New model of the Universe.

Formation of continents.

Take a close look at the animation of two huge, diametrically opposed formations on the surface of the earth’s core. They cannot but be directly related to the formation of continents. They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east. Compare with the official model for the formation of continents. These huge structures are contrary to the official model of the formation of continents.



Link to the source article about Earth Blobs: The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

The Cordillera – the Andes, the Iranian highlands – the Himalayas – are also two huge formations of a similar shape, also diametrically opposed to each other. Both are displaced to the east of two huge formations of the Earth’s core (HFEC). Cordillera – The Andes are displaced further from their HFEC and are more split. Iranian Highlands – The Himalayas are closer to their HFEC, and are strongly displaced to the north.



New model of the Universe.

From the above, we can conclude that before the moment of the so-called “Big Bang” in the Universe there was a certain material sphere with a diameter of about 20 thousand km, the substance in which was in the stage of the limit of density (the state of singularity). Let’s call this sphere ProtoEarth.



As a result of certain processes at the Proto-Earth’s poles two PreContinents were gradually formed – PreAmerica (North America, South America and Antarctica) and PreEurasia (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’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.

(a huge trail of clearly cosmic origin between South America and Antarctica, animation of the trajectory of a solar eclipse shadow and a schematic drawing)

A few more arguments in favor of this model of the Universe:

- The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
- The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).
- Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
- Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.


(schematic comparison of the official and new model of the Universe; ProtoEarth, Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars and common center of masses between Earth and Sun)

Thus, it is very similar to the fact that the Universe looks approximately like on the Tycho Brahe's model of the Universe, only with the correction for the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass. The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the proto-Earth mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.



In all this, a correct understanding of the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around a common center of mass is very important. The ratio of diameters is approximately the same as in the animation (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).



Addition.

The rotation of Venus around the Sun is very similar to the rotation of the Moon around the Earth, except for the direction of rotation. That is, Venus is not always facing the Sun with one side, but in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side. As you can see from the quote above, in the official model of the solar system there is no explanation for such an orbital phenomenon of Venus, because it can in no way be a coincidence or the result of the tidal interaction of the Earth and Venus (at least with the official parameters of the solar system).

The paradox here most likely lies in the misunderstanding of the reference point (coordinate system). When calculating the orbital rotation period of the planet (in this case, Venus), the immobility of the Sun and the rotation of the Earth around it are taken into account, and therefore the paradox of the mismatch of the orbital and axial rotation periods of Venus (225 and 243 days) and the fact that “in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus faces the Earth with the same side.”

The answer to this paradox, most likely, is that it is not the Earth that revolves around the Sun, but the Earth and the Sun revolve around a common center of mass, and then the officially paradoxical coincidence of the orbital and axial periods of Venus’s rotation becomes quite natural. But since the convergence of the Earth and Venus occurs approximately once every one and a half years, the orbital period of Venus is 584 days (the synodic period of Venus), and the axial period relative to the Earth is 146 days (that is, exactly four times less). This is difficult for a spatial representation (especially considering the massive brainwashing with the official model of the solar system), but when the Earth and the Sun rotate around a common center of mass, this is quite possible, does not contradict visual observations of the movement of the planets and the Sun in the sky, and most importantly, this explains the fact that in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

Two animations for better spatial presentation. On the second – the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

Link to the source article in russian: Новая модель Вселенной.Часть II: АРГУМЕНТЫ.

They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east.

Based on what?
This seems to just be an assertion with no justification at all.

Compare with the official model for the formation of continents. These huge structures are contrary to the official model of the formation of continents.

How?
You are comparing a single point in time to millions of years.
How did these blobs evolve over time? Without knowing that it is basically impossible to say they are contrary to the model of the formation of the continents.

All you can really compare it to is the motion of the plates now. But even then, you need to know the motion of the blob, not just a static image.

From the above, we can conclude that before the moment of the so-called “Big Bang” in the Universe there was a certain material sphere with a diameter of about 20 thousand km, the substance in which was in the stage of the limit of density (the state of singularity). Let’s call this sphere ProtoEarth.

No we can't.
That is a massive leap with no rational justification at all. Likewise, pretty much everything that follows is just wild speculation with no justification at all.

A few more arguments in favor of this model of the Universe:
- The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.

You mean them being roughly the same apparent size, although it varies quite a bit with the moon sometimes appearing larger and sometimes smaller than the sun?
Just how does this lend weight to your model? Especially given the fact that we know the sun must be larger than the moon and further away, so it can't simply be a case of 2 very similar sized objects at a very similar distance.

- The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).

For which part of the sun?
It is known to have different rotational periods. At the equator it is 25 days, at the poles it is ~35.

- Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
- Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

And how does your model help explain any of this?
You seem to just be listing a collection of facts and just asserting they support your model.
They aren't arguments in favour of your model, they are just a collection of facts.

In order to be an argument to support your model you need to explain why you would expect this in your model.

