moreover, the result of calculating the diameter of the Moon quite accurately coincides with the size of the track between South America and Antarctica (875 km. + - 25 km.), which confirms the calculation and minimizes probability of a simple coincidence.
(https://i.ibb.co/wRV6KvS/moonsize.jpg)
Evidence 1
Two traces on the surface of the Earth (from Sun and Moon).
1) Ratio of diameters approximately 3 to 1.
2) Both have an eastern direction.
3) Both have an eastern position relative to their PreContinents (PreAmerica and PreEurasia).
4) Both have diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth.
(https://i.ibb.co/8Dw323Z/sunmoon.jpg)
In the image below, the sizes of the traces are almost the same due to the projection of the surface of the sphere onto a rectangular plane.
(https://i.ibb.co/1Z2t7x1/sm.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/qMTJmY0/ezgif-4-1d2a6806ddf3.gif)
The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs
http://eos.org/features/the-unsolved-mystery-of-the-earth-blobs
Evidence 2
(https://i.ibb.co/7zChyry/Oileng.jpg)
(https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c3.jpg.815c48167840ab328d6fddca1e093614.jpg)
(https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c5.jpg.77be636896a402decdf86ce73f6a4c07.jpg) (https://www.scienceforums.net/uploads/monthly_2020_12/c6.gif.66f184e08bdebe8296f8b9abd9deb192.gif)
Evidence 3
Correlation between Betelgeuse brightness and solar activity. Betelgeuse is estimated to be 642.5 light years away. Why is dynamics of brightness of Betelgeuse so closely aligned with the dynamics of solar activity?
(https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/sunspot_belgium_1900-2017_620.gif)
Diagram source link:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/Betelguese-AAVSO-1979-to-2019-630x284.jpg)
Diagram source link: https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/fainting-betelgeuse/
Moreover, in addition to the correlation with 10-13 years solar cycles on the Betelgeuse brightness graph, there are clear 1 year cycles of brightness fluctuations also visible. Based on this fact, I assume that Betelgeuse, like all other "stars" and "galaxies", are located in the Oort Cloud and reflect sunlight.
Annual cyclicity of Betelgeuse brightness fluctuations.
The annual cyclical fluctuations in the brightness of Betelgeuse can be explained by the suggestion that in December the Sun is farther from it, and in June - is closer to it (considering the rotation of the Earth and the Sun as in the animation below, the Earth is larger). Betelgeuse is located in the constellation Orion. Sun in Orion (Orion behind Sun) is in June.
(https://i.postimg.cc/bJ60XwLt/022.png)
(https://i.postimg.cc/xTjryxNp/btgbrig.jpg) (https://i.postimg.cc/1X3SW-s3X/c11.gif)
-
Theoretical background: the nature of light and the size of the Universe.
A photon has energy and momentum (weight) but no mass. It is obvious that light is vibrations of some medium (ether). This environment cannot but have resistance, damping or absorbing light vibrations with time and distance. I will describe the essence in simple words so as not to complicate and not drag out the explanation.
1) Water waves.
They spread longer (in time) than sound, but at a shorter distance (at a lower speed). Distribution medium: water.
2) Sound waves.
The lifetime of sound waves is shorter than that of water waves, but the speed (and distance) is greater. Distribution medium: atmosphere (gas).
3) Light waves.
By analogy, the lifetime of light waves should be much shorter than the lifetime of sound waves, but since the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s - the propagation distance is greater. Distribution medium: aether.
(https://i.ibb.co/LJVDKqn/pt.jpg)
(a schematic representation of a photon - a conventional unit of oscillation (wave) of the aether) Image text translation: The movement of one light wave (photon) from the source to complete attenuation and / or absorption by the medium (aether).
At the beginning of the 20th century, scientists rejected the completely plausible hypothesis of the Tired Light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light), began to carry out fortune-telling by redshifts of the spectrum (like on coffee grounds, only by the spectral emissions), and billions of light years, black holes, dark energies, and distant-distant galaxies rushed.
Light years?
A photon cannot exist not only for years, but even for minutes. Example. Standing in the lake. You throw a stone. First you hear the sound, later the waves come. Waves on water, sound waves in a gaseous medium and light waves in ether are phenomena of the same nature, but of different orders due to the environment. If waves on water “live” for minutes, and sound waves in a gaseous medium “live” for seconds, then light waves in their medium (ether) “live” for a fraction of a second. All this depends on the power of the source of wave oscillations, so it can be assumed that light waves from the Sun can exist for several seconds, but not more (not minutes, and even less years).
Even if in the space environment (vacuum) there is no resistance, there is no heat exchange, then the distance is overcome (volume expansion with distance), which cannot occur absolutely without energy consumption. In addition, the space of the cosmic vacuum cannot be absolutely empty. There cannot but be certain, albeit minimal, resistance and heat transfer. Light years and 8 light minutes from Sun to Earth are physically impossible.
