Discussion on Gravity

Levee is also claiming that the Sun is not oblate. He is wrong. It is.

No, it's a disc floated by the same principles that bend light, but don't effect other matter.

The tidal waves are caused by the pressure of the aether. Let us remember what N. Tesla said at the start of the last century: "...the aether will behave as a solid to a liquid, and as a liquid to a solid", that is WHY the gravitational readings/measurements are different when taken over the oceans as compared to measurements taken inland or right next to the coastlines. The Moon cannot and does not cause any kinds of tidal waves. More details about the aether theory as presented by Tesla here: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=550#p24641

Why do we even have to discuss about the Sun when we have at our disposal all the proofs we need?

Here are the official measurements:

 Official data (maximum distances, diameter at equator)
Sun - Earth distance, 149000000 km
Mercury - Sun distance, 70000000 km
Mercury - Earth distance, 79000000 km
Moon - Earth distance, 384400 km
ISS - Earth distance, 400 km
ISS - Sun distance, 148999600 km
ISS diameter, about 45-50 meters
Mercury diameter, 4880 km
Moon diameter, 3475 km
Sun diameter, 1400000 km

And the official FES numbers:

Sun diameter, 32 miles
Sun - Earth distance, 3000 miles

The Sun, just 1 km behind the ISS, with a diameter of 1000/phi:







Sun - Mercury transit, same size/diameter of Mercury as that of the ISS...





Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...




The shape of the Sun is that of a disk, just like all the other planets/stars...

Please read the following also: http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1183#p34569

Here is the Black Sun (the former Sirius A star) right in front of the visible Sun, this is what causes the solar eclipse and not the Moon:


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap080504.html

The photographer just a few hundred km (in any case maybe under 1000 km) from Okeanos the place from where the Black Sun rises, we can see clearly that the diameter of this Black Sun is the same as that of the visible Sun, and matches the 1000/phi diameter we saw earlier in those videos...

There is no such thing as the theory of relativity (GTR/STR), it is a hoax invented by H. Minkowsky and publicized by A. Einstein, here is the complete proof:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=601

If you do nothing else, read Einstein's Relativity: Scientific Theory of Illusion:

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html

senoctar, you have to study much more the mechanics/physics behind the atmospheric science...let me show how impossible the official theory is:

The air has some viscous properties, it is argued that friction causes at least the first few hundreds of meters of atmosphere to rotate along with the round earth; the authors there referred to the UPPER layers of the atmosphere...but friction could not move the clouds along, not sustain their weight in midair, let me show you why...

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air?s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

Please read this link: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

This implies the existence of a vector field, whose strength determines |v|. Whether this field rotates or not is immaterial. It must exert a force on our air molecule that produces an acceleration solely in the direction of the World's alleged rotation, and of a magnitude which varies according to position within the atmosphere (just as the gravitational field exerts a force whose effect is to cause acceleration toward the centre of the World).

However, such a field does not exist, for if it did we would find it exceedingly difficult to travel in any direction other than around our particular parallel of latitude in an eastwardly direction. A field that is constantly acting to push air molecules into line will act likewise on all molecules in the atmosphere, whether they be part of aeroplanes, cars or ourselves.

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

So far, in conventional physics, there is no lateral "gravitation/gravity" which could possibly maintain the atmosphere at the same speed as that of the Earth; again, we would have the Restoring Forces Paradox, exemplified in the link above.

There still seems to exist confusion as to what angular momentum is, and I
think that the main reason for this is that "everyone just knows" that the
acentric problem of a spinning World/atmosphere system (as put forward by
Aristotle) has been explained away by invoking the law of the conservation of
angular momentum.

We need to delve a little deeper into the physics here. Angular momentum is
defined as the product of moment of inertia with angular frequency about a
common axis of rotation. Molecules of a gas do not have any angular frequency
about a common axis of rotation, except in the case of something like a
hurricane or a tornado (and haven't we all seen just how much damage something
as 'small' as that can do?). To illustrate this, consider a single air
molecule. He's merrily going about his business, sometimes going one way, then
another. Sometimes travelling along a straight line, with absolutely no axis of
rotation.

