Gravity (split from Infinite gravity)

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Yes, I have. These are the three laws of Kepler.

No. Kepler is consistent with Newtonian physics, not your conjecture.

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

You (and other members) probably misunderstood my hypothesis. When I said "Newton's 3 law in the case of gravity does not work", I meant the small objects of the Solar system, which I listed earlier  - "asteroids, plutoids, Mars, and also Mercury". Perhaps I have not accurately expressed my idea. Sorry. If the gravitational spheres of objects overlap, they interact with each other in accordance with the laws of Kepler.

You have the situation where the spheres don't have to overlap the other body, which makes Newton's third law fail.

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

No problems. For example, Pluto and Charon rotate around their center of mass, Jupiter and the Sun rotate around their center of mass, the Moon and Earth rotate around their center of mass, an electron and a proton in an hydrogen atom rotate around their center of mass, etc., but a spaceship and the Earth DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, Mercury and the Sun DO NOT rotate around their center of mass, etc.

Evidence?

 

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

I assume that when calculating the motion of space objects, it is necessary to apply not GM but µ. That’s all. Is it really unscientific?

GM and µ are the same thing

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

Atoms that spectroscopy studies are in the sphere of the Earth and belong to the Earth. So, the fundamental physical constants of the Earth are valid for the atoms (with some reservations).

No. 

You can look at spectral lines from the sun. They are emissions or absorptions from elements that reside on the sun. Same thing for much more distant objects — they are from atoms that reside far away from the earth.

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

By the way, meteorites that fall to the Earth become "earthly" and their atoms also begin to obey the fundamental physical constants of the Earth. Of course, this is still a hypothesis. I find it hard to strictly prove it.

Very hard. Impossible, even.

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

The fundamental constants are different but the ratio of these constants (which is the fine structure constant) is unchanged. That is, the fine structure constant is universal for the entire Universe.

So exactly how do these vary with the location? You have e^2/hbar*c

Either hbar or e has to change, or they both change. And this presumes that you can show that c is actually changing, and we have evidence that it doesn't. Relativity depends on c being invariant, and we have experiments that rely on other planetary bodies that confirm relativity (Gravitation deflection of light and Shapiro delay, to name two) 

 

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

I answered your question in my reply to swansont. The physics of the transformation process is still unknown to me.

To calculate the motion of space objects in the first approximation, Kepler's theory is quite sufficient. If you mean the equation F = GM₁M₂ / r², then I consider it incorrect, since the experiments of Cavendish and his followers, who determined G, are unreliable. I think to calculate a gravitational attraction, it is necessary to use an equation using gravitational parameters instead of masses of objects. By the way, are you absolutely sure that you know what mass is? Probably not. How can you be absolutely sure of the truth of Newton's equation?

OTOH, if it's right, we can use the equation to send rockets to other bodies in the solar system, which we have done. Why does that work, if the equations are wrong?

 

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

A stick has two ends. If an education is based on incorrect theories, it is useless. To remind you how in the Middle Ages "educated" geocentrists taught that the Universe revolves around the Earth? I like science, but I don't like scrupulous scientific work. This is about how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle - you either see the horizon or drown in details, and cannot see beyond your nose. I prefer to see the horizon. To each his own.

It's not enough to claim that people are wrong, when the theories they are discussing have tons of evidence to support the theories. You have to actually show it. You own the burden of proof.

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

I am more or less confident in my models of the atom and in my theory because they are confirmed by independent experimental evidences made by modern experimental science.

Then how about providing this evidence?

4 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

In addition to the electron radius, which I have already published here, my theory, for example, allows to calculate experimentally confirmed the magnetic proton radius

experimentally confirmed the Earth's average radius

experimentally confirmed the highest-intensity harmonic of the Schumann resonance

Where are these equations derived?  

Does your planetary radius formula work for other planets?

 

 

[beecee]

On 5/8/2019 at 1:23 PM, Hamster22 said:

The logic by which I got this formula is not quite physical. This logic is more philosophical. Are you ready to accept philosophical logic in a physical forum?

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

Quote

We measure the fundamental constants on the Earth with earthly instruments, and analyze these measurements by our earthly sense organs, which belong to our earthly bodies.