Again. Attentively. This is very important to understand. Overcoming distance in any environment, that is, regardless of the environment, cannot occur without energy consumption (or with zero energy consumption). Since a photon has a very low energy charge, and a very high speed of movement, and no medium (including space) can have absolutely zero resistance, then, accordingly, the lifetime (life) of one photon (wave oscillation of the medium - ether) is very short, not exceeding at least one minute.
Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.
-
Hey!! What happened to your personal ban? Well I guess this makes sense. You have been wrong about everything else you wrote, so it makes sense that your declaration that you are leaving would be wrong too. Oh well, let your pseudoscience and misinformation flow forth....
-
Math 1
That's not the math I was asking for. What I was asking for specifically was the math to support this particular claim:
The Pioneers and Voyagers allegedly flew vast distances, including the Kuiper Belt and the Oort Cloud, and never collided with anything in space? This is statistically impossible.
Since you insist on putting your model here, then I'm merging this topic with all of your other topics since they are all ultimately about your model (either explicitly or implicitly). Henceforth, whenever you start a new thread that eventually strays into talking about your scientifically implausible model, I'm going to merge it. Keep that in mind for the future.
Also, I thought you said this website was now on your "personal ban" list?
And since I've now merged the topics, how about finally addressing this?
I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.
-
I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.
The gravity of large objects (like the Sun) bends light. The gravity of the so-called "black holes" supposedly absorbs light irrevocably. The presence of a gravitational constant indicates the presence of a certain gravitational effect at any point in space. From the above, we can conclude that gravity acts on light, that is, it is a resistance factor for light waves.
Certain amount of gravity is present at any point of space. Gravity affects light, and therefore slows it down (or rather gradually absorbs it) as the distance passed by the light increases.
Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.
-
I'm waiting for you to refute the fact that gravitational red shift is not sufficient to stop photons. If you can't refute it, then you need to recognize that your model is wrong.
The gravity of large objects (like the Sun) bends light. The gravity of the so-called "black holes" supposedly absorbs light irrevocably. The presence of a gravitational constant indicates the presence of a certain gravitational effect at any point in space. From the above, we can conclude that gravity acts on light, that is, it is a resistance factor for light waves.
Certain amount of gravity is present at any point of space. Gravity affects light, and therefore slows it down (or rather gradually absorbs it) as the distance passed by the light increases.
Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.
I thought you said you were leaving.
The obvious reason why that makes no sense is that there's essentially just as much universe in front of the light pulling ti forward as there is behind it pulling it back.
The net effect would be neither a red, nor a blue shift.
-
The obvious reason why that makes no sense is that there's essentially just as much universe in front of the light pulling ti forward as there is behind it pulling it back.
The net effect would be neither a red, nor a blue shift.
This is subject to the infinity of the Universe in terms of space. It is difficult to prove, but it is much more probable, that the Universe is finite in terms of space. Therefore, the effect of gravity resistance for light waves will be greater than the opposite (to resistance) gravitational effect. Gravity may well be considered a resistance factor that absorbs light waves as the distance they travel increases.
Pulling back = Pulling forward (if the Universe is infinite in space, which is less probable)
Pulling back > Pulling forward (if the Universe is finite in space, which is more probable)
-
In terms of time the Universe is infinite. It follows from the Law of Conservation of Energy - it's some kind of (like the third) Law of Thermodynamics: Nothing appears out of nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but only redistributes and/or transforms from one state to another. From the same law it follows that the amount of matter/energy in the Universe is limited, that is, finite. Therefore, it is most likely that the Universe is finite in terms of space.
-
Is the Universe local?
Yes. Moreover, it is absolutely local. This comes from the name itself. If besides the Universe there is something else, then without this something it is no longer the Universe. Within the framework of the Universe, the existence of something local is impossible, that is, absolutely without any interaction with the rest of the Universe. In short, this supposedly difficult question, in fact, is a priori very unambiguous: the Universe is absolutely local, within the Universe, conditionally (relatively) local phenomena or regions (space) can exist, for example: a soundproof room, an airtight container, water-air, etc. impermeable containers. But it is impossible to create an absolutely impenetrable space within the framework of the Universe itself for absolutely nothing. In short, the Universe is an absolutely local space, within which the existence of any other absolutely local space is impossible.
-
This is subject to the infinity of the Universe in terms of space. It is difficult to prove, but it is much more probable, that the Universe is finite in terms of space.
Maybe.
But most of the universe is "far away" and the gravitational effect falls with the square of the distance, so anything that is far enough away will make no discernible difference.
And, if you were right (spoiler alert; you are not) then what we would see would be a blue shift in one direction, and a red shift in the other.
We don't.
So you are wrong.
Bu that's OK; you already left.