Now, the 'conventional' treatment of our atmosphere is that these molecules
interact with one another, such that the angular momentum of the whole is
conserved. This is wrong for at least two reasons: There are thermal convection
currents within the atmosphere (and, boy, if you lived in Caithness, you'd know
all about them!) which have a great effect on the air molecules. These
convection currents have absolutely nothing to do with angular momentum (these
are perhaps the greatest reason why Mike's so-called "closed system" is
invalid). They are due to the incoming heat from the Sun, heating up different
components of the World and its atmosphere at different rates, depending upon
composition. These convection currents will act so as to disrupt any alleged
angular momentum of our considered molecule. Their effect upon our molecule
will be totally overwhelming, compared with any possible transference of
angular momentum. ANY 'ANGULAR MOMENTUM' THAT OUR MOLECULE MAY HAVE HAD WILL BE
CHANGED BY THE ACTION OF SOMETHING ORIGINATING OUTSIDE OF THE WORLD/ATMOSPHERE
SYSTEM. Once changed, the total angular momentum of the whole atmosphere (if
such a thing existed) would be changed. If it has changed, then it is not
conserved. I hope that you will all see that there is no way that total angular
momentum can be conserved and that we are not talking of any form of
theoretical "closed system." The second reason is closely tied to the first. As
I have said many times now, angular momentum is an attribute of rigid bodies.
That is how it is DEFINED. Note that ALL the particles within a rigid body have
the SAME angular frequency about a COMMON axis of rotation, irrespective of how
far each of them is from that axis. Angular momentum does not apply to gases,
nor, in general, to fluids.

Molecules in a gas transfer linear momentum between themselves, but even these
are inelastic collisions.

The boundary layer (BL) in general is the interface area between 2 different
environments, the region where one environment influences the other. If
there is no effect of one env. on the other then there's no BL.

The BL between air and the earth's surface includes the transfer of heat and
moisture and wind currents (convection). The local friction of earth and air
on a flat surface is only inches thick, since the air is non-viscous. But
the irregular topography of the earth is said to produce a frictional BL of
about 6 miles - Death Valley to Mt. Everest.

The problem with this picture is that if the air is dragged along by the BL
of the rotating earth, it should display a latitude-dependent velocity
profile, with upper level winds blowing to the West, which is exactly what
is NOT observed.

If the air somehow rotates with the earth, the coupling being achieved by
some special dispensation from scientific principles, then there's no
frictional BL, since there's no relative motion between ground and air.

As far as I understand it, the law of conservation of angular momentum applies
to rigid bodies. Not to liquids and not to gases. The reason for this necessity
is that imparting a torque to a molecule in a rigid body affects the whole
body, which is not the case with the other two states.

Consider the World, without an atmosphere, spinning in a vacuum. If we then
wrap a non-moving atmosphere around it, that atmosphere will serve to damp the
spin of the World. Do we agree that in this scenario the World will slow down
and the atmosphere will start to turn?

On the assumption that we do, then where we disagree is in what follows on from
this. There is no way that the World will ever speed up again, right? We have
now a World-atmosphere "closed system," in your terminology, that you will say
has reached some sort of equilibrium in terms of its angular momentum. What I
am saying is that this is not a "closed system," in the sense you infer, but an
interactive system between a rotating spherical object (not even rigid, because
of its excessive water content), surrounded by a gaseous envelope.

The crux of the difference between us is this: you maintain an equilibrium
because of the "closed system," and I accept that you have "conventional"
physics on your side, insofar as that is the "party line." I maintain that the
World would constantly be losing the energy that it possessed as a result of
its rotation, to an atmosphere which would heat up due to this friction and
dissipate this extra energy by radiating most of it out into space.

If the atmosphere is rotating en mass with the World, and winds spring up all
over the place, in almost random directions, then what is it that acts upon the
molecules in those winds, in order to bring them back into eastwardly,
differential rotation with the World?

If it were the pressure exerted by other air molecules, then in a very short
timespan the atmosphere, as a whole, would slow down and stop.

