The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

 Look at this attentively, please. I did not found this in english wikipedia, so I translated it from russian wikipedia.

Quote

Later, in 1887, Michelson, together with Morley, conducted a similar, but much more accurate experiment, known as the Michelson-Morley experiment, and showed that the observed displacement is undoubtedly less than 1⁄20 of the theoretical and probably less than 1⁄40. In the theory of non-entrained aether, the displacement should be proportional to the square of the speed, therefore the results are equivalent to the fact that the relative speed of the Earth in the aether is less than 1⁄6 of its orbital speed and is undoubtedly less than 1⁄4. (Опыт Майкельсона)

Looks like the results of that experiment showed the actual speed of the Earth in its orbit, which (Earth's orbit) is much smaller than the official one, and accordingly, the speed of the Earth in such an orbit is much slower.

Looks like the results of that experiment are correct in case of such kind rotation of Earth and Sun around common center of mass approximately as in this animation (Earth is bigger).

[Bufofrog]

27 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Looks like the results of that experiment are correct in case of such kind rotation of Earth and Sun around common center of mass approximately as in this animation (Earth is bigger).

Just out of morbid curiosity, are you saying the earth is larger than the sun?

[MigL]

8 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

Obviously aliens.
And I can post twice as much evidence as you did.
( 2 x 0 = 0 )

If our orbital speed was wrong, accurately sending probes to Venus and Mars, as well as fly-bys of Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, would be extremely difficult.
Is that why you posted those conspiracy photos of Martian landscapes; you think probes didn't actually land/fly by there ?
I wonder where those photos of the Jupiter fly by, from JUNO, New Horizons, Cassini-Huygens, Ulysses, Galileo, and Voyagers 1, 2, 10, and 11, came from ? ( with Voyager 2 doing fly bys of all four gas giants )

List of missions to the outer planets - Wikipedia

If one calculates the orbital speed of the Earth around the Sun, it is in close agreement with observed values.
If the observed values are wrong, then the calculated values must be wrong, and the masses of the Earth and the Sun are wrong.
Is that why your graphic shows different sizes for the Earth and Sun ?

Yet a calculation using  that mass of the Earth, and its radius, which you say is wrong, yields the appropriate value of the acceleration due to gravity, g .
And that seems to be exactly the measured value of g , since at least the time of Galileo.

Gravity of Earth - Wikipedia
I wonder what value you get using your values for mass and radius of the Earth ?

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Look at this attentively, please. I did not found this in english wikipedia

Here is what looks like the same passage from English wikipedia.

Quote

After all this thought and preparation, the experiment became what has been called the most famous failed experiment in history.[A 13] Instead of providing insight into the properties of the aether, Michelson and Morley's article in the American Journal of Science reported the measurement to be as small as one-fortieth of the expected displacement (Fig. 7), but "since the displacement is proportional to the square of the velocity" they concluded that the measured velocity was "probably less than one-sixth" of the expected velocity of the Earth's motion in orbit and "certainly less than one-fourth."[1] Although this small "velocity" was measured, it was considered far too small to be used as evidence of speed relative to the aether, and it was understood to be within the range of an experimental error that would allow the speed to actually be zero.[A 1] For instance, Michelson wrote about the "decidedly negative result" in a letter to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887:[A 14]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson–Morley_experiment
Note that the above is a full section showing more context and interpretation. 

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Looks like the results of that experiment showed the actual speed of the Earth in its orbit, which (Earth's orbit) is much smaller than the official one, and accordingly, the speed of the Earth in such an orbit is much slower.

Looks like the results of that experiment are correct in case of such kind rotation of Earth and Sun around common center of mass approximately as in this animation (Earth is bigger).

Looks like the results of that experiment showed a different outcome that you try to argue?

 

 

Edited December 30, 2020 by Ghideon
grammar

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Thanks for your cooperation and happy new year.

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Thanks for your cooperation and happy new year.

Happy new year.

May I suggest that you address the questions regarding your ideas before adding more pictures?

[Bufofrog]

I also wonder why you won't answer any of our questions.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Thanks for your cooperation

!

Moderator Note

You're welcome. Now please return the favor and answer some of the questions posed to you. They were asked specifically to challenge the ideas you've put forth, and they'll show where you've gone wrong, but only if you take the time to cooperate with the members who are taking their time to help you, and answer the questions. Please.

