Unproven theories

[Nilesh]

33 minutes ago, Bry said:

flares were thrown in a particular direction

Could you explain why "  flares were thrown in a particular direction  " ?

[Philalethes]

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

why the topic opened about electromagnetic reconnections was closed?

Because it digressed into a discussion about religion instead of science; that was quite clear in the last post Sam made in it before closing it.

15 hours ago, _00_ said:

as I understand, forces isn't cancelled, that resonance change it equilibrium state, and its continue whit same """force""" but in other frecuencies/directions, some will be damped and others will be reinforced, largest.

I didn't say that any forces were cancelled, but that some of the forcing was cancelled; while these two terms are similar, forcing essentially refers to the actual effects of an input on a system. Also, even with forces you can still say that forces can cancel out too, even if the forces are still present. For example, for any object resting on the surface of Earth (including yourself, unless you're currently mid-air and falling), there is the gravitational force acting downward towards Earth's gravitational center, and an equal but opposite normal force acting upward from the ground due to its inability to compress further; these forces are continuously present, but cancel each other out almost exactly most of the time.

So yes, when I say that some of the forcing is cancelled out I'm referring precisely to how the wave pattern creates destructive interference, in this case primarily due to how the basin in question (e.g. the Gulf of Mexico) will have water trying to flow out of it in a somewhat synchronized manner with water trying to flow into it due to the two subsequent tides, partially cancelling each other out.

In the rest of your post you're not being coherent, and you're just throwing out terms without any model (or even meaning); that's exactly the type of nonsense that got the thread you asked about closed, and I would strongly recommend that you avoid that here in the future, a lot of us would greatly appreciate that.

[Archmonoth]

11 hours ago, Bry said:

I like both of these statements about how our idea of conservation of energy applies locally, yet still transfers the conservation in the form of the next energy level!(orbital altitide or magnetic reconnection, etc).

There is always a loss of energy whenever the energy is transferred to a different form. Even in space, the transformation is not 100%: Energy transformation - Wikipedia 

 

" Conversion among non-thermal forms of energy may occur with fairly high efficiency, though there is always some energy dissipated thermally due to friction and similar processes. Sometimes the efficiency is close to 100%, such as when potential energy is converted to kinetic energy as an object falls in a vacuum. This also applies to the opposite case; for example, an object in an elliptical orbit around another body converts its kinetic energy (speed) into gravitational potential energy (distance from the other object) as it moves away from its parent body. When it reaches the furthest point, it will reverse the process, accelerating and converting potential energy into kinetic. Since space is a near-vacuum, this process has close to 100% efficiency."

 

This is exactly why perpetual motion machines are impossible, even in space. Energy is dissipated into the surrounding system and is reduced to zero. 

 

Energy is a disruption in a field, and the waves/disruption of the field trend towards the lowest energy state and will eventually become still. Waves can cause interference, distance will dissipate the energy into a system completely, and time will unwind whatever disruption in the field, returning it to its lowest energy state. 

 

The Laws of Conservation are a 1-way trip, once you reach zero, there is no coming back, the information is lost, the wave form is gone. This is why the concept of the Arrow of Time exists, because time is the measurement of this one-way conservation process. 

 

This is from Noether's theorem: Noether's theorem - Wikipedia

"If a system has a continuous symmetry property, then there are corresponding quantities whose values are conserved in time."

 

Also under APPLICATIONS:

"Invariance of an isolated system with respect to time translation (i.e. that the laws of physics are the same at all points in time) gives the law of conservation of energy (which states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant) "

 

Emily Noether was a foundation figure in resolving many General Relativity problems with Albert Einstein. She is worth reading about if you have the time, and her concepts on symmetry and conservation are elegant. 

 

So when energy reaches equilibrium with a local system (lowest energy state a system currently allows) there is no difference, there is no distinction, the wave form of the energy state is zero. 

