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.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).
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).
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.We tried.
One assumption. Please do not take it as ignorance, because it is not unreasonable.Well...
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).
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?Nothing. Sorry. Wrong suggestion. My mistake.
My assumptions according probable distortions in official cosmic calculations.* that incorrect coefficient may be the gravitational constant.
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?It has to do with the diameter of the telescope, the resolution of the imager, and the distance to the Moon & Sun.
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?
It was a sungrazing comet of the type known as a Kreutz sungrazer.NASA STEREO, SOHO – Comet, October 1, 2011
Again, I'm not addressing that right now. I'm only focusing on my initial objections.The above facts about a comet hitting the Sun clearly give an immediate understanding of the fallacy of the main official parameters of space such as: distances, sizes and velocities. I suspect that this is due to the error of one important calculation coefficient - the gravitational constant.
The above facts about a comet hitting the Sun clearly give an immediate understanding of the fallacy of the main official parameters of space such as: distances, sizes and velocities.
I suspect that this is due to the error of one important calculation coefficient - the gravitational constant.
how big should a comet be to provoke a huge explosion on the far side of the Sun?It can be 0 m in diameter.
How could MRO have lost 11.2-2.9 = 8.3 km/s of velocity during flight through space with zero resistance?Mars is farther from the Sun than the Earth.
Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 00:45:22I do not have enough mathematical and physical knowledge to carry out accurate calculations, but I have already formulated a well-founded assumption above, about why the main official space parameters (distances, sizes and velocities) may be greatly exaggerated (oversized).
I suspect that this is due to the error of one important calculation coefficient - the gravitational constant.
Please show where the error in the experiments that have measured it is.
I have already formulated a well-founded assumptionIt is not "well founded" .
I do not have enough mathematical and physical knowledge to carry out accurate calculations
but I have already formulated a well-founded assumption above, about why the main official space parameters (distances, sizes and velocities) may be greatly exaggerated (oversized).
You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't understand what you think the significance of this is.Last attempt to explain.
Last attemptGood.
That isn't good evidence. Those pyramids also align with the stars in the belt of Orion.From Cheops to Chephren, 53 mm, from Chephren to Mikerinos, 47 mm
The role of granites in the structure of the upper shells of the Earth is enormous, but unlike magmatic rocks of the basic composition (gabbro, basalt, anorthosite, norite, troctolite), analogs of which are common on the Moon and terrestrial planets, this rock is found only on our planet and has not yet been established among meteorites or on other planets of the solar system. Among geologists there is an expression "Granite is the calling card of the Earth".
I suppose, it is because the Earth is the largest object in the Universe,In reality, Earth is not the largest object in the Universe.
Are still going on about this nonsense?He is.
Hedgehogs and the Sun have thorns.Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Another small, but very interesting fact indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, there are hedgehogs in the wild, but no armadillos.
Armadillos habitat and hedgehogs habitat.
Hedgehogs and the Sun have thorns.
Armadillos and the Moon have no thorns.
Armadillos habitat and hedgehogs habitat.In Australia, kangaroos have long tails so do comments. In Africa, there are many ants the sky has many stars.
Hedgehogs and the Sun have thorns.
Armadillos and the Moon have no thorns.
Hedgehogs and the Sun have thorns.I think this is far more convincing to support your theory.
Assumptions about the main cause of the coronavirus pandemic. Firstly, this is important, and secondly, it is associated with solar activity, therefore it is not offtopic.Do not post dangerous nonsense.
In 2009 there was a swine flu epidemic (on the verge of a pandemic) and there was a solar minimum. In 2019, the solar minimum and the coronavirus pandemic began. For 10 years, the ecology has worsened significantly + the current solar minimum is probably weaker (more extreme) than the previous one. The current coronavirus pandemic may be an exacerbation of seasonal Acute Respiratory Infections due to a decrease in solar activity.
The death rate from coronavirus is less than 10% - this is probably comparable to the death rate from influenza. In addition, the coronavirus can be a type (mutation) of influenza or some kind of ARVI (acute respiratory viral infection). Over time, human organisms would adapt to this virus and the mortality rate would go down. It is also possible that vaccination may be more harmful than beneficial. A mortality rate of less than 10% is like a slightly increased temperature in the body, which is not recommended to be brought down with additional means (medications, drugs), because this can cause more harm.
Do not post dangerous nonsense.
Final message.I hope it is so, but I fear it is not
Farewell.May you have fair weather and following sea. And may you never return with your pseudoscience.
Three media of wave oscillations: gas (atmosphere), water, ether.You forgot solids.
Why, over 70 years of space exploration (development) by the efforts of all mankind, this space is still not being mastered (developed) in any way?Gravity; it costs roughly something's weight in gold to put it in orbit.
Farewell.Bye.
Tectonic plates are formed under the pressure of a large mass, therefore they are also called continental plates. The Pacific plate is formed under the pressure of a homogeneous mass of water over a large area. The tectonic plates outlined in red rectangles (PHILIPPINE PLATE, COCOS PLATE, CARRIBEAN PLATE and SCOTIA PLATE) in the image below were formed under the pressure of large masses that were once there, but now they are not there - under the pressure of the Sun and the Moon. In addition, the tectonic plates outlined in red rectangles in the image below completely repeat the outlines of traces on the Earth's surface.Final message.I hope it is so, but I fear it is not
Tectonic plates are formed under the pressure of....Well that was a horrifically short absence. :(
Final message.Liar.