[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

MODERATOR WARNING:
THIS POST AND OTHERS BY THE SAME POSTER APPEAR TO BE EDUCATIONAL IN NATURE, HOWEVER THEY CONTAIN SERIOUS ERRORS AND SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES.


Formation of continents.

Take a close look at the animation of two huge, diametrically opposed formations on the surface of the earth’s core. They cannot but be directly related to the formation of continents. They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east. Compare with the official model for the formation of continents. These huge structures are contrary to the official model of the formation of continents.


Name of the source article about Earth Blobs: The Unsolved Mystery of the EarthBlobs

The Cordillera – the Andes, the Iranian highlands – the Himalayas – are also two huge formations of a similar shape, also diametrically opposed to each other. Both are displaced to the east of two huge formations of the Earth’s core (HFEC). Cordillera – The Andes are displaced further from their HFEC and are more split. Iranian Highlands – The Himalayas are closer to their HFEC, and are strongly displaced to the north.



New model of the Universe.

From the above, we can conclude that before the moment of the so-called “Big Bang” in the Universe there was a certain material sphere with a diameter of about 20 thousand km, the substance in which was in the stage of the limit of density (the state of singularity). Let’s call this sphere ProtoEarth.



As a result of certain processes at the Proto-Earth’s poles two PreContinents were gradually formed – PreAmerica (North America, South America and Antarctica) and PreEurasia (Africa, Eurasia and Australia), in the centers of which the Sun and the Moon were gradually formed. Parallel to this, water was formed in a wide strip of the proto-Earth’s equator as a result of certain processes. At a certain moment, a critical mass difference accumulated at the poles, the equilibrium of the system was violated, the separation of the Sun and the Moon began, the proto-Earth’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.


(a huge trail of clearly cosmic origin between South America and Antarctica, animation of the trajectory of a solar eclipse shadow and a schematic drawing)

A few more arguments in favor of this model of the Universe:

- The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
- The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).
- Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
- Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.


(schematic comparison of the official and new model of the Universe; ProtoEarth, Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars and common center of masses between Earth and Sun)

Thus, it is very similar to the fact that the Universe looks approximately like on the Tycho Brahe's model of the Universe, only with the correction for the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass. The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the ProtoEarth's mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the Universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.



In all this, a correct understanding of the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around a common center of mass is very important. The ratio of diameters is approximately the same as in the animation (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).



Addition.

The rotation of Venus around the Sun is very similar to the rotation of the Moon around the Earth, except for the direction of rotation. That is, Venus is not always facing the Sun with one side, but in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side. As you can see from the quote above, in the official model of the solar system there is no explanation for such an orbital phenomenon of Venus, because it can in no way be a coincidence or the result of the tidal interaction of the Earth and Venus (at least with the official parameters of the solar system).

The paradox here most likely lies in the misunderstanding of the reference point (coordinate system). When calculating the orbital rotation period of the planet (in this case, Venus), the immobility of the Sun and the rotation of the Earth around it are taken into account, and therefore the paradox of the mismatch of the orbital and axial rotation periods of Venus (225 and 243 days) and the fact that “in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus faces the Earth with the same side.”

The answer to this paradox, most likely, is that it is not the Earth that revolves around the Sun, but the Earth and the Sun revolve around a common center of mass, and then the officially paradoxical coincidence of the orbital and axial periods of Venus’s rotation becomes quite natural. But since the convergence of the Earth and Venus occurs approximately once every one and a half years, the orbital period of Venus is 584 days (the synodic period of Venus), and the axial period relative to the Earth is 146 days (that is, exactly four times less). This is difficult for a spatial representation (especially considering the massive brainwashing with the official model of the solar system), but when the Earth and the Sun rotate around a common center of mass, this is quite possible, does not contradict visual observations of the movement of the planets and the Sun in the sky, and most importantly, this explains the fact that in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.


