Calculation of the 11-year period of solar activity using the gravitational parameters of the Sun and the Earth, and the golden number φ

The proposed method, explaining the 11-year solar cycle, is based on an unusual theory, according to which some fundamental physical constants, including the speed of light in vacuum c, which we consider universal for the entire Universe, have different values in the spheres of influence of other stars, planets or space objects. The description and calculation formulas are here.

Source site: SNVspace22

3 months later

Today, starting next automatic interplanetary station to other planets of the Solar system, we get the opportunity distance researching its environment and chemical composition. However, an even single scientist has never questioned and equals the planets in relation to each other? Do not make we an error sending is not adjusted accordingly machines? Not whether its misinform us? Today, as in physics reigns supreme theory of relativity, space of Cosmos, in present scientific world conception, considered as a single and equal. Except considered cases for the locally allocated strong gravitational fields of massive space objects that can significantly distort space-time. In order to understand what the author has in mind, we will begin consideration of the problem from the beginning. So, what is the matter in the ordinary physical sense? Science describes the idea of the matter as to the general scientific term denoting a relatively objectively existing structural units, objects, form, elements, carriers of being taken together with its properties, communication, relationships to each other. Formations, having material properties, are found everywhere, in every science, on the ground and in space, in nature and in society, in the outside world and its reflection in consciousness.

In physics, matter considered mainly in the form of matter, particles and fields, the interaction between exercising. Matter, its properties and relationships in one form or another are the subject of theoretical and applied science, the object of the application and use of the technology and in practice. The laws of existence, movement, interaction of matter and its attributes, detected philosophy, acquire its specific forms in each particular science. Universal attributes of matter are: movement, space, time, structural, system organization and the ability to self-development, the unity of continuity and discontinuity, as well as a number of other properties which find expression in action of universal dialectical laws of change and development. Matter and its attributes cannot be created and indestructible, exist eternally and infinitely varied forms of its manifestation.

All the phenomena of the world are determined by the natural material connections and interactions, causal relationships and the objective laws of nature. Physics also proceed from the recognition of indissoluble unity of matter, motion, space and time. All space-time properties of the system depend on the speed of its movement and structural relations in more general systems, its mass and gravitational potentials. Matter is inexhaustible in its structure, but different structural levels appear various forms of movement and interaction laws. They are reflected in differentiating physical theories, each of which cannot be reduced to other theories and has defined the limits of applicability. At the same time between the different structural levels close relationship exists and conditionality manifested in various forms of mutual transformability of matter and motion, the presence of common attributes, the laws of conservation and motion. Today, advanced physics are trying to reflect this unity through the development of a unified theory. So, if we begin to explore what constitutes a substance, we see that it form molecules consisting of atoms, which, in turn, are composed of even more smaller particles - electrons, protons, neutrons. But if we continue to continue to explore, what it consists of particles that will be able to make sure that in reality there are only a wave of condensed energy, and manifest themselves as waves and particles simultaneously. Summing up the parallelism between the particle and the associated wave, we come to understand the inner meaning of the quantization conditions: associated with the electron wave is resonant exactly over the length of its trajectory. In other words, the wave corresponding to the stationary state of the atomic electron itself is stationary in the sense of the theory of oscillations. Consideration of the atom through the theory of oscillation requires that we consider the stationary Bohr states of the respective stationary waves associated with the atomic electrons. Sharing the views of the particles on systems having common features with the atoms, the wave theory first considered the orbital wave model of elementary particles (on the orbits stacked the whole wavelength - Bohr orbits both in atoms) and it became possible to calculate that previously could only be obtained experimentally. At first glance it is difficult to imagine, and it is quite natural that all matter has the nature of the field, and the substance consists of electromagnetic waves - the excited states of the field. On the other hand, no one is surprised by the fact that the transverse electromagnetic waves - this is a stable elementary particle field origin. SRT has created the preconditions for it to be considered one of the electromagnetic radiation forms of matter and light quanta - real elementary particles. According to modern concepts, elementary particles - is non-divergent wave packets of the field of origin. In wave theory of particles with rest mass, consist of waves moving along closed orbits in phase. Such wave formations, unlike photons can rest since wave shorted. Fluctuations such fields carry energy and momentum from one place of space to another, and quantum mechanics tells us that these waves are collected in clusters, or photons, which are observed in the laboratory as elementary particles. Simply put, because in elementary particles rotates alternating electromagnetic field, to the extent into them are standing waves. A standing wave has areas with maximum intensity (antinode), but also has a point at which the intensity is always zero (knots). If we consider the standing wave in terms of the mass density, its mathematically can be divided into several equal parts (equal to the number of antinodes) - and it is equal to the number of quarks in hadrons. It follows another explanation of experiments: in experiments on the scattering are observed standing waves of alternating electromagnetic field in elementary particles. This explains the impossibility of its division into separate sections - the electromagnetic field is continuous and does not disintegrate into fragments and transformed according to the laws of nature. Thus, here we can summarize that the essence of matter m as such - it is an absolute condensed energy E0 in the form of a rotating electromagnetic field manifests itself both as waves and as elementary particles. In other words, the implementation of E0 into the matter m going in accordance with the law of conservation of energy, which is expressed form of the spin-orbital characteristics of elementary particles...

So begins my article: «Need for an adjustment of the orbital telescope and devices visual observation of the automatic interplanetary station according to the second Bohr quantum postulate». (https://www.scientific-publications.net/get/1000015/1442311331567266.pdf)

A more detailed discussion of the hypothesis (and an inductively resulting series of conclusions) on the site: https://sites.google.com/view/projectgermestristar/main

9 days later

Okay, that attachment link does not seem to work so here is the paper.

The Cosmic Web, Black holes and the Multiverse

This is a conceptual paper. I am not a scientist and I have no mathematics to support my theories, but I do have the benefit of the observations of others scientists. Unfortunately there are things in reality we may never be able to observe.

I Believe...

I believe in most of the mainstream cosmological ideas:

The big bang really occurred. It created our universe.

Inflation occurred within the very first second of the universe's existence. It is likely still occurring in some local parts of our universe.

Dark Matter exerts gravitational force even if we don't yet know what it is yet.

Dark Energy exists and is causing space to expand even if we don't know what it is yet. It may be related to some local areas of inflation.

The universe is approximately 2/3 dark energy and 1/3 matter (baryonic and dark). This is an approximation but I am rooting for it to be found exact. (Three seems to be the magic number. We have three observable dimensions, three quarks in a proton ...).

Einstein's theories of relativity, space and time.

Matter warps space-time and reveals itself as gravity.

I also believe in some of the edgier theories.

A version of string theory called M-theory seems to be a successful attempt to reconcile the differences between Einstein's General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. One of the predictions of M-theory is the existence of 10 spacial dimensions and one time dimension. The 6 extra dimensions beyond the ones we recognize are thought to be curled up, into tiny pockets inside observable space. The 6-extra dimension seems a little flaky to me (but at least it is a multiple of three). Maybe they exist, maybe they don't.

Dark Energy is like an anti-gravity. It is repulsive and increases with distance.

We are just one universe of many in the multi-verse. The idea of a multiverse is not new. In 1992 Lee Smolin hypothesized the theory of Cosmolgical Natural Selection (CNS). According to CNS, black holes may be mechanisms of universe reproduction within the multiverse, it is an extended cosmological environment in which universes grow, die, and reproduce.

It is unclear to me if new universes have similar fundamental laws as the parent universe ; what Max Tegmark would call a level I multiverse. Or whether these laws may be slightly altered in some fashion during the replication process; a level II multiverse. It would seem that if natural selection is at work here, then these replications should be fine tuned to create universes with laws and values conducive to creating more blackholes and thus more universes. Kind of a cosmic evolution.