 

[Janus]

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Thanks for your cooperation and happy new year.

Here is accurate representation of the Relative sizes and distance between the Earth and Moon.

Given the apparent size of the Earth in the photo, the light from the Sun and the date (which would make it a new moon).  I estimate that the Moon should be just about where the object labeled Mercury is in this image.    In other words, "Mercury" is mislabeled, The picture shows the Earth, Venus and the Moon, while Mercury is out of frame.  It is just the angle from which this photo was taken and telescopic foreshortening that makes Venus "look" closer to the Earth than the Moon is.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

9 hours ago, Janus said:

Given the apparent size of the Earth in the photo, the light from the Sun and the date (which would make it a new moon).  I estimate that the Moon should be just about where the object labeled Mercury is in this image.    In other words, "Mercury" is mislabeled, The picture shows the Earth, Venus and the Moon, while Mercury is out of frame.  It is just the angle from which this photo was taken and telescopic foreshortening that makes Venus "look" closer to the Earth than the Moon is.

In that photo, only Mercury, Venus, "Earth" without the Moon, and Mars. Here's an animation of the photos for more clarity.

Link to the STEREO photos archive: https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images

     

The paradox is that in the STEREO photographs, there is no Moon near the "Earth", but in the photograph of the MESSENGER spacecraft (made on 6 May 2010) from about the same distance and position as the STEREO, "Moon" near the "Earth" is for some reason clearly visible.

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

You're welcome. Now please return the favor and answer some of the questions posed to you. They were asked specifically to challenge the ideas you've put forth, and they'll show where you've gone wrong, but only if you take the time to cooperate with the members who are taking their time to help you, and answer the questions. Please.

The answers to all your questions, adressed to me, are at the very beginning (first post) of two my threads "New model of the Universe." and "The nature of light and the size of the Universe.", only for some reason you all either do not understand them, or simply pretend that you do not understand.

Edited December 31, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The answers to all your questions, adressed to me, are at the very beginning (first post) of two my threads "New model of the Universe." and "The nature of light and the size of the Universe."

I do not understand where you addressed this: 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.

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

only for some reason you all either do not understand them, or simply pretend that you do not understand.

Does that matter? When someone shows enough interest in your thread to actually read it, compare the facts with established theories, try to draw conclusions and then ask for followup information it could be in your interest to try to answer and clarify rather than complain, repeat or add unrelated information?

 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Ghideon

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

I will try to explain it once again in simple, well-understood words. The photon has no mass, but it has weight, that is, the photon creates pressure on matter. Without aether, light is an absolutely immaterial phenomenon that directly interacts with matter. Without aether, light is a paranormal (not scientific) phenomenon. Science has a prioral concepts and statements, that is, obvious concepts, that do not require special proofs (evidences). Aether is from such kind of category.

[John Cuthber]

9 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

well-understood words. The photon has no mass, but it has weight, that is, the photon creates pressure on matter.

If you think that weight is what creates pressure, then you have not understood the words.

 

10 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Science has a prioral concepts and statements, that is, obvious concepts, that do not require special proofs (evidences).

Yes. It does

10 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Aether is from such kind of category.

No it is not.

It can not be an a priori thing because we have proved that it does not exist.

[swansont]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

In that photo, only Mercury, Venus, "Earth" without the Moon, and Mars. Here's an animation of the photos for more clarity.

Link to the STEREO photos archive: https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images

     

The paradox is that in the STEREO photographs, there is no Moon near the "Earth", but in the photograph of the MESSENGER spacecraft (made on 6 May 2010) from about the same distance and position as the STEREO, "Moon" near the "Earth" is for some reason clearly visible.

And where is the moon supposed to be? (I don’t actually see it in these images)

Feb 23 2020 (a date in your animation) was a new moon.  May 6 2010 it was third quarter, meaning its position was 90 degrees different. So it would have been in front of or behind the earth.

 

 

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The answers to all your questions, adressed to me, are at the very beginning (first post) of two my threads "New model of the Universe." and "The nature of light and the size of the Universe.", only for some reason you all either do not understand them, or simply pretend that you do not understand.

You were asked for models, i.e. math, and they aren’t in your posts. You were asked how we see these objects, if photons only travel 1 light-minute, and you’ve dodged that one, too. How do we have these satellite images if that’s the case?