-
If besides the Universe there is something else,
There isn't. That's what "universe" means
-
And, if you were right (spoiler alert; you are not) then what we would see would be a blue shift in one direction, and a red shift in the other.
You mean something like this?
Cosmic Microwave Background Dipole (https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/c/Cosmic+Microwave+Background+Dipole)
Evidence for anisotropy of cosmic acceleration (https://www.mpls.ox.ac.uk/latest/news/evidence-for-anisotropy-of-cosmic-acceleration)
(https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cms/cpg15x/albums/userpics/cosmicmicrowavebackgrounddipole1+0.jpg)
-
No
I mean what I said.
Red shift one way; blue shift the other.
I don't mean the consequence of this
"It was quickly realised that this dipole was the result of our Galaxy moving at 600 km/sec with respect to the CMB radiation, and it is now known that this reflects the motion of the Local Group of galaxies ."
-
The gravity of large objects (like the Sun) bends light.
But it doesn't stop light. That's important.
Gravity affects light, and therefore slows it down
No, it doesn't. It causes light to lose energy and increase its wavelength, but the speed of light is unaffected.
(or rather gradually absorbs it)
No, it doesn't. The amount of energy a photon loses as it travels up against a gravitational gradient is finite: it never goes to zero.
Gravity may well be considered a resistance factor that absorbs light waves
No, gravity does not absorb light waves (except in the case of a black hole).
-
The photon loses energy overcoming gravity. There is a certain amount of gravity at every point in space. Hence the photon loses energy with distance. Since the energy of a photon is not unlimited, the distance covered by a photon is also quite limited. As well as the lifetime of a photon. Unlikely to exceed 1-2 light minutes.
Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.
Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.
-
Here are enough weighty factual and logical arguments in favor of a New model of the Universe (https://spam), which you are trying to refute with very dubious official interpretations of the characteristics of spectral emissions (redshift and blue shift), as well as the supposedly officially infinite lifetime of a photon and an absurd consequence of this in the form of light years, millennia and millions of light years, from which it turns out that looking at the starry sky, we are literally looking at millions of years in the past. My model of the Universe is much more logical, more reliable and more consistent with reality than the official one.
-
The photon loses energy overcoming gravity. There is a certain amount of gravity at every point in space. Hence the photon loses energy with distance. Since the energy of a photon is not unlimited, the distance covered by a photon is also quite limited. As well as the lifetime of a photon. Unlikely to exceed 1-2 light minutes.
Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.
Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.
A photon loses energy "overcoming" gravity, In other words when climbing out of a gravity well. But it gains energy falling into a gravity well. Light leaving the surface of a planet will red-shift as it climbs away from the planet. But another observer, at some distance away on another planet sitting in an equally deep gravity well will see no red-shift in the light coming from the first planet, because the light blue-shifted as it fell into his gravity well. The strength of each planet's gravity makes no difference, neither does the distance between them. All that matters is the relative depth of the gravity wells for source and observer.
-
The photon loses energy overcoming gravity.
Yes, but that energy never goes to zero. You seem to like ignoring that fact. If you disagree with me, then show me some math that supports your argument. How much redshift should a photon undergo when travelling through 1 kilometer of space? 1 million kilometers? 1 light-year? If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to be able to show us that the math supports your assertion. Go look up the gravitational red shift equation. That would be a good place to start.
Spectrum redshift = gravitational constant * distance covered by light.
If this equation was correct, then photons travelling two kilometers would be twice as red-shifted as photons traveling one kilometer. Current theory says that photons don't experience any red-shift at all if they travel between two stationary sources along a constant altitude. So your equation and the contemporary equation predict different results. Those results can be tested by current technology. Given the fact that radars and radios are used constantly throughout the world and no one has ever reported them violating current physics models, then obviously the current model is the one supported by the evidence.
By the way, your equation doesn't predict that a photon's energy should ever go to zero anyway. Travelling one million times the distance would result in a million-fold red-shift. One million times less energy is still not zero, though.
As well as the lifetime of a photon. Unlikely to exceed 1-2 light minutes.
Please show the math you used to arrive at this number. Math specifically, please. Not flawed analogies.
My model of the Universe is much more logical, more reliable and more consistent with reality than the official one.
No, it's not. Your model relies on fallacious assumptions (like the idea that gravity in interstellar space can stop photons). It also contradicts direct measurements (like the sizes of planets) and apparently relies on conspiracy theories (since you claim that interplanetary spacecraft aren't feasible because you say they'd be destroyed by asteroid impacts...).
-
Go look up the gravitational red shift equation. That would be a good place to start.
In the equation of the gravitational redshift of the spectrum, there is a gravitational constant (G), which is difficult to measure with high accuracy, which is already a flaw in this equation, not to mention its theoretical justification.