These videos are only possible on A STATIONARY EARTH, which does not rotate around its axis:

(four different directions for the clouds, at the same time)

(New York, incompatible cloud trajectory with that of the axially rotating Earth)



(Hollywood Hills, opposite directions)

The famous Cloudscape sequence from Koyaanisqatsi - Cloudscape (cloud layers, different directions):

(0:33 - 0:50)

Here is the explanation of the Coriolis force on a stationary earth:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?p=11374#p11374

The curving of the wind pattern is due to the modification of the aether pressure, which moves differently as it crosses the equator line.

levee, would you be so kind as to address this question:

Quote from: levee on September 21, 2009, 01:25:32 AM

The movement of the solar planetary system toward the star Vega is completely incompatible with the first law of Kepler (copied from Arryabhatia).  The tridimensional orbits of the Sun/Planets, would be circular helices on a right cylinder, which completely contradicts the planar eliptical orbits of the planets, in the heliocentric theory. A planar eliptical orbit would be possible if and only if the whole system is at rest (with respect to the rest of the Galaxy, in the round earth theory), and not moving toward Vega with 20 km/s.

And what happens when you adopt an inertial frame of reference that moves with the Sun?

Otherwise, I will be forced to assume that you do not know what you are talking about.

You assume too much...at this level, there are certain things which do not need to be posted, not at all...

You mean something like this?: http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg , because otherwise you left out the details needed to make yourself understood...if I do not answer something it means either there must more details provided, or the question was not worth answering...

You assume too much...at this level, there are certain things which do not need to be posted, not at all...

You mean something like this?: http://biocab.org/Motions_of_the_Solar_System.jpg , because otherwise you left out the details needed to make yourself understood...if I do not answer something it means either there must more details provided, or the question was not worth answering...

No, I mean exactly what I said. You are saying that the Sun is moving at 20 km s^-1 relative to Vega according to RET; I asked you what would happen to your diagram of the motion of the planets if you chose a frame of reference that was moving with the Sun.

The movement of the whole solar system, as it is now accepted, is towards the Vega star, with about 20 km/s; the actual orbits of the planets within this system would be circular helices on a right cylinder, completely contradicting the first law of Kepler (planar elliptical orbits).

An inertial frame of reference within that system (the solar system) is what you mentioned in your original statement, now you said this: I asked you what would happen to your diagram of the motion of the planets if you chose a frame of reference that was moving with the Sun.

But a frame of reference is just a kinematical device, where uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. Now, in an inertial frame (the center of mass of the solar system), the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion; relative to this frame (the "fixed" stars), every acceleration of every planet could be accounted for.

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

The movement of the whole solar system, as it is now accepted, is towards the Vega star, with about 20 km/s; the actual orbits of the planets within this system would be circular helices on a right cylinder, completely contradicting the first law of Kepler (planar elliptical orbits).

An inertial frame of reference within that system (the solar system) is what you mentioned in your original statement, now you said this: I asked you what would happen to your diagram of the motion of the planets if you chose a frame of reference that was moving with the Sun.

But a frame of reference is just a kinematical device, where uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. Now, in an inertial frame (the center of mass of the solar system), the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion; relative to this frame (the "fixed" stars), every acceleration of every planet could be accounted for.

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

The solar system's motion within the galaxy, or relative to Vega, is irrelevant to my question. I am asking you how the solar system would behave in a frame of reference in which the Sun is stationary. More specifically, would it be consistent with Kepler's laws of planetary motion or not?

The formulation of your last message shows clearly that your intended purpose, that of trying to cause some confusion, did not work at all, I answered beautifully and precisely to your question.

Did you read what I said? Let me repeat once more what would happen to that solar system:

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

Of course it would NOT be consistent with Kepler's laws of motion, given the actual eccentricities we would have to observe, if we accept the official explanation (circular helices on a right cylinder).

The formulation of your last message shows clearly that your intended purpose, that of trying to cause some confusion, did not work at all, I answered beautifully and precisely to your question.

Did you read what I said? Let me repeat once more what would happen to that solar system:

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

Of course it would NOT be consistent with Kepler's laws of motion, given the actual eccentricities we would have to observe, if we accept the official explanation (circular helices on a right cylinder).