[_00_]

edit: I didn't read last day posts (please admins: open some subforum)

 

yes Archmonoth,

I think I can conceptualize space/time relativity,

(and sorry for my silly pseudo-science example, my intention was to show that the cause of that time relativity corresponds to an expansion/compression of electromagnetic waves due to a change of velocity, ... curved space/time)

that is the question:

how does that space/time affect a photon (as a wave), it is logical to infer that the photon wave is also affected and that some of its components (perpendicular to the gravitational field) have different velocities, (redshift),....

with the same reasoning a photon with direction perpendicular to a gravitational field would be compressed to the point that practically all its energy is distributed in the component orthogonal to the gravitational field adopting a (relatively) closed waveform, I understand that this behavior would correspond to the transformation of its kinetic energy into potential...it is another of the things that make me intuit that this type of dynamics could be the one that characterizes the duality of light (energy) and our perception of the particulate universe....

(compressed vortex, implications of resonances,...)

Edited June 21, 2023 by _00_

[_00_]

17 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

There is always a loss of energy whenever the energy is transferred to a different form. Even in space, the transformation is not 100%: Energy transformation - Wikipedia 

 

...

 

So when energy reaches equilibrium with a local system (lowest energy state a system currently allows) there is no difference, there is no distinction, the wave form of the energy state is zero. 

maybe locally, but if we transfer that to a curved space-time that "loss" is transferred to the space-time curvature tensor... and what does it mean? that space-time is not constant and flattens as energy is lost until reaching the same "first" singularity state?

As I understand (sorry for the metaphysical reference) is that the initial condition of existence is inherent and it makes no sense to talk about it, and as I understand in a normalized quantized physics the "space" between 0 and 1 has to be considered only as a reference space, without any other physical consideration (if not we have to consider that "space" between 0-1 as a complementary divergent field towards the interior with "surface" as equilibrium state...returning again to the same incongruity of the existence itself).

 

in that sense: 100% conservative

Edited June 21, 2023 by _00_

[Archmonoth]

13 hours ago, _00_ said:

how does that space/time affect a photon (as a wave), it is logical to infer that the photon wave is also affected and that some of its components (perpendicular to the gravitational field) have different velocities, (redshift),....

I am not sure I understand the question. Photons are massless, but can carry angular momentum, and can also be polarized. They travel through spacetime, but without mass they do not curve or affect spacetime. 

 

What do you mean by "some of its components"? 

13 hours ago, _00_ said:

with the same reasoning a photon with direction perpendicular to a gravitational field would be compressed to the point that practically all its energy is distributed in the component orthogonal to the gravitational field adopting a (relatively) closed waveform, I understand that this behavior would correspond to the transformation of its kinetic energy into potential...it is another of the things that make me intuit that this type of dynamics could be the one that characterizes the duality of light (energy) and our perception of the particulate universe....

(compressed vortex, implications of resonances,...)

Light (photons) which are perpendicular to a gravitational field (curved spacetime) would be light which cannot escape a blackhole. From your description you are describing the effects of light when spacetime is a closed system, which is what I know to be a blackhole. 

 

11 hours ago, _00_ said:

maybe locally, but if we transfer that to a curved space-time that "loss" is transferred to the space-time curvature tensor... and what does it mean? that space-time is not constant and flattens as energy is lost until reaching the same "first" singularity state?

Perhaps it does return to a flattened state, which is how black holes can evaporate. 

11 hours ago, _00_ said:

As I understand (sorry for the metaphysical reference) is that the initial condition of existence is inherent and it makes no sense to talk about it, and as I understand in a normalized quantized physics the "space" between 0 and 1 has to be considered only as a reference space, without any other physical consideration (if not we have to consider that "space" between 0-1 as a complementary divergent field towards the interior with "surface" as equilibrium state...returning again to the same incongruity of the existence itself).

 

in that sense: 100% conservative

This makes sense. The issue with knowing exactly the edges between 0 and 1, is because the expansion of space is accelerating, and there are/will be distances moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

 

The mystery of Dark Energy is finding the cause of this accelerated expansion, which could be 100% conserved later. This would mean the inverse might happen. The Universe (existence) would collapse (rather than expand) at an accelerated rate in the future. 

 

So, in 20 trillion years we would see a dark sky. All distant stars/particles moving away from us at the speed light, then suddenly coming accelerating back towards us, faster than the speed of light. They could arrive before their light arrived.

 

I also think it is worth checking out Axions in regard to Dark matter/energy. Axion - Wikipedia

This wiki is pretty comprehensive and has lots of articles about Dark matter/energy tests and attempts so far. 