In wave processes occurring in different media (water, gas, space), there is a clear pattern of reducing the lifetime of the wave process as the speed increases. Water waves are slow but durable. Sound waves are faster but less durable. Light waves are much faster than sound waves, therefore their lifetime should be proportionally (much) shorter than the lifetime of sound waves.
My definition has logical priority over the gravitational redshift equation.
Definition*. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.
-
It also contradicts direct measurements (like the sizes of planets) and apparently relies on conspiracy theories (since you claim that interplanetary spacecraft aren't feasible because you say they'd be destroyed by asteroid impacts...).
I claimed that space flights are unreasonably risky due to the inevitabile possibility of destruction in a collision with a meteorite, that is, in fact, they are meaningless.
-
In the equation of the gravitational redshift of the spectrum, there is a gravitational constant (G), which is difficult to measure with high accuracy
It is known to 4 digits.
That's 4 more than you have supplied.
I claimed that space flights are unreasonably risky
No
You claimed this
. I think that there are no people on space stations
And that's a daft conspiracy theory.
Lying about it doesn't help
-
And that's a daft conspiracy theory.
Lying about it doesn't help
I'm not lying about space. Do you know in what conditions (supposedly) they live on the ISS? What kind of effort is it worth taking a shower or just going to the toilet? Look closely at the photo (500 days in space). The astronaut is neatly shaved, trimmed, and even has a professional manicure. Who's lying about space?
https://www.roscosmos.ru/25021/
(https://www.roscosmos.ru/media/img/blog/2018/500.dnei.jpg)
Permanent risk of vital equipment breakdown, collision with space debris or meteorite. Permanent risk to life. Life in a small confined space with a whole bunch of everyday inconveniences and other difficulties. At the same time, all astronauts are constantly cheerful and smiling.
-
Farewell. This is my personal ban to your site.
So you lied about this too? Funny how your sort announce their departure dramatically and then return like an unpleasant disease.
-
Who's lying about space?
You.
And you are also lying about lying.
It's interesting that you don't seem to understand that, even if it's difficult, people ted to smarten themselves up for pictures- particularly when it's a special occasion like 500 days in space.
I'd expect any human to understand that.
Are you a poorly programmed robot, or just a troll?
-
which is difficult to measure with high accuracy
Difficult or not, it has been measured to high accuracy.
In wave processes occurring in different media (water, gas, space), there is a clear pattern of reducing the lifetime of the wave process as the speed increases. Water waves are slow but durable. Sound waves are faster but less durable. Light waves are much faster than sound waves, therefore their lifetime should be proportionally (much) shorter than the lifetime of sound waves.
That's a flawed analogy and the premises aren't even correct. Even water waves and sounds waves don't just disappear. They just become weaker with distance until they are too subtle to detect. The louder the sound or the bigger the water wave, the further they can travel while still be detectable (the Krakatau eruption was so loud it could be heard hundreds of miles away). The distance a wave is detectable over is thus dependent upon the intensity of the source. The light intensity of a star is many, many orders of magnitude greater than the sound intensity of a volcanic eruption. It should be no surprise that we can still see them even though they are light-years away.
My definition has logical priority over the gravitational redshift equation.
No, it doesn't.
The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.
Sound travels at different velocities depending on the particular properties of the medium in question. That being said, can you demonstrate that faster sound waves dissipate faster than slower sound waves?
* - this definition is correct with or without the aether.
Light doesn't travel through a medium, so your definition about a medium's inertia doesn't apply to it.
Are you going to address that fact that I showed your equation to be wrong using radar as an example? How about finally showing me the math about dangerous collisions being guaranteed in space? How about finally showing me the math that supports your claim that photons can't travel more than 3 light-minutes? Stop dodging.
-
It also contradicts direct measurements (like the sizes of planets) and apparently relies on conspiracy theories (since you claim that interplanetary spacecraft aren't feasible because you say they'd be destroyed by asteroid impacts...).
I claimed that space flights are unreasonably risky due to the inevitabile possibility of destruction in a collision with a meteorite, that is, in fact, they are meaningless.
And your estimation of the risk of meteor collision is extremely overblown.
Earlier, you said that thousands of meteorites struck the Earth's atmosphere in a night. But the Earth is a huge target, with a cross section of 127796483 square km*. If ten thousand meteorites hit the atmosphere in one night, that works out to an average of 1 meteorite per 12779 sq km( an area of 113 km x 113 km) In 17 1/2 years the strikes would average out to 1 per square km.
The ISS has a much smaller cross-section that 1 sg km, and thus a much smaller target to hit. The odds of it being hit by a meteor large enough to destroy it are exceedingly small. (the larger the meteor, the fewer there are of that size. Most are just specks of dust.)
* The cross-sectional target the Earth has is actually larger than its physical cross-section. Earth's gravity will curve the paths of some meteors that would have missed it otherwise. Whether or not a particular meteor will be drawn into a collision course, depends bot on it trajectory and speed relative to the Earth.
