The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I propose an experiment that is possible to implement. Not very expensive and not very complicated experiment, that can prove the existence of aether.

I hope you are joking.  You know light travels 300,000 km/sec, right?  Those are going to be big mirrors!!

[SergUpstart]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I propose an experiment that is possible to implement. Not very expensive and not very complicated experiment, that can prove the existence of aether.

You won't find any redshift in 60 seconds. The light from the Sun goes for 8 minutes, is there a red shift in the spectra of chemical elements????

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

 

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

I hope you are joking.  You know light travels 300,000 km/sec, right?  Those are going to be big mirrors!!

Another proposition, but I doubt if it is possible to implement cleanly such experiment.

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[swansont]

51 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

 

Another proposition, but I doubt if it is possible to implement cleanly such experiment.

 

It’s going to be a problem for both proposals because mirrors do not have 100% reflectivity, not because of any aether.

Why does the redshift magically appear at 60 seconds? Are there equations that govern the behavior? 

 

If light disappears after 60 light-seconds, why can we see stars more than 60 light-seconds away?

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

I propose an experiment that is possible to implement. Not very expensive and not very complicated experiment, that can prove the existence of aether.

Here is an easier experiment:

1.  Go outside.

2.  Glance at the sun, don't stare at it.

If there is sunshine then your conjecture is incorrect.

Please run this experiment and report back with your results.

[swansont]

One objection (of many) to this model is what happens to this photon energy is unexplained. Energy is conserved, so the aether has to absorb that energy, and you need to explain what happens when the aether heats up. 

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s going to be a problem for both proposals because mirrors do not have 100% reflectivity, not because of any aether.

Aassumed this but did not know for sure. Thanks for the info.

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

If light disappears after 60 light-seconds, why can we see stars more than 60 light-seconds away?

Since you are already familiar with my assumption that the Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the "stars" and "galaxies" are located. Let me ask you where the stars and black holes disappear from the officially unlimited space?

1) Researchers Have Identified 100 Mysteriously Disappeared Stars in The Night Sky

2) ‘Missing’ supermassive black hole in distant galaxy leaves scientists perplexed

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

One objection (of many) to this model is what happens to this photon energy is unexplained. Energy is conserved, so the aether has to absorb that energy, and you need to explain what happens when the aether heats up. 

Reasonable statements. I may assume that aetheric heating somehow transforms into cosmic radiation (somewhere in the Oort Cloud) which then radiates inside the Oort Cloud. During solar minimums the level of cosmic radiation is growing.

The baseline temperature of outer space is −270.45 °C. Absolute minimum is -273.15 °C. Looks like something is heating in space. Why not aether?

Edited December 29, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[swansont]

The Oort cloud is much further than 60 light seconds. The only body of non-trivial size inside that radius is the moon.

 

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

The Oort cloud is much further than 60 light seconds. The only body of non-trivial size inside that radius is the moon.

 

And the facts that:

• The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
• The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

These are ordinary coincidences that do not indicate any regularity . . .

And just in case the other three "simple coincidences":

• Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
• Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
• In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

Edited December 29, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[MigL]

The moon is approx. 2.5 light seconds away for a round trip.
There is a mirror ( previously left ) on the moon.
A laser , shining on that mirror, and detected on Earth again , shows no red shift.
This is an easy to perform experiment, with any University lab equipment.
Knock yourself out.

Maybe if we went through the equations you've provided we might see where you made your mistake.
Oh wait … You haven't provided any !

30 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Let me ask you where the stars and black holes disappear from the officially unlimited space?
1) Researchers Have Identified 100 Mysteriously Disappeared Stars in The Night Sky
2) ‘Missing’ supermassive black hole in distant galaxy leaves scientists perplexed

And of course having stars obscured by gas/dust clouds or galaxies that have ejected their central BH ( or simply formed without one ) is much too simple an explanation. You have to go back to the concept of a medieval celestial sphere located on the Oort cloud.
Exactly what lies beyond the Oort cloud, then ?
And how do our laws of motion work, then ?

And, you use pop-sci articles that hint at 'conspiracies' as your evidence ?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Can someone explain this?

Edited December 29, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

And the facts that:

• The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
• The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

These are ordinary coincidences that do not indicate any regularity . . .

And just in case the other three "simple coincidences":

• Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
• Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
• In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

You haven’t made any connection between these items and an aether.

[MigL]

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The baseline temperature of outer space is −270.45 °C. Absolute minimum is -273.15 °C. Looks like something is heating in space. Why not aether?

What a coincidence !
The minimum temperature, -273.15⁰, when added to the CMB radiation ( relic from 13.4 Billion years ago ) of 2.7⁰. gives your value for the temperature of outer space, -270.45⁰.
You see, this stuff is well known, and not a coincidence at all.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

• The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
• The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

To you these are coincidences, and explained only by conspiracy theories, and Medieval celestial spheres.
To others, they are simply the result of orbital mechanics.
 

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

The same message (post) as in the thread "New model of the Universe." But this applies to both topics, and this is very important.

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

[swansont]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The same message (post) as in the thread "New model of the Universe." But this applies to both topics, and this is very important.

Yeah, stop doing that.

Quote

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

This is not a model of the nature of light. This is known as dodging the question, and if you continue you will find the discussions closed.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

This is not a model of the nature of light. This is known as dodging the question, and if you continue you will find the discussions closed.

The title of the thread is "The Nature of Light and the Size of the Universe." And animations of those lens flares, based on factual data (space photos), are directly related to the issue of the size of the Universe. As far as I understand, you have no assumptions about the nature of those huge lens flares? So as you have no explanation of such extraordinary differences in position of NEOWISE 2020 Comet on SOHO's and STEREO's photos animations. Those are the factual data (evidences - which everyone demands here from me), which have no official explanation, and can not have any logical explanation in the official model of the Solar System (not even mentioning about the official model of the Universe).