Edited June 21, 2023 by Archmonoth

[Sam Warfel]

On 6/21/2023 at 2:59 AM, _00_ said:

(please admins: open some subforum)

No, the whole point of this thread is that unproven theories or mostly-unrelated speculation is only allowed here and here alone, as that is not the focus of spaceweatherlive.  If you wish to go in-depth on this, there are many other websites and platforms designed for it that would be perfect for you.
Thanks!

[_00_]

👍

 i have some post in a half about some of previous things, that maybe are a little chaotic in it transmission, to me least than a dozens of constants and formulas to path inconsistencies and similar thoughts as i had when child, i hope, when i have a little more time to expend, progress on it,

 

in my underpressure real world things are a distribution of energy that is density, and that it's why sometimes it's harder to explain conceptually, 

i would like, at least, illustrate with some blender animations, but...

right now a small solstice time present,

as i saying, in my real world things are wave function modulated by for itself state of minimum energy, that proportion is present all around and well know: x=1/(1+x)

(or more generally as x=1/(1±x)  )

¡in all things, specially on waves (all is)!

that is why modelled world have inconsistencies with real world, to have a more fitted approximation it's essential to reflect that fractallity to functions,

we can think that this is trivial but not, when it is modulate by itself in that proportion it have some properties, dissolving a lot of inconsistencies and appear an asymmetry on the wave that correspond with the real energy that this wave carries,

other effects are that the spinning of a wave modulated in that way induce distributed vorticity along wave, and an helix field (as EM )

 

the proof is "simple" but it's difficult to me do that,  maybe someone with more preparation, more time, more practice with the formulation can prove the result by reformulating the wave theory including this correction of modulate function with itself in this ratio (f(x)=1/1+f(x) )

in case this would be a help to unify theories with the real world many of the brilliant minds that are debating could direct their effort in other fields where they are very necessary.

 

thoughts of a poor man,

happy solstice celebration and best wishes to all of you

 

 

 

[The Norwegian]

WHAT CAUSES SUNSPOTS?

First, I would like to apologize in advance for my English. This is a difficult topic when English is not my language. So, here we go.

Whether the cause of sunspots is established or not, we are approaching what I believe is an interesting time. My idea is that Jupiter is the main driver of the strenght of the solar cycle , and the other planets create the sunspots. Based on that theory, solar cycle 25 first of normal 2 peaks will most likely come in July/August 2023. If this not happend, my theory goes down the drain  

Does anyone have any idea about this?

[Philalethes]

37 minutes ago, The Norwegian said:

WHAT CAUSES SUNSPOTS?

First, I would like to apologize in advance for my English. This is a difficult topic when English is not my language. So, here we go.Whether the cause of sunspots is established or not, we are approaching what I believe is an interesting time.

Well, that is definitely a great question. Superficially we have a fairly good understanding of what sunspots represent in terms of magnetic field structures, i.e. parts of the magnetic field that get tangled up and start protruding out of the Solar surface relatively close to each other, something like this:

But of course, the main question is what causes that to occur, and over the decades as Solar physics has progressed there have been many attempted explanations that I've come across, and I can only provide my own understanding of it so far.

The leading explanation as far as I've gathered is that it's the differential rotation of the Solar surface (as well as down to a certain depth) that leads to the field getting twisted over time. According to Alfvén's theorem there are certain constraints on how electrically conductive fluids and their magnetic fields can move together given certain parameters; so based on my admittedly limited understanding of the physics it's the differential rotation (faster rotation near the equator, as well as differences in rotation speed at different depths) that will cause the magnetic field to get stretched out as it follows the movement of the plasma it's embedded in, something like this:

And so as the field gets tangled up due to this process you get sunspots protruding wherever they're forced up above the surface, and when the field is sufficiently complex you get the type of discontinuous behavior observed in magnetic reconnection, which is a sort of "short circuit" for the magnetic field, where the field lines energetically reconnect and convert a lot of magnetic potential energy from the tension to kinetic energy, leading to Solar flares and CMEs.

So that's it in a nutshell, but I'm sure there's a ton missing from this account, and also a ton of alternative or complementary hypotheses too, so any input from everyone who has ideas on the matter (as long as they're grounded in fact and reason, of course) is certainly welcome.