A bubbly new reality?

While I agree with Dr. Smolin that new universes are being created by black holes, I believe that the mechanism for this process remains a mystery. Here is how I believe this is happening.

Let's start with the cosmic web, the largest known structure in the universe. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) has revealed a startling construction of galaxies and galaxy clusters arranged in long filament strands. It also indicates that there are large voids where no matter appears.

We see matter being accumulated along the filaments with what appear to be larger nodes of visible matter where filaments intersect. These nodes contain thousands if not millions of galaxies. When viewed on a smaller scale, these nodes would reveal themselves to be a local super cluster. Current theories propose that there are massive amounts of dark matter in these nodes as well as the visible matter.

Observations have shown that the galaxies within the web seem to all be aligned in the same general direction. Some recent theories attribute this alignment to the properties of the matter (visible and dark) contained in the web. I contend that is not the entire story. I have no doubt that the gravitational attraction of all this matter plays a part in determining the structure of the cosmic web. However I believe that dark energy is also contributing the the web structure!

Let's take a step back and look at the nature of space-time. Einstein said that gravity is the presence of mass warping space-time inward into a gravity well. Think of dark energy as a repulsive force that increases with distance (sort of an anti-gravity). As such it may be possible that dark energy also warps space-time, but in the opposite direction. It warps space-time outward creating 'bubbles' in space-time.

To visualize what I think is happening, picture it this way. Think of the bubbles in a soapy foam. Where two bubbles touch you see an edge. Where three bubbles touch you see a Y-shape. In space, I suppose that the number of bubble intersections may be greater than three, but consult your local topologist about that.

To continue the analogy, if the cosmological bubbles are being inflated by dark energy and warping space-time outward, then two dark energy bubbles should be pushing matter toward their common boundary, i.e. their two-bubble edge. I believe that is exactly what is creating a filament of galaxies along the two-bubble edge

Similarly, at a Y-intersection, three inflationary bubbles would all be pushing matter towards that intersection. In the three-bubble intersection we should expect to see massive amounts of matter being accumulated. That is exactly what we see in the nodes composed of massive amounts of gravitationally bound matter.

I believe these dark energy bubbles are what gives the cosmic web its shape. Since dark energy is repulsive and gets stronger with distance, dark energy bubbles are expanding. In fact, the bigger they get the faster they grow.

So while the nodule's matter is attracting itself with gravity, the dark energy is 'pushing' it into the filaments and nodes. This combination of forces causes the matter to create a deeper and deeper gravity well. After all, the super clusters in the nodes already contain million or even billions of black holes!

As surveys like SDSS continue to improve our observations of the cosmic web they will encompass larger areas of space. And 3-D images of the cosmic web get better, I believe that we may be able to differentiate larger bubbles from smaller bubbles.

I expect that larger bubbles should have thicker filaments and larger 'nodes' because they are 'pushing' harder on the matter. They are also warping space-time more than a small bubble.

We should also see both red-shifted AND blue-shifted galaxies. The closer the galaxies are to us, the more likely to be blue shifted. I can think of two possible reasons. (1) our local bubble may be small and does not have enough 'push' to overcome the gravitational attraction of our local super cluster. (2) our local bubble is large but it is actually pushing galaxies toward us.

Eventually the super cluster of galaxies is drawn together by a combination their own gravity and the force of dark energy bubble pushing the matter together. Over billions of years all the matter in a local super cluster would be eventually drawn into that node. And the gravity well will become enormous; many trillions of trillions of solar masses. Big enough to create an alternative universe big-bang?

What if there is some critical mass beyond which these multi-galactic black holes become unstable and rupture spacetime? Maybe it happens when the gravity becomes strong enough to crush the 6 extra dimension (predicted by M-theory) out of existence and time truly stops. Unlikely, but who knows?

I have another idea. It is not the critical mass of the singularity that determines when such a big bang can happen. Rather, a big bang is triggered when the dark energy bubble is large enough to accept the new universe. In other words, there may be some critical size to the bubble that determines when the black hole seed can become a new universe.

