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

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

45 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

7,5 and 108 minutes are the maximum values of solar and lunar eclipses, and therefore may well be taken as constants in calculations.

You didn’t provide evidence of this, and need to, and also show they are maximum under the same conditions.

1) Total duration of solar eclipse.

2) Total duration of lunar eclipse. (an hour and three-quarters in english version, 108 minutes in russian).

The diameter of the lunar orbit and the speed of the Moon are constant values (same conditions). + - small eccentricity of the lunar orbit.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

The moon in between the earth and sun moves in one direction, the moon on the far side of the earth is moving in the opposite direction. Because the earth is moving, one is in the same direction of the earth’s orbit, the other is in the opposite direction. This will affect the duration of the eclipses. It’s not simple geometry, as if the earth was stationary.

Since the Moon's orbit moves with the speed of the Earth, then in this case (in this frame of reference) the Earth can be considered stationary.

The calculation is based on the principle of scientific proportion, and on three reliable parameters. The calculation pretty closely matches the actual track size between South America and Antarctica. Point.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As Ghideon notes, your result is wrong; this should lead you to first investigate to find errors in your model. for example, 7.5 minutes is the longest solar eclipse ever calculated. It’s not typical, nor is it a constant. It depends on multiple factors.

7,5 and 108 minutes are the maximum values of solar and lunar eclipses, and therefore may well be taken as constants in calculations.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

One rather obvious issue is that the moon is moving in the opposite direction for each type of eclipse, so this simple geometry argument would seem to be lacking.

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).

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What makes you think the diameter of the moon has any relation to the distance between Tierra del Fuego and the tip of Antarctica?

From the quote you quoted above your question, it is quite understandable why I assume that the Moon left a trail between South America and Antarctica. The calculated and actual sizes coincide quite accurately.

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.

The duration of the total phase of a solar eclipse is 7.5 minutes. The duration of the total phase of the lunar eclipse is 108 minutes. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. Therefore, the diameter of the Moon is 12 742 * (7.5 / 108) = 885 km.

Additional evidence.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs
 

The coincidence of the angular sizes of the Sun and the Moon indicates that their sizes are proportional to the distances relative to the Earth. In addition, the Sun and the Moon have the same axial rotation periods - 27 days. In the earth's mantle there are two huge diametrically opposite formations (one is larger, the other is smaller), both are displaced to the east. On the surface of the Earth there are two huge diametrically opposite tracks (one larger, the other smaller), both shifted to the east. The ratio of the sizes of the Sun and the Moon is approximately 3 to 1.

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.

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.

13 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

The earth is not the largest object in the universe. There are 5 objects larger than the earth in our own solar system.

Even officially the solid cores of gas giant planets are smaller than the Earth. Gas shells of that planets is like an atmosphere on Earth. Do we measure earth's size including its atmosphere? I suppose that so called "gas giant planets" are just huge comets, the absence of a tail in which can be explained by the great distance from the Sun and the relatively low speed of movement in their orbits.

Granite is found only on Earth. It was not found either in meteorites or on other "planets" of the solar system. Officially it is unknown why. I suppose, it is because the Earth is the largest object in the Universe, with the greatest gravity and pressure in the subsoil.

Quote

The role of granites in the structure of the upper shells of the Earth is enormous, but unlike magmatic rocks of the basic composition (gabbro, basalt, anorthosite, norite, troctolite), analogs of which are common on the Moon and terrestrial planets, this rock is found only on our planet and has not yet been established among meteorites or on other planets of the solar system. Among geologists there is an expression "Granite is the calling card of the Earth".

Links to quote in russian (did not find the same in english):

1) https://beversmarmyr.com.ua/articles/istoriya-formirovaniya-granita

2) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гранит#Проблема_происхождения_гранитов

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter contradicts planetary science

Jupiter and Venus Papers

Hidden Pyramids? - Mars Mountains Match Pyramids on Earth

The Pyramids of Giza, the Belt of Orion and Three Volcanoes on Mars

They write here that around 1350 BC, Mars was in geostationary orbit, and they give good evidence.
Proof – Mars Orbited close to Earth 1350 BC (Updated)
 
But if about 3350 years ago Mars was in a geostationary orbit, then its diameter cannot be 6.7 thousand km., but just about 15-20 km., as I suppose in my New Model of the Universe.

Calculations not accurate enough. Delete this topic. I don't know how. Seems I can't remove own topics.

4 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

What is your point and what is the contradiction? 

Most often I am asked about calculations (factual evidence). I made calculations based on factual evidence, which points to scale contradiction in videos of landings Curiosity and Perseverance. That is my point: 1) New model of the Universe. 2) The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

Source screens.