So why would those measurements be any different anywhere else in the solar system/galaxy/universe?

Quote

I am more or less confident in my models of the atom and in my theory because they are confirmed by independent experimental evidences made by modern experimental science. In addition to the electron radius, which I have already published here, my theory, for example, allows to calculate experimentally confirmed the magnetic proton radius

I have a problem in accepting your confidence in your own hypothetical, when you have failed to even get the basics right. Like the following.....

Quote

This is not an absolute fact. For example, there are Intrinsic variables stars whose periodical brightening and darkening are not caused by exoplanets. By the way, the Sun also changes its luminosity every 11 years. What does the exoplanets here?

A scientific theory is as good as it gets, and they are either invalidated or made even more valid by further observational and/or experimental data. Also the 11 year cycle of the Sun is as far as I know, a magnetic field thingy which is reflected in increased sun spot activity and solar flares. Exoplanets are also evidenced by gravitational tugs or radial velocity, among other methods.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets

Quote

We cannot directly observe the formation of planetary systems of other stars.

That is rubbish. We have seen various stages of the formation of planetary formation in other stars and the accretion disks from whence they are formed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoplanetary_disk

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a23318/triple-solar-system-forming-in-galaxy/

https://www.quantamagazine.org/stellar-disks-reveal-how-planets-get-made-20180521/

Quote

This is just a hypothesis

The evidence and observations above dispute that. Planetary disk formation is an evidenced backed theory.

..

Quote

It is presumptuous to believe that we now know the absolute truth about the birth of the Solar system.

That is why I reject your confidence in your personal hypothesis when you cannot get the basics correct. No one claims absolute truth in cosmology. Theories are supported by evidence and the more evidence forthcoming, the more certain a theory becomes. eg: the BB, SR, GR,the theory of evolution just to name a few of the really near certain ones.

 

Quote

For example, if the giant planets of the Solar system were formed from approximately one gas-dust cloud, why are these planets so different from each other? And why do the satellites of the giant planets differ from each other (atmosphere, temperature, chemical composition etc.)? After all, according to logic, they should be built from almost one substance. And why is the Moon so strikingly different from the Earth? Etc.

Planets form at various distances from the center of the accretion disk and roughly speaking take on the makeup of the material in that part of the disk, which differs with the heavier elements closer in and lighter ones further out. eg: The terrestrial planets are closer in then the gaseous and icy giants. Also we also have much evidence of planetary migration and capture of other bodies.

[StringJunky]

2 hours ago, beecee said:

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

Science is 'How?' and Philosophy is 'Why?'

[beecee]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Science is 'How?' and Philosophy is 'Why?'

Yep, that's another way of putting it.

[Hamster22]

22 hours ago, Strange said:

Can your model correctly calculate the precession of Mercury without using GR?

Cannot yet. This is a minor issue for me.

22 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide the observational evidence to support this claim.

Such observable evidence does not yet exist, since the mass of a spaceship is insignificant compared to the Earth's mass, and the mass (more precisely, the gravitational parameter) of Mercury is insignificant compared to the Sun's gravitational parameter.

22 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide some evidence to support this claim. 

I have no direct evidence of this yet. I just assume that gravity is not transmitted by direct force action, but algorithmic one. At the same time, the gravitational force of a space object is created by its mass and is formed inside the circular gravitational radius (do not confuse with the usual gravitational radius 2µ / c²) of the object R_og = µ_o / c_o² (where c_o is the speed of light for the space object, µ_o is the gravitational parameter of the space object). Therefore, I assume that instead of formula F = GM₁M₂ / r² it is more correct to use formula F = µ_om / r².

22 hours ago, Strange said:

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

To begin with, here is F = µ_om / r². An equation in which there are only gravitational parameters µ₁ and µ₂ I do not yet have.

22 hours ago, Strange said:

The evidence contradicts you. Again.

The evidence obtained by Hans Dehmelt in his work "Experiments with an Isolated Subatomic Particle at Rest" confirms this: 

22 hours ago, Strange said:

Do you have evidence that the potential energy of the gravitational field is calculated incorrectly?

No, I have not.