That trigger might be when there is sufficient local space-time to accept a new universe. What do I mean by 'sufficient space-time'? That is the space required so that the new universe cannot interact with any existing universes. Keep in mind that Cosmic Natural Selection allows that new universes may or may not share the fundamental laws of its neighbor. It is probably best if they don't interact. This new universe must be totally isolated from any other Big Bang seeds that may be erupting throughout the multiverse.

Or maybe it is both--a critical singularity size AND a dark energy bubble that is sufficiently large to prevent the new universe from interacting with their neighbors.

Fiery new realities or a single cold death?

Some scientists believe that in about a hundred trillion years our local super cluster will be isolated from all other matter in the universe because dark energy will have forced all matter away at such great speeds that the light from other super clusters can never reach us. We will be essentially isolated from all other super clusters in the universe.

Surely each of these isolated super clusters of galaxies will accrete into a massive black hole singularity. Ultimately the Universe will consist of only super massive black holes that are totally isolated from each other.

I believe that the first big bang (whenever that was) created the seeds of future big bangs. Who knows whether we are in the first big bang or the fiftieth or just one of an infinite number of big bangs. It may be that universes are being created at an exponential rate within the multiverse. But we will never know since they have long since disappeared from our knowable experience. I prefer to envision a future where endless universes are being constantly being born rather than one where our single universe dies out with a whimper of proton decay and black hole evaporation. Everything else in nature is cyclical, why not the universes?

Paul Henry

Florida

5 months later
11 days later
18 days later

What should be the Foundational basis of an Alternative cosmological theory is discussed here, An example is discussed "Dynamic Universe Model" .

https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/essay-download/3416/__details/Gupta_Vak_Essay_FQXi_2020_f.pdf

See the Blog for further details on "Dynamic Universe Model"

https://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.com/

for Predictions came true, FREE published books and Papers etc

Best

SNP ( snp.gupta@gmail.com )

3 months later

I am new here, and I was not sure whether to send my question to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. So, I send it to both.

I have found a simple method to calculate alpha (α) based on phi (φ) .007297352569... My question is: An alpha constant based on phi, if true, (I guess only time will tell), would that confirm that alpha (α) is a perfect unchanging constant? Because phi is.

7 months later

A Quantum Mechanical Interpretation of the Consequences of Special Relativity

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity

---------------------------------------

Einstein's theory of Special Relativity predicts that for objects travelling at a significant fraction of the speed of light time dilates. Experimental observations are in agreement with the predictions. For example ordinarily short lived particles such as Muons when at rest are observed by a stationary observer to exist for significantly longer periods when travelling at speeds approaching the speed of light.

Mathematically Speed = Distance/Time

As the speed of light is expected to be constant in any frame of reference (consequent to Maxwell's equations) the mathematical conclusion for the increased lifespan of Muons traveling close to the speed of light would be that the values for distance and/or time have changed.

• In the Muon's inertial frame of reference the distance travelled by the Muons has decreased.

• In the observer's inertial frame of reference time has slowed down for the Muons allowing them to live longer.

The difficulty with understanding such mathematically derived conclusions is that they are counterintuitive (which is not to say that they are wrong). Copious experimental observations illustrate clearly and consistently that clocks slow down when in motion precisely as predicted by Special relativity. Thus for example we can confidently predict that an astronaut travelling at near light speed for a year will return to Earth biologically younger than his twin brother by around thirty years.

A typical explanation of Time Dilation is that time flows at a slower rate for the astronaut than for his twin brother on Earth. The analogy of time flowing conjures up images of water moving along in a river. But as time does not appear in any real sense to be a tangible identifiable substance like water can it truly be said to be flowing at different rates? The passage of time can only be measured indirectly in terms of a perceived interval between events. The most accurate measurement of time is currently in terms of the interval between 2 quantum mechanical conditions of a Cesium 133 atom. But what really is it that we are measuring when we state that we are measuring time?