This means that once you get far enough away from the Earth, the odds of meteor collision drops off a bit.
-
You are all so smart here, you know the equations. Maybe someone will be interested in recalculating the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with a much smaller Earth orbit, and the speed of the Earth (approximately as in the schematic image below). Perhaps that experiment proved the existence of the aether, but was incorrectly interpreted as wrong due to the false parameters of the earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth in space.
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. (Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#1881_and_1887_experiments))
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg)
-
Maybe someone will be interested in recalculating the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with a much smaller Earth orbit,
Why?
We know what the Earth's orbit is.
Perhaps that experiment proved the existence of the aether,
No.
You almost have a point.
But since M&M's day we have redone the experiment many times, with much greater sensitivity.
Even in your hallucination there's experimental proof that the ether isn't there.
-
You are all so smart here, you know the equations. Maybe someone will be interested in recalculating the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with a much smaller Earth orbit, and the speed of the Earth (approximately as in the schematic image below). Perhaps that experiment proved the existence of the aether, but was incorrectly interpreted as wrong due to the false parameters of the earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth in space.
The Experiments on the relative motion of the earth and ether have been completed and the result decidedly negative. The expected deviation of the interference fringes from the zero should have been 0.40 of a fringe – the maximum displacement was 0.02 and the average much less than 0.01 – and then not in the right place. As displacement is proportional to squares of the relative velocities it follows that if the ether does slip past the relative velocity is less than one sixth of the earth’s velocity. (Albert Abraham Michelson, 1887 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment#1881_and_1887_experiments))
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg)
This post did absolutely nothing to address my own post. Are you not actually able to support your claim that light can't travel more than three light-minutes? If so, then do it. Show us the math you used to arrive at that number. If not, then you need to admit to it.
We already know you are wrong because it takes light (in the form of radio signals) more than three minutes to get to Mars and back in order for scientists to send commands to and receive data from surface rovers.
-
You are all so smart here, you know the equations. Maybe someone will be interested in recalculating the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment with a much smaller Earth orbit, and the speed of the Earth (approximately as in the schematic image below). Perhaps that experiment proved the existence of the aether, but was incorrectly interpreted as wrong due to the false parameters of the earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth in space.
We can independently measure the speed of the Earth by noting the change of stellar aberration as it orbits. This value is in agreement with the value you get from dividing the size of the orbit by the time it takes to complete one orbit.
In other words, no, it is not possible that we are using the wrong value for the size of the Earth's orbit.
-
We already know you are wrong because it takes light (in the form of radio signals) more than three minutes to get to Mars and back in order for scientists to send commands to and receive data from surface rovers.
The official distance from Earth to Mars ranges from 4 to 20 light minutes.
1) A huge degree of scattering of the radio signal at such a distance.
2) Transmission and reception of a signal, taking into account the movements of the Earth, Mars and the flight time of the signal from the Earth to Mars. Preemptive transmission and reception of radio signals, taking into account an incredible number of factors ... very unlikely given the official distance between Earth and Mars 4-20 light minutes.
-
The official distance from Earth to Mars ranges from 4-20 light minutes.
If it takes 20 minutes for a radio signal to reach Mars, then that makes it 20 light-minutes away. That's basic math.
very unlikely
Yet it happens, proving that it isn't "very unlikely" at all.
-
We can independently measure the speed of the Earth by noting the change of stellar aberration as it orbits. This value is in agreement with the value you get from dividing the size of the orbit by the time it takes to complete one orbit.
In other words, no, it is not possible that we are using the wrong value for the size of the Earth's orbit.
Articles about the flaws of the official measurements of stellar aberrations in Russian, but you can translate with "Google Translate" if you are interested (I translated only titles). The articles contain some links to English sources.
Stellar aberration. 300 years of topodynamic cretinism (https://fiberopt-miller.livejournal.com/9316.html)
Stellar aberration, a lie of relativism (https://fiberopt-miller.livejournal.com/9550.html)
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/aerastov/77742599/124521/124521_800.png)
-
Yet it happens, proving that it isn't "very unlikely" at all.
NASA Mars Mission Exposed as Devon Island Research (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpFgpm7S5cg)
MARS ON EARTH: Astronaut Canyon - Glacial Trough Valleys on Devon Island and on Mars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06T921re-jE)
-
NASA Mars Mission Exposed as Devon Island Research
MARS ON EARTH: Astronaut Canyon - Glacial Trough Valleys on Devon Island and on Mars
So now you're saying that we never sent spacecraft to Mars? If you need conspiracy theories in order to make your model work, that's an indication of just how bad your model really is.
