Recent content by ioannisakousoulakos

Sorry , I know that is considered to be rude but I had no such intension .

A . According to the Chinese CAS , my data of guessing is aligned to their predictions . https://arxiv.org/html/2206.06693v1 and https://et.shao.ac.cn/ Of course one can tell that NASA predicts 65% of all G stars to be having one exoplanet at least yet these kind of numbers are unrealistic ...

Let's play a little LEGO game. According to the size and the shape of the Milky Way, one would need 67 billion cubes with a 5 light-years edge to fill its space. We exclude the central bulge-located cubes since the conditions inside it are not ideal for life evolving; what remains is an...

α_star / α_Sun = (M_star / M_Sun) · (R_Sun / R_star)² = 0.726 / (0.707)² = 0.726 / 0.4998 = 1.4524 α_star = 1.4524 × 274.0 = 397.96 m/s² Observed (log g = 4.60): 10⁴·⁶⁰ cm/s² = 398.1 m/s² Agreement: 99.96% Luminosity: Only 23.2% of the Sun's output. Temperature: About 4770 K, compared to...

This is right , I messed the Newtonian with my own formulas . My sovereign equation for surface gravity is: α = K · Ξ · 𝒩 / (4πR²) The radius squared is in the denominator. So the ratio to Earth is: α_b / α_Earth = (M_b / M_Earth) / (R_b / R_Earth)² = 1.19 / (1.06)² = 1.19 / 1.1236 = 1.059...

G x 1.19 = 11,6739 m/s2 , yes it's one not substantial difference that can be compatible with human life in the long term , if this is what you mean same as earth . Mars per example is a no no for extended stays

Good evening , very interesting . I dropped the data into my Model for predictions and the results are as it follows . Star mass ( HD 137010 ) = 0.7215 M☉ , planet mass (HD 137010b) = 1.19 M_Earth ( our prediction ) , orbital velocity = 26.97 km/s ( prediction matches observation by 99,99 % )

A debate has started where the accelerometers when stacic on the ground produce real acceleration towards the surface or propper acceleration (α) / free falling ( Geodesic ) . Lets figure out what the GR says about all this . Sir I 100% agree with you and maybe I sould differentiate the term...

It is movement on spacetime that reffers to the Time field , the geocoordinates remain the same

Of course so you dont move in space in spacetime

Now we are not being very logical, are we? Do you imply axiomatically that the misreading and misinterpretation of an accelerometer should be taken as a literal, physical value? If so, where is the expansion of the Earth? Because unless I am mistaken, the entire geological and scientific...

When you say 'the ground doesn't have a geodesic because it experiences proper acceleration,' you are playing a semantics game. Spacetime curvature around a static mass is stationary. The Earth’s surface is not expanding, it is not moving, and its coordinate acceleration through space is exactly...

I Think you might confusing the reading of a device (proper acceleration) with actual physical motion through space (coordinate acceleration). When the accerelometer stands on the ground is a subject of the grounds Geodesic so all it does is to show inverted the G force . An accelerometer on...

No , according to GR and at the extent I am able to understand , there is no upward acceleration from the ground . The moment you contact the ground you are part of its gravitational system therefor your Geodesic is absorbed from the grounds Geodesic and replaced by it .If you jump up with...