1 hour ago, The Norwegian said:

My idea is that Jupiter is the main driver of the strenght of the solar cycle , and the other planets create the sunspots. Based on that theory, solar cycle 25 first of normal 2 peaks will most likely come in July/August 2023. If this not happend, my theory goes down the drain  

Does anyone have any idea about this?

As for your hypothesis about Jupiter and the other planets, you're certainly not the first one to think there could be a connection, as one of the reasons this thread was created was because we had been discussing that and various other speculative hypotheses for a while in a bunch of different threads; and as I recall posting in one of those threads, there's this letter by Wolf (who "invented" the way we count sunspot numbers) to Carrington (who hardly needs any introduction) ~160 years ago where he suggests a similar hypothesis. You might find some of those threads if you search for them, but this is certainly the place to discuss it now, so you've come to the right place; searching quickly I couldn't find the thread where I posted that, but I found a thread by someone who was apparently very interested in the topic who posted quite a bit about it before I ever joined the forum, and I even see that you yourself posted in that thread.

That being said, it's not quite sufficient to simply say that you think that's going to happen, you should also explain why exactly you think that will happen, i.e. what exactly about Jupiter's position or whatever other factor you think is relevant that leads to your claim, and of course you also have to give explanations for some of the commonly levied criticisms against it, like why the Solar cycle seems to be ~11 years long on average while Jupiter's orbital period is ~12 years, not to mention what configurations of the other planets you think lead to activity and why, so that it can be checked against ephemerides of historical data to see if the patterns actually hold or if they're just ad hoc explanations. We certainly did discuss a lot of this at length in some of those threads, and I recall explanations ranging from planets simply serving to synchronize the Solar dynamo (which I believe is what the person in the thread I linked to above claims) to the barymetric cycles of the Solar center relative to the barycenter of the Solar system (like in this thread from just earlier this year) being brought up as relevant.

Fact is that it still remains highly speculative and has been far from proven, so you've definitely got some work cut out if you seek to prove something like that is really occurring, but I'm all ears; I have yet to see any convincing evidence for it and am skeptical, but I'm definitely very interested, and would love to be convinced as long as it remains grounded in reason and evidence.

[The Norwegian]

Yes, of course I have a reason why I believe it is so. The sun is gas. When we then know how our own moon creates tides, it is this effect that I mean "pulls out the sunspots". The reason why July/August is likely to be the first peak is because Venus passes the Earth and both planets will collectively pull out the sunspots. Its not long time to see if we get a very active July or not.

During the solar minimum a few years ago with a completely blank sun, I predicted many cases of sunspots, and I posted some of them in advance here on the forum.

[Philalethes]

29 minutes ago, The Norwegian said:

Yes, of course I have a reason why I believe it is so. The sun is gas. When we then know how our own moon creates tides, it is this effect that I mean "pulls out the sunspots". The reason why July/August is likely to be the first peak is because Venus passes the Earth and both planets will collectively pull out the sunspots. Its not long time to see if we get a very active July or not.

During the solar minimum a few years ago with a completely blank sun, I predicted many cases of sunspots, and I posted some of them in advance here on the forum.

Tidal forcing has been suggested in the past too, but there seems to be no relationship between where Jupiter is and where sunspots occur as far as I'm aware; if you've got any evidence to the contrary I'd certainly like to see it. It's also worth noting that gravitational forces themselves are dwindlingly small relative to the electromagnetic forces involved in the observed activity based on the energy associated with that activity, and as mentioned earlier in the thread tidal forces drop off with the cube of the distance rather than just the square. And since you're here talking about the gravitational forces exerted by Earth and Venus, that's even smaller.

It's certainly a very tenuous hypothesis, and from having looked at similar patterns in the past I recall having found configurations that as per such hypotheses should yield a lot of activity but don't actually do so at all. That being said I did read a paper once where a faint signal based on the passing of Mercury was detected, but it's hard to conclude anything from that alone.