If the orbits of the planets in a frame of reference in which the Sun is stationary were circular helices, they would fly right out of the solar system and leave the Sun behind. However, we are talking about planets in orbit about the Sun, not planets whizzing through space on magical helical paths.

Well, in the official explanation, the official planetary orbits are circular helices bound by a right cylinder, that is the theory. Such an orbit would produce eccentricities which would show clearly that these orbits (see that earlier diagram) do not lie in a plane, as was conceived by the Indian astronomers (Kepler copied his three laws from Arryabhatia).

Well, in the official explanation, the official planetary orbits are circular helices bound by a right cylinder, that is the theory. Such an orbit would produce eccentricities which would show clearly that these orbits (see that earlier diagram) do not lie in a plane, as was conceived by the Indian astronomers (Kepler copied his three laws from Arryabhatia).

First of all, what "official" explanation are you referring to?

Second of all, eccentricities state nothing about whether various orbits lie within any particular plane, they simply relate the length of the major axis to that of the minor axis in an elliptical orbit - and, incidentally, an ellipse by its very nature lies within some plane.

Finally, the circular helices are the result of choosing a frame of reference in which the Sun is not stationary. Can you give me any good reason why choosing a frame of reference such that the Sun is stationary would not cause the planetary orbits to lie in a plane?

Here are the official measurements:

 Official data (maximum distances, diameter at equator)
Sun - Earth distance, 149000000 km
Mercury - Sun distance, 70000000 km
Mercury - Earth distance, 79000000 km
Moon - Earth distance, 384400 km
ISS - Earth distance, 400 km
ISS - Sun distance, 148999600 km
ISS diameter, about 45-50 meters
Mercury diameter, 4880 km
Moon diameter, 3475 km
Sun diameter, 1400000 km

And the official FES numbers:

Sun diameter, 32 miles
Sun - Earth distance, 3000 miles

The Sun, just 1 km behind the ISS, with a diameter of 1000/phi:







Sun - Mercury transit, same size/diameter of Mercury as that of the ISS...





Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...




The shape of the Sun is that of a disk, just like all the other planets/stars...

You expect me to believe that these pictures of a how a dust storm covers mars, taken from a ground based telescope are of a 2000 feet flat rock ? (calculated by it's angular diameter if the moon is 32 miles "wide")
Also, if jupiter is so flat, how come it rotates.

About the atmosphere, you have a habit of writing long explanations, that tend to confuse somewhat. I get the point, i already did. The thing we disagree is that friction between air molecules should or should not be enough to move most of the atmosphere with the earth.
Referring to your atmosphere-out-of-the-sudden scenario, yes, the earth would slow down, by an imperceptible speed, as the mass of the earth is 1300000 times greater that that of it's atmosphere. Also the earth is slowing down, however mostly due to the moon, ending up about 4 cm behind each year.

Please research the subject: galactic orbit of the solar system.

The 3D eccentricity is called orbital inclination, here is a diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit1.svg

But the Sun cannot be stationary, not even with respect to the CMBR (which is actually due to the rotational aether above the Dome combined with the layer of aether underneath that Dome) or with a neighboring galaxy (in the round earth theory); in this official theory the Sun is moving along towards Vega (see the diagram). But then the 3D eccentricity (orbital inclination) WOULD DIFFER GREATLY from the observed astronomical values.

Now, I saw your answer senoctar...please provide us with the actual name of the observatory which took those pictures...Mars has a diameter of about 75 meters (if not even less, given the diameter of the ISS in relation to Mercury). The diameter of the Moon is 1000/phi = 618 meters, the same as that of the Sun, do not read anymore the official FAQ of the FES as it includes erroneous data. A disk can rotate around its axis (its horizontal plane), and so can its layers of clouds (atmosphere), all is due to the mechanics of the eddies of aether. Here is Newton telling you just that:

Newton still thought that the planets and Sun were kept apart by 'some secret principle of unsociableness in the ethers of their vortices,' and that gravity (causing the planetary orbits) was due to a circulating ether.

You are taking for granted the attractive gravitational scenario, which is but AN UNPROVED theory, invented after Newton's death, who never mentioned attractive gravitation in Principia.