22 hours ago, Ghideon said:

That means that for instance the Mars rovers sent by Nasa becomes "marsly"? The rovers and hence the rovers' instruments* are transformed by some unknown process so that they are different on a fundamental level?  And yet the rover** instruments are able to deliver reliable results.

In a sense, this is true. It is difficult for me to understand what can happen in the mechanisms of rovers or other earthly spacecraft. Maybe they need a long time to become "martian". Maybe they have already become "martian", but transmit incorrect information, which we consider correct. For example, according to information obtained by earthly instruments and spacecraft, the temperature on the surface of Venus is about 500 ° C. This is a very sizeable temperature. At the same time there are high mountains on Venus. Why have these mountains not razed to the surface of Venus over hundreds of millions of years? Maybe Venus is not as hot as we think? Of course, it sounds fantastic and unscientific, but we were born to make a fairy tale come true.

22 hours ago, Ghideon said:

I do not find the hypothesis plausible. Can you provide som details why it is worth investigating? 

I do not consider myself the truth in the highest instance, and I think that other researchers are unlikely to be able to investigate this, since for this it is necessary to have very specific logic. Only a bottom line can confirm any theory. It is on getting practical results that I mainly spend my energy now. Nevertheless, I consider it normal to publish my intermediate results such as the formulas for calculating the distance from the Earth to the Sun, the  absolute radius of the Earth, the radius of the proton, the highest possible number of the periodic table of elements, and others. Maybe it will prepare people for the perception of another reality.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Cannot yet. This is a minor issue for me.

It was a major issue for Newtonian gravity and for GR. 

16 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I do not consider myself the truth in the highest instance, and I think that other researchers are unlikely to be able to investigate this, since for this it is necessary to have very specific logic.

Science is not about "truth".

If other researchers cannot investigate this, then it doesn't seem to be a scientific idea. I have no idea what a "specific sort of logic" means. You do know that logic is a formalised discipline; effectively a branch of mathematics? So which "specific form of logic" are you referring to? Or by "logic" do you mean the common "it makes sense to me so it must be right"?

Let's see if this is a scientific idea: what would prove you wrong?

[Eise]

13 hours ago, beecee said:

Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know.

11 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Science is 'How?' and Philosophy is 'Why?'

Please stop these caricatures of what philosophy is. 

Science, as an activity, is not just what we know, it is also its hypotheses that wait for empirical evidence or falsification. And hypotheses are what we don't know. Yet.

I think you both conflate old-fashioned metaphysics with what (modern) philosophy is. If you are so fond of empirical evidence, then please look what modern philosophers do: I guess you both never did. It has nothing to do with your slogans. At least, I never learned, or speculated, why the universe is as it is during my academic education in philosophy. And as an example of what I know from philosophy: that there are different concepts of what free will is, and that we should clear about these when discussing about it.

[Hamster22]

18 hours ago, swansont said:

You have the situation where the spheres don't have to overlap the other body, which makes Newton's third law fail.

Exactly.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

You can look at spectral lines from the sun. They are emissions or absorptions from elements that reside on the sun. Same thing for much more distant objects — they are from atoms that reside far away from the earth.

Spectral lines from the Sun are electromagnetic waves (or photons) that we observe in the sphere of influence of the Earth, earthly instruments and our earthly eyes. These observations may be incorrect.

18 hours ago, swansont said:

Either hbar or e has to change, or they both change. And this presumes that you can show that c is actually changing, and we have evidence that it doesn't. Relativity depends on c being invariant, and we have experiments that rely on other planetary bodies that confirm relativity (Gravitation deflection of light and Shapiro delay, to name two) 

I have direct (almost) experimental evidence that c is have been changing. Please wait a few weeks when I plan to publish my work in the Internet. Knowing the speed of light for a space object and assuming that the fine structure constant and the Planck constant are universal for the Universe, we can calculate the elementary charges, electron masses and all the other fundamental constants for the space object. I guess so, of course.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

OTOH, if it's right, we can use the equation to send rockets to other bodies in the solar system, which we have done. Why does that work, if the equations are wrong?

I did not quite understand your question. Our rockets are also subject to the laws of Kepler, in which there is no mass. If you mean the Newton correction like   , then it is negligible for rockets.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Then how about providing this evidence?

