New model of the Universe.

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.

1) 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.

2) From the above, we can logically 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 (it is the moment of so-called "Big Bang" and all the stars (except the Sun) are frozen clumps of the earth's mantle with diameters of the order of tens of kilometers), the ProtoEarth’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.



Two traces on the surface of the Earth (from the Sun and the Moon).
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.




(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 – 9, 10 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 16, 17 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.


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.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 11, 2021, 02:39:44 AM

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.

1) 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.

2) From the above, we can logically 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 (it is the moment of so-called "Big Bang" and all the stars (except the Sun) are frozen clumps of the earth's mantle with diameters of the order of tens of kilometers), the ProtoEarth’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.



Two traces on the surface of the Earth (from the Sun and the Moon).
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.




(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 – 9, 10 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 16, 17 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.


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.

We’re you around before the Big Bang?

You can’t make statements like that without a massive amount of evidence that has been through a validation process and had been thoroughly scrutinised.
Making off the cuff unsubstantiated claims such as yours is pretty meaningless in the world of science.

In addition you appear to be saying the earth was formed almost straight after the BB itself!

There is one huge problem there straight off if I’m understanding you correctly in that the age of the earth is 4.5 bn years give of take while the universe is estimated at 13.7 bn years again give it take.

How do you account for that 9bn year discrepancy?

There is one huge problem there straight off if I’m understanding you correctly in that the age of the earth is 4.5 bn years give of take while the universe is estimated at 13.7 bn years again give it take.

How do you account for that 9bn year discrepancy?

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.

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

For those who need math and calculations here are some interesting stuff about parallax and stellar aberration. All three articles are in russian. I'll translate only titles.
1) Stellar aberration. Stars are only 250 times farther from the Sun than Pluto
2) Stellar aberration. 300 years of topodynamic cretinism
3) Stellar aberration, the lie of relativism

The Moon is attracted to the Sun 2.2 times stronger than to the Earth.
Here are the data for the calculation:
Rls / Rls = 390, (Rls / Rls) ^ 2 = 152000 distance ratio
Ms / Ms = 332000 mass ratio

Now the transformations and the actual calculation:
Fls = Ml * Ms / R ^ 2ls
Fls = Ml * Ms / R ^ 2ls
Fls : Fls = (Ms / Ms) : (Rls / Rls) ^ 2 = 332000 : 152000 = 2.2

The sphere of gravity of the Earth, inside which the gravity of the Earth exceeds the gravity of the Sun, has a radius of 0.260 million km. (counting from the center of the Earth). The Moon, according to official figures, is located far beyond this sphere.

1) 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.

That's right. So you can't just have energy randomly vanishing.
That means you can't get a lifetime for a photon, unless it is absorbed by something which would then increase in energy.

Let’s call this sphere ProtoEarth.

Why, it is nothing like Earth.

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 (it is the moment of so-called "Big Bang" and all the stars (except the Sun) are frozen clumps of the earth's mantle with diameters of the order of tens of kilometers), the ProtoEarth’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.

And do you have any explanation for any of that at all?

4) Both have diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth.

No they don't.
One has its centre at ~ 58 S, 28 W.
The other is 17 N, 142 E.
That is nothing like diametrically opposite locations.
Diametrically opposite the first point would by 58 N, 152 W. That puts it just off the coast of Russia.
Diametrically opposite the second point would be 17 S, 38 W. That puts it in Brazil.

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 – 9, 10 hours; Uranus, Neptune – 16, 17 hours).
- In each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

How do any of these support your model? You have just made a collection of claims, with no justification for how any of these claims, if true, support your model.

1 - Only works for Earth, not any other planet with a moon, and not even a good match, with it varying from the moon appearing smaller to it appearing larger. Regardless, their physical sizes are vastly different.
2 - The rotation period of the sun varies throughout the sun by more than 10 days, it is not simply 27 days.
3 - So what?
4 - Again, so what?
5 - No it isn't. I'm pretty sure you brought that up before, and that claim was shown to be wrong.

