New model of the Universe

Page 2 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
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)
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,992
717
2,560
So post #22 does not provide how telescopes in astronomy determined the size of the universe is 0.12 au across or one light minute. How in 1672 the Mars parallax was determined showing the distance between Earth and Mars, how the lunar parallax was measured showing the distance to the Moon, and how Venus and Mercury transits used to calculate the solar parallax and determine the distance between Earth and the Sun, is discarded here in all of this. So is radar measurements of the Moon, first done in 1946 by the Army and followed up over the decades including recent radar imaging of the Apollo 15 landing site that was published on space.com and other sites. Just consider the Moon is 100,000 km away and only 500-700 km in diameter (all wrong for angular size measurements) and radar measurements in this new model. Here is a report on the radar measurements of the Moon recently. GREEN BANK TESTS NEW PLANETARY RADAR, https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/green-bank-tests-new-planetary-radar/

Back in 1946, the US Army started using radar to measure the Moon (it clearly is not 500-700 km in diameter and 100,000 km away from Earth). It is important to understand LLR and radar measurements for the Moon. Here is a quote a 1926-1951 Naval Academy book I use (Navigation and Nautical Astronomy, Dutton). "864. Physcial characteristics of the moon. - When the Army, early in 1946, announced that it had made radar contact with the moon, interest in the possibility of some day making a trip to the moon increased...", page 275-276.

I may also suggest here because the new universe model is one light minute in diameter or about 0.12 au using the modern value for the astronomical unit, the Earth is the largest object apparently in that universe model. This was common in geocentric teaching where the Earth was immovable and the Sun moved around the Earth.
 
Last edited:
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
The trail between South America and Antarctica cannot be anything other than the trail of the Moon on the surface of the Earth. The width of this trace indicates the diameter of the Moon is 500-700 km.
 

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
628
349
1,260
The trail between South America and Antarctica cannot be anything other than the trail of the Moon on the surface of the Earth. The width of this trace indicates the diameter of the Moon is 500-700 km.
Please show us the math regarding how you made this determination. Maybe that would add merit to your argument.
 
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
Please show us the math regarding how you made this determination. Maybe that would add merit to your argument.
The calculation shows that 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, and (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. It turns out that the Moon is not so much a satellite of the Earth as an independent planet of the solar system.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,992
717
2,560
Interesting math in post #31. Here is another solution using c.g.s. units. The Earth-Moon orbit a common barycenter of the two bodies so do the planets with the Sun. The force of acceleration between the Earth and Sun using standard heliocentric solar system metrics and gravity = 3.54E+27 dynes cm^2 s^-1, that is some force measurement between the Sun and Earth. The force of acceleration between the Earth and Moon using the Moon's mean distance, 384401 km, is 1.9826E+25 dynes cm^2 s^-1. The difference here is not 2.2 but 178.55x larger difference. Houston, we have a problem :)
 
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
The force of acceleration between the Earth and Sun is 180x larger, than between the Earth and Moon. Hence the force of acceleration between the Moon and Sun is about 50x larger, than between the Moon and Earth.
And you say that there is no contradiction in this?
Measurements of cosmic distances, sizes and velocities are based on the gravitational constant, which cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy. Spacecrafts successfully fly in space, because the proportions of the orbits are correct, but their scale is greatly exaggerated (oversized) in comparison with reality.
 

rod

Oct 22, 2019
1,992
717
2,560
The force of acceleration between the Earth and Sun is 180x larger, than between the Earth and Moon. Hence the force of acceleration between the Moon and Sun is about 50x larger, than between the Moon and Earth.
And you say that there is no contradiction in this?
Measurements of cosmic distances, sizes and velocities are based on the gravitational constant, which cannot be calculated with sufficient accuracy. Spacecrafts successfully fly in space, because the proportions of the orbits are correct, but their scale is greatly exaggerated (oversized) in comparison with reality.
Post #31 has a better force measure delta between Moon and Sun vs. Earth and Moon, 2.2x not 50x, ref. "The calculation shows that the Moon is attracted to the Sun 2.2 times stronger than to the Earth." The larger force measurement between the Earth and Sun shows the Earth is orbiting the Sun, not the Moon. In your post #3, the universe is only one light minute in diameter, that is about 0.12 au using the modern astronomical unit value. The new model is fraught with error. 'Resolving long-standing mysteries about the first parallaxes in astronomy', https://phys.org/news/2020-11-long-standing-mysteries-parallaxes-astronomy.html, also 'VLBA makes first direct distance measurement to magnetar', https://phys.org/news/2020-09-vlba-distance-magnetar.html

My observations. Very interesting report and paper cited that revisited the stellar parallax work for 61 Cygni and Vega. 61 Cygni corrected stellar parallax is 286 mas or a bit more than 11.4 LY distance from Earth. Stellar parallax work confirms that the Earth moves around the Sun and we live in a heliocentric solar system. Concerning the magnetar parallax distance, "This is the first parallax measurement for a magnetar, and shows that it is among the closest magnetars known—at about 8100 light-years—making it a prime target for future study,"

For any reading this discussion here are two interesting reports on measuring the astronomical unit, a measurement critical to the new model universe here only 0.12 au in diameter.

'Summing Up the Unique Venus Transit 2004 (VT-2004) Programme', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004eso..pres...26./abstract,
"The impressive outcome of this unique project is now available in a number of reports, accessible via the "VT-2004 Observing Campaign Results" webpage. Following extensive analysis of this large material at Institut de Mécanique Céleste et de Calcul des Éphémérides (IMCCE; Paris), the resulting distance from the Earth to the Sun, based on the extensive observational data is: Calculated value of 1 AU with uncertainty Difference from "true" value 149 608 708 km ± 11 835 km + 10 838 km This result is only 0.007% larger than the currently accepted value, as determined by radar measurements (1 AU = 149 597 871 km), a splendid outcome of a truly unique international collaboration!"

'Six stages in the history of the astronomical unit', https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JAHH....4...15H/abstract, "Giovanni Antonio Rocca wrote "The problem of solar distance and parallax was one of the most important in astronomy, well worth a lifetimes work by any astronomer." (see Ricciolo, 1651:732). This paper briefly reviews the values obtained for the Earth-Sun distance throughout the history of astronomy, and divides the investigation of the astronomical unit into six stages. It is suggested that a similar six stages can be recognized in the history of many other fundamental parameters in our subject."

My note - this abstract reports on efforts in astronomy and work to define the distance between the earth and the Sun, i.e. the astronomical unit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giovanni_Battista_Riccioli. See the attached PDF for full report (Six stages in the history of the astronomical unit,https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001JAHH....4...15H/abstract). I think the table showing distances is very good and the history and efforts to measure the distance between the Earth and Sun. The history shows how difficult this was to define.

This new model presented here in the forums has fundamental units of distance error (critical errors that invalidate the claims presented), starting with the distance between Earth and the Moon and Earth and the Sun and one light minute diameter for the size of the entire universe. Post #3 in this thread is clear on the universe size, "The diameter of the Universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute." This is some 8.33x smaller than the current astronomical unit value for the distance between Earth and the Sun. That means everything observed today using modern telescopes like galaxies M31 or M33, must be very small and the Earth is the largest object in this view of 'How the Universe Works'.
 
Last edited:

COLGeek

Moderator
Apr 3, 2020
628
349
1,260
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.
The thread you mentioned is telling. There is nothing of scientific value in this.

Nothing to see here. Sorry.
 
Mar 4, 2021
40
2
35
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.


In the image below, the sizes of the traces are almost the same due to the projection of the surface of the sphere onto a rectangular plane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts