senactor, do you understand the actual figures used in the textbooks? Here they are for you, again:
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
Do you understand the significance of a distance of 149 million km? Do you understand what a diameter of 1.4 million km consists of?
Here are the actual videos (we also have the pictures available, if that would please you) taken by amateur astronomers, no 149 million km distance between the Earth and the Sun, no 1.4 million km diameter of the Sun; the Sun located RIGHT BEHIND the ISS:
Now, here is the Mercury transit; THE SAME distance from Mercury to the Sun, as in the above videos, the same diameter of Mercury as for the ISS:
Here are the Venus videos:
Moon - ISS transit; same distance between the Moon and the ISS, same diameter as that of the Sun...
Here is the extraordinary photograph taken in Antarctica confirming all of the above:
Here are more photographs taken then of the solar eclipse:
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...
Those videos are sure enough proof that the official distances of 149 million km (3000 miles), or a diameter of 1.4 million km (32 miles) are just a HOAX. But if you want to believe in such a thing, please do so...
parsifal, I thought we already stated the facts very clearly...do not try to make false statements, I explained clearly using the official galactic orbit diagram, how the orbits of the planets look like, given the motion of the solar system towards the Vega star...that is the situation, if you do not like it, please write to Nasa or to JPL...I am using their data, as it is given in textbooks...
You also wrote:
I thought we had just established that there was an inertial frame of reference such that the Sun was stationary.No, you did not think this up, you dreamed of it; we established that there is no inertial frame of reference actually, if we do not take into account the aether theory; we can use the fixed stars as a frame for calculation purposes, that is a different ballgame. The Sun IS NOT stationary, not even if we use the Milky Way as a frame of reference.
Yes, there is an absolute frame of reference, the aether itself.
No, my friend, there is no attractive gravitation; the motion/orbits of the planets are due, as Newton explained to you, to the rotational force of the aether; it is the aether itself which moves the stars/planets.
superlovah, you must study much more; let me completely destroy your chimerical hopes and dreams. You wrote that the Moon must be of a spherical shape. No, you are mistaken; here is the complete demonstration that the Moon could not have formed from a nebular, gaseous cloud, or could not have been captured from space:
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=709A spherically shaped star/planet would have been impossible to attain from the start.
http://theflatearthsociety.net/talk/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=551 (the complete demonstration that a supernova could not have produced any kind of rotating gaseous nebula)
Now, a gaseous nebula approaching the form of a disk involves several things. Because of the rotating motion of the whole nebula, a centrifugal force was in action, and we are told that parts of matter more on the periphery broke up into rings. Matter must have been concentrated in just a tiny sector of those rings, given the distance (the diameter) of the rings themselves (in our case, about 150 million kilometers).
Given the fact that there is no such thing as an attractive kind of gravitation, to get from a disk to a sphere, a tangential force of compression which would produce circumferential shortening/radial shrinkage (on the equatorial plane) would have been needed. To get from a disk (transversal cross section in the shape of an ellipse, with the eccentricity very close to unity, about 0.9995) to a sphere (eccentricity of about 0.314), given the centrifugal force of rotation, would have been impossible.
A rotating nebula could not produce satellites revolving in two directions (moons of Uranus, three of the satellites of Jupiter, 1 of Saturn, and one of Neptune). Venus rotates retrogradely, completely unexplained by modern science.
Being smaller than the Earth, the moon completed earlier the process of cooling and shrinkage and a has a lighter specific weight than the Earth. The moon was produced, it is assumed, from the superificial layers of the earth's body; this assumption means that the origin of the moon was not simultaneous with that of the earth; that is, the earth had to undergo a process of leveling (cooling) before the moon parted from the earth. Therefore, we are told that a stupendous collision took place between a heavenly body and the earth, but this collision MUST HAVE TAKEN PLACE AFTER THE EARTH COOLED DOWN, that is 3.9 billion years ago (4.6 billion years - gaseous nebula, 4.5 billion years - incandescent conglomerate of matter and elements). Such a collision would have melted completely the surface of the earth; this in sharp contrast with the facts we are told: 3.85 billion years ago, DNA appeared out of nowhere. Also, in the official storyline, this collision would have been responsible for the 23.5 degree tilt, but such a collision would have disrupted completely any axial rotation, not to mention the orbital motion.
You mentioned also the Mercury perihelion matter...here is the real stuff for you:
The advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury's orbit, he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein's scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury's orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber's article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein's Relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber's priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber's formula had been published in Mach's Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber's assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a target for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber's method made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics. Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber's derivation was wrong through and through.
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier. So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein
had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, knowing the answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.