The duration of an eclipse is directly proportional to the size of the object, all other things being equal (distance and speed).

And not all other things are equal.
The distances are different, the speed of the moon is different to the speed of Earth, the rate of rotation of Earth is different to the rate of rotation of the moon, the sun isn't a point source, for the lunar eclipse the duration of totality is based upon Earth blocking the sun to the entire moon, but for a solar eclipse it is the moon blocking the entire sun for a location on Earth.

All of these means you can't simply treat it as size is proportional to duration.

And the simplest example of that is the fact that we can get annular eclipses, where the region of totality is not even on Earth. Does that mean the size of the moon is negative?

Even trying to simplify it to a setup of similar triangles, you have this:

Taking the nice simple option of R, d1 and d2 being constant, r will vary and that will impact d3 and s.

Setting up some similar triangles (based upon all having the same angles) we have
(R-r)/d1=(r-s)/d2=s/d3
Taking the first 2 we have:
(R-r)/d1=(r-s)/d2
(R-r)*d2/d1=r-s

s=r-(R-r)*d2/d1
=(r*d1-R*d2+r*d2)/d1
=(r*(d1+d2)-R*d2)/d1

And if we just note what is constant we would get:
s=r*c1-c2
This means it is not a simple linear relationship. Instead there is a factor offsetting it.

Subbing in some values, we can see what we get for the real system (all in km):
Using R=695700, rMoon=1737, rEarth=6371, d1=150,000,000 and d2=350,000.
We end up with s for the moon being 118 km, while s for the Earth being 4762 km.
This is a ratio of roughly 40, even though their radii have a ratio of roughly 3.7.

Even though this started with the moon having a radius of 1737 km, your line of reasoning would conclude the moon's radius is only ~160 km.

And this can be done more dramatically with the example of an annular eclipse.
If we instead set d2=400,000 km, we end up with sMoon=-114 km and sEarth=4532 km, a ratio of roughly -40. Now your reasoning would indicate the moon has a radius of -160 km. What does a negative radius even mean?

But I can even get it more extreme.
What if we have d2=375,452 km?
Then sMoon=1.4 m, while sEarth =4645 km.
This now gives a ratio of ~3,400,000.
Using your idea, this would mean that the moon would have a radius of just 1.9 m.

So even ignoring the vast majority of the factors and instead just focusing on the fact that the sun is not a point source, you can end up with the hypothetical possibility (by varying the speeds and distance, but then keeping it constant for the comparison) of a solar eclipse lasting 1 second, while a lunar eclipse would last 40 days.

And we can see that by varying the distances, but then keeping it constant for comparison, we can end up with wildly different radii for the moon by using your method, including physically impossible negative radii.

This means your method simply doesn't work.

As such, your "calculation" is entirely pointless as it doesn't even attempt to match reality.

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.

Dust and gas and the like don't simply stop light. If that was the case, Earth would be in perpetual darkness.
It just reduces the intensity of it in an exponential manner.

And no, the universe is much larger than that 13.4 billion light years as it has expanded in the time it has taken light to get to us.

If you want to claim it is impossible, prove it.
Especially as you have no justification for why 13.4 billion years is impossible, but your much smaller time is.
Why don't you try a calculation, showing all the necessary variables, to determine just how long light can travel for.

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?

No, it isn't.
No one claims it is evenly scattered throughout the universe.
Are you confusing it with dark energy?

For those who need math and calculations here are some interesting stuff about parallax and stellar aberration. All three articles are in russian. I'll translate only titles.

Just translating the title is pointless.
But from the titles, they seem to have no idea what they are talking about.
Stellar aberration doesn't tell us how far away stars are. That is parallax.
Stellar aberration tells us how fast Earth is travelling in its orbit. Roughly 30 km/s.
This allows us to determine the orbital circumference and thus the radius of the orbit.
For example, assuming it was a perfect circle, then the circumference is 30 km/s * the number of seconds in a year, and this is also the radius times 2*pi.
So r=(30 km/s)*3156952 s / (2*pi)=150673346.99... km. Quite close to the expected value of 150 million km. In fact, to 2 sig figs it is 150 million km.