Thus, it is very similar to the fact that the Universe looks approximately like on the Tycho Brahe's model of the Universe

It looking a particular way doesn't lend any serious credibility over other models which also produce this apparence.
It would only give extra credibility over a model which doesn't visually match observations.
When comparing 2 models which do match visual observations it is their explanatory power which matters.
In your system, why is the sun so tiny? Why do the Earth and sun orbit their common barycenter?
Why does Venus circle the sun, when it gets so much closer to the allegedly much more massive Earth?
To put it simply, your model has no explanation at all for the motion of the celestial objects.

As it has no such explanation, further attempts at explanations using these alleged motions have very little usefullness.

In all this, a correct understanding of the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around a common center of mass is very important. The ratio of diameters is approximately the same as in the animation (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

And if it is very important, you would need to ensure it is actually correct, and not just a baseless assertion.

The rotation of Venus around the Sun is very similar to the rotation of the Moon around the Earth, except for the direction of rotation.

No, it is vastly different. The moon is tidally locked to Earth and has a rotation period and orbital period that are equal.
Venus rotates in the opposite direction to its orbit and its orbital and rotational period are different.

As you can see from the quote above, in the official model of the solar system there is no explanation for such an orbital phenomenon of Venus

No we can't see that, as the quote you provided has no discussion at all on the explanation.
The explanation is quite simple, the rotational period of Venus and orbital periods of Earth and Venus coincidently match up.
Look at all the planets where it doesn't happen. Why should Venus be special?

Also, you left out a part of the quote:
"This is almost, but not quite, exact. For synchronicity the spin would have to be 243.16 days, well outside the error bounds of the present determination."

because it can in no way be a coincidence

Why not?

The paradox here most likely lies in the misunderstanding of the reference point (coordinate system). When calculating the orbital rotation period of the planet (in this case, Venus), the immobility of the Sun and the rotation of the Earth around it are taken into account, and therefore the paradox of the mismatch of the orbital and axial rotation periods of Venus (225 and 243 days) and the fact that “in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus faces the Earth with the same side.”

Even if you have the sun and Earth rotate about a point in space like in your diagram, you still have a mismatch.
The only way to avoid such a mismatch is to have it such that after a half integer multiple of years Earth has made one more orbit than Venus (or vice versa).
In any other case, they will not line up as needed.

If you wish to disagree, feel free to draw a diagram showing them at 2 consecutive lower conjunctions.

And remember, it isn't exact.

But since the convergence of the Earth and Venus occurs approximately once every one and a half years

The problem with that is that it is only approximately once every 1.5 years (or more accurately 1.6 years). You need it to be exact (or very close to exact) in order for your explanation to work.

This is difficult for a spatial representation[/b] (especially considering the massive brainwashing with the official model of the solar system)

No, it would quite trivial for a spatial representation. Especially given what you have already provided. The more likely reason you don't provide it is that such a demonstration either wouldn't match reality (as the time scale would be wrong) or it because it shows that the periods don't match and that your claim of such a better explanation is wrong.

And of course, you have to go an insult everyone that accepts reality as being brainwashed, rather than accepting that the official model is based upon loads of evidence gathered over a very long period of time by countless people.

Also, having the Earth and sun orbit a common point doesn't help the explanation at all.
If it was actually the needed 1.5 orbits, then the orbital and rotational period of Venus would match in the current model.

The relative positions are still all the same.
Again, assuming it was a perfect match, then you start with a vertical alignment with the sun at the top, followed by Venus then Earth.
Then after 1.5 Earth years, Earth is at the top, the sun is at the bottom and Venus is in the middle.
During this time Venus would have orbited the sun 2.5 times and rotated 2.5 times such that the side that was facing down is now facing up.
This would be true in both models.

Likewise, if it was tidally locked to the sun, it would also work in both models, as the same face would always point outwards and thus for an inferior conjunction the same face would always face Earth.

So for Venus, your model offers no explanatory power and is in no way better than the current model.

Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on January 01, 2021, 05:46:30 AM

They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east.

Based on what?
This seems to just be an assertion with no justification at all.

This may be language isssue, "biased' means - displaced or shifted - that is, those two huge Earth Blobs are both shifted in one direction (to the east). That is clearly visible on the animation of the Earth Blobs in the beggining of this topic. And here is the link to the article with bigger size and better quality (resolution) animation: The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs.

Some addition for clarification.

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 above, 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).

Quote from: JackBlack on January 01, 2021, 02:33:44 PM

Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on January 01, 2021, 05:46:30 AM

They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east.

Based on what?
This seems to just be an assertion with no justification at all.

This may be language isssue, "biased' means - displaced or shifted - that is, those two huge Earth Blobs are both shifted in one direction (to the east). That is clearly visible on the animation of the Earth Blobs in the beggining of this topic. And here is the link to the article with bigger size and better quality (resolution) animation: The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs.

Shifted east relative to what?

Some addition for clarification.

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).

Quote

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 above, 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).

I see you posted this on another site as well, even copying the same quote.

