[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

If the diameter of the Sun is 1,392,700 km, then how big should a comet be to provoke a huge explosion on the far side of the Sun?

Spoiler: Official ratio of the diameters of Earth and Sun • show

For comparison, the diameter of the Sun is 1,390,700 km, the nucleus of comet Hale - Bopp is 40 km, and comet 103P / Hartley is about 1.5 km. Moreover, these are examples of well-known large comets. So there was a comet on the animation with a diameter of less than 1 km.

It was a sungrazing comet of the type known as a Kreutz sungrazer.

NASA STEREO, SOHO – Comet, October 1, 2011


In 4 hours, the comet flew 2 solar diameters: 1,400,000 km × 2 = 2,800,000 km.
Approximate comet speed: 2 800 000 km / 4 hours / 60 min. / 60 s. = 200 km/s.
In my opinion 200 km/s is "a bit" too much as for the comets velocity.

[Kryptid]

Again, I'm not addressing that right now. I'm only focusing on my initial objections.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

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.
I'm going to sleep. Till tomorrow.

[Kryptid]

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.

No they don't, because there is nothing wrong with a Sun-bound comet travelling at 200 kilometers per second. They have been known to travel nearly 600 kilometers per second: https://www.space.com/33651-comet-death-dive-into-sun-video.html

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.

[evan_au]

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.

The Sun has a lot of pent-up energy in its magnetic fields. These can reconnect at any time, causing a huge explosion, with no comets involved at all.
- Reconnection tends to happen more frequently when there are multiple sunspots on the surface of the Sun
- Which tends to be more common at a solar maximum

The above images are timestamped 1st October 2011
- And in fact the sun was very active in late 2011
- This suggests that the comet was a coincidence, rather than a cause
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_cycle_24_sunspot_number_progression_and_prediction.gif

[evan_au]

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.
- So a rocket launched from Earth will lose speed as it climbs out of Earth's gravitational field
- It will lose more speed as it climbs out of the Sun's gravitational field.
- It will gain a bit of speed as it falls into the gravitational field of Mars - but not as much as it lost climbing out of Earth's gravitational field (since Earth is much more massive than Mars).

In a classic Hohmann Transfer maneuver, a rocket will start from an inner circular orbit (say, at the radius of Earth's orbit), and accelerate to become an elliptical orbit
- This elliptical orbit will have a perihelion at the radius of Earth's orbit, and an aphelion at the radius of Mars's orbit.
- If the rocket did nothing when it reached the radius of Mars, it would fall back towards the Sun, as it's radial velocity away from the Sun has reached zero, and it's angular velocity around the sun is too slow to maintain a circular orbit.
- So when you reach the target orbit, you need to fire the rocket to increase the rocket's speed to keep it in a circular orbit at the radius of Mars's orbit.

This simple Hohmann transfer assumes no mass at the destination.
- In fact, the gravitational attraction of Mars means that the rocket gains some velocity as it approaches Mars.
- By positioning the satellite's arrival relative to the position of Mars, you can cause the satellite to get a gravitational assist, either to increase or to reduce its velocity. This slightly reduces the amount of rocket fuel you need to carry.
- However, if you want the satellite to be an a low orbit around Mars for ground observation, you need to reduce the relative velocity to Mars by a considerable amount, or it will go shooting past (a flyby), or end up in a high orbit.
- So MRO needs to increase it's radial velocity around the Sun to stay in orbit near Mars, and shed most of the velocity built up as it approached Mars, for a Mars Reconnaissance mission.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on Today at 00:45:22
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 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).

[Bored chemist]

I have already formulated a well-founded assumption

It is not "well founded" .
It has no foundations at all.

What you have said is "everything must be wrong" but, you have not been able to show anything which is wrong.

[Kryptid]

I do not have enough mathematical and physical knowledge to carry out accurate calculations

Then why assume that there was anything wrong with the experiments?

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).

Then how about telling us what that "well-founded" assumption is? So far, you have not. Your claim that a comet travelling at 200 km/s is excessive is simply wrong (as the link I posted shows).