It is astonishing to find out that "at the outset of his 'Principia,' Sir Isaac Newton took the greatest care to impress upon his school that he did not use the word 'attraction' with regard to the mutual action of bodies in a physical sense. To him it was, he said, a purely mathematical conception involving no consideration of real and primary physical causes. In one of the passages of his 'Principia' (Defin. 8, B. I. Prop. 69, 'Scholium'), he tells us plainly that, physically considered, attractions are rather impulses.

There are no gravitons, no attractive gravitation, try to understand this point.

Please research the subject: galactic orbit of the solar system.

The movement of the solar system within the galaxy is irrelevant to the movement of the planets within the solar system.

The 3D eccentricity is called orbital inclination, here is a diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Orbit1.svg

Inclination and eccentricity are two different things. Furthermore, I see no reason why the solar system being in motion should affect the orbital inclination of the planets. If the solar system is moving, then all the planets are moving with it together. They can still be coplanar.

But the Sun cannot be stationary, not even with respect to the CMBR (which is actually due to the rotational aether above the Dome combined with the layer of aether underneath that Dome) or with a neighboring galaxy (in the round earth theory); in this official theory the Sun is moving along towards Vega (see the diagram). But then the 3D eccentricity (orbital inclination) WOULD DIFFER GREATLY from the observed astronomical values.

The Sun is stationary with respect to itself. Since there is no force causing it to accelerate, there exists an inertial frame of reference in which the Sun is stationary.

Here are the actual dust storms of Mars, PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE with our 75 (maybe less) meter diameter of Mars:



When you have a preconceived idea of what to expect, you will go along with the mainstream; take a careful look at the Sun/Transit videos and you will see the real diameter of Mercury and Sun for yourself.

If the orbits are circular helices on a right cylinder, the observed 3D eccentricities (let us use the official term of orbital inclination) will differ greatly, at least you agree with that.

No, there is no inertial frame of reference, UNLESS you take into account the aether theory, otherwise we are right back to Mach's Principle.

If the orbits are circular helices on a right cylinder, the observed 3D eccentricities (let us use the official term of orbital inclination) will differ greatly, at least you agree with that.

I have never seen the term "3D eccentricities" used to describe orbital inclination, and I will not use it lest it be confused with the common usage of the term "eccentricity". Also, I don't believe I stated any such agreement.

No, there is no inertial frame of reference, UNLESS you take into account the aether theory, otherwise we are right back to Mach's Principle.

I am talking about the centre of mass of the Sun, as its rotation is quite plainly irrelevant to planetary orbits. There exists an inertial frame of reference such that the centre of mass of the Sun is stationary.

Well, you implied such a statement, we can all read between the lines...

You wrote: There exists an inertial frame of reference such that the centre of mass of the Sun is stationary.

If the plane (center) of the Sun is stationary, with respect TO WHAT is it stationary? If it is stationary with respect to the rest of the Universe, this would be a correct statement if and only if we take the aether inertial frame of reference as a background; otherwise, you take us right back to this unsolved problem in contemporary physics: by maintaining the relativity of all motion, especially rotational motion, Mach denied the existence of absolute motion and of absolute space. Accordingly, he maintained the equivalence of the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems and the equivalence of rotating-system/fixed-universe and universe-rotating/fixed-system situations.

You can have ABSOLUTE SPACE only when you take into account the existence of the aether, otherwise you cannot.

If the plane (center) of the Sun is stationary, with respect TO WHAT is it stationary?

With respect to the frame of reference I am choosing. That is how I am defining my frame of reference.

Then, we are right back to my earlier answer: but a frame of reference is just a kinematical device, where uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. Now, in an inertial frame (the center of mass of the solar system), the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion; relative to this frame (the "fixed" stars), every acceleration of every planet could be accounted for.

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities (orbital inclinations) of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

Then, we are right back to my earlier answer: but a frame of reference is just a kinematical device, where uniform motions can be distinguished from accelerated motions. Now, in an inertial frame (the center of mass of the solar system), the center of mass of a system of bodies is always at rest or in uniform motion; relative to this frame (the "fixed" stars), every acceleration of every planet could be accounted for.

A solar system in motion with respect to the Vega star would be wholly incompatible with Kepler's first law, since, within that frame of reference, this motion (the circular helices on a right cylinder) must change the eccentricities (orbital inclinations) of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.