Yes, you can hypothetically have the entire universe scaled down and get the same visual observations. But that requires also scaling down Earth and all the distances on Earth. But we know what the distances on Earth are, so that doesn't hold.
We can directly get the distance to the moon from observations on Earth.
From more complex observations of the moon and the sun we can get an idea of the distance to the sun (e.g. using eclipses). But a better method is the transit of Venus.

So we know it isn't simply a case of a scaled down universe.

Now how about instead of responding to posts from other forums you respond to the objections I raised?
Such as how your alleged arguments in support of your model in no way support your model, and how your claims about Venus are wrong?

Yes, you can hypothetically have the entire universe scaled down and get the same visual observations. But that requires also scaling down Earth and all the distances on Earth. But we know what the distances on Earth are, so that doesn't hold.

The distances and sizes of objects on Earth are beyond doubt. But the cosmic distances and sizes of space objects may be distorted and oversized by the effect of the atmospheric lensing and refraction.

Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given the fact that the camera is clearly focused on the Sun (the surface structure is clearly visible), and the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?This is also because the Moon has no atmosphere, but with a distance difference of 400 times and a clear focus on the Sun's surface, the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given the fact that the camera is clearly focused on the Sun (the surface structure is clearly visible), and the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?This is also because the Moon has no atmosphere, but with a distance difference of 400 times and a clear focus on the Sun's surface, the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

"Earth's outline looks fuzzy, while the moon's is crystal-clear. This is because-while the planet itself completely blocks the sun's light-Earth's atmosphere is an incomplete barrier, blocking different amounts of light at different altitudes. However, the moon has no atmosphere, so during the transit we can see the crisp edges of the moon's horizon."
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA19949

The distances and sizes of objects on Earth are beyond doubt. But the cosmic distances and sizes of space objects may be distorted and oversized by the effect of the atmospheric lensing and refraction.

Then you are appealing to bending of light and setting up a completely different system.
But that is quite well known and cannot account for the discrepancies. Especially as refraction varies depending on angle of elevation.

Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given the fact that the camera is clearly focused on the Sun (the surface structure is clearly visible), and the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?This is also because the Moon has no atmosphere,

Because when you get to those distances, it is effectively focused at infinite distance, with quite far distances working just fine.

but with a distance difference of 400 times and a clear focus on the Sun's surface, the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

And another baseless assertion. Why can't it be?
Feel free to do the math to show how blurry it should be.

And again, why not address the issues already raised? Why bring up more?

Considering you want to link to this again while still not addressing the issues raised, here are some nice simple questions anyone suggesting a new model of the universe should ask:

1 - Does my model produce different observations to the currently accepted model?

If so:
A2 - What are these observations (including a justification for the observations from both models)? This could be the position of a celestial object in the sky from a particular location or how it varies between locations and so on.
A3 - Do observations from reality match my model, the existing model, or neither?

Otherwise:
B2 - Is there something my model can explain better than the existing model?
B3 - If so, what is it, what is the existing explanation (if any) and what is my explanation?
B4 - Is there something my model can't explain that the existing model can, or which my model explains worse?
B5 - If so, what is it, what is the existing explanation (if any) and what is my explanation?
B6 - Is my model simpler than the existing model, which in turn makes the explanations simpler?


For you, you seem to be indicating that the existing model produces correct observations and thus you would fall under the B list of questions.
While you have claimed there are things your model supports better, you haven't substantiated those claims.

The closest you have come is discussing Venus, but both the existing model and your model fail to explain the approximately same side facing Earth in each inferior conjunction as anything other than coincidence. And thus you fail to have any greater explanatory power.

Your model is also more complex, with the sun and Earth orbiting a common barycenter, with Venus and Mercury orbiting the sun, even though Venus gets much closer to Earth, and thus should be significantly affected by it; and you then have Mars orbit a point just to the right of the sun-Earth barycenter, even though at times it would be much closer to the sun and thus be significantly perturbed by that.
There is no explanation for any of these paths and thus your model has effectively 0 explanatory power and is much more complex than the existing model.

This would also mean that your model is likely to predict observations quite different to the existing model. But without all the details that will be hard to show conclusively.

So there is really no reason for anyone to adopt your model over the existing one.

AlexandrKushnirtshuk, what's up wise?

Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given the fact that the camera is clearly focused on the Sun (the surface structure is clearly visible), and the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?This is also because the Moon has no atmosphere, but with a distance difference of 400 times and a clear focus on the Sun's surface, the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

Because that's how lenses work. Doesn't matter how far apart the objects are, as long as they are farther away than the infinity focus distance. No lens in existence has a focal range that reaches out to the Moon, let alone the Sun. They are all well beyond the infinity distance of any human made lens.

This picture was taken with infinity focus, so any object past that distance will be in focus.

All the way to infinity and beyond.

AlexandrKushnirtshuk, what's up wise?

You think wise is pretending to be Ukrainian now?    Even going so far as to use Cyrillic script?

Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 05, 2021, 07:17:47 PM

AlexandrKushnirtshuk, what's up wise?

You think wise is pretending to be Ukrainian now?    Even going so far as to use Cyrillic script?

