Doing the Numbers on No. 1

[nebel]

Around what was the standing wave , standing .

The standing wave patterns are circular, are seen in the ALMA images around stars, dealt here in the posts showing dripping patterns on water. circular chladni formations.
possibly even created by a rebounding in a collapsing molecular cloud.

that it all settled to give these related numbers, 1, 10, 1000, 1/10 000, is another matter.

 

[river]

The standing wave patterns are circular, are seen in the ALMA images around stars, dealt here in the posts showing dripping patterns on water. circular chladni formations.
possibly even created by a rebounding in a collapsing molecular cloud.

that it all settled to give these related numbers, 1, 10, 1000, 1/10 000, is another matter.

So the standing wave is around a physical object , a star .

 

[nebel]

So the standing wave is around a physical object , a star .

Yes, why not, circular waves surround drops that fall on water surfaces, with 2 drop locations you get an interference pattern. spiral arms that curve away from a galactic center are standing waves. An echo might be a circular pressure wave that is rebounding, reverberating. it is the norm rather than the exception. stars have a lot of resonances, gravitational and magnetic. plasma waves, transporting energy.

if spacetime had a memory, the planets over billions of years would carve grooves into the fabric of the warped field.
That we are stuck in groove 10 with a 1000 second light second diameter, a 10 m/sec^2 gravity acceleration, . a 10 meter water equivalent of our atmosphere, a 1/10 000 of "c" orbital velocity, 10 decimeter ! second pendulum swing, is just to helpus count with our ten digits.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
So the standing wave is around a physical object , a star .

Yes, why not, circular waves surround drops that fall on water surfaces, with 2 drop locations you get an interference pattern. spiral arms that curve away from a galactic center are standing waves. An echo might be a circular pressure wave that is rebounding, reverberating. it is the norm rather than the exception. stars have a lot of resonances, gravitational and magnetic. plasma waves, transporting energy.

if spacetime had a memory, the planets over billions of years would carve grooves into the fabric of the warped field.
That we are stuck in groove 10 with a 1000 second light second diameter, a 10 m/sec^2 gravity acceleration, . a 10 meter water equivalent of our atmosphere, a 1/10 000 of "c" orbital velocity, 10 decimeter ! second pendulum swing, is just to helpus count with our ten digits.

Highlighted

This is not a Standing Wave to me . A Standing Wave to me is a wave , that Focuses Around an Object and Stays there . Hence This Standing Wave does Not Move Away nor Towards the Star , but Stays put ; Around the Star .

In my theory the standing wave forms around a mass . Undulating . Amorphis then . But standing nevertheless .

 

[nebel]

This is not a Standing Wave to me .

These standing waves of the present theory could be interference patterns from multiple resonators in the star, from reverberations during the chaotic collapse of the molecular cloud, also Eigenschwingungen of the system.
matter would collect in the "troughs" of such intersections. or create pressure waves as in the near stationary spital arms. and such arms winding ever tighter to form torusses.

It all added up to many tens here. not just tentatively. 1/ 10 000 c for Vo. 10 in bode, 10 digits, 10 00 lc seconds orbit diameter, 10 msc^2 surface gravity. 10m H2O atmospheric pressure.

 

[river]

Highlighted

This is not a Standing Wave to me . A Standing Wave to me is a wave , that Focuses Around an Object and Stays there . Hence This Standing Wave does Not Move Away nor Towards the Star , but Stays put ; Around the Star .

These standing waves of the present theory could be interference patterns from multiple resonators in the star, from reverberations during the chaotic collapse of the molecular cloud, also Eigenschwingungen of the system.
matter would collect in the "troughs" of such intersections. or create pressure waves as in the near stationary spital arms. and such arms winding ever tighter to form torusses.

It all added up to many tens here. not just tentatively. 1/ 10 000 c for Vo. 10 in bode, 10 digits, 10 00 lc seconds orbit diameter, 10 msc^2 surface gravity. 10m H2O atmospheric pressure.

Highlighted

They could be . But what would capture all these patterns and many of them . Before the collapse ?

A Standing Wave is Not About Any " Collapse " of Anything . A Standing Wave is About the Ability to Focus Energy , Wave Energy , On a Physical Thing . That Is A Standing Wave .

 

[nebel]

A Standing Wave is About the Ability to Focus Energy , Wave Energy , On a Physical Thing . That Is A Standing Wave .

I think you have that wrong. A standing wave is stationary. It was one problem of the first atomic bomb team to avoid a standing wave in the implosion. It is a wave that is moving inward that focussed the pressure in the core high enough for fission.
By contrast possible standing waves corralled the matter that did not join the sun in the center bit went on to form planets.
standing waves assured, that matter did not focus on the sun but kept their right, doubling distances.
and that how we got our No. 10 in the bode sequence, and a 1000 light econg orbit diameter.

 

[river]

river said: ↑
A Standing Wave is About the Ability to Focus Energy , Wave Energy , On a Physical Thing . That Is A Standing Wave

I think you have that wrong. A standing wave is stationary. It was one problem of the first atomic bomb team to avoid a standing wave in the implosion. It is a wave that is moving inward that focussed the pressure in the core high enough for fission.
By contrast possible standing waves corralled the matter that did not join the sun in the center bit went on to form planets.
standing waves assured, that matter did not focus on the sun but kept their right, doubling distances.
and that how we got our No. 10 in the bode sequence, and a 1000 light econg orbit diameter.

Highlighted

Agreed

Hence it doesn't " propagate " as in gravity waves .

2nd Highlight .

Never heard of this . Your link ? . Fission was not about inward pressure , but expansive explosion of fission almost instantaneously . Standing wave having nothing to do with fission at all .

 

[nebel]

Fission was not about inward pressure

Oppenheimer & Co. had to create great and even pressure
inward to get fission, even fusion. Do not even Novae start with in inward pressure?