The Moon is attracted to the Sun 2.2 times stronger than to the Earth.

Your point?
That would only be an issue if Earth was magically fixed in place.
Both Earth, and the moon are in free fall around the sun.

What you actually want to compare to is the tidal force of the sun to the gravity of Earth.
That is given by 2*G*M*r/d^3.
That is only ~ 0.01 times the strength of gravity of Earth.
That means Earth's gravity is enough to keep the moon in orbit.

And yet again, rather than trying to pick a point and stick with it, you are just spouting as much as you can, on wildly different areas, to try to show a fault with the mainstream model.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 11, 2021, 03:15:00 PM

There is one huge problem there straight off if I’m understanding you correctly in that the age of the earth is 4.5 bn years give of take while the universe is estimated at 13.7 bn years again give it take.

How do you account for that 9bn year discrepancy?

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.

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

First off what methods are you using to study distant galaxies ? Do you have access to the VLT array or do you have your own?

It’s was fine in the days if Galileo when all you needed was a wee telescope to see Saturn at best. Now to study the cosmos and to look into deep time you require gear costing millions. Something like the soon to be launched James Webb.

The reality is you are feeding off second hand expert produced knowledge at best but more likely  third or fourth hand interpretations of real scientific discoveries and then overlaying your own unverified interpretations and then attempting to pass it off as some new discovery!

Give us a break. In reality you have been sat in your room reading stuff off the internet and using it to concoct some ridiculous explanation of the beginning of everything!

While in the real world professional scientists using highly sophisticated astronomical equipment probe the universe producing huge amounts of original data which they then spend time deciphering and evaluating and then discussing and then passing through various validation hoops in an attempt to reach some scientific truth.

…..and there is you with your computer and a bunch of internet derived stuff.

Give us a break…. New model of the universe!… it’s no more than total bollocks with diagrams.

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.

The size of Moon and Mercury were measured.
For example, you can measure the Moon yourself.
I did it twice in my life.

Back in late 70s I was member of the YU1AFX radio club.
I've sent 432MHz radio pulse to Moon and measured the return time.
It was nearly 2.5 seconds.
Radio wave travels at the speed of light, which gives the distance to the Moon to be about 380000 km.
Angular diameter of the Moon is about 0.5 degrees.

That way one can calculate the diameter of the Moon to be about 3500 km, not 800-900 km.

Back in 2016 there were cheap sextants on eBay. Under $30.
By measuring lunar parallax with it I found the distance to the Moon to be about 380000 km.

People do radar astronomy for decades now. They use radar to measure distances to the near celestial bodies.
They measured distance to Venus at the moment of the greatest elongation.
That is the moment when the Sun, Earth and Venus form a right triangle with the right angle at Venus.
If you know angle at Earth and measure distance to Venus by radar, you can calculate distances between Venus and Sun, and Earth and Sun.

Distance from Earth to Sun is 149 000 000 km.
Distance from Venus to Sun is 108 000 000 km.

Mercury is obviously closer to Sun than Venus, the amateur astronomy telescope "for the masses" is enough to see it.

In short, the diameter of the Mercury is about 4800 km, not 10-15 km.

The reason for the longer stripes is simply higher impact energy of the body that made them.

Back in late 70s I was member of the YU1AFX radio club.
I've sent 432MHz radio pulse to Moon and measured the return time.
It was nearly 2.5 seconds.
Radio wave travels at the speed of light, which gives the distance to the Moon to be about 380000 km.
Angular diameter of the Moon is about 0.5 degrees.

1) Atmosphere is a gaseous environment. The speed of light (radio waves) in water is 3/4 the speed of light in vacuum. In the atmosphere, the speed of light (radio waves) is less than in vacuum.

2) Sending and receiving a radio signal does not occur instantly. I think that the delay in sending and receiving of a radio signal is not taken into account.

These two factors distort (increase) the actual value of the distance to the Moon.