I don't think so. Alexandr Kushnirtshuk can write in English much more fluently than wise seems to be able to do.  If wise could do that and his posts are all an act, as much as he writes he'd be likely to slip up at some point and write a coherent paragraph.

The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

A photon has energy and momentum (weight) but no mass. It is obvious that light is vibrations of some medium (ether). This environment cannot but have resistance, damping or absorbing light vibrations with time and distance. I will describe the essence in simple words so as not to complicate and not drag out the explanation.

1) Water waves.
They spread longer (in time) than sound, but at a shorter distance (at a lower speed). Distribution medium: water.

2) Sound waves.
The lifetime of sound waves is shorter than that of water waves, but the speed (and distance) is greater. Distribution medium: atmosphere (gas).

3) Light waves.
By analogy, the lifetime of light waves should be much shorter than the lifetime of sound waves, but since the speed of light is about 300,000 km/s - the propagation distance is greater. Distribution medium: ether.


(a schematic representation of a photon - a conventional unit of oscillation (wave) of the ether) Image text translation: The movement of one light wave (photon) from the source to complete attenuation and / or absorption by the medium (ether).

At the beginning of the 20th century, scientists rejected the completely plausible hypothesis of the Tired Light, began to carry out fortune-telling by redshifts of the spectrum (like on coffee grounds, only by the emission spectra), and billions of light years, black holes, dark energies, and distant, distant galaxies rushed.

Light years?

A photon cannot exist not only for years, but even for minutes. Example. Standing in the lake. You throw a stone. First you hear the sound, later the waves come. Waves on water, sound waves in a gaseous medium and light waves in ether are phenomena of the same nature, but of different orders due to the environment. If waves on water “live” for minutes, and sound waves in a gaseous medium “live” for seconds, then light waves in their medium (ether) “live” for a fraction of a second. All this depends on the power of the source of wave oscillations, so it can be assumed that light waves from the Sun can exist for several seconds, but not more (not minutes, and even less years).

Even if in the space environment (vacuum) there is no resistance, there is no heat exchange, then the distance is overcome (volume expansion with distance), which cannot occur absolutely without energy consumption. In addition, the space of the cosmic vacuum cannot be absolutely empty. There cannot but be certain, albeit minimal, resistance and heat transfer. Light years and 8 light minutes from Sun to Earth are physically impossible.

Again. Attentively. This is very important to understand. Overcoming distance in any environment, that is, regardless of the environment, cannot occur without energy consumption (or with zero energy consumption). Since a photon has a very low energy charge, and a very high speed of movement, and no medium (including space) can have absolutely zero resistance, then, accordingly, the lifetime (life) of one photon (wave oscillation of the medium - ether) is very short, not exceeding at least one minute.

Definition. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.

Since the ether is not scientifically recognized, it turns out that a photon is a conventional unit of wave oscillations of an incomprehensible medium? A photon has weight (energy and momentum), but no mass - it is obvious that this is an oscillation (wave) of some medium (ether).

Addition.

If the distance from the Earth to the Sun were 150,000,000 km, that is, 8 light minutes, then the STEREO Ahead and STEREO Behind spacecraft would simply be impossible to control, and it would be impossible to receive any data from them. For example. STEREO A (itself being in constant motion in orbit) sends a signal to the Earth that flies in space for 8 minutes, and during this time the Earth moves in orbit for 8 minutes. * 60 sec. * 30 km/s = 14 400 km. Not to mention the enormous degree of radio signal scattering over distances of tens of millions of kilometers or several light minutes.


(animation of the movement of STEREO spacecrafts around the Sun)

There is a photo animation on the web that shows a solar flare in the direction of one of these satellites. The STEREO Ahead spacecraft supposedly moves along the Earth's orbit, that is, at the same distance from the Sun as the Earth. This is an animation of STEREO A photos from July 23, 2012.



The solar flare flew exactly in the direction of STEREO A. It began at almost exactly 03:00 (UTC), and the first visible particles of coronal matter (white ripples in the animation) flew to STEREO A at about 07:00 (UTC). If the distance from the Sun to the Earth's orbit (on which the STEREO spacecraft are located) were 150,000,000 km, as is officially believed, then the speed of coronal material particles would be 150,000,000 km. / 4 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = about 10,000 km / s. - this is 3% of the speed of light, which is hardly physically possible.

The solar wind is a stream of ionized particles (mainly helium-hydrogen plasma) flowing out from the solar corona at a speed of 300-1200 km/s into the surrounding space.

In addition, it is generally known that the flow of coronal matter from a solar flare reaches the Earth's orbit (in which the STEREO spacecraft are supposedly located) in an average of 150,000,000 km. / 750 km / s / 60 sec. / 60 min. / 24 hours = ~ 2.5 - 3 days. But in fact, the animation of the photos turns out to be 07:00 (UTC) - 03:00 (UTC) = 4 hours. Looks like it turns out this way, because STEREO spacecrafts are located on the orbit of Venus (around the Sun), and SOHO spacecraft is located in common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun in the Solar System (Universe) with approximately the same parameters as in the schematic image below.