Two animations for better spatial presentation. On the second – the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

[Bored chemist]

Wow!
Someone found a way to make the flat earthers look sensible.

[Kryptid]

The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the ProtoEarth's mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the Universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.

If that was true, then all of the spacecraft that we have sent to other planets would have either crashed or whizzed past their destinations. We have to program their actions into them in advance because we are not controlling them remotely. That programming assumes the distances measured using conventional physics. The fact that any of them arrived at their destinations means that the conventional distances must be correct. Even Venus and Mars are several light-minutes away.

If the Universe was only 1 light-minute across, both of the Voyager probes would have crashed into the edge of the Universe very early in their mission and thus stopped sending signals. They are traveling at velocities of 15-17 kilometers per second, so they would cover a distance of 1 light-minute in less than 14 days. And that assumes that they started on one side of the Universe and crossed to the other side. The time would only be half that if the Earth is at the center of the Universe. The fact that the Voyager probes spent many years sending us data proves your idea wrong.

And you can't argue that we have their velocities wrong by orders of magnitude, because:

(1) Even the escape velocity of Earth is about 11 kilometers per second, so they absolutely cannot be moving any more slowly than that. Even at 11 km/s, 1 light-minute is covered in less than 19 days.
(2) Basic physics allows us the calculate the velocity of the probes based on the rocket equations.
(3) Redshift from signals sent by the probes would further confirm their velocities.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

If that was true, then all of the spacecraft that we have sent to other planets would have either crashed or whizzed past their destinations. We have to program their actions into them in advance because we are not controlling them remotely. That programming assumes the distances measured using conventional physics. The fact that any of them arrived at their destinations means that the conventional distances must be correct.

All celestial, orbital, trigonometrical, mathematical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and velocity - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and velocities).
Thank you for not removing my two topics from your forum, and I beg you to move them to the "New Theories" section, please.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Even the escape velocity of Earth is about 11 kilometers per second, so they absolutely cannot be moving any more slowly than that.

The action of the earth's gravity extends over a long distance in space (at least to the Moon). As I already explained in the previous message, there may be distortions in determining the actual velocity of spacecraft. That is, the calculated telemetry (for example, velocity) may differ from the actual one - this is quite possible. Distortions in the determination of velocity lead to distortions in the determination of the actual distances and sizes of space objects (for example, planets).

[Kryptid]

and looks like it is so

You have demonstrated no such thing.

All celestial, orbital, trigonometrical, mathematical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and velocity - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and velocities).

If there is any compelling evidence for any such mathematical errors, please post them. So far, you've got nothing.

The action of the earth's gravity extends over a long distance in space (at least to the Moon).

It extends infinitely, but falls off in strength with the square of the distance.

As I already explained in the previous message, there may be distortions in determining the actual velocity of spacecraft. That is, the calculated telemetry (for example, velocity) may differ from the actual one - this is quite possible. Distortions in the determination of velocity lead to distortions in the determination of the actual distances and sizes of space objects (for example, planets).

Which is something I refuted here:

(1) Even the escape velocity of Earth is about 11 kilometers per second, so they absolutely cannot be moving any more slowly than that. Even at 11 km/s, 1 light-minute is covered in less than 19 days.
(2) Basic physics allows us the calculate the velocity of the probes based on the rocket equations.
(3) Redshift from signals sent by the probes would further confirm their velocities.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

One assumption. Please do not take it as ignorance, because it is not unreasonable.
I suppose that redshift of the spectrum is an indicator (consequence) of the influence of aetheral resistance on light, it is just misinterpreted. I think that the Tired Light hypothesis is correct interpretation of the spectrum redshift.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

And one more not unreasonable observation that applies to this topic.
Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given the fact that the camera is clearly focused on the Sun (the surface structure is clearly visible), and the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?This is also because the Moon has no atmosphere, but with a distance difference of 400 times and a clear focus on the Sun's surface, the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

[Bored chemist]

Look attentively what I mean.