For example, you'd have to explain why there's no such peak whenever Venus passes Earth during other times, including during minima, since Venus after all passes Earth every ~584 days. To just take one example, it happened around June of 2020, and there was virtually zero activity then. I've also used a program to check a lot of similar alignments in the past, and haven't found any good correlations. And you'd also have to explain exactly how Jupiter fits into the whole thing. And keep in mind that it's very easy to get attached to predictions one thinks were correct, and to disregard both incorrect ones as well as not regard false negatives (where the hypothesis says there shouldn't be activity but there is).

To put it shortly, you should be able to come up with some pattern that can easily be checked against past (and future) activity, and which also explains why there's virtually zero activity around the minima; if your explanation for a peak is only that Venus and Earth are aligning, then that alone obviously can't explain what we observe given how it happens so much more frequently than the Solar cycle itself.

From my own studies into the topic I've concluded that if planetary alignments have anything to do with the Solar cycle, a synchronization effect of the internally generated dynamo (or possibly externally generated, but that's a whole different can of worms) seems much more likely, but even then a good mechanism is still to be desired. The barymetric hypothesis is also interesting, and something I would like to explore more in the future, I know Archmonoth has looked into that quite a bit.

I hope this isn't taken as discouragement, it's only to convey that you're certainly not the first one to think of similar, but that few if any have actually managed to find any working pattern whereby planetary alignments affect Solar activity, and as such it's going to require a more complex model than just simple two-planet alignments.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Philalethes
typo

[_00_]

a wave and a selfmodulated wave

 

WRONGS. I post correct ones in other post

(with geogebra)

Edited June 26, 2023 by _00_
mistake on formulas

[The Norwegian]

My good man, it is far beyond my head to explain why it is so. Somehow it is Jupiter that determines the strength. Jupiter's orbit around the sun takes about 11 years, the same as the solar cycle! That there is a connection is obvious to me. Thus, there will be times when Venus and Earth will not produce sunspots. Instead of explaining why it happens, I put my head on the block and say when something will happen. 

I have looked a little more closely. The last 4 peaks in the solar cycle (23 and 24) came when the Earth, Venus or Mercury or a combination of these come into line between Jupiter and the Sun. Thus, I also have to move my calculation of this cycle's first peak to October/November 2023. 

Edited June 26, 2023 by The Norwegian

[Nilesh]

31 minutes ago, The Norwegian said:

same as the solar cycle!

Solar cycle = 10.2 years

32 minutes ago, The Norwegian said:

Jupiter's orbit around the sun takes about 11 years

Jupiter orbit sun = 12 earth year

[Jesterface23]

The Sun makes a rotation once every ~28 days, so take that into account. 

Also orbit info will go back to solar cycle 1, so why stop at the last 4.

[Philalethes]

3 hours ago, The Norwegian said:

My good man, it is far beyond my head to explain why it is so. Somehow it is Jupiter that determines the strength. Jupiter's orbit around the sun takes about 11 years, the same as the solar cycle! That there is a connection is obvious to me. Thus, there will be times when Venus and Earth will not produce sunspots. Instead of explaining why it happens, I put my head on the block and say when something will happen. 

I have looked a little more closely. The last 4 peaks in the solar cycle (23 and 24) came when the Earth, Venus or Mercury or a combination of these come into line between Jupiter and the Sun. Thus, I also have to move my calculation of this cycle's first peak to October/November 2023. 

I think you should read what I've written more closely. For example, I pointed out this, quoting myself verbatim:

Quote

[...] and of course you also have to give explanations for some of the commonly levied criticisms against it, like why the Solar cycle seems to be ~11 years long on average while Jupiter's orbital period is ~12 years [...]

Like I mentioned above, Wolf himself also pointed to Jupiter as possibly being a driver of the cycle for this reason, and numerous others I've seen also think there might be a connection, but so far I haven't seen any successful attempt at squaring those facts. Some try to invoke the influence of Saturn or other planets as somehow modulating the cycle to the desired length, but still I've yet to see any satisfactory mathematical model that predicts what we see.

You saying that "a connection is obvious" and that "somehow Jupiter determines the strength" sounds like a serious case of confirmation bias; it sounds like you really want that to be true and that you're arguing by starting with the conclusion, rather than being open to the very real possibility that it's not actually related at all. When the number of years are so low in both cases (11 and 12), then it wouldn't even be surprising if those numbers happen to be determined by pure chance, (e.g. even if you were satisfied with just 11 and 12 that's still a 1/6 chance, and I've rolled a six on a 6-sided die more times than I could possibly care to count in my life).