(ProtoEarth, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars; common center of mass between Earth and Sun; distance to the Moon is about 100 000 km., distance to the Sun is about 300 000 km.; Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe where all the "stars" and "galaxies" located; the diameter of the Universe does not exceed one light minute)

The rotation of the Earth and the Sun, as two commensurate objects, around a common center of mass, is difficult to describe in words and to draw schematically - therefore, I end the article with a corresponding animation, in which the size ratios are close to reality (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

Two recent news and my assumptions about that information.
Celebrity star Betelgeuse is smaller and closer to us than we thought.
Earth is 2,000 light years closer to the Milky Way's supermassive black hole than previously thought.

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).
* that incorrect coefficient may be the gravitational constant.
"The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy." (Wikipedia)

Correlation between Betelgeuse brightness and solar activity.

Betelgeuse is estimated to be 642.5 light years away. Why is dynamics of brightness of Betelgeuse so closely aligned with the dynamics of solar activity?


Diagram source link.


Diagram source link.

Moreover, in addition to the correlation with 10-13 years solar cycles on the Betelgeuse brightness graph, there are clear 1 year cycles of brightness fluctuations also visible. Based on this fact, I assume that Betelgeuse, like all other "stars" and "galaxies", are located in the Oort Cloud and reflect sunlight.

Annual cyclicity of Betelgeuse brightness fluctuations.

The annual cyclical fluctuations in the brightness of Betelgeuse can be explained by the suggestion that in December the Sun is farther from it, and in June - is closer to it (considering the rotation of the Earth and the Sun as in the animation below, the Earth is larger). Betelgeuse is located in the constellation Orion. Sun in Orion (Orion behind Sun) is in June.

Official diameter of Mercury is 4.8 thousand km, Moon - 3.5 thousand km.
Look at large craters with long, light streaks.
Stripes from one of such craters on Mercury cover (encircle) it completely. The Moon also has several such craters with long light stripes, but they are much smaller (shorter) relative to the Moon's surface.
Moon's diameter is about 700-900 km. The diameter of Mercury is about 10-15 km.

Sun image overlay on the HI1 camera image. I think that with such overlays they cover the real Earth, and in this case, the images of the Sun accidentally got into the template (script) of the necessary overlays.
What are we seeing here on NASA's Satellite H1?


And this is the shutter itself, which on the HI1 camera is not needed for anything else, except for mounting overlays.
NASA STEREO B (behind) HI2 2007

The STEREO spacecraft have two cameras. One is directed to the Sun (frontal), the other - to the space nearby (lateral). On November 16, 2016, the following “anomaly” appeared on the animation of the STEREO A image:


This is an overlay of the Sun image from the front camera to the side camera. This is the official NASA explanation. Such an overlap could not happen by accident by itself. It is very likely that there is an algorithm for overlaying images, in which programmers mistakenly specified the wrong files. What can be covered next to the Sun in space? Earth, if the ratio of the diameters of the Earth and the Sun is ~ 3-4 to 1.


This is not a UFO, but a shutter on the STEREO side camera. The same as on the frontal one (which covers the Sun due to its strong brightness), but 3-4 times larger in diameter ... Why is there a shutter on the side camera, in the shooting area, where the sun does not get?

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.

What is dark matter?
An incomprehensible substance evenly scattered throughout the Universe, or is it the border of the Universe behind the Oort cloud, from where the sunlight is simply not reflected?
Astronomers Use New Data to Create Extraordinary Dark Matter Map

The distance to the most distant galaxy is supposedly 13.4 billion light years. This means that the light travels all the distance without hindrance. This is supposedly a straight line, along which there are no objects: stars, galaxies, nebulae, dust, gas - nothing blocking light in a straight line 13.4 billion light years long ... This is hardly possible.

Moon size. Calculation and confirmation.

The duration of an eclipse is directly proportional to the size of the object, all other things being equal (distance and speed). The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes (the Moon completely covers the Sun for 7.5 minutes). The duration of the total phase of the lunar eclipse is 108 minutes (the Earth completely covers the Sun for 108 minutes). With the same distance between the Moon and the Earth. At the same speed of the Moon (the orbit of the Moon moves with the speed of the Earth). The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. Therefore, the diameter of the Moon can be calculated using the following formula: 12 742 * (7.5 / 108) = 885 km. The official diameter of the Moon is 3,474 km. Moreover, the result of calculating the diameter of the Moon quite accurately coincides with the size of the track between South America and Antarctica (875 km. + - 25 km.), which confirms the calculation and minimizes probability of a simple coincidence.



Earth and Moon to scale. The shadow of the moon on the surface of the Earth during a solar eclipse (view from space). The size of the shadow is more consistent with an object with a diameter of 3,500 km., or 850 km.?
Looking Back at Earth - Total Solar Eclipse from the Perspective of Space - NASA photo

Here is a link to a video with a selection of episodes in which astronauts were hanging on ropes, and an animation of one of the episodes.
Hidden ropes on ISS.