We tried.
You don't seem to have supplied any evidence.


Should we wait?

One assumption. Please do not take it as ignorance, because it is not unreasonable.
I suppose that redshift of the spectrum is an indicator (consequence) of the influence of aetheral resistance on light, it is just misinterpreted. I think that the Tired Light hypothesis is correct interpretation of the spectrum redshift.

Well...
"I think that the Tired Light hypothesis is correct interpretation of the spectrum redshift..."

The evidence (and, by that, I mean the universe), disagrees.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light#Specific_falsified_models

 

[Kryptid]

One assumption. Please do not take it as ignorance, because it is not unreasonable.

What is the evidence that such redshift is caused by the aether? Why have efforts to detect the aether come up empty?

the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

How about some evidence instead of assumptions? Science depends upon evidence. You can create a practically unlimited number of models about the Universe that are internally consistent when you ignore the need for evidence.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Even the escape velocity of Earth is about 11 kilometers per second, so they absolutely cannot be moving any more slowly than that. Even at 11 km/s, 1 light-minute is covered in less than 19 days.

Almost all the fuel is spent on acceleration (reaching the second cosmic speed of 11 km/s). The remaining amount of fuel is not sufficient for usual braking, so a very durable in time aerobraking is used. Thus, acceleration - several hours (about 8 ) , flight to Mars - several hours (about 8 ) , deceleration near Mars - several months (about 6-7).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking

[alancalverd]

This is some of the best-researched poppycock I have read in a very long time.

[Kryptid]

Almost all the fuel is spent on acceleration (reaching the second cosmic speed of 11 km/s). The remaining amount of fuel is not sufficient for usual braking, so a very durable in time aerobraking is used. Thus, acceleration - several hours (about 8 ) , flight to Mars - several hours (about 8 ) , deceleration near Mars - several months (about 6-7).
newbielink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking [nonactive]

And what does that have to do with the Voyager probes?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

And what does that have to do with the Voyager probes?

Nothing. Sorry. Wrong suggestion. My mistake.
Just some final thoughts and that's all.

Some of my assumptions about the nature of the aether.
Aether - is a homogeneous medium of the highest order - a set (gas - aetherian subset of the first order; water - aetherian subset of the second order). Such specificity of the ether = stiff medium. Besides, official point of view assumes the absence of any resistance for light from outer space medium. Zero resistance for light (one photon) means infinite lifetime of one photon. No physical parameter can have zero or infinite value. In other words - any physical parameter with zero or infinite value - is a scientific nonsense.

My assumptions according probable distortions in official cosmic calculations.
All celestial, orbital, trigonometrical, mathematical calculations may have (and looks like it is so) one specific feature. They all relatively correct. Look attentively what I mean. Such basic parameters as: distance, size and velocity - they are highly interconnected and directly interdependent. Only one coefficient in calculations directly affects the change in these three parameters, in one direction or another. The mathematical concept may be correct, but the scale of the official model of the Universe is greatly oversized, that is, space velocities, distances and sizes are greatly oversized. But this does not affect the proportions of the orbits in any way. Therefore, even though the scale is greatly oversized, spacecrafts can fly (and they do) in the space of the Solar System. Proportions are correct, scale is wrong, calculations are relatively correct (just because of one incorrect coefficient* in calculations, which directly affects to the calculated cosmic: distances, sizes and velocities).

* that incorrect coefficient may be the gravitational constant.
"The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy." (Wikipedia)

[Kryptid]

Some of my assumptions about the nature of the aether.

Speaking of the aether:

Why have efforts to detect the aether come up empty?

Besides, official point of view assumes the absence of any resistance for light from outer space medium. Zero resistance for light (one photon) means infinite lifetime of one photon. No physical parameter can have zero or infinite value. In other words - any physical parameter with zero or infinite value - is a scientific nonsense.