The equations, I derived, giving correct results are evidence. At least, indirect evidence. Where are these equations derived? As for the proton magnetic radius and the highest-intensity harmonic of the Schumann resonance, as I have already warned here, I am not yet ready to tell in details how they were derived. But you can see the method of calculating the absolute radius of the Earth in my PDF here:  https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B90mGmUYbDopMXlTaWVMVTB5LVU

12 hours ago, beecee said:

So why would those measurements be any different anywhere else in the solar system/galaxy/universe?

Because these are other planets, stars, galaxies, universes.

12 hours ago, beecee said:

Also the 11 year cycle of the Sun is as far as I know, a magnetic field thingy which is reflected in increased sun spot activity and solar flares. Exoplanets are also evidenced by gravitational tugs or radial velocity, among other methods.

Ok, but why the average solar cycle is exactly 11 years?

13 hours ago, beecee said:

That is rubbish. We have seen various stages of the formation of planetary formation in other stars and the accretion disks from whence they are formed.

The evidence and observations above dispute that. Planetary disk formation is an evidenced backed theory

Planets form at various distances from the center of the accretion disk and roughly speaking take on the makeup of the material in that part of the disk, which differs with the heavier elements closer in and lighter ones further out. eg: The terrestrial planets are closer in then the gaseous and icy giants. Also we also have much evidence of planetary migration and capture of other bodies.

Thanks for the links. It was very helpful to me. Live and learn.

13 hours ago, beecee said:

That is why I reject your confidence in your personal hypothesis when you cannot get the basics correct. No one claims absolute truth in cosmology. Theories are supported by evidence and the more evidence forthcoming, the more certain a theory becomes. eg: the BB, SR, GR,the theory of evolution just to name a few of the really near certain ones

it is difficult to grasp the immensity.  But I will try.

1 hour ago, Strange said:

Or by "logic" do you mean the common "it makes sense to me so it must be right"?

Exactly! I am sure that there is science, and there is scientific work. These are different things. Scientific work is a craft. Science is creativity. Scientific work is not free as it depends on sponsors, the opinions of colleagues, the fear of losing reputation, position, etc. Science is absolute freedom. Quote: "Playing it safe seldom leads to new discoveries. ("Nothing ventured, nothing gained.")" But science and scientific work can not do without each other, since science is the tip, but scientific work is reliable rear. Something like this.

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Let's see if this is a scientific idea: what would prove you wrong?

Thanks for the good question. I think that the most important evidence of the fallacy of the theory developed by me would be the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilization like the human civilization, with the help of our ordinary (uncorrected to other constants) sense organs and instruments.

[Strange]

48 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Spectral lines from the Sun are electromagnetic waves (or photons) that we observe in the sphere of influence of the Earth, earthly instruments and our earthly eyes.

On this basis, it would be impossible for you to provide any evidence for (or, more importantly, falsify) your idea. You can always say "ah, yes, they are different but we are just measuring it wrong".

This fails to be science at this point.

But what about the observations we make from space or on other planets? Why they don't they produce inconsistent results? Why don't the electronic circuits of space probes start to fail when they get beyond the earthy sphere of influence?

48 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

These observations may be incorrect.

They may be incorrect. The universe could have been created 15 minutes ago and made to look billions of years old.

It is up to you to provide evidence that they are incorrect. I doubt you can do that.

48 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I have direct (almost) experimental evidence that c is have been changing. Please wait a few weeks when I plan to publish my work in the Internet. Knowing the speed of light for a space object and assuming that the fine structure constant and the Planck constant are universal for the Universe, we can calculate the elementary charges, electron masses and all the other fundamental constants for the space object.

If these fundamental properties changed, then it would make a noticeable difference to the physics and chemistry of distant objects. 

(But of course, you have your "get out of jail" card that says we can't detect that.)

48 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Because these are other planets, stars, galaxies, universes.

That doesn't answer the question. Stop being so evasive.

48 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Exactly! I am sure that there is science, and there is scientific work. These are different things. Scientific work is a craft. Science is creativity. Scientific work is not free as it depends on sponsors, the opinions of colleagues, the fear of losing reputation, position, etc. Science is absolute freedom. Quote: "Playing it safe seldom leads to new discoveries. ("Nothing ventured, nothing gained.")" But science and scientific work can not do without each other, since science is the tip, but scientific work is reliable rear. Something like this.