But we are not talking about motion on circular helices, we are talking about motion on ellipses in a frame of reference in which the Sun is stationary. You agree, I assume, that the laws of physics are equivalent in every inertial frame of reference?

Planar elliptical orbits are incompatible with circular helices orbits on a right cylinder, the orbital inclination would differ greatly. And the Sun is not stationary, it is moving along towards Vega. Now, if we are located within this frame of reference, those orbital inclinations of the other planets would show that the assumption made by the Indian astronomers is false and incorrect.

You can read about the equivalence principle and its relation to the fact that Einstein's relativity theories are completely false in that thread I provided...

Since there is no attractive gravitation, parsifal, how do you account for the movement of the planets/stars?

Here are the actual dust storms of Mars, PERFECTLY COMPATIBLE with our 75 (maybe less) meter diameter of Mars:
.....
When you have a preconceived idea of what to expect, you will go along with the mainstream; take a careful look at the Sun/Transit videos and you will see the real diameter of Mercury and Sun for yourself.

I thought it's Mount Wilson Observatory, but the labels were wrong. It's wither from space (that you wont' believe) or a combination of color with IR : http://freshscience.org.au/?p=363

The moon is 618 meters ? are you mad ? It would have to be 70 kilometers away so we would see it as big as we do. It should be reachable using amateur rockets and should appear 15 percent "wider" from a plane 10 Km high. Do you believe in bendy light or something to counteract this ?

Madness could mean a lot of things, if we are to believe what you actually wrote in your own messages...you had no idea that Newton did not believe at all in attractive gravitation...you have never researched these topics before, but just believed whatever you were presented in the massmedia...

I always provide proofs for my statements, this is what differentiates my messages from all the rest.

Here is the proof senoctar, that the Sun's diameter is about 1000/phi = 618 meters, videos shot from Earth during the ISS Sun transit:

The Sun, just 1 km behind the ISS, with a diameter of 1000/phi:






How mad can you be, to believe there are 149 million km between the Sun and the Earth, or that the Sun's diameter is 1.4 million km in size?

Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...




Do you believe your own eyes, senoctar? Here is the actual proof that the diameter of the Moon is about 1000/phi, and is the same size as the diameter of the Sun.

I already wrote about amateur rockets, and the erroneous estimations of the altitude they actually reached. Actually from a plane, or from the Everest, the Moon looks just the right size, the one I provided here, based upon the actual ISS transit.

Certainly there is bending of light, but I never use such a phenomenon to try to explain my statements.

Now, we have even more videos at our disposal:

Venus - Sun transit:





Here are the Black Sun eclipsing our visible Sun, and Venus nearby:

Those videos represent no evidence whatsoever. The angular size is meaningless if we don't know the distance and it does not provide any information about the distance either (unless we know the size of the object).

Here's proof the moon is 10 meter in diameter :

We are here discussing very serious things; those videos show exactly and precisely the actual size of the Sun, how can you state such nonsense?

Where is the 149 million km distance between the Earth and the Sun? Where is the 1.4 million km diameter of the Sun? These are ACTUAL videos shot during real time, not the BS images you have believed all your life...here are the videos again, for you:

The Sun, just 1 km behind the ISS, with a diameter of 1000/phi:






The official distance for the ISS is 400 km above the Earth; then maybe you will be happy with a Sun - Earth distance of 401 km...we know very well the SIZE of the ISS, 40-50 meters in diameter...we can estimate very easily the rest, do not pretend otherwise...

Here is the actual video of the solar eclipse with Venus and Jupiter nearby:



Please do your homework better, and you will have better results...

We know the size of the ISS, so what. How can we calculate the size of the moon ?
Why do you presume it's 1 Km behind the ISS. There's no way to determine the distance between these objects unless we also know the size of the moon, but that's the unknown here (I'm not pretending).

Why are you claiming that we see the moon just as big as it should be. We don't. When it's over us it must be 70 Km high (considering it's 618 meter wide). After it passes over us and it's above a guy 6000 miles away, we see it at the horizon. But it's just as big, we should see it even smaller than Mars.