For some reason, astronauts on the ISS are hanging on ropes - this is a fact. The ropes are hidden by video editing, that is, they tried to hide it - this is a fact. Why would they?

My version. I think that there are no people on space stations due to the likelihood of being destroyed by a meteorite or space debris at any time. Such a probability, although negligible, but given the complete absence of any protection against destruction by a meteorite, it makes no sense, both the stay of people in the earth's orbit, and the colonization of space (Moon, Mars ...) in principle.

Do you know in what conditions (supposedly) they live on the ISS? What kind of effort is it worth taking a shower or just going to the toilet? Look closely at the photo (500 days in space). The astronaut is neatly shaved, trimmed, and even has a professional manicure. Who's lying about space? Permanent risk of vital equipment breakdown, collision with space debris or meteorite. Permanent risk to life. Life in a small confined space with a whole bunch of everyday inconveniences and other difficulties. At the same time, all astronauts are constantly cheerful and smiling.

https://www.roscosmos.ru/25021/

Who iss Lying? - Astronauts: Stars In Space - Contradictions!

Are the crew members of 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger still alive?

Michelson–Morley experiment is a complex and extremely important experiment that has been refined and repeated since 1881. Its task is to prove the existence of a medium for the propagation of light and radio waves - ether. The main factor of this experience is the speed of the Earth's movement in space (the length of the Earth's orbit). The received data turns out to be much less than expected. In my model of the Universe, the length of the Earth's orbit and the speed of the Earth's movement are much less than the official ones.

In short, the results of Michelson–Morley experiment proves:
1) the existence of ether;
2) my model of the Universe.




Ordinary waves have a medium - water.
Sound waves have a medium - a gas (atmosphere).
Do light and radio waves have a medium? The ether has not yet been officeally proven.

The aquatic environment is inhabited.
The gaseous environment (atmosphere) is inhabited.
Is the ether inhabited? Where do UFOs come from? Where do the “aliens” (angels / demons) live?

My several other thoughts to the important issues directly related to the structure of the Universe.

1) The actual (real) structure of the Universe is the key to a correct understanding of the origin of life, its nature, as well as the essence of paranormal phenomena, UFOs, so called "aliens", and the key to the correct worldview.

2) There are no extraterrestrials (in the sense that they are not from other planets - not EXTRAterrestrials ). I think that the Earth is the only planet in the Universe. The Sun is the only star in the Universe. "Aliens" (all their alliances and races) are, roughly speaking, angels / demons. Entities that somehow, for some time manage to avoid incarnation. Their influence on humanity is insignificant on the physical plane (paranormal or subtle phenomena interact very weakly with matter), but enormous in terms of mental (religion, worldview). Most of all, they affect the mind through fear of death and ignorance. "Aliens" is a psychophysical, subtle, noosphere phenomenon.

3) Is the Universe local?
Yes. Moreover, it is absolutely local. This comes from the name itself. If besides the Universe there is something else, then without this something it is no longer the Universe. Within the framework of the Universe, the existence of something local is impossible, that is, absolutely without any interaction with the rest of the Universe. In short, this supposedly difficult question, in fact, is a priori very unambiguous: the Universe is absolutely local, within the Universe, conditionally (relatively) local phenomena or regions (space) can exist, for example: a soundproof room, an airtight container, water-air, etc. .P. impermeable containers. But it is impossible to create an absolutely impenetrable space within the framework of the Universe itself for absolutely nothing. In short, the Universe is an absolutely local space, within which the existence of any other absolutely local space is impossible.

4) Is it possible to know the future?
No. Knowledge of the future itself influences (changes) this future. Example. You find out that something bad is about to happen, even if you try to do nothing to fix it or avoid it, then at least your behavior and thinking will change. In short, it is impossible to know the future, because knowledge of the future itself affects the future, that is, changes it. There are certain trends and expectations of the future, but nobody knows 100% of it, although it is likely that it can be 100% predetermined.

5) The only infinite parameter (in the full sense) in the Universe is time. Energy and matter, like consciousness and space, are limited, but indestructible ... in short, here you need to understand well the Law of Conservation of Energy and its consequences, because this is essentially one of the fundamental properties of the Universe: Nothing appears from nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but is only redistributed and / or transformed from one state to another.

6) Religious worldviews.
The first and most important thing to understand is that the existence of 100% truth, or 100% lies, is impossible. Abrahamic religions (Islam, Christianity, Judaism. . .) - sinners in hell, the righteous in heaven - game over - nonsense. But this does not mean that these religions are completely false.Hinduism and Buddhism, like probably Taoism and Shintoism with the concepts of karma and rebirth, in general, are closer to reality. But this does not mean that these religions are absolutely true.That is, with regard to religion and worldview, it is important to understand to what extent this or that question or phenomenon corresponds to reality, is logical, plausible, and viable.

An important addition to the worldview.