Source links.

1) Perseverance Rover’s Descent and Touchdown on Mars (Official NASA Video)

2) Curiosity Drops in on Mars in High-Res

3) Mars Curiosity Descent - Ultra HD 30fps Smooth-Motion

Link to this topic (thread) on NASA forum: Curiosity/Perseverance landing scale comparison contradiction.

Opposition Effect (Seeliger effect) | Aerial video examples

39 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

You pick a few frames that show reflection of sun where the surface has water. How does an artist's impression of water reflection support your argument? Also note that in your linked video the dry surface reflection looks like below*. Conclusion: no support for your claim regarding sun reflections on mars surface.

This animation shows the size (scale, diameter) of Sun's reflection on the surface of Mars regardless of the type of surface (water or soil). The reflection of the Sun on the ground in this computer animation was simply not displayed due to its dimness. Moreover, the reflection of the Sun on the ground of Mars cannot be focused into such a small bright spot as in the video of the Perseverance landing.

45 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Note that the overall brightness variations in your reference picture is similar to the variation in the frames from the video. So the explanation may be that the mars soil is looking slightly brighter or at the spot in the video from the Perseverance descent.

Round bright spot on the video, and nothing bright and round on 2 photos of that area of Mars.

Round bright spots on two different landing videos are not moving on the surface, that is, they are located on the surface of Mars. They enter and leave field of view without changes of shape and size.

Here is a link to video of Curiosity landing with better quality.

Mars Curiosity Descent - Ultra HD 30fps Smooth-Motion

In that thread of mine on the NASA forum, there is not a hint of conspiracy. I even removed the quotes from the words Sun and Mars from the first paragraphs of the text. And just in case, I made a screenshot.

Link to my NASA forum thread: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53173.0

Screenshot of that thread:

1 hour ago, beecee said:

contacting NASA for yourself for explanations

Created a thread with this question on NASA forum.

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What is the correct size of a reflection under the conditions of the Perseverance landing?

With a diameter of Mars 6,700 km. and the diameter of the Jezero crater 50 km. The Sun should illuminate the entire crater completely and evenly.

38 minutes ago, iNow said:

Amazing how much this thread feels like one on a conspiracy site. 

Factual analysis only. No conspiracy at all in this thread.

10 hours ago, Ghideon said:

What is the correct size of a reflection under the conditions of the Perseverance landing?

Artist’s impression of Mars four billion years ago

Size of Jezero Crater on Mars, and size of Sun reflection inside that crater, which makes up less than 10% of Jezero Crater area.

Same bright spot size on Curiosity landing video.

Complete Mars Curiosity Descent - Full Quality Enhanced HD 1080p Landing + Heat Shield impact

Sun reflection on Earth from 400 km. and Mars from 10 km. I have nothing to add to this thread.

ISS animation source: Over Earth - Incredible Space Views from ESA Astronaut Alexander Gerst

21 minutes ago, beecee said:

So your saying, in your "expert" opinion, it isn't anything so mundane. So tell us, what you think it is? I mean someone as "expert" as yourself, must have an opinion. Why havn't you checked with NASA, as obviously with the multitude of tricks light can play, as evident with Curiosity and the link I gave, they would be able to give you a definitive answer.

1) I do not know how to ask someone from NASA.

2) I am asking this question on this scientific forum in Astronomy and Cosmology section.

3) At the press conference on the video of the Perseverance landing, specialists analyzed almost every frame of these videos. Explained everything except this reflection (bright spot) on the surface of Mars. Personally, I think this is at least strange. Here is a timecode link for that episode of the press conference: See Mars Like Never Before! NASA's Perseverance Rover Sends New Video and Images of the Red Planet Bright spot on the Mars' sufrace - is the only episode, which NASA specialists skipped and left without any explanations.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Or it is an artifact in the low res animation. Or post processing of video. Or it is an illusion. Which picture below appears to have the brightest spot? The small inlay or the large picture? 

- brightness + contrast. Same thing. This is the reflection of the Sun on the surface of Mars, and it is too small for the indicated footage scale (altitude of 9.5 km). It doesn't depend on the image resolution.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Is the shadow from the parachute or the backshell protecting the rover?

Obviously the shadow on the animation below cannot be from parachute, but from the backshell only.

26 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

With the information available so far we do not yet know if the bright spot is on the surface of Mars. 

Bright spot is not moving, it is stationary. So it can not be some kind of lens flare, hence it cannot be anywhere else, except the surface of Mars.

29 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Why should it move in the other direction? 

Can't explain better than in this image.