3) The angular diameter of the Moon is distorted (increased) by the effect of the atmospheric lensing.

Look closely at the scale of the relief, the number of objects on the surface. Four volcanoes and a huge half-planet canyon with a diameter of 6,779 km.? The four mountains on Mars are the remnants of the outer shell. A huge canyon (Mariner valley) - a crack in the inner shell. The entire relief is clearly visible in one small photo. The diameter of Mars is about 14 km. Venus ~ 24 km. Mercury ~ 10 km.


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

Two photos for comparison of scales.



https://www.google.com.ua/maps/space/mars/@-13.117515,-64.3422443,389048m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru

Look closely at the scale of the relief, the number of objects on the surface.

How do canyons, cracks, mountains, & volcanoes relate to scale?

YouTube video title: NASA - Mars VS Devon Island

YouTube video title: NASA BUSTED CURIOSITY ROVER NOT ON MARS BUT GREENLAND


Scale comparison of satellite photos of Earth and Mars shows that Mars' scale is greatly oversized.

Paradox of visual and actual positions in space.
Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks) ... It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.



The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 1 light second. That is, the apparent and actual position of the moon is almost the same. The shortest distance from Earth to Jupiter is about 32 light minutes. The apparent and actual positions of Jupiter differ 4 times more than in the case of the Sun.



The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light? The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light. I do not question the speed of light, it has been measured and refined for several centuries. The official space distances and the sizes of space objects, respectively, are in great doubt.

Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on July 14, 2021, 10:20:38 AM

Look closely at the scale of the relief, the number of objects on the surface.

How do canyons, cracks, mountains, & volcanoes relate to scale?

It is very difficult to determine the scale by eye (visually). One of the criteria for determining the scale is the number of relief objects (canyons, cracks, mountains & volcanoes). The less the number of objects - the smaller the scale, and vice versa.

Back in late 70s I was member of the YU1AFX radio club.
I've sent 432MHz radio pulse to Moon and measured the return time.
It was nearly 2.5 seconds.
Radio wave travels at the speed of light, which gives the distance to the Moon to be about 380000 km.
Angular diameter of the Moon is about 0.5 degrees.

In such a measurement, there may be unaccounted factors which increase the flight time of the radio signal, and, accordingly, the distance calculated on the basis of this time.

For example.

1) Atmosphere is a gaseous environment. The speed of light (radio waves) in water is 3/4 the speed of light in vacuum. In the atmosphere, the speed of light (radio waves) is less than in vacuum.

2) Sending and receiving a radio signal does not occur instantly. I think that the delay in sending and receiving of a radio signal is not taken into account.

These two factors distort (increase) the actual value of the distance to the Moon.

3) The angular diameter of the Moon is distorted (increased) by the effect of the atmospheric lensing.

The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light?

It does.  And they've doing it since the 17th century.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-time_correction

The effect of the finite speed of light on observations of celestial objects was first recognised by Ole Rømer in 1675, during a series of observations of eclipses of the moons of Jupiter. He found that the interval between eclipses was less when Earth and Jupiter are approaching each other, and more when they are moving away from each other. He correctly deduced that this difference was caused by the appreciable time it took for light to travel from Jupiter to the observer on Earth.

Quote from: Stash on July 14, 2021, 10:31:02 AM

Quote from: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on July 14, 2021, 10:20:38 AM

Look closely at the scale of the relief, the number of objects on the surface.

How do canyons, cracks, mountains, & volcanoes relate to scale?

It is very difficult to determine the scale by eye (visually). One of the criteria for determining the scale is the number of relief objects (canyons, cracks, mountains & volcanoes). The less the number of objects - the smaller the scale, and vice versa.

How does the less number of objects equate to a smaller scale? How does that work? What are you basing this notion on? It sounds like you just made up some arbitrary "rule": Fewer things means things are smaller? What kind of weirdness is that?