21 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I will try to explain it once again in simple, well-understood words. The photon has no mass, but it has weight, that is, the photon creates pressure on matter. Without aether, light is an absolutely immaterial phenomenon that directly interacts with matter. Without aether, light is a paranormal (not scientific) phenomenon. Science has a prioral concepts and statements, that is, obvious concepts, that do not require special proofs (evidences). Aether is from such kind of category.

That’s not a model 

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

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

All celestial, orbital, tregonometrical, mathemathical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and speed - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Feb 23 2020 (a date in your animation) was a new moon.  May 6 2010 it was third quarter, meaning its position was 90 degrees different. So it would have been in front of or behind the earth.

Time lapse on that animation is 8 days (2020-02-22 - 2020-02-29). There is no Moon near the Earth on STEREO photos. In spite of the fact that both "Earth" and Mercury are clearly visible in that photos. Let me remind you their sizes, so that you understand the ratios well, as well as the fact that with such ratios the Moon should be visible, but it is not there, and it appeared there only in 2007. Earth - 12.7 thousand km., Mercury - 4.8 thousand km., Moon - 3.5 thousand km.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

You were asked for models, i.e. math, and they aren’t in your posts. You were asked how we see these objects, if photons only travel 1 light-minute, and you’ve dodged that one, too. How do we have these satellite images if that’s the case?

On actual examples of the absence of the Moon near the "Earth" on STEREO photos, I have proved that most of sattelite images are modified, montaged.

This image is also an actual (factual) and undisputed evidence of space photos montage:

My explanation according official model and math (calculations).

All celestial, orbital, tregonometrical, mathemathical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and speed - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

Edited December 31, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[swansont]

10 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Time lapse on that animation is 8 days (2020-02-22 - 2020-02-29). There is no Moon near the Earth on STEREO photos. In spite of the fact that both "Earth" and Mercury are clearly visible in that photos. Let me remind you their sizes, so that you understand the ratios well, as well as the fact that with such ratios the Moon should be visible, but it is not there, and it appeared there only in 2007. Earth - 12.7 thousand km., Mercury - 4.8 thousand km., Moon - 3.5 thousand km.

How is Mercury viewable in the HI2 FOV, which pretty clearly excludes it?

[Bufofrog]

55 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I will try to explain it once again in simple, well-understood words.

I would like you to answer the question of why these "regularities" 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.

For instance Venus and Mercury do not have moons, why does that support your idea? 

I do not understand. 

Could you help me to understand?

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

All celestial, orbital, tregonometrical, mathemathical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and speed - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

Let's assume for a second you are correct. Then measurements that rely on angle and known distances on the surface of the earth gives wrong scale or distance for nearby celestial bodies. According to your idea: is basic trigonometry wrong or is measurements of distances on earth wrong? (Or both, or something else?)

Please provide a detailed explanation. 

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Ghideon

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Let's assume for a second you are correct. Then measurements that rely on angle and known distances on the surface of the earth gives wrong scale or distance for nearby celestial bodies. According to your idea: is basic trigonometry wrong or is measurements of distances on earth wrong? (Or both, or something else?)

Please provide a detailed explanation. 

Atmospheric refraction (lensing) effect can casue huge distortions, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies. Atmospheric refraction cannot be taken into account properly, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

Edited December 31, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Mad For Science]

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The photon has no mass, but it has weight, that is, the photon creates pressure on matter.

If something has no mass then it has no weight. Photons have a rest mass of zero but have an effective mass when it is in motion. Photons carry momentum, they cause a pressure on matter due to collisions. It has nothing to do with weight.

 

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Without aether, light is a paranormal (not scientific) phenomenon.

Aether was a scientific concept that just turned out to be wrong. Light is not paranormal or unscientific simply because you can't conceive of wave motion without a medium.

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and speeds).

That is something that one of the many professional scientists would have noticed by now if it were true. It isn't.

3 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Atmospheric refraction (lensing) effect can casue huge distortions, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

There have been many measurements taken by spacecraft that are far above the Earth's atmosphere that avoid those distortions.

5 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Atmospheric refraction cannot be taken into account properly, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

Yes, it can. Given known atmospheric conditions, it can easily be accounted for by mathematics and adaptive optics.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

3 hours ago, swansont said:

How is Mercury viewable in the HI2 FOV, which pretty clearly excludes it?