Does Time exist?

----------------

Physics defines Time as "that which is measured by clocks"; that is all. There is no evidence to substantiate that time exists as part of the fabric of the universe. It is probable that human beings dreamt up the notion of time as a convenient way of 2 or more people being in the same location to share a task. For example an agreement for 2 people to meet for a hunt at sunrise on the bank of a river next to a large rock is in effect a synchronisation of the event of sunrise with 2 people and a unique geographical point on the planet. The human notion of time serves the purpose of accurately synchronising events for a species that owes much of its success to organised cooperative behaviour.

Although today we would associate sunrise with a specific time indicated on a wristwatch (or more accurately an atomic clock) there is no "known" absolute benchmark of time in any inertial frame of reference. i.e. there is no "known" universal standard time anywhere in the universe with or without the relativistic effects of speed and gravity. Significantly the sunrise over our spot on the river will never be precisely at the same local time from any one sunrise to any other sunrise as measured by an atomic clock situated by the rock. This is due in part to perpetual changes in the orbit of the Earth and in part to the uncertainty of the location and velocity of quantum particles. Quantum observations suggest that it may be impossible to predict or measure the precise local time of any event in the universe. Without any direct evidence of its existence as part of the fabric of the universe it is perhaps more useful to think of time as being an imaginary interval between 2 events.

Can there be a more intuitive way of explaining the observations predicted by special relativity?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The observation that high speed Muons last longer than Muons at rest could be interpreted in one of the following two ways:

1. Muons decay at the same rate regardless of their speed. The speed of a Muon causes time to slow down in its inertial frame of reference so that for a stationary observer for whom time is running faster a high speed Muon appears to decay more slowly than a stationary Muon. "Proper time" is the time experienced by the Muon in its inertial frame of reference being less than the time measured by the stationary observer calculated as per the following expression.

[math]Observer time = (proper time)/square root((1-(velocity/speed of light)squared)[/math]

2. Muons decay at a rate that reduces according to their speed relative to a stationary observer. "Proper events" is the reduced number of decay events experienced by the Muons in their inertial frame of reference as compared with the higher number of decay events observed by the observer calculated as per the following expression.

[math]Observer events = (proper events)/square root((1-(velocity/speed of light)squared)[/math]

The first interpretation founded on Special Relativity is based on the assumption that time is part of the fabric of the universe and that time literally flows at one rate for a stationary observer and at a reduced rate for the particles in motion relative to the stationary observer.

The second (alternative) interpretation assumes that time is merely a human notion and is not part of the fabric of the universe in any real sense. In this case time dilation is no longer a plausible explanation for the increased life span of high speed Muons. Since time dilation can no longer be an explanation the inference is that the high speed Muons last longer than relatively stationary Muons as a direct consequence of their relative speed.

Whilst Particles such as Muons are observed to decay into different particles it is not understood what exactly triggers the change but it is typically characterised as the spontaneous process of one elementary particle transforming into other elementary particles without any apparent external cause. There would seem to be 2 plausible interpretations:

1. Quantum particles decay or transform spontaneously without any external influence.

2. Quantum particles decay or transform due to the influence of quantum events in their vicinity.

In the first interpretation the notion that a fundamental indivisible particle may transform itself with no external influence is both counter-intuitive and inconceivably difficult to conclude from experimental observation, which is not to say that it is necessarily incorrect.

In the second interpretation, from the assumption that particle decay is influenced by other quantum events in the vicinity it follows that the rate of decay would be governed by the frequency of such quantum events.

From the same assumption that particle decay is influenced by other quantum events in the vicinity it follows that the frequency of quantum events would be governed by the values of influential properties of the quantum particles such as angular momentum.