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Please look at this attentively, because this is very strong arguments for a New Model of the Universe.
Two traces on the surface of the Earth.
1) Ratio of diameters approximately 3 to 1.
2) Both have an eastern direction.
3) Both have an eastern position relative to their PreContinents (PreAmerica and PreEurasia).
4) Both have diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth.


In the image below, the sizes of the traces are almost the same due to the projection of the surface of the sphere onto a rectangular plane.


The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

[Kryptid]

You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't understand what you think the significance of this is.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

You're going to have to elaborate, because I don't understand what you think the significance of this is.

Last attempt to explain.

As a result of certain processes at the poles of Proto-Earth, the Proto-Earths gradually formed the Pra-Continents - Pra-America (North America, South America and Antarctica) and Pra-Eurasia (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 axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.

All this is clear from these images.



Additional explanation.
Do you know why Mars is red?
From asteroid dust that deposited on its surface as it cooled down.
The diameter of Mars is several kilometers (of the same order and the diameters of all cosmic bodies except the Earth, the Sun and the Moon). During the formation of the Universe, in the process of a spiral displacement of the earth's axis from the conditional 90 degrees (then there was nothing to measure the axis of the earth's rotation with respect to) to the current 23.5 degrees (~ 90 + 23.5 = 113.5 degrees) and separation from the earth's poles The sun and the moon (see the figure in the previous comment above), red-hot clots of the earth's mantle scattered in space in all directions (360 * 360 degrees), taking spherical shapes in a vacuum, these clots of the earth's mantle began to cool down, forming scale (slag) on ​​their surfaces , which cracked and scattered most intensively just at the distance of the current asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter. In the early stages of the formation of the Universe, asteroids collided much more often, forming a lot of dust, which adhered to the surface of cooling Mars. Clots of the Earth's mantle that did not fall into the plane of the ecliptic (that is, all other "stars", except for 9 "planets" that fell into the plane of the ecliptic) formed an Oort cloud, the diameter of which does not exceed one light minute.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

There are 4 volcanic mountains and one canyon (Mariner valley) for the whole of Mars. Moreover, the height of the volcanic mountains is the same as the depth of the canyon, which occupies about a quarter of the area of Mars, and the origin of which has no official explanation. Mountains-volcanoes are the remains of the outer shell. The canyon is a crack in the inner shell. The diameter of Mars is not 6.7 thousand km, but 15-20 km.

Two photos for scale comparison.


https://www.google.com.ua/maps/space/mars/@-17.2141987,-62.8820429,256335a,35y,341.02h,61.74t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru

[Kryptid]

Mars is nowhere near that small. I already did calculations showing that it would have to be impossibly dense in order for it to have a surface gravity of 0.38 G at such a small size. Besides, its diameter has actually been measured. That in itself is enough to refute your model.

[Bored chemist]

Last attempt

Good.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

They write here that around 1350 BC, Mars was in geostationary orbit, and they give good evidence.
Proof – Mars Orbited close to Earth 1350 BC (Updated)

But if about 3350 years ago Mars was in a geostationary orbit, then its diameter cannot be 6.7 thousand km in any way, but just about 15-20 km, as I suppose.

[Kryptid]

That isn't good evidence. Those pyramids also align with the stars in the belt of Orion. When you have something as numerous as craters on a planet, it's very easy (through coincidence alone) for them to match patterns seen elsewhere.

But the most important evidence of all is (as has been said multiple times before) that Mars has had its diameter measured. It isn't what you claim it is. No matter how much you ignore that, it won't stop being true. Your model has been thoroughly falsified. Mars was never in geocentric orbit around Earth.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk (OP)]

Hidden Pyramids? - Mars Mountains Match Pyramids on Earth
The Pyramids of Giza, the Belt of Orion and Three Volcanoes on Mars

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
Distances ratio, with 3 digits: 1.13
Distance between the two volcanos on the left: 53 mm, between the two volcanos on the right: 59
Distances ratio, 1.11
The stars of Orion Belt appear equally distant, distance measured as 53 mm, their ratio equal to 1.
From the distance parameter, the three volcanos better approximate the Giza pyramids.

[Kryptid]

It's still just a coincidence. The ancient Egyptians could not have seen those craters.

[Bored chemist]

London to Headington 53 miles
London to upper Heysden 41 miles.

Must have been planned by Martians.