-
NASA - Mars VS Devon Island (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K315nZhst5o)
NASA BUSTED CURIOSITY ROVER NOT ON MARS BUT GREENLAND (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEU50wGHOa0)
Look closely at the scale of the relief, the number of objects on the surface. Four volcanoes and a huge half-planet canyon with a diameter of 6,779 km.? The four mountains on Mars are the remnants of the outer shell. A huge canyon (Mariner Valley) - a crack in the inner shell. The entire relief is clearly visible in one small photo. The diameter of Mars is about 14 km. Venus ~ 24 km. Mercury ~ 10 km.
(https://i.ibb.co/X7g1x4T/Ac387d923b197a690add7d22f3b1bb81.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/QjG5hg2/3842.jpg)
Scale comparison of satellite photos of Earth and Mars shows that Mars' scale is greatly oversized.
(https://i.postimg.cc/44gRnNfg/mars-scale.jpg)
Two photographs for comparison of scales.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/quesst-design-lm-prelim-art.jpg)
https://www.google.com.ua/maps/space/mars/@-13.117515,-64.3422443,389048m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru
(https://i.ibb.co/syxQk0X/mars.jpg)
-
If the diameter of the Sun is 1.4 million km, then the object that flew into the Sun on October 1, 2011 should be no less than the Moon, but astronomers could not help but notice a new object of this size in the Solar System. My rough estimations: Moon diameter ~ 500-700 km.; Sun diameter ~ 2500-3000 km.
(https://i.postimg.cc/x15Q2KK4/ezgif-3-28fbda2c936f.gif) (https://i.postimg.cc/RVc9Prq9/ezgif-3-dce07cae7a86.gif)
(https://i.postimg.cc/BvjVVDND/escomp.jpg)
Link to SOHO Lasco C2 and C3 image archive: https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/Theater/
-
Official diameter of Mercury is 4.8 thousand km, Moon - 3.5 thousand km.
Look at large craters with long, light streaks.
Stripes from one of such craters on Mercury cover (encircle) it completely. The Moon also has several such craters with long light stripes, but they are much smaller (shorter) relative to the Moon's surface.
Moon's diameter is about 850 km. The diameter of Mercury is about 10 km.
(https://i.postimg.cc/HW3ps4J0/moonmercury2.jpg)
-
The STEREO spacecraft have two cameras. One is directed to the Sun (frontal), the other - to the space nearby (lateral). On November 16, 2016, the following “anomaly” appeared on the animation of the STEREO A image:
(https://i.ibb.co/KwR2PB6/ezgif-7-dbe4199b147a.gif) (https://i.ibb.co/F4pJjRv/ezgif-7-b1139ac92a37.gif)
This is an overlay of the Sun image from the front camera to the side camera. This is the official NASA explanation. Such an overlap could not happen by accident by itself. It is very likely that there is an algorithm for overlaying images, in which programmers mistakenly specified the wrong files. What can be covered next to the Sun in space? Earth, if the ratio of the diameters of the Earth and the Sun is ~ 3-4 to 1.
(https://i.ibb.co/qRW4JZ1/7.jpg)
This is not a UFO, but a shutter on the STEREO side camera. The same as on the frontal one (which covers the Sun due to its strong brightness), but 3-4 times larger in diameter ... Why is there a shutter on the side camera, in the shooting area, where the sun does not get?
(https://i.ibb.co/K0zHjRK/20070426-121020-s4h2-B.jpg)
-
This is completely absurd. There is no reasoning with someone this far removed from reality.
-
Of course not, and yet everybody here continues to feed this troll that has been banned from every other site I can find.
That being said, I think I'll cease engagement with him now. I'll just make sure to keep all of his nonsense quarantined to this one thread.
-
Of course not, and yet everybody here continues to feed this troll that has been banned from every other site I can find.
That being said, I think I'll cease engagement with him now. I'll just make sure to keep all of his nonsense quarantined to this one thread.
On that basis, should not this thread also be relegated to this section?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.0
-
We can independently measure the speed of the Earth by noting the change of stellar aberration as it orbits. This value is in agreement with the value you get from dividing the size of the orbit by the time it takes to complete one orbit.
In other words, no, it is not possible that we are using the wrong value for the size of the Earth's orbit.
Articles about the flaws of the official measurements of stellar aberrations in Russian, but you can translate with "Google Translate" if you are interested (I translated only titles). The articles contain some links to English sources.
Stellar aberration. 300 years of topodynamic cretinism (https://fiberopt-miller.livejournal.com/9316.html)
Stellar aberration, a lie of relativism (https://fiberopt-miller.livejournal.com/9550.html)
(https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/aerastov/77742599/124521/124521_800.png)
You cite an 18th century report and expect to be taken seriously?
-
Who iss Lying? - Astronauts: Stars In Space - Contradictions! (http://Conspiracy theory)
Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive? (http://Conspiracy theory)
-
Who iss Lying? - Astronauts: Stars In Space - Contradictions! (http://Conspiracy theory)
Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive? (http://Conspiracy theory)
You are lying
No, they are not.