Knowledge, understanding, awareness - three levels of comprehension of the meaning of something. Dynamic balance of opposites: + - at a specific moment in time, and strictly 50/50 at infinity (in time). A very important criterion for the truth of many things and phenomena, one of the fundamental properties of the Universe, the realization of which is the key to understanding a lot of things - the Law of Conservation of Energy - it's some kind of (like the third) Law of Thermodynamics. In my interpretation, it looks like this: Nothing appears out of nowhere, and does not disappear into anywhere, but only redistributes and / or transforms from one state to another.

A very important consequence of the Law of Conservation of Energy. Destruction, preservation and creation are types of transformation. Something can be "created" only from something, it means not to create in the full sense of the word, but to transform something into something. In short. Nobody created the universe, and there are no creators as such, in principle, there are transformers of different levels, orders, opportunities and responsibilities.

Nobody has ever created anything.
Creation, preservation and destruction are varieties of transformation. In Hinduism, Rama (creator), Vishnu (keeper), Shiva (destroyer) is the personalization of the transformation varieties. The Christian “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is a complete amen and hallelujah in oil, or just a set of masculine words.

In my opinion, the Flat Earth Theory is a distorted counterbalance to the false official astronomy. Officially, space is built on the principle of an inflationary (financial) bubble - too exaggerated. In the Flat Earth model, space is too understated/minimized. But in general, the Flat Earth Theory is closer to reality (than official model of the Universe), because it indirectly implies the inexpediency and meaninglessness of space exploration.

It is obvious that light is vibrations of some medium (ether).

No it isn't.
While it is obvious that light has wave nature, it has been shown that all particles have wave nature. Including particles which do not need a medium to propagate.

This environment cannot but have resistance, damping or absorbing light vibrations with time and distance.

Then where does the energy go?
As you are yet to substantiate that they need a medium, there is no basis to assume this alleged medium will dampen the vibrations.
Also note that for the most part, water waves and sound waves don't get damped by the medium, but spread out, such that after enough distance they are indistinguishable from the noise.
The more intense the source, the longer they appear to travel as the longer they need to travel before they become indistinguishable from noise.
A small wave from throwing a stone into a water will appear to dissipate after a few 10s of m, a high speed boat creating waves by its wake will send out waves which can travel quite some distance. And tsunamis can cross entire oceans.
The same applies to sound, with quite sounds appearing to disappear quite quickly, but large sounds travelling for 10s to hundreds of km.

At the beginning of the 20th century, scientists rejected the completely plausible hypothesis of the Tired Light

That is not plausible at all.
There are so many problems it isn't funny.

A photon cannot exist not only for years, but even for minutes

Prove it.

Waves on water, sound waves in a gaseous medium and light waves in ether are phenomena of the same nature

There are quite a few fundamental differences.
Water waves are based upon an interaction between 2 surfaces and gravity as a restoring force.
Sound waves are longitudinal, based upon compression and rarefaction of the medium, with the medium itself providing a restoring force.
Neither of those can propagate through a vacuum, but light can.
And light is a transverse wave.

light waves in their medium (ether) “live” for a fraction of a second.

And that is refuted by simple observations.

it can be assumed that light waves from the Sun can exist for several seconds, but not more (not minutes, and even less years).

You can assume anything.
You can assume the sun is made of cheese and throws out globs of molten cheese which magically turn into photons when they hit the atmosphere.
What matters is what you can demonstrate.
And there is nothing to suggest that the light from the sun cannot travel just over 8 minutes to Earth, or even further.

Light years and 8 light minutes from Sun to Earth are physically impossible.

Prove it.

Again. Attentively. This is very important to understand. Overcoming distance in any environment, that is, regardless of the environment, cannot occur without energy consumption (or with zero energy consumption).

As a bulk, yes, for an individual photon, no.
An individual photon is either absorbed or not.
It doesn't lose energy as it travels.
It keeps the same energy until it is absorbed by something.
That could be after a tiny fraction of a second, or it could be after thousands of years.

It is a bulk property from the statistics of loads and loads of particles, that you start to have an exponential decay as you pass through a constant medium, as well as an inverse square law decay as it spread out from a spherically symmetric source.

If the distance from the Earth to the Sun were 150,000,000 km, that is, 8 light minutes, then the STEREO Ahead and STEREO Behind spacecraft would simply be impossible

You mean if your entirely baseless claim about how far light can travel was true.
If instead that claim is pure garbage and light can travel just fine for quite long distances, there is no problem.
This makes your argument circular.

The solar flare flew exactly in the direction of STEREO A. It began at almost exactly 03:00 (UTC), and the first visible particles of coronal matter (white ripples in the animation) flew to STEREO A at about 07:00 (UTC). If the distance from the Sun to the Earth's orbit (on which the STEREO spacecraft are located) were 150,000,000 km, as is officially believed, then the speed of coronal material particles would be 150,000,000 km. / 4 hours / 60 minutes / 60 seconds = about 10,000 km / s. - this is 3% of the speed of light, which is hardly physically possible.