Hence it doesn't " propagate " as in gravity waves .

all waves, even light travelling at "c" when coming from different directions will create an interference pattern. It would be a surprise if Gravity waves are an exception.

When I surfed in Waikiki, there were standing waves in one local, where kids tobogganed on the stationary water slopes, In many places waves come in, but also go out, are reflected away, reflected energy lifting and bottoming water in places determined by the wave length. the timing of the waves creates the rows, the doubling of distances.
it is such pattern that might have given us the No. 10 among the planets. No 1 to be discovered as inhabited. with a 1/10 000 of "c" Ov, a 10 00 light second orbit diameter. a 10 --

 

[river]

↑

Fission was not about inward pressure

Oppenheimer & Co. had to create great and even pressure
inward to get fission, even fusion. Do not even Novae start with in inward pressure?

Fusion , not fission .

Nova by gravity . Nova is about inbalance of energies within the star .

 

[nebel]

Fusion , not fission .
Nova by gravity

Oppenheimer, Teller replicated nature, fusion by pressure.
We have our elements through pressure. Some pressures so high, that only colliding (or standing) shock waves can provide them.
that is how we came to have the numbers on No.1. count it on your fingers. count yourself to be lucky.
my suggestion: always look at the Theme, the OP before answering and then not going off topic.

 

[river]

Oppenheimer, Teller replicated nature, fusion by pressure.
We have our elements through pressure. Some pressures so high, that only colliding (or standing) shock waves can provide them.
that is how we came to have the numbers on No.1. count it on your fingers. count yourself to be lucky.
my suggestion: always look at the Theme, the OP before answering and then not going off topic.

I see .

Fusion in our star , sun , is different . Which is about temperature and pressure .

 

[nebel]

Fusion in our star , sun , is different . Which is about temperature and pressure .

our stars ~ 500 000 years older than the planet No. 1., 10 in bode.
Laws here and there are not different. Pressure is actually temperature, the speed at which particles collide.
but we have convection cells. magnetic flows, oscillations in the sun, 5 minutes, 160 minutes, 11 years all linking planet orbits to the star.
knowing , understanding the numbers goes a long way to a start.

 

[nebel]

just back to N.1 with life:
live show on the 26, lunar eclipse over the Pacific, terrific, made possible by the unique ~I:I ratio of apparent moon and sun apparent size as seen from the surface. for solar eclipses at least.

 

[nebel]

Don't forget, human symbolic numbers are purely arbitrary human inventions. The universe does not recognize symbolic numbers, it recognizes "values" and "orderly (mathematical) functions".

Working on the "Velocities Cancel" (Vo:Vr) x R alternative theory formula, stumbled upon this additional "1,10,100" and km based ratio relationships:

Vo of No.1, the Earth, = 30 000 m/sec 1/10 000 of "c" as already noted. : by Vr 467 m/sec gives a ratio of 1/ 64.

64 is 1/100 of the Earth radius of ~6 400 km.

nature might not recognize the km, but it reveals its ratios, independently.

another 10 based ratio, besides Bode and digits, and all the others listed.

 

[Write4U]

nature might not recognize the km, but it reveals its ratios, independently.

I agree. Values and ratios between values.

Rationality of the Universe

In other words, unless the primary Laws of Thought were Laws of Things, our thought would be doomed by its very nature to misapprehend the nature of things. – H. W. B Joseph, An Introduction to Logic, p. 13.

Origins of Reality as Subject to Reason

The notion that the universe is rational is rooted in the idea that the universe possesses inherent order, identity, lawfulness, and that these are what make the universe knowable to a conscious rational being. These are what make the practice of science possible.

Reason and science (its application), then, are possible because the laws of identity and order exist and are out there in the universe for man to discover. The laws of nature are not known in advance (fallacy of prior certainty) but must be discovered by a careful inner-regulated process of thought (rational epistemology) which must at its axiomatic level first grasp as most fundamental the basic universal axiomatic truths of being (ontology or metaphysics). .......more

https://bioperipatetic.com/rationality-of-the-universe/

I was tempted to propose that the universe is rational, but that may be somewhat misleading, based on this comparison;

Logic and rationality

As the study of argument is of clear importance to the reasons that we hold things to be true, logic is of essential importance to rationality. Arguments may be logical if they are "conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity",[1] while they are rational according to the broader requirement that they are based on reason and knowledge.

Logic and rationality have each been taken as fundamental concepts in philosophy. They are not one of the same thing.

Philosophical rationalism in its most extreme form is the doctrine that knowledge can ultimately be founded on pure reason, while logicism is the doctrine that mathematical concepts, among others are reducible to pure logic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic_and_rationality#

Being that knowledge and reasoning imply thought, I prefer to use Logic as it describes an inherent guiding potential, that can be known and reasoned by humans, but exists independent of any observation, i.e. Bohmian Mechanics and the Implicate Order.

 

[nebel]

----exists independent of any observation,

that might have a certain appeal, but this thread is based on crude numbers,
the many ones, tens and multiples that show up in ratios that apply only to the 1st planet we know to have life,
10 in the Bode sequence, 10 digits, 1/10 000 the speed of light as orbital velocity, c ,....... ratios that stand by themselves, even before humans started thinking about them.

 

[Beer w/Straw]

Ten is how many fingers I have.

 

[sideshowbob]

Ten is how many fingers I have.

Me too! Coincidence?

 

[nebel]

Ten is how many fingers I have.

Me too! Coincidence?

THAT IS PROFOUND. here is another Earth/moon trivia I just found:
From the "cancelling Orbital/ Rotating velocity" thread,
Moon spin speed, .oo4687 km/sec
Earth spin speed, .463 km/sec
a natural ratio of 1:100