Based on observations of particle decay being retarded in a highly predictable way according to the speed of the particles relative to a stationary observer we can further infer that the values of influential properties of quantum particles in a given inertial frame reduce with respect to the speed of the quantum particles. By considering the wave properties of a quantum particle the inference would be that the energy of the wave is reduced through dissipation over a longer distance.

An atomic clock detects an arbitrarily prescribed number of changes between 2 quantum mechanical states of Cesium 133 atoms and registers this as one second of time. A moving atomic clock detects fewer changes than a relatively stationary clock. According to Special Relativity this is due to time slowing down in the inertial frame of reference of the moving clock. However in this alternative interpretation where time is no longer considered to be a real variable the conclusion is that there are fewer quantum events occurring in the inertial frame of reference of the moving clock as a consequence of its relative speed.

In any given inertial frame of reference the relative frequency of different types of quantum events would be expected to remain constant such that any specific measurement carried out within an inertial frame of reference would be identical to the same measurement carried out within any other inertial frame of reference. Thus for example the same values would be recorded for the average half life of a Muon at rest measured within any inertial frame of reference.

Conclusion

----------

Special Relativity states that relative motion causes time to dilate. The observational evidence is that relative motion causes clocks to slow down and also causes a reduction in the frequency of all events within a moving inertial frame of reference. Thus whilst time is defined as "that which is measured by clocks" the consequences of Special Relativity do not hold clocks to be special. Although these observations can be characterised as Time dilation there is no evidence to substantiate the material existence of time and that which does not exist cannot dilate.

This alternative interpretation is founded on the same set of observations that substantiate Special Relativity but without invoking the assumed variable of time and instead substituting a relative frequency of quantum events.Attachment #1: equation_1.jpgAttachment #2: equation_2.jpg

Greetings, and thank you for making this thread available for new theories. This post supports both the equations and experimental results of special relativity, but indicates that a preferred reference frame can indeed be identified - a fundamental and profound paradigm shift in interpretation of SR. Adjustments are also indicated for relativistic Doppler measurements which may have significant impact on various cosmological studies. I would appreciate any and all comments or critiques.

The following equation of absolute velocity has been discovered, derived directly from the Lorentz transformation equations:

[math] $$ u_x=\left( \frac{\gamma_x}{\gamma_v}-1 \right)\frac{c^2}{v}$$ [/math]

Where

[math] $ \gamma_v \equiv \sqrt{\frac{1}{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} }$ [/math]

and

[math] $ \gamma_x \equiv \frac{\gamma_u\prime}{\gamma_u}$ [/math]

u here is the absolute velocity of the observer,

u' is the absolute velocity of the moving clock, and

γx is the measured Lorentz factor of a moving clock on the x-axis based on time dilation.

A quick example; consider an observer on a station traveling at u=0.5c and a clock on a rocket moving away at a relative speed of v=2c/3 in the same direction along the x-axis. Einstein's composition of velocity dictates the actual speed of the clock to be u'=0.875c. The observer will measure the Lorentz factor based on time dilation of the moving clock not as γv, but rather will measure the rocket's time dilation relative to the observer's own time dilation. After removing and accounting for classical Doppler effect, the Lorentz factor can be determined as the effect of time dilation by slowed frequencies

[math]n$$ \frac{f_{station}}{f_{rocket}} = \gamma_x = \frac{\gamma_u\prime}{\gamma_u}=\frac{2.065591118}{1.1547005384} = 1.788854382 $$n[/math]

From this measurement, the station's absolute velocity along the axis of observation can be calculated:

[math]n$$ u_x=\left( \frac{1.788854382}{1.3416407865}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{2c} = 0.5c $$n[/math]

Additional orthogonal measurements of uy and uz would be needed to fully identify absolute velocity u and γu.

Note that this calculation resolves appropriately in the case where the station is actually at rest. In that case, γu = 1, so γx = γu' = γv, and the equation for ux is brought to zero.

