1
New Theories / Re: Stationary model of the solar system
« on: 14/04/2024 17:40:45 »With the same success it can be argued that cyclones and anticyclones consist of stars
Not at all. Cyclones are made of air and water droplets.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
With the same success it can be argued that cyclones and anticyclones consist of stars
If we insist that speed of light in vacuum is constant while also accepting that space is stretching, it implies that we also need to stretch the time by the same amount. So far, I haven't found any source for the latter.
Please rate this post too:
The statement that galaxies are moving apart does not stand up to criticism, because galaxies are single stars that are located behind the nebula.
1. Due to what forces does the Universe expand and contract?
Without answers to these questions, the Big Bang hypothesis has no right to exist.
a) At the same time, the expansion of the Universe is hampered by mass and gravity.
b) The compression of the Universe is prevented by rotation and centrifugal force.
2. It is believed that the Universe is expanding, along with the Solar system.
a) Does the diameter and thickness of the Solar System change?
b) Are the diameters of planets and the distance between planets increasing?
d) Where is dark matter located in the Solar System?
e) Is there an equation for dark energy, and in what units is dark energy measured?
Can it be described in a single paragraph?
For one, a pair of protons isn't going to randomly join together to form a single nucleus because the Coulomb barrier is too strong to overcome at common temperatures and pressures. So they remain separate. The number of nuclei dictates the total number of atoms. The electrons then arrange themselves in the lowest energy configuration around those nuclei.
Under the expanding universe model, speed of light doesn't seem to be a constant, especially over a long distance.
It seems like the mystery is in people's minds. How they think that there's no mystery in how invisible hydrogen atoms and molecules behave, while at the same time think that macroscopic double slit experiment contains the deepest mystery of physical reality.
Surely one of the implications of everything that has been said and observed is that independent photons do not exist, in the sense of always being detected at a given distance from the source and at every point at that distance with the same energy and intensity?
If your argument for independent photons were true then the inverse square law would not be true.
Namely, that for a given amount of power, light travels a given distance, it cannot go any further than that power allows. Increase the power and increase the distance over which light is detectable, keep the power at a fixed level and it doesn′t matter for how long that light is on, it cannot travel one iota further than the power supplied to it allows.
"In questions of science the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual."
Surely, a defense of a result involving such numbers would be purely philosophical regardless of how sophisticated the computers that were used were?
Perhaps no point in askin now,
But better late than never...
@Black hole
So, did you Succeed?
What's more interesting is to explain how protons and electrons interact to form diatomic molecules, instead of monoatomic, or polyatomic ones.
Unfortunately, like or not the CMBR falls right in the sweet spot of the signal width of the unbelievably massive clouds of hydrogen that populate the Universe.
For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
ANY signal is possible from these clouds given their size and the disturbances they are subject too.
Further how convenient is the presence of this shell that the CMBR is supposed to reflect off?
To detect differences of 10,000th the width of a proton in the presence of so much signal noise, is a bit of a stretch.
The calculations are all done by computer. But how accurate are these computer calculations, when does the computer decide that a signal isolated from the trillions and trillions of different signals, is the one signal denoting gravity? Surely the very noise generated inside the circuits of LIGo should swamp any credible signal? A very dodgy situation.
This would be a wonderful explanation IF it is taken for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and emits no signal at all that can be traced and put into a graphical representation. This is especially a stretch of the imagination when one remembers the sheer, unimaginable size of these clouds of hydrogen and the violent interactions they are witness, to, the birth of galaxies and stars, the violent merger of Galaxies, the explosion supernovae and so on. Surely anyone with even a bit of imagination would be able to picture the birth of currents as the result of such interactions and the resultant micro-wave radiation.
Those CMBR emissions are currently proposed to represent the photons emitted when protons and electrons combined to create the first hydrogen atoms in the universe. Those photons were then stretched by the metric expansion of the universe to a much longer wavelength than they started off as. For that reason, photons emitted by any nearby hydrogen recombination would have much shorter wavelengths and thus would not match those produced by the CMBR.
For one thing, electromagnetic radiation does not stop moving ever, it is always moving at the speed of light, it never stops. To imagine that the CMBR (relic radiation or not) would just hang about in one place is not justifiable.
So what are we to believe, are we to take for granted that the present day Universe is absolutely quiescent and all of the signals in the hydrogen spectra being received on earth are due to the relic CMBR?