The effect of the finite speed of light on observations of celestial objects was first recognised by Ole Rømer in 1675, during a series of observations of eclipses of the moons of Jupiter. He found that the interval between eclipses was less when Earth and Jupiter are approaching each other, and more when they are moving away from each other. He correctly deduced that this difference was caused by the appreciable time it took for light to travel from Jupiter to the observer on Earth.

Ole Romer's observation is too multifactorial, and probably misinterpreted. Depending on the relative position of the Earth and Jupiter, the satellite (moon) of Jupiter can be located in the shadow of Jupiter, or simply behind Jupiter (be closed by Jupiter without being in its shadow). The conclusion of Ole Romer's observation about the distance to Jupiter is most likely wrong.


Image text translation:
к Солнцу - to the Sun, к Земле - to the Earth,
Ио - Io, Юпитер - Jupiter, орбита Ио - Io's orbit,
тень Юпитера - Jupiter's shadow,
граница геометрического затмения (с Земли) - geometric eclipse boundary (from Earth).
Geometric eclipse boundary shifts depending on the relative position of the Earth and Jupiter, which most likely causes the temporary displacement (time shift) of Io's eclipses by Jupiter.

You sure seem to love just spouting more and more garbage while ignoring all the refutations of your previous garbage.

Atmosphere is a gaseous environment. The speed of light (radio waves) in water is 3/4 the speed of light in vacuum. In the atmosphere, the speed of light (radio waves) is less than in vacuum.

In water, it is much slower, in air, it is only a tiny bit slower.
The speed of light in air varies, but it still over 299 000 km/s.

Regardless, the moon is still very far away.

Even if you want to pretend it is water that it is travelling through, that still gives a distance of over 280 000 km.

Sending and receiving a radio signal does not occur instantly. I think that the delay in sending and receiving of a radio signal is not taken into account.

Do you understand how radio works at all?
They are sent instantly, as the electrons move.

Even if you did want to add in latency of electronics, that will be negligible compared to the 2.5 seconds.

You are just looking for excuses.

The angular diameter of the Moon is distorted (increased) by the effect of the atmospheric lensing.

Pure nonsnse. The atmosphere doesn't magically makes things appear bigger.
The only time anything like that happens is when you have it near the horizon where it then looks a tiny bit bigger in the vertical direction.

Scale comparison of satellite photos of Earth and Mars shows that Mars' scale is greatly oversized.

No, it shows you don't like the scale.

Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.

You mean to avoid an actual justification and to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks)

No, we don't.
That isn't how anything works.
The main apparent motion of the sun comes from the motion of Earth.
It isn't the sun orbiting Earth, it is Earth orbiting the sun.
The main effect is stellar aberration, which due to Earth's low speed relative to the speed of light, is insignificant.

What actually contributes the most to the sun's apparent motion is the rotation of Earth.
It is this rotation which makes the sun appear to move so much.
And guess what? The light travelling from the sun will have no effect on that.

The apparent and actual positions of Jupiter differ 4 times more than in the case of the Sun.

And this is one where you could actually start trying to make a point, as Jupiter does move.
But you need to consider the distances, and actually focus on the motion of Jupiter rather than the rotation of Earth.

But Jupiter, being further out than Earth has a  much slower orbital velocity.
It travels at roughly 13 km/s.

At its closest distance to Earth, it is roughly 33 light minutes away, and at its furthest it is 37 light minutes away.
That means it would travel 26 or 29 Mm in the time it takes light to reach Earth.
But that equates to an angle of roughly 9 arc seconds.
That is not going to be noticeable.

The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light.

For most people, they should.
Do you have something accurate to 9 arc seconds?

What I doubt is your ability to justify your position.

Paradox of visual and actual positions in space.
Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks) ... It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.



The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 1 light second. That is, the apparent and actual position of the moon is almost the same. The shortest distance from Earth to Jupiter is about 32 light minutes. The apparent and actual positions of Jupiter differ 4 times more than in the case of the Sun.



The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light? The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light. I do not question the speed of light, it has been measured and refined for several centuries. The official space distances and the sizes of space objects, respectively, are in great doubt.