The rocket's speed can be similarly calculated by measuring time dilation of clock signals from the station:

[math]n$$ u^\prime_x=\left( \frac{1.3416407865}{1.788854382}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{-2c} = 0.875c $$n[/math]

The concept here is that if an observer is in motion, then the observer's measurement of time dilation of a moving clock will be affected by the observer's own time dilation, and the measured value will be different than if the observer had been truly at rest. The ratio of the measured Lorentz factor compared to a calculated Lorentz factor if the observer had been at rest provides the information needed to identify absolute speed of the observer along that axis of observation.

Experimental determination of absolute velocity requires two pieces of data; 1) accurate knowledge of the relative velocity of a moving clock, and 2) accurate measurement of that clock's time dilation in the reference frame of the observer. Ives-Stillwell experiments (including modern variants) confirm time dilation and Lorentz invariance without the need to accurately measure relative velocity.

Reference to an absolute frame found within the mathematical structure of special relativity runs deeply counter to common interpretation of SR, but is in fact entailed within that mathematical schema. Importantly, because this equation is derived directly from the Lortentz transformation equations, prediction of full Lorentz invariance for historical experiments is maintained. Indications are however that relativistic Doppler measurements should be modified by substitution of γv with γx.

Full preprint paper is available with further details, here: Absolute_time_from_special_relativity_DACoke_08-jan-2021.pdf .

Full derivation directly from the Lorentz transforms is here: supplemental_ATSR_derivation_DACoke_08-Jan-2021.pdf

As mentioned up front, comments and feedback would be very much appreciated.

    The last three equations above have bracketing "n" characters for some reason, not seen in my preview. Apologies for that. Might be from carriage returns, not sure. Let me try once more here to clarify:

    [math]$\frac{f_{station}}{f_{rocket}} = \gamma_x = \frac{\gamma_u\prime}{\gamma_u}=\frac{2.065591118}{1.1547005384} = 1.788854382$[/math]

    [math]$u_x=\left( \frac{1.788854382}{1.3416407865}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{2c} = 0.5c$[/math]

    [math]$u^\prime_x=\left( \frac{1.3416407865}{1.788854382}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{-2c} = 0.875c$[/math]

    Looks good on my preview, hopefully it posts correctly now.

    ...and one more mistake to correct. The last equation has cut and paste errors converting to LateX format for the post. Equation should be

    [math]$u^\prime_x=\left( \frac{0.5590169944}{1.3416407865}-1 \right)\frac{3c^2}{-2c} = 0.875c$[/math]

    5 months later

    The Speed of the moon and its orbit is changed

    Every year the distance between the earth and the moon increases by about 3.8 cm.

    Science claims the moon is going faster. This sounds logical at first. But if we look at the orbital speeds of the planets around the sun, we can see that the inner planets are traveling faster than the outer planets. If the orbit speed of the moon increased every year, then after 4.5 billion years the orbit would no longer be so round, or it would have already left the earth.

    In my opinion, the orbital speed of the moon is slowing down and the stabilizing force of gravity makes a larger orbit. In order to change an orbit faster you have to overcome the stabilizing force with much higher energy.

    Is there anyone who can check the speed difference of the moon in the last years?

    Regards

    Rüdiger

      Hello, happy to see you on FQXi, it is a wonderful platform , regards

      Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards

      17 days later

      Hi Steve Dufourny, Just wanted to thank you in public for referring me to this group.

      THE 'HUBBLE TENSION': HOMOGENEITY AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL

      There are two accurate means of measuring the Hubble parameter that have been diverging over the years. This has caused a crisis in cosmology for various reasons. However it is possible that both means / collaborator groups are correct as stands, and pointing to the Hubble parameter as an acceleration rather than a velocity/distance, as follows. One group measures about Ho= 73 km/s per Mpc, and the other about Ho = 68 km/s per Mpc. The latter group is looking further back in time and space than the other. If both groups are correct, they cannot be correct at the same time. Assuming constant acceleration:

      A = [(73 km/s)^2 - (68 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 8.5 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

