Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomes (post #91 extract)
I practice science and expect to be judged on a scientific basis.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomes (post #201 extract)
Taking stock of where we are at
4. The theory predicts that harmonically related standing waves of many frequencies are important but that extremely strong standing waves exist at certain scales which are related by scale ratios of the order of 10^4.5 and these scale ratios are observed between the sequence of distance scales: Hubble scale, galaxies, stars, planets, moons, x, y, z, atoms, nucleons, (quarks?), where x and y are largely unobserved and z is found as cells and interstellar dust. Secondary peaks are predicted that explain the size splits in some types of structures, such as galaxies and companion galaxies, gas giant planets and terrestrial planets. No other theory accounts for why the universe has these vastly separated scales and sub-scales, so this can be said to be the exclusive domain of harmonics theory. It answers some interesting questions that have not been often asked.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid (post #213)
Would you please expand on the "Hubble scale, galaxies, stars, planets, moons" scales please?
Specifically, if the galaxy one is ~0.9 Mpc, then the "stars" scale would be ~30 pc, the "planets" one ~200 au, and the "moons" scale ~100 Earth radii.
Perhaps my arithmetic is wrong? Or I misunderstood how the HT scaling works?
In any case, what do these distance scales refer to, when related to objects whose names they seem to share (galaxies, stars, planets, moons)?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomes (post #214 extract)
The Hubble scale is best characterised by the Hubble constant interpreted as a distance which is c/H = 13.7*10^9 light years.
There are several galaxy scales, ~2.5 MLY and ~0.18 MLY for dwarf galaxies.
For stars the main periodicities are 4.44, 8.88, 11.1, 11.86 LY.
For gas giant planets ~10 AU and for terrestrial planets ~0.36 AU.
For Moons, there is a 0.0012 AU periodicity applicable to the larger moons(I will post on this separately).
[...]
0.4 MLY cf obs. 2.5, 0.18
11 LY cf obs. 4.4 to 11.8
21 AU cf obs. 0.36 to 10
.0006 AU cf obs. .0012
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid (post #219 extract)
How many objects are in the "obs." input datasets for each of these?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomer (post #225 extract)
The Hubble scale is based on only 1 observation
The galaxy scale is also very limited due to the distance scale problem and resulted from our discussion. The 0.18 MLY is supposed to represent the LMC and SMC distance from galaxy centre.
The stellar scale is based on dozens of stars, and also accords with common cycles.
The planetary scale is a sample of 9 (although one of these got demoted since).
The lunar scale is based on ~100. The one given is based on a proportion of these being the more massive moons which are generally closer (the opposite with moons to with planets). If you look at the large moons in the solar system, you will see about three each at 0.00125 and 0.0025 AU from their primaries.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomer (post #238 extract)
I don't know exactly how this match with the stellar types or even of the old OBAFGKMR... etc is still used. But I would expect that dividing stars by these classes would show different periods dominate in each class (or group of classes if insufficient data in each one).
[...]
I just did a quick look at Hipparchus [sic] to see how far out they went and how many stars. I got a shock as they say over 100,000 stars to .001" accuracy.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomes (post #269 extract)
Because I didn't have much data on galaxy and irregular galaxy distances (and what I had used was found to be rather old and in error) I had a look for some of the nearest ones, ending up in wikipedia. There are 110 galaxies listed, and taking the distance of the other 109 from ours, [...]
|
One of the purposes of this post is to challenge the statement made in post #91, quoted at the top.
rtomes chose to present ATM ideas concerning astronomy and cosmology, here in BAUT, an internet discussion forum whose scope is astronomy and space science, and which is avowedly scientific in its approach*.
Per what
rtomes has presented here, in this thread, HT's scope includes all of astronomy and cosmology.
Yet the derived astronomical results (beyond the solar system)
rtomes cites to support the ATM idea presented here do not come from primary sources (published papers), but wikipedia, an old copy of Nortons, and so on. Further, the methods used to estimate the key properties of stars and galaxies, used to support the ATM ideas (relative distances, in particular) are not (apparently) even investigated, much less factored in to HT analyses.
I am unfamiliar with this kind of sloppy work being called 'science', at least in the modern fields of astronomy and cosmology. Perhaps there are two, very different, views on what constitutes science? Perhaps we should spend the remaining few days in the life of this thread establishing common understanding of the basics of astronomy and cosmology, as sciences?
*
In the relevant sections