Pretty sure we have been over this before.
It is visible on the image at 3:40 and not at 2:40. It could have started anywhere between those times, or even slightly before and not yet left the dark spot.
The first really significant amount of particles above background were then around 9:55, and it peaked at 20:40. This means the bulk travelled the distance in around 17 to 18 hours. Close to the average you claim.
You are focusing on the much faster bits which arrive the earliest to pretend that because they are much faster than the average it magically proves something.

As for 3% of the speed of light being impossible, WHY?
That is just your assertion.
We have particle accelerators which get particles to 90% of the speed of light or more.

(ProtoEarth, Sun, Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars; common center of mass between Earth and Sun; distance to the Moon is about 100 000 km., distance to the Sun is about 300 000 km.; Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe where all the "stars" and "galaxies" located; the diameter of the Universe does not exceed one light minute)

You have provided your model before, with no justification.
It makes no sense.
Why do the inner planets orbit the sun, especially when Venus gets closer to Earth or the Earth-sun barycenter. You have it basically passing straight through.
You then have mars orbiting the barycentre.
It is massively inconsistent and makes no sense at all.

And then you seem to be just spamming a bunch of incoherent nonsense to try to make something stick.

Pick a point, and try to defend that.

Clearly the earth has a penis and its girth is 850km across.

Formation of continents.

Take a close look at the animation of two huge, diametrically opposed formations on the surface of the earth’s core. They cannot but be directly related to the formation of continents. They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east. Compare with the official model for the formation of continents. These huge structures are contrary to the official model of the formation of continents.



Link to the source article about Earth Blobs: The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

The Cordillera – the Andes, the Iranian highlands – the Himalayas – are also two huge formations of a similar shape, also diametrically opposed to each other. Both are displaced to the east of two huge formations of the Earth’s core (HFEC). Cordillera – The Andes are displaced further from their HFEC and are more split. Iranian Highlands – The Himalayas are closer to their HFEC, and are strongly displaced to the north.



New model of the Universe.

From the above, we can conclude that before the moment of the so-called “Big Bang” in the Universe there was a certain material sphere with a diameter of about 20 thousand km, the substance in which was in the stage of the limit of density (the state of singularity). Let’s call this sphere ProtoEarth.



As a result of certain processes at the Proto-Earth’s poles two PreContinents were gradually formed – PreAmerica (North America, South America and Antarctica) and PreEurasia (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’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.

(a huge trail of clearly cosmic origin between South America and Antarctica, animation of the trajectory of a solar eclipse shadow and a schematic drawing)

A few more arguments in favor of this model of the Universe:

- The coincidence of the apparent diameters of the Sun and the Moon in the sky.
- The coincidence of the axial periods of rotation of the Sun and the Moon (27 days).
- Only Mercury and Venus have no satellites.
- Only Mercury and Venus have incommensurably large periods of rotation around their axes 58 and 243 days, respectively (Earth, Mars – 1 day; Jupiter, Saturn – 16, 17 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 9, 10 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.


(schematic comparison of the official and new model of the Universe; ProtoEarth, Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars and common center of masses between Earth and Sun)

Thus, it is very similar to the fact that the Universe looks approximately like on the Tycho Brahe's model of the Universe, only with the correction for the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass. The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the proto-Earth mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.



In all this, a correct understanding of the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around a common center of mass is very important. The ratio of diameters is approximately the same as in the animation (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).



Addition.

The rotation of Venus around the Sun is very similar to the rotation of the Moon around the Earth, except for the direction of rotation. That is, Venus is not always facing the Sun with one side, but in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side. As you can see from the quote above, in the official model of the solar system there is no explanation for such an orbital phenomenon of Venus, because it can in no way be a coincidence or the result of the tidal interaction of the Earth and Venus (at least with the official parameters of the solar system).

The paradox here most likely lies in the misunderstanding of the reference point (coordinate system). When calculating the orbital rotation period of the planet (in this case, Venus), the immobility of the Sun and the rotation of the Earth around it are taken into account, and therefore the paradox of the mismatch of the orbital and axial rotation periods of Venus (225 and 243 days) and the fact that “in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus faces the Earth with the same side.”

The answer to this paradox, most likely, is that it is not the Earth that revolves around the Sun, but the Earth and the Sun revolve around a common center of mass, and then the officially paradoxical coincidence of the orbital and axial periods of Venus’s rotation becomes quite natural. But since the convergence of the Earth and Venus occurs approximately once every one and a half years, the orbital period of Venus is 584 days (the synodic period of Venus), and the axial period relative to the Earth is 146 days (that is, exactly four times less). This is difficult for a spatial representation (especially considering the massive brainwashing with the official model of the solar system), but when the Earth and the Sun rotate around a common center of mass, this is quite possible, does not contradict visual observations of the movement of the planets and the Sun in the sky, and most importantly, this explains the fact that in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

Two animations for better spatial presentation. On the second – the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

Link to the source article in russian: Новая модель Вселенной.Часть II: АРГУМЕНТЫ.

Just a small question. How did you obtain your information in regard to the orbits of planets, formation of the planets and the nature of the Big Bang, if such an event actually occurred.