Your examples are inaccurate.  The sun moves across the sky at about 15 degrees per hour along it's path, or 1 degree every 4 minutes.  Projecting its path straight down to the horizon, it's bearing change and can be faster in relation to Lat and Lon of the observer and time of year.   So in the 8 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach earth, the sun has moved roughly 2 degrees along it's path.

The sun moves across the sky at about 15 degrees per hour along it's path, or 1 degree every 4 minutes.  Projecting its path straight down to the horizon, it's bearing change and can be faster in relation to Lat and Lon of the observer and time of year.   So in the 8 minutes it takes for sunlight to reach earth, the sun has moved roughly 2 degrees along it's path.

The sun's angular size is roughly 0.5 degrees.
So 2 degrees would be 4 sun diameters.
The important part is that the Earth has moved, by rotating.

The Bible is an ambiguous, not very scientific and many times rewritten source.
There is one interesting point in the Bible - the appearance of the rainbow after the flood.
Before the flood, giants, dinosaurs lived on Earth, people supposedly lived for several hundred years, and, most interestingly, there was no rainbow. That is, before the flood, the conditions of life on Earth were very different from the current (post-Flood) ones. This is indicated, among other things, by the absence of a rainbow before the flood, which clearly emerges from the quote below.

I lay My rainbow in the cloud, so that it would be a sign of the covenant between Me and between the earth ... When I bring the cloud to the earth, then a rainbow in the cloud will appear ... and I will remember the eternal covenant between God and between every living soul ... This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and between all flesh that is on the earth. (Genesis 9: 13-17)

Strongly different antediluvian conditions on Earth ... There are quite a few weighty arguments in favor of the fact that before the flood the Earth (and the Universe) looked something like this schematic diagram:



The sun was probably colder, the moon hotter. When the Sun and the Moon separated from Proto-Earth, the smaller Moon quickly cooled down, and on the larger Sun, nuclear processes were activated, which, by the way, are now systematically declining. Solar activity has been declining for the fifth consecutive cycle (50 years). The duration of the solar cycle is about 10 years.



And this is the forecast for the 25th solar cycle, which is being confirmed more and more every day.



The fall in solar activity for 5 consecutive cycles, this is a regularity - a tendency indicating the extinction of the Sun. The graphs of solar activity before 1950-1960 (before the beginning of the space age) cannot be reliable - this is something like a forecast into the past.

Another small but very interesting fact that indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, hedgehogs are found, but there are no armadillos.

Arial of armadillos and Arial of hedgehogs.

Another small but very interesting fact that indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, hedgehogs are found, but there are no armadillos.

How so?

Before the flood, giants, dinosaurs lived on Earth, people supposedly lived for several hundred years, and, most interestingly, there was no rainbow.

And we know that is nonsense.
So lets leave the religious BS out of it?

Or is your new model of the universe only for fiction?

It also doesn't really help.
Biblically before the flood, the sun and moon were still up in the sky, not stuck to Earth.

The fall in solar activity for 5 consecutive cycles, this is a regularity - a tendency indicating the extinction of the Sun. The graphs of solar activity before 1950-1960 (before the beginning of the space age) cannot be reliable - this is something like a forecast into the past.

And with no reliable data before it, and how long the sun has been around for, and how it is already known to go through cycles, it does not indicate the extinction of the sun.
You need vastly more data than that.

Another small but very interesting fact that indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, hedgehogs are found, but there are no armadillos.

How?
Like so many of your claims, you just assert it and act like it magically backs you up, with no justification at all.
Just how do you think this justifies your model?
You are literally that species being found in connected continents, which is expected, simply based upon them currently being connected, confirms your model.

Where are the armadillos of Antarctica?
Where are the hedgehogs of Australia?

Why is there an extinct species of hedgehogs for America, with fossils found in Africa, Europe, Asia and North America?