-
Who iss Lying? - Astronauts: Stars In Space - Contradictions! (http://Conspiracy theory)
Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive? (http://Conspiracy theory)
These are conspiracy theories and will be removed.
If you post anymore conspiracy theories you will be banned. Final warning.
-
The Michelson-Morley experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment) is extremely complicated and multifactorial. As far as I understand, it does not take into account one significant factor in the official model of the Universe - the speed and direction of the Sun as part of the galaxy (that is, the speed and direction of movement of our galaxy in space).
But on the basis of my model of the Universe (https://forums.space.com/threads/new-model-of-the-universe.37494/), I assume the absence of the above-mentioned factor in reality, and different parameters of other significant factors. I do not have sufficient mathematical knowledge, so I suggest to those who are interested - to recalculate the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, taking into account the much smaller Earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth along it. Considering the movement of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass as in the animation below (Earth is larger), as well as the assumption that the Oort Cloud is the boundary of the Universe with a diameter of about one light minute. The value of the experiment is enormous. Data on it should be publicly available.
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg) (https://i.ibb.co/CmNjBrX/c11-gif-bd3fb41fea3601564900036f2d853e2a.gif)
-
As far as I understand, it does not take into account one significant factor in the official model of the Universe - the speed and direction of the Sun as part of the galaxy (that is, the speed and direction of movement of our galaxy in space).
You don't understand it then.
The clever bit about it is that it automatically includes that (and any other) motion.
I do not have sufficient mathematical knowledge
It shows.
recalculate the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, taking into account the much smaller Earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth along it.
In reality (i.e. outside your hallucination) the Earth's orbit and speed are the Earth's orbit and speed.
It takes a year to go round and the radius is about 8 light minutes.
If that was wrong the moonshots would all have failed.
They didn't.
So, you are going to either set up some absurd conspiracy- for which you may get kicked off the forum- or you accept that you are wrong.
Just to be clear- why do you think Huygens, Cassini, Richer and Flamsteed took part in this conspiracy in the 17th C?
-
(https://i.ibb.co/NyGcmdd/smt2.jpg)
-
No, such a thing is not physically possible.
-
Light doesn't travel through a medium
Can you clarify this statement? Fiber optics are used as internet back bone. I think it shows that light travel through a medium.
-
This is all valuable information from the school of hard knocks on the head.
-
Can you clarify this statement? Fiber optics are used as internet back bone. I think it shows that light travel through a medium.
What I mean is that there isn't good evidence for an aether (the supposed medium that light is a vibration of).
-
Can you clarify this statement? Fiber optics are used as internet back bone. I think it shows that light travel through a medium.
What I mean is that there isn't good evidence for an aether (the supposed medium that light is a vibration of).
The existence of the aether may have already been proven experimentally. The point is the speed of the Earth's movement in space, which depends on the length of the Earth's orbit.
Michelson–Morley experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment) is a complex and extremely important experiment that has been refined and repeated since 1881. Its task is to prove the existence of a medium for the propagation of light and radio waves - aether. The main factor of this expetiment is the speed of the Earth's movement in space (the length of the Earth's orbit). The received data turns out to be much less than expected. In my model of the Universe, the length of the Earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth's movement are much less than the official ones ... It may (possibly) has already been experimentally proven: 1) the existence of aether; 2) my model of the Universe.
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg)
Ordinary waves have a medium - water.
Sound waves have a medium - a gas (atmosphere).
Do light and radio waves have a medium? The aether has not yet been officeally proven.
The aquatic environment is inhabited.
The gaseous environment (atmosphere) is inhabited.
Is the aether inhabited? Where do UFOs come from? Where do the “aliens” (angels / demons) live?
-
Could these traces on the Earth's surface be from the Sun and the Moon?
(https://i.ibb.co/NyGcmdd/smt2.jpg)
No, such a thing is not physically possible.
These traces on the surface of the Earth are a fact. A clear trace on the surface, and a tectonic plate completely repeating the outline of a trace on the surface. These traces and the tectonic plates that correspond to these traces have no analogues, and most likely have no unambiguous official explanation.
Since this is "That CAN'T be true!" section, here is my version to the origin of these traces.
Tectonic plates are formed under the pressure of a large mass, therefore they are also called continental plates. The Pacific plate is formed under the pressure of a homogeneous mass of water over a large area. The tectonic plates outlined in red rectangles (PHILIPPINE PLATE, COCOS PLATE, CARRIBEAN PLATE and SCOTIA PLATE) in the image below were formed under the pressure of large masses that were once there, but now they are not there - under the pressure of the Sun and the Moon. In addition, the tectonic plates outlined in red rectangles in the image below completely repeat the outlines of traces on the Earth's surface.
