0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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

and looks like it is so

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).

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).

(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.

Look attentively what I mean.

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.

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

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

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).newbielink:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerobraking [nonactive]

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

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).

Some of my assumptions about the nature 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.

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?

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.

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