This is largely incomprehensible nonsense. But thanks for confirming that you are abusing the word "logic" by using the usual crackpot definition.

Bt scientists do not play it safe. They are constantly striving to find new evidence, new science, new theories.

And, if you are quoting someone, it is good practice, and only polite, to reference the source.

48 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Thanks for the good question. I think that the most important evidence of the fallacy of the theory developed by me would be the discovery of an extraterrestrial civilization like the human civilization, with the help of our ordinary (uncorrected to other constants) sense organs and instruments.

Why would an extraterrestrial civilisation prove it rather than observations of inanimate objects?

Based on your evasiveness and dubious "logic" I am beginning to wonder if this is a religious argument. Is that the case? Is this whole argument based on Geocentrism, or something? Is that your "special logic"?

[swansont]

28 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Exactly.

Any evidence of Newton’s 3rd law not holding?

28 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Spectral lines from the Sun are electromagnetic waves (or photons) that we observe in the sphere of influence of the Earth, earthly instruments and our earthly eyes. These observations may be incorrect.

Unsupported assertions that the “observations may be incorrect” is the weakest of weak tea.

28 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I have direct (almost) experimental evidence that c is have been changing. Please wait a few weeks when I plan to publish my work in the Internet. Knowing the speed of light for a space object and assuming that the fine structure constant and the Planck constant are universal for the Universe, we can calculate the elementary charges, electron masses and all the other fundamental constants for the space object. I guess so, of course.

If e changes then the light being absorbed and emitted by atoms must change, since the interaction strength has changed. Is there any evidence of this?

 

28 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

I did not quite understand your question. Our rockets are also subject to the laws of Kepler, in which there is no mass. If you mean the Newton correction like   , then it is negligible for rockets.

You can derive Kepler from Newton. If one is wrong, so is the other. But we have evidence that they work just fine, which is inconsistent with your claims 

 

 

12 minutes ago, Strange said:

But what about the observations we make from space or on other planets? Why they don't they produce inconsistent results? Why don't the electronic circuits of space probes start to fail when they get beyond the earthy sphere of influence?

Also, why would light emitted by an atom at one place be absorbed by another somewhere else, if the interaction strength was different? Do atoms make mistakes?

[Hamster22]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

This fails to be science at this point.

I agree. Such an explanation has little to do with science. I think this is just the beginning.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

But what about the observations we make from space or on other planets? Why they don't they produce inconsistent results? Why don't the electronic circuits of space probes start to fail when they get beyond the earthy sphere of influence?

I have no exact answer. Maybe our spacecraft remain connected with the Earth through some information channel (such as intraplanetary vision) and regularly transmit distorted information about the reality of other planets. Of course, these are only assumptions, not science.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

(But of course, you have your "get out of jail" card that says we can't detect that.)

Exactly.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Based on your evasiveness and dubious "logic" I am beginning to wonder if this is a religious argument. Is that the case? Is this whole argument based on Geocentrism, or something? Is that your "special logic"?

In a sense, yes, it is a kind of geocentrism. The Universe that we see inside the sphere of influence of our planet, is our "earthly" Universe. I warned at the beginning of this topic that my explanation is not entirely physical, but in many ways philosophical. I was not forbidden to continue.

3 hours ago, Strange said:

Why would an extraterrestrial civilisation prove it rather than observations of inanimate objects?

This is related to your question "what would prove you wrong?" Since the Universe is probably infinite, then according to probability theory there should be an infinite number of civilizations of a very different level of development and, accordingly we should register an almost infinite number of intelligent electromagnetic signals. But nothing like this happens. According to the theory of probability, to assume that our civilization is the only one is absurd. Consequently, the reason why we do not observe other civilizations, as I assume, is that the life of these civilizations obeys other physical constants, and they are simply invisible to us, just like electromagnetic waves of one frequency are invisible to a radio tuned to another frequency. That is, if another civilization used the same constants for its vital activity as our civilization, then, according to the probability theory, we would certainly find it. Something like this.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Any evidence of Newton’s 3rd law not holding?