      Alternatively, A = [(70 km/s)^2 - (0 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 7.9 x 10^-14 m/s^2,

      where 70 km/s is a rough average and 0 km/s is with reference to an observer on Earth. Both values are similar in this random sampling, and amount to describing the Hubble parameter as an acceleration. This conforms with the observation that the Universe is accelerating, and suggests the acceleration is similar throughout the visible Universe, and that the Hubble parameter, while possibly an acceleration, is an unchanged value throughout the visible Universe -- or that current observational evidence indicates that THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN THE SAME. Therefore, rather than a conflict in measurements, the difference might be pointing to a homogeneity at a different level.

      THE 'HUBBLE TENSION': HOMOGENEITY AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL

      There are two accurate means of measuring the Hubble parameter that have been diverging over the years. This has caused a crisis in cosmology for various reasons. However it is possible that both means / collaborator groups are correct as stands, and pointing to the Hubble parameter as an acceleration rather than a velocity/distance, as follows. One group measures about Ho= 73 km/s per Mpc, and the other about Ho = 68 km/s per Mpc. The latter group is looking further back in time and space than the other. If both groups are correct, they cannot be correct at the same time. Assuming constant acceleration:

      A = [(73 km/s)^2 - (68 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 8.5 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

      Alternatively, A = [(70 km/s)^2 - (0 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 7.9 x 10^-14 m/s^2, where 70 km/s is a rough average and 0 km/s is with reference to an observer on Earth. Both values are similar in this random sampling, and amount to describing the Hubble parameter as an acceleration. This conforms with the observation that the Universe is accelerating, and suggests the acceleration is similar throughout the visible Universe, and that the Hubble parameter, while possibly an acceleration, is an unchanged value throughout the visible Universe -- or that current observational evidence indicates that THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN THE SAME. Therefore, rather than a conflict in measurements, the difference might be pointing to a homogeneity at a different level.

      lnkd.in/e3wQKBF

        Hello Mr Frisina, you are welcome. You are going to like this platform I believe, there are a lot of informations and you can share your ideas and discuss. Best Regards

        I ask me how to unify at this cosmological scale, the evolution spherisation of my theory with the past , present, future and the atomic gravitational constant, the classical one, the number of Avogadro, the Boltzmann constant , the GR , the quantum gravitation, the Dark matter cold, the Dark energy for the space vacuum and main codes and the 3D spheres. The magnitudes are important and this evolution also , the redshift and the light emissions also but how to sort the things and how to superimpose the two other ethers ?

        8 days later

        In my model of spherisation, I see in a simplistic vue, the cosmological scale and the quantum scale with these spheres a little bit the same , of course with volumes, motions and properties different but there is like a link probably.

        So that implies a relevant idea I beleive about the quantum scale and the cosmological scale, if my reasoning is correct and that we have these 3 main series merging to create the ordinary matter , with the codes in the space vacuum of the DE and the DM cold for the mass and gravitation and the photons for the electromagnetism, so we have a relative same logic at this comsological scale, that is why I thought about these supermassive BHs central to galaxies, they are probably kinds of stars of dark energy. It seems relevant considering the properties antigravitational of the DE , and also that implies deep questions philosophical if I can say. For the quantum scale, that implies also a fith force ....

        7 months later

        I recently published a modified theory of gravity that I would like feedback on. My theory, the entropy scale factor, proposes that entropy causes time dilation and length dilation, and that these changes underly special relativity, gravity and the expansion of space.

        As the relative velocity of objects increases there are more possible combinations of position and momentum within the moving frame due to the uncertainty principle. This increase in possible microstates represents an increase in entropy, which can be correlated with the time dilation and length dilation of Lorentz transformations.

        My paper goes on to show how these changes in scale would result in gravity, and how space would expand as the entropy of the universe increases.

        My theory was recently published in Physics Essays. Please visit their site or my homepage for more information and a link to the manuscript. Thank you in advance for your expertise and advice.