The Bible is an ambiguous, not very scientific and many times rewritten source.
There is one interesting point in the Bible - the appearance of the rainbow after the flood.
Before the flood, giants, dinosaurs lived on Earth, people supposedly lived for several hundred years, and, most interestingly, there was no rainbow. That is, before the flood, the conditions of life on Earth were very different from the current (post-Flood) ones. This is indicated, among other things, by the absence of a rainbow before the flood, which clearly emerges from the quote below.

I lay My rainbow in the cloud, so that it would be a sign of the covenant between Me and between the earth ... When I bring the cloud to the earth, then a rainbow in the cloud will appear ... and I will remember the eternal covenant between God and between every living soul ... This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and between all flesh that is on the earth. (Genesis 9: 13-17)

Strongly different antediluvian conditions on Earth ... There are quite a few weighty arguments in favor of the fact that before the flood the Earth (and the Universe) looked something like this schematic diagram:



The sun was probably colder, the moon hotter. When the Sun and the Moon separated from Proto-Earth, the smaller Moon quickly cooled down, and on the larger Sun, nuclear processes were activated, which, by the way, are now systematically declining. Solar activity has been declining for the fifth consecutive cycle (50 years). The duration of the solar cycle is about 10 years.



And this is the forecast for the 25th solar cycle, which is being confirmed more and more every day.



The fall in solar activity for 5 consecutive cycles, this is a regularity - a tendency indicating the extinction of the Sun. The graphs of solar activity before 1950-1960 (before the beginning of the space age) cannot be reliable - this is something like a forecast into the past.

Another small but very interesting fact that indirectly confirms my model of the Universe. On the American continents, there are armadillos in the wild, but no hedgehogs. In Africa and Eurasia, hedgehogs are found, but there are no armadillos.

Arial of armadillos and Arial of hedgehogs.

Confirms YOUR model of the universe!
Now that is a tall tale.

Google translate from russian (have no time to edit).

And suddenly, after the sorrow of those days, the sun will darken, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. (Gospel of Matthew 24:29)

Each next of the last five solar cycles is weaker than the previous one (one solar cycle lasts about 10 years). The fall in solar activity for 5 consecutive cycles, this is a regularity - a trend indicating the extinction of the Sun. The graphs of solar activity before 1950-1960 (before the beginning of the space era) cannot be reliable (the accuracy of observations was incomparably lower) - this is something like a forecast into the past.



The coronavirus pandemic is caused by solar activity. In 2009, there was a solar minimum and there was an epidemic (on the verge of a pandemic) of swine flu. In 2019, the solar minimum and the coronavirus pandemic began. At the same time, the ecology has significantly deteriorated over 10 years. And the current solar minimum is probably more extreme than the previous one.

I think over the course of several years the Universe will collapse to the limit of matter density into a sphere of a certain diameter ~ 20 thousand km. (all space objects will fly to the center of mass common between the Earth and the Sun along a spiral trajectory). The solar wind creates pressure from within the universe. The sun is dying out. When a certain critical minimum level of solar activity is reached, the process of folding the Universe into a "biblical scroll" will begin.

The stars in the sky will decay, and the sky will roll up like a scroll; the entire host of stars will fall like withered leaves from a vine, like dried fruit from a fig. (Isaiah 34: 4)

And suddenly, after the sorrow of those days, the sun will darken, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from the sky, and the powers of heaven will be shaken. (Gospel of Matthew 24:29)

Google translate from russian (have no time to edit).

If you don't have time, then there really isn't any point in posting.

Repeating the same nonsense, without dealing with the objections raised doesn't strengthen your case.

Again, how does any of this back up your model?

And as for the Bible, you seem to have ignored the "suddenly" part.

The NASA satellite has recorded an unprecedented cluster of pulsating red giant stars. "NASA's Transiting Exoplanet Research Satellite (TESS) has photographed about 75% of the sky during its two-year main mission."



1) Have an unprecedented number of stars suddenly turned into red giants? (2 years by cosmic standards is sudden)

2) Two years ago, the solar minimum began and the objects of the Oort Cloud reflecting sunlight (the official "stars") dimmed due to a decrease in solar activity.