Evidences. Actual, factual, real, official, but contradictory.

Here are several examples of SOHOs and STEREOs photo animations which proves that solar plasma (matter) from direct solar flare reaches both SOHO and STEREO in several (2-5) hours, depending on the power of solar burst and the speed of solar plasma (matter) in it respectively. White ripples on the animations are material particles of solar plasma.

First (bigger) animation - STEREO Ahead. Second (smaller) animation - SOHO C3.

 

But solar plasma (matter) from direct solar flare reaches Earth not faster than 2 - 3,5 days, depending on the power of solar burst and the speed of solar plasma (matter) in it respectively. Simple example of a big contradiction in official data.

Official locations of SOHO and STEREO spacecrafts in space, in case someone doesn't know.

Here is my explanation for the above contradiction. The SOHO spacecraft is located in the common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun. The STEREO spacecraft is moving on the orbit of Venus in the Solar System with approximately the same parameters as on the scematic image below. The flow of solar plasma from a solar flare very quickly loses speed in space.

Some additional facts in support of the model above.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

Edited December 31, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Ghideon]

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Atmospheric refraction (lensing) effect can casue huge distortions, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies. Atmospheric refraction cannot be taken into account properly, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

Let's assume atmosphere effects cause parallax based distance measurement to fail by the huge amount you claim. Then please explain how parallax measurements are consistent with many other kinds measurements? All the various measurement methods fail but still produce similar outcome, how? 

Please provide a detailed explanation. Not unsupported claims; claiming that atmosphere can cause an effect is not the same as there is an effect. 

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Here are several examples of SOHOs and STEREOs photo animations which proves that solar plasma (matter) from direct solar flare reaches both SOHO and STEREO in several (2-5) hours, depending on the power of solar burst and the speed of solar plasma (matter) in it respectively. White ripples on the animations are material particles of solar plasma.

First (bigger) animation - STEREO Ahead. Second (smaller) animation - SOHO C3.

 

But solar plasma (matter) from direct solar flare reaches Earth not faster than 2 - 3,5 days, depending on the power of solar burst and the speed of solar plasma (matter) in it respectively. Simple example of a big contradiction in official data.

Not surprisingly this is not correct.  The CME on July 23, 2012 was one of the fastest CMEs recorded.  It hit the Stereo satellite about 17 hours after it left the sun and then hit the earths orbit a short time later.

[Janus]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Atmospheric refraction (lensing) effect can casue huge distortions, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies. Atmospheric refraction cannot be taken into account properly, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

No, it can't.   At the zenith, it is zero, and near the horizon it is ~ 1/2 a degree.  But all that means it that if you measure the visual angle between a star at the zenith and one near the horizon, you'll be off by 1/2 of a degree of the actual angle between them or about by 1/180 of the measured angle.  At 45 degrees from the zenith, the refraction is about 1/60 of a degree or 1/2700 of that 45 degree angle.  So if you were looking at a body that took up 45 degrees of the sky starting from the zenith, your "measured" size would only be off by 1/2700 of its "true" size.

In this last example, it is the difference in refraction between zenith and 45 degrees from it that would cause the distortion.  But we aren't measuring the size of celestial bodies that take up large angles of the sky, but ones that take up small ones, with angles over which the difference in atmospheric refraction is next to nil and has a negligible effect on our measurement. ( it would the greatest near the horizon, but we take care to make such measurements when the objects are high in the sky.)

On top of that, we now have orbital telescopes that are beyond the effect of atmospheric refraction, and they have not shown any major discrepancies from Earth based ones.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

53 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Let's assume atmosphere effects cause parallax based distance measurement to fail by the huge amount you claim. Then please explain how parallax measurements are consistent with many other kinds measurements? All the various measurement methods fail but still produce similar outcome, how? 

Please provide a detailed explanation. Not unsupported claims; claiming that atmosphere can cause an effect is not the same as there is an effect. 

No offence, but what consistecy and similar outcomes can we talk about if the official calculations of cosmic distances and sizes are changing almost daily by tens of percent, light years, or trillions of kilometers? If somewhere hundreds of stars and supermassive black holes disappear without a trace and mysteriously. Here are some examples from recent news stories.

1) Betelgeuse is Smaller and Closer to Earth than Previously Thought

2) Earth 16,000 MPH Faster, 2000 Light-Years Closer to Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way

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

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