Edited December 30, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Bufofrog]

35 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The title of the thread is "The Nature of Light and the Size of the Universe." And animations of those lens flares, based on factual data (space photos), are directly related to the issue of the size of the Universe. As far as I understand, you have no assumptions about the nature of those huge lens flares? So as you have no explanation of such extraordinary differences in position of NEOWISE 2020 Comet on SOHO's and STEREO's photos animations. Those are the factual data (evidences - which everyone demands here from me), which have no official explanation, and can not have any logical explanation in the official model of the Solar System (not even mentioning about the official model of the Universe).

When you say lens flare I assume you mean Coronal Mass Ejection.  I don't know what you think needs an explanation.

I wish you would answer Swansont's question about how these statements support your ideas:

• The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
• The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

• Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
• Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
• In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

35 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

When you say lens flare I assume you mean Coronal Mass Ejection.  I don't know what you think needs an explanation.

I mean not CMEs, but huge transparent round (spherical) lens flare, which slowly moves from left to right.

35 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I wish you would answer Swansont's question about how these statements support your ideas:

• The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
• The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).
• Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
• Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
• In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

Those 5 facts are just coincidences in official model of Solar System. But those 5 facts are obviously some kind of regularity, and they are regularities (not just coincidences) in my model of the Universe.

And here are the evidences (real facts) in support and confirmation of my model of the Universe.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

Edited December 30, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Mad For Science]

20 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I propose an experiment that is possible to implement. Not very expensive and not very complicated experiment, that can prove the existence of aether.

Unless either the laser or the detector are moving, you will not get a red shift and there is no aether to absorb anything. This has been well established by science.

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Since you are already familiar with my assumption that the Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the "stars" and "galaxies" are located

The Oort Cloud is the border of our Solar System. Stars and galaxies are much further away.

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.

There are literally dozens of places in the Solar System where the apparent diameters of any particular moon and the Sun are the same. We just happen to currently live in a place where those angular sizes are approximately the same at this point in time. It means nothing.

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

25 days for the Sun's equator and 35 days for the poles. You are cherry picking.

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.

They are also the two planets closest to the Sun (which is just as irrelevant).

16 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).

They are also the two planets closest to the Sun (which is just as irrelevant).

43 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Those 5 facts are just coincidences in official model of Solar System. But those 5 facts are obviously some kind of regularity, and they are regularities (not just coincidences) in my model of the Universe.

Your 'model' of the Universe bears no resemblance to reality.

47 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

And here are the evidences (real facts) in support and confirmation of my model of the Universe.

In what way?

[Ghideon]

On 12/28/2020 at 10:41 AM, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Light years and 8 light minutes from Sun to Earth are physically impossible.

 

On 12/28/2020 at 10:41 AM, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Since a photon has a very low energy charge, and a very high speed of movement, and no medium (including space) can have absolutely zero resistance, then, accordingly, the lifetime (life) of one photon (wave oscillation of the medium - ether) is very short, not exceeding at least one minute.

The distance to Venus is more than one light minute. Distance to celestial bodies can be measured with experiments based on parallax and such a measurement relies on rather basic trigonometry. If your claim is right then every measurement of for instance distance from earth to Venus and earth to sun are wrong? 

Please provide a detailed explanation why you reject the results of basic geometry. Please include necessary mathematics to explain your version of parallax measurements.

https://www.britannica.com/science/parallax/Solar-parallax

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Ghideon
grammar

[swansont]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The title of the thread is "The Nature of Light and the Size of the Universe."

It’s not a model for the size of the universe, either.

It’s an unanswered question (in your mind, at least) about some phenomenon. And not having an answer does not support a particular hypothesis. 

 

Quote

As far as I understand, you have no assumptions about the nature of those huge lens flares? So as you have no explanation of such extraordinary differences in position of NEOWISE 2020 Comet on SOHO's and STEREO's photos animations. Those are the factual data (evidences - which everyone demands here from me), which have no official explanation, and can not have any logical explanation in the official model of the Solar System (not even mentioning about the official model of the Universe).

Then, at best, it calls into question one particular model (which happens to have loads of evidence supporting it). But being unanswered does not support some other model. Which you don’t seem to have presented.

Has the notion that you might just not understand some aspect of science occurred to you? That your lack of understanding does not invalidate that aspect of science?

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I mean not CMEs, but huge transparent round (spherical) lens flare, which slowly moves from left to right.

That is a CME

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Those 5 facts are just coincidences in official model of Solar System. But those 5 facts are obviously some kind of regularity, and they are regularities (not just coincidences) in my model of the Universe.

You still have not answered the question.  How does this "regularity" support your conjectures? 

If the galaxies that we see are in the Oort cloud (according to your conjectures), does that mean that those galaxies are very, very small?

[swansont]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

And here are the evidences (real facts) in support and confirmation of my model of the Universe.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

That’s not related to a model of the universe

[Janus]

18 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

A

 

• Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
• Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
• In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

Or, the more reason explanation for Mercury and Venus not having satellites and slow rotations is that they are both closer to the Sun and subject to greater tidal forces which has the effect of making it harder to capture and hold on to satellites and results in greater tidal braking which slows rotation.

The Earth-Venus alignment is most likely a result of orbital resonance (Earth orbits 8 time for every 13 orbits of Venus).  Such orbital resonances are not rare, and result from the fact that the orbits are not independent of each other, because each planet has a small gravitational effect on the other.

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

 

Another proposition, but I doubt if it is possible to implement cleanly such experiment.

 

An experiment rather like this is actually done as a means to measure things like air pollution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavity_ring-down_spectroscopy

The effect you are looking for  is not observed.