Please demonstrate that this is "scientific nonsense". To the best of our scientific knowledge, electrons have an infinite lifetime, for example. Since there are no known electrically-charged particles less massive than an electron, conservation of electric charge means that they can't decay. The electric charge on a neutrino or neutron is zero, another refutation of your claim that nothing can be zero or infinite.

If space had any significant drag, then our calculations for the movement of spacecraft would end up wrong and thus we would know about it.

[evan_au]

Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given ...the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?

It has to do with the diameter of the telescope, the resolution of the imager, and the distance to the Moon & Sun.
- SDO is in geosynchronous orbit around the Earth, so the Moon is about 300,000km away±10%, and the Sun is about 150 million km away±1%
- From photos of the orbiter, it looks like the telescope has a diameter of about 300mm (I couldn't find a written figure)
- The shortest wavelength it can observe is 9.4nm
- So the diffraction-limited resolution is 0.01 arc-seconds for the shortest UV wavelength (and worse for longer wavelengths)
- The imager is 4k x 4k pixels, covering a width of about 40 arc-seconds, so the imager resolution is also around 0.01 arc-seconds
- The disk of the Sun is 32 arc-seconds across, from the Earth's distance
- The disk of the Moon is also 32 arc-seconds across, from the Earth's distance
- So a telescope focused on the Sun will have a fuzziness of 1 pixel when viewing the Sun
- So a telescope focused on the Sun will have a fuzziness of 1 pixel when viewing the Moon
- So the image of the Moon is as sharp as the image of the Sun, even though the telescope is focused on the Sun

In practice, astronomical telescopes are focused "at infinity", which works well for both planets and stars.
- Even though the planet:star ratio of distances is even more extreme than the Moon:Sun distance

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Dynamics_Observatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction-limited_system#/media/File:Diffraction_limit_diameter_vs_angular_resolution.svg

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Please do not take this as offtopic, because it has to do with the size and the structure of the Universe. Wherever I asked, no one has an explanation for the contradictions that I noticed in the photographs of the SOHO and STEREO spacecraft.

1) Why there is no Moon near the Earth on the STEREOs photos? Considering that Mercury is clearly visible in the same photos, the Moon should be seen at least as a bright bulge on the side of the Earth. The Moon cannot completely merge with the Earth into one round point. Diameters for better representation of ratios: Mercury - 4.8; Moon - 3.5; Earth - 12.7.



There is a Moon near the Earth on MESSENGERs photos, but no Moon near the Earth on STEREOs photos.



2) It is comet NEOWISE on both STEREOs and SOHOs photos. Here is the article with confirmation of this fact: The tale of a comet's tail http://www.stce.be/news/489/welcome.html But this is impossible considering the SOHOs and STEREOs fields of view.

[Kryptid]

I'm not dealing with that until you've addressed my existing points.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

If space had any significant drag, then our calculations for the movement of spacecraft would end up wrong and thus we would know about it.

The 'second cosmic velocity' is the so-called escape velocity from the Earth: 11.2 kilometers per second. MRO began orbital insertion by approaching Mars on March 10, 2006, and passing above its southern hemisphere at an altitude of 370–400 kilometers (230–250 mi). All six of MRO's main engines burned for 27 minutes to slow the probe from 2.9 to 1.900 kilometers per second.
How could MRO have lost 11.2-2.9 = 8.3 km/s of velocity during flight through space with zero resistance?

[Kryptid]

How could MRO have lost 11.2-2.9 = 8.3 km/s of velocity during flight through space with zero resistance?

The gravitational field of the Earth (and possibly the Sun) no doubt had an impact on that. The escape velocity of the Earth is 11.2 km/s right at Earth's surface, but goes down the further away you get from it. So it need not be travelling at 11.2 km/s as it left Earth's vicinity. But here's the most important point: if the MRO had slowed down significantly more than expected due to space resistance (and, by consequence, every other thing we've put into space) then the space agencies of the world would have known about it ever since the space program started. Then it would be a fact entered into our astronomy textbooks.