Please look at my video. In this video the electromagnetic coil is suspended above the flat circular magnet that is attached to the weakly fixed rod. The mass of the coil is less than the mass of the magnet and the rod. In accordance with Newton's 3 law, when a low-frequency signal is applied to the coil, it and the magnet should begin to swing in the opposite direction. Moreover, the amplitude of swinging the light coil should be larger. But nothing like this happens. The amplitude of the swinging coil is small, but the amplitude of the swinging magnet is huge. Is this breaking Newton's Law 3? Or I do not understand something?

 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If e changes then the light being absorbed and emitted by atoms must change, since the interaction strength has changed. Is there any evidence of this?

No evidence. Only the hypothesis.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You can derive Kepler from Newton. If one is wrong, so is the other. But we have evidence that they work just fine, which is inconsistent with your claims 

As far as I know, the two-body problem is solved as if one body is absolutely motionless. That is, it is assumed in advance that Newton's 3 law does not work. Let's argue. Maybe it really does not work In the case of gravitational long-range? The formula F = GM₁M₂ / r² suggests that the two bodies mutually attract each other. But mathematically the same formula F = µ₁M₂ / r² assumes that only one body (which has the gravitational parameter) attracts, but the second body behaves like a passive block, but at the same time the two-body problem is performed! Even the matching coefficient G is not needed. I do not know about you, but I see deep meaning in the formula F = µ₁M₂ / r².

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Also, why would light emitted by an atom at one place be absorbed by another somewhere else, if the interaction strength was different? Do atoms make mistakes?

I did not understand your question. Do you mean the pressure of light?

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Such an explanation has little to do with science.

OK. I will request this thread is closed then. You did know this a science forum?

5 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Since the Universe is probably infinite

How do you know that?

5 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

then according to probability theory there should be an infinite number of civilizations of a very different level of development and, accordingly we should register an almost infinite number of intelligent electromagnetic signals

Have you heard of the finite speed of light? 

It is very unlikely that we would detect signals from an alien civilisation.

Also, it doesn't matter if the universe is infinite or not. We can only ever receive signals from the observable universe. Which is finite and relatively small (compared to the whole universe).

8 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Consequently, the reason why we do not observe other civilizations, as I assume, is that the life of these civilizations obeys other physical constants, and they are simply invisible to us, just like electromagnetic waves of one frequency are invisible to a radio tuned to another frequency. That is, if another civilization used the same constants for its vital activity as our civilization, then, according to the probability theory, we would certainly find it. Something like this.

And yet we can observe the electromagnetic signals from galaxies in every part of the (observable) universe. So why would we not see signals from these hypothetical civilisations.

That is the trouble when you just make stuff up without a model: you end with incoherent nonsense.

9 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

Please look at my video.

No.

If you are too lazy to write it down, then it isn't worth paying any attention to.

10 minutes ago, Hamster22 said:

No evidence. Only the hypothesis.

There IS evidence. And it contradicts the hypothesis.

 

 

[Phi for All]

9 hours ago, Hamster22 said:

I do not consider myself the truth in the highest instance, and I think that other researchers are unlikely to be able to investigate this, since for this it is necessary to have very specific logic. Only a bottom line can confirm any theory. It is on getting practical results that I mainly spend my energy now. Nevertheless, I consider it normal to publish my intermediate results such as the formulas for calculating the distance from the Earth to the Sun, the  absolute radius of the Earth, the radius of the proton, the highest possible number of the periodic table of elements, and others. Maybe it will prepare people for the perception of another reality.

!

Moderator Note

Hamster22, it's clear from posts like this that you have a misinformed perspective on science in general. Science isn't interested in truth, or proof, or even logic. Nothing "confirms" a theory, because theories are supported by evidence rather than proven or confirmed. 

It's frustrating to those here who understand science that you're "spending your energy" on these misconceptions. Please study some physics and reread some of the excellent replies you've received from professionals and amateurs who are just trying to help. Why did you come to a mainstream science discussion forum if you didn't want to learn?

This thread is closed. Please don't bring this up again unless you have evidence to support yourself. Reasonable and rational methodology rigorously applied will help you much more than your made-up "logic".