(https://i.ibb.co/BZXRhH6/tp3.jpg)
The Sun flew farther from the Earth and left only one trace on the surface (PHILIPPINE PLATE). The Moon hooked the Earth several times while entering its current orbit along an elliptical trajectory - it left three tracks on the Earth's surface: COCOS PLATE, CARRIBEAN PLATE and SCOTIA PLATE.
Japan - the land of the rising Sun.
The name of the country “Mexico” and the city of Mexico City are believed to be derived from the words metztli (“Moon”) and xictli (“navel, middle”), thus meaning “middle of the Moon”.
(https://i.ibb.co/Q8dpYG9/tp2.jpg)
Why, over 70 years of space exploration (development) by the efforts of all mankind, this space is still not being mastered (developed) in any way? Of all the objects in the celestial sphere, all "stars" and "planets" for some reason are one to one + - brightness. Only the Sun and the Moon stand out with the same angular dimensions (the dimensions are proportional to the distances to the Earth) and the same axial rotation periods - 27 days.
New model of the Universe. (https://alexandr-k3.livejournal.com/697.html)
-
Where do the “aliens” (angels / demons) live?
What an intriguing question. ::)
Why, over 70 years of space exploration (development) by the efforts of all mankind, this space is still not being mastered (developed) in any way?
Because it is too expensive and difficult, obviously.
Of all the objects in the celestial sphere, all "stars" and "planets" for some reason are one to one + - brightness.
What are you trying to say, that makes no sense.
Only the Sun and the Moon stand out with the same angular dimensions (the dimensions are proportional to the distances to the Earth) and the same axial rotation periods - 27 days.
That's not true. Of course all your claims are nonsense, so...
-
Why, over 70 years of space exploration (development) by the efforts of all mankind, this space is still not being mastered (developed) in any way?
How can we master space Thin air is good to live in but what can we do with the vacuum of space I know nothing.
-
Two huge diametrically opposite formations on the surface of the Earth's core (Earth Blobs). Both are displaced eastward. The larger Earth Blob (under Africa) corresponds to the continents of Praeurasia (Africa, Eurasia, Australia), which are displaced from it to the east. The smaller Earth Blob (under the Pacific Ocean) corresponds to the continents of PreAmerica (North America, South America, Antarctica), which are displaced from it to the east. To the east (near) of Eurasia there is a huge trace from the Sun (shifted to the east) on the surface, and the tectonic plate completely repeats the outline of this trace (PHILIPPINE PLATE). Near the Americas, there are huge traces of the Moon (displaced to the east) on the surface, and tectonic plates completely repeating the outlines of these tracks (COCOS PLATE, CARRIBEAN PLATE and SCOTIA PLATE).
(https://i.ibb.co/g40Ptnw/c1-gif-f4f71516fc54ad8ebe63093877b924b3.gif)(https://i.ibb.co/M2Mxgs2/C3-jpg-4c83f1ebdd151127c5b9d85ea40082c1.jpg)
The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs (https://eos.org/features/the-unsolved-mystery-of-the-earth-blobs)
(https://i.ibb.co/jJJQP9S/Smt.jpg)
All these facts cannot be coincidences. These are patterns that testify to this.
(https://i.ibb.co/BK2xRn5/ume.jpg)
(ProtoEarth, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars; common center of mass between Earth and Sun; distance to the Moon is about 100 000 km., distance to the Sun is about 300 000 km.; Moon diameter is about 800-1000 kilometers, Sun diameter is about 2500-3000 kilometers; Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe where all the "stars" and "galaxies" located - formed from the ProtoEarth's mantle (core) with diameters about tens of kilometers; the diameter of the Universe does not exceed one light minute)
-
the diameter of the Universe does not exceed one light minute)
How do you explain the craft that has gone to Mars and the time delay to control the craft and how do you know that a light second is true if you don't believe the science. You believe in one light minute what if science is telling a lie about the speed of light?
-
The existence of the aether may have already been proven experimentally.
The aether has not yet been officeally proven.
Right...
These traces on the surface of the Earth are a fact.
It's also a fact that the Sun coming into contact with the Earth would destroy the Earth, whereas the Moon coming into contact with the Earth would destroy the Moon (and make the Earth molten). Since both the Earth and the Moon still exist, we know that no such thing ever happened.
-
All these facts cannot be coincidences.
Why not?
Mind you, half your "facts" are not true.
-
My very dear friend are you saying that science over the past 500 years is a conspiracy. Are we to believe that you are the truth and all others are not to be believed. Please come down to earth and we can have a real discussion. PS can you please send me some of those mushrooms that you have they must be very good.
-
Now the new model of the Universe is known in 1) Singapore, 2) Thailand, 3) NASA and 4) Russian Police.
So you have been spamming other places with your nonsense then - and in most cases had it swiftly removed?