The possibility of standing waves makes no sense, and there is no evidence for it. If you prefer you can substitute the term pseudoscience for cranky. If you can come up with some clear evidence to support your position that would be very helpful.
Newton's pebbles
- Thread starter nebel
- Start date
I propose that , as one of the possibilities standing waves make sense, because the pattern* left behind fits. I am thinking of the guided accretion into rings during the formation period. Standing waves, the arms in the Spirals are still sculpting the star systems in the Galaxies, where matter flows through them. can any evidence be clearer? of course it can, and I hope to hear about it, and not just ad hominem negative character analysis. Key words: Spiral Arms, multiple causes of interference standing waves, standing waves in non-material media. thank you!* A pattern that now can only be discerned by weaker Solar pulsations and the corresponding orbit spacings.
I propose there are no standing waves of gravity, magnetism or light and there is no pattern.
Are the arms of galaxies not standing waves? stationary waves in which star formation preferably occurs? was the Loran, radio navigation system in WW2 not based on standing wave nodes generated by transmitters sending synchronized electro magnetic pulses eastward? are not the Fraunhofer interference patterns cases of standing waves of light? will gravity waves not create interference patterns? is the 5 octave doubling of planetary spacings not enough of a repetitive pattern? or?
Last edited:
better, could you change your eye prescription so you can actually read the finer details discussed here? or you are scared of the para-normal? for the devil is in the details! toads, frogs do not turn into princes by trying to look down on others from below! try to take the high road. BSW, people have paid millions for embodiments of my patented , novel, left -of -center ideas, I do not need your approval to maintain a sense of self worth, and your comment's quality are only a reflection of their source.
Last edited:
No, I do not believe so. If you have information that they are please present it.
The radio waves were not standing waves.
An interference pattern is not standing waves.
I do not know. But an interference pattern is not a standing wave.
I do not know what you are talking about here. Please elaborate.
Or!
1) google galaxy density waves. "-- spiral arms do not rotate, but galaxies do--" These density waves become more circumference-like with distance from the center, at the perimeter almost circular, so are a reasonable likeness to what may have transpired in the early solar system; standing density waves determined by the eigenschwingung of that 99.9% central mass pulsation. possibility confirmed or?
2) right, the broadcasted LORAN radio waves were not standing waves, but the interference pattern was, a canceling and/or amplitude adding, amounting to a standing grid, with wave heights over fixed standing locations of the continent, then read by navigators to pinpoint their location at night or in cloud covers. standing waves generated without a material carrier, unless one still believes in the ether.
3) standing waves, plural, in locations where amplitude is amplified or cancelled. gravity waves that interfere would be very hard to detect, agreed.
4) I am talking to the pattern of doubling orbit diameters from Venus to Earth- Mars--out to Uranus, --Pluto. In resonances, a doubling in frequency corresponds to doubling in length, an octave in music notation. There are 6 doublings from from Venus to Pluto, I left that out of the count because of the Neptune intrusion.
I equate wavelength to time via "c". time as in pulsations measured in the Sun, 300 seconds, 9600 seconds. the Earth orbit as 1000 light seconds diameter.
The planet orbits are not in my opinion restrained in their places by resonances now much, but where during their creation in the period of accretion. Resonances play a great role now, many orbits of planets, moons, rings are in 1:2, 2:3 5:3 and similar orbital timing resonances. or? alway asking for corrections please.
Added Note: The solar system is part of one of the arms in a spiral galaxy. we are part of a standing wave, shining brightly. or?
Last edited:
OK, I'm done. You are trolling. You may be smart enough to use use clumsy English to make a double entendre, but I ain't buying that bs. Piss off.
[QUOTE="Dr_Toad, post: 3401969, member: 279434"OK, I'm done, ]I ain't buying that bs. Piss off.[/QUOTE]
I wish you would read, and research the veracity of some of the ideas expressed by all here, that way I could perhaps appreciate your endorsement, as it is, you're quitting the discussion is one of the good things that can happen. Your choice of words was not in vogue when I grew up, so what do you mean? are you mean?
I wish you would read, and research the veracity of some of the ideas expressed by all here, that way I could perhaps appreciate your endorsement, as it is, you're quitting the discussion is one of the good things that can happen. Your choice of words was not in vogue when I grew up, so what do you mean? are you mean?
here is some earth -related "pure" numerology for you: the year: ~ 365 days= 10 squared + 11 squared + 12 squared, or :-- 365 = 13 squared + 14 squared. or the ~28,day lunation = 1+2+4+7+14, the sum of it's divisors, or 28= 1 cubed + 3 cubed. odd?
The comparing of solar pulsations (google it, and two point source interference standing waves), and modeling these pulsations via "c'' into the distances of the planets, is more than just number math, whether you like it or not. it's physical.
Objects gas, dust in free fall around a central mass would be in a disk. A "two point source interference "pattern does create standing waves (read the google item). gravity or magnetic interference nodes could have influenced, organised the rotating mass into these harmonic resonant distance nodes as rings. what we see today is the result of that past action that happened prior to accretion into proto planets. gravity at some level might be grainier than we think.
As a yard dog. When did you grow up?
google it, and comment please, perhaps you will believe it, even if you do not like it. I have to believe many things I don't like, odd was referring to 1 and 3 cubed all odd.
exchemist
Valued Senior Member
I thought I would have a look at this relationship: x² + (x +1)² + (x+2)² = (x+3)² + (x+4)². Turns out it simplifies to x² -8x -20=0, which has 2 roots, 10 and (rather trivially) -2, the latter giving a sum of 5, rather than 365. But wait, do you realise 5 is number of digits on your hands and feet, not to mention the number of working days of the week?!
Google what?
" interference pattern from two point sources" the sun has and likely had many such pulsating sources. " 5 minute and 160 minute solar pulsation" (5 light minutes are ~.3 AU, the minimum planetary distance; 160 light minutes are ~9.6 AU the maximum planetary distance upto Pluto. Never take take a theory lightly that has the speed of light as a factor. it might be heavy, weighty.
From wiki:
The 160-minute solar cycle was an apparent periodic oscillation in the solar surface which was observed in a number of early sets of data collected for helioseismology.
The presence of a 160 minute cycle in the Sun is not substantiated by contemporary solar observations, and the historical signal is considered by mainstream scientists to occur as the redistribution of power from the diurnal cycle as a result of the observation window and atmospheric extinction.
Some cyclical pulsation of the sun will not magically cause planets to form. You are still just doing numerology which is just bogus crap.
The 160-minute solar cycle was an apparent periodic oscillation in the solar surface which was observed in a number of early sets of data collected for helioseismology.
The presence of a 160 minute cycle in the Sun is not substantiated by contemporary solar observations, and the historical signal is considered by mainstream scientists to occur as the redistribution of power from the diurnal cycle as a result of the observation window and atmospheric extinction.
Some cyclical pulsation of the sun will not magically cause planets to form. You are still just doing numerology which is just bogus crap.
I did not say magically, but referred to the demonstrations in the other google source source: " Interference patterns from two point sources." Planets are formed through gravity, but where that happens can be influenced by nodes that are the results of interference patterns from pulsation sources in their central stars, , i think was possible.