And again, as for your configuration that "you've looked a little more closely" at, I have again myself checked such configurations in past without finding any connection at all. Like I asked, how do you explain the total lack of activity when such configurations happen either near minima, or even at other times with little to no activity? It's easy to point to true positives and ignore all false positives and false negatives.

So I will once again have to repeat what I stated above: your model is going to have to be more complex and more detailed if you want it to have any chance of predicting outcomes; you keep talking about an upcoming peak too, which you first said was in July/August, and now say is in October/November, now it almost sounds like you're trying to cover your bases given how that's one third of the entire year (and we also know we're going to see increased activity in general as we continue to move towards maximum, so it's going to be very easy to misinterpret heightened activity in general with wishful thinking).

I'm definitely not impressed so far, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and hope that you realize that it's going to take a great deal of work if you want to be the first person in the centuries we've studied Solar physics to actually produce a working model for how planetary alignments might affect Solar activity, because so far the results have not been convincing at all.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

3 uren geleden, The Norwegian zei:

My good man, it is far beyond my head to explain why it is so. Somehow it is Jupiter that determines the strength. Jupiter's orbit around the sun takes about 11 years, the same as the solar cycle! That there is a connection is obvious to me. Thus, there will be times when Venus and Earth will not produce sunspots. Instead of explaining why it happens, I put my head on the block and say when something will happen. 

I have looked a little more closely. The last 4 peaks in the solar cycle (23 and 24) came when the Earth, Venus or Mercury or a combination of these come into line between Jupiter and the Sun. Thus, I also have to move my calculation of this cycle's first peak to October/November 2023. 

February 2023 had a low sunspot number vs the 10.7 flux

June has a high sunspot number vs the 10.7 flux

The difference between February and June is astonishing…

Any idea why?

[Nilesh]

2 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

The Sun makes a rotation once every ~28 days, so take that into account.

Sun one full Rotation on its Axis = 27 Earth Days. " it is synchronized with Earths moon one orbit to Earth in 27 Days. "

Due to Berry center Earth received = 27.77778 days.

4 hours ago, The Norwegian said:

my calculation of this cycle's first peak to October/November 2023. 

 solar flare M Class and X class too Starting from Aug-23 . The  25 cycle peak will start from Feb-24 will remain up to June - 24. Hope so if one scenario does not change , because we don't have its data. 

Right now flare chart showing Higher B for some time to Higher C also.   The question is Why ?

[Chyren S]

On 6/20/2023 at 12:08 PM, Bry said:

That’s funny you say we didn’t know flares were thrown in a particular direction before 2019 because it seems we still struggle to determine what (celestial coordinate?) exact direction flares eject from on the suns backside today.. lol.

When you first described associations with 

1. continental earthquakes & solar flares in hotter places and 

2. Dark energy or (perhaps gravitational or tidal) influencing underwater volcanoes or faults

I thought besides gravitational or tidal forces of spacetime manifolds, “dark energy” could be cosmic radiation.

I remember learning about some of the largest earthquake & volcanic activity being associated with enhanced cosmic radiation every galactic rotation every ~255million years or so...

 And then found an interesting article discussing how cosmic radiation could be used today to help predict when but not where earthquakes over M4.0 might occur globally in the link below:

https://www.newsweek.com/scientists-cosmic-radiation-earthquakes-1807690?amp=1

”Eddy currents within the core of the planet—which generate its magnetic field—divert charged particles of cosmic radiation. So, if a huge earthquake was associated with these flow disturbances, the magnetic field would be affected, and cause changes inside our planet.

When CREDO scientists analyzed cosmic radiation data from the Neutron Monitor Database project (collected over the last 50 years) and the Pierre Auger Observatory (collected since 2005), a clear correlation was found between earthquakes of magnitude 4 or larger, and the intensity of secondary cosmic radiation.

But this correlation is only evident when cosmic ray data shifts 15 days relative to seismic data. This suggests it could give scientists information on earthquakes well in advance.”

