[Bored chemist]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[Janus]

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.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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)

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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)

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.

[Janus]

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.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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
Stellar aberration, a lie of relativism

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Yet it happens, proving that it isn't "very unlikely" at all.

NASA Mars Mission Exposed as Devon Island Research
MARS ON EARTH: Astronaut Canyon - Glacial Trough Valleys on Devon Island and on Mars

[Kryptid]

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.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

NASA - Mars VS Devon Island
NASA BUSTED CURIOSITY ROVER NOT ON MARS BUT GREENLAND

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.



Scale comparison of satellite photos of Earth and Mars shows that Mars' scale is greatly oversized.


Two photographs for comparison of scales.


https://www.google.com.ua/maps/space/mars/@-13.117515,-64.3422443,389048m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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.


Link to SOHO Lasco C2 and C3 image archive: https://soho.nascom.nasa.gov/data/Theater/

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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:


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.


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?

[Origin]

This is completely absurd.  There is no reasoning with someone this far removed from reality.

[Kryptid]

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.

[The Spoon]

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

[Bored chemist]

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
Stellar aberration, a lie of relativism

You cite an 18th century report and expect to be taken seriously?