**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.