”

"On the other hand, we have in mind exotic scenarios such as dark matter streams, capable of affecting both the Earth as a whole in a mechanical way (seismic shocks) and generate radiation which could precede the shock and be observed with standard cosmic ray detection techniques," Homola said.“

 

**

 

I like both of these statements about how our idea of conservation of energy applies locally, yet still transfers the conservation in the form of the next energy level!(orbital altitide or magnetic reconnection, etc).

I figured this is why black holes emit photons as jets and flares instead of just annihilating the electrons and positrons.

 

 

 

 

speculating something and knowing every fine detail with accuracy is different. if you know something, you will master it. solar flare is coming to a direction or onto a target place can only be proven when you know the science behind it.

Tesla couldn't do it. probably you can do it. all the best.

[_00_]

On 6/23/2023 at 8:18 PM, _00_ said:

👍

 i have some post in a half about some of previous things, that maybe are a little chaotic in it transmission, to me least than a dozens of constants and formulas to path inconsistencies and similar thoughts as i had when child, i hope, when i have a little more time to expend, progress on it,

 

in my underpressure real world things are a distribution of energy that is density, and that it's why sometimes it's harder to explain conceptually, 

i would like, at least, illustrate with some blender animations, but...

right now a small solstice time present,

as i saying, in my real world things are wave function modulated by for itself state of minimum energy, that proportion is present all around and well know: x=1/(1+x)

(or more generally as x=1/(1±x)  )

¡in all things, specially on waves (all is)!

that is why modelled world have inconsistencies with real world, to have a more fitted approximation it's essential to reflect that fractallity to functions,

we can think that this is trivial but not, when it is modulate by itself in that proportion it have some properties, dissolving a lot of inconsistencies and appear an asymmetry on the wave that correspond with the real energy that this wave carries,

other effects are that the spinning of a wave modulated in that way induce distributed vorticity along wave, and an helix field (as EM )

 

the proof is "simple" but it's difficult to me do that,  maybe someone with more preparation, more time, more practice with the formulation can prove the result by reformulating the wave theory including this correction of modulate function with itself in this ratio (f(x)=1/1+f(x) )

in case this would be a help to unify theories with the real world many of the brilliant minds that are debating could direct their effort in other fields where they are very necessary.

 

thoughts of a poor man,

happy solstice celebration and best wishes to all of you

 

 

 

11 hours ago, _00_ said:

a wave and a selfmodulated wave

 

WRONGS. I post correct ones in other post

...

(with geogebra)

I post before some images that are incorrect, i make a mistake on moduler function,

that's the correct ones...& maybe i'm lost some for more accurate

 

Formulas: f(x) = sin(x)

Modulacion: g(x) = sin(x) (1-(1/(1/(1+sin(x))) cos(sin(x) (1+(1/(1+sin(x)))))

Edited June 26, 2023 by _00_
add maths

[_00_]

this are the 2 differentials on selfmodulation,

and in black the diference betwwen its, that is a more accurate real distribution of the energy of the wave, and indeed it fractal identity, (i think, or something so similar...)

6 hours ago, Jesterface23 said:

The Sun makes a rotation once every ~28 days, so take that into account. 

Also orbit info will go back to solar cycle 1, so why stop at the last 4.

¿earth time or sun time? ¿is it necessary some relativist adjust on time calculations due of gravitational influence on surface? 🧐

Edited June 26, 2023 by _00_

[Philalethes]

57 minutes ago, _00_ said:

¿earth time or sun time? ¿is it necessary some relativist adjust on time calculations due of gravitational influence on surface? 🧐

Even if you take GR at face value, the expected time dilation is ~67 seconds slower per year at the Solar surface, which would correspond to a difference of ~5 seconds per ~28-day rotation, so it's quite safe to say that that wouldn't have any major impact on the timing.

[_00_]

I suggest to continue barycenter debate in one of the open topic, if not all these discussions will be lost in the depths of unproven theories,

I also suggest, as unproven th, that this inertial modulation also is selfmodulated, giving as result a 2 peaks wave similar as these that i posted,

of course with resonances too (but those are other dynamic effects)

someone could post a UV emission graph along cycles? (I suspect that this type of modulation should be reflected especially at these frequencies.)

 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2023 by _00_

[_00_]

first-order limits of a self-modulated wave for increasing and decreasing proportions

Edited June 26, 2023 by _00_