AlexandrKushnirtshuk

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Have you done as much questionable research into such mundane circumstances with the other many rovers and landers? Will you keep on avoiding answering questions re your intent?

1) There is video only from the landing of this mars rover.

2) I am trying to understand the nature of the bright spot on the surface of Mars in the Perseverance landing video.

Bright spot is an evidence of the sphericity and size of the sphere, respectively. I think there can be no other explanation.
 

But in that case, the shadow on the animation below should move in the diametrically opposite direction.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

@AlexandrKushnirtshuk you may look a few seconds further into the video you linked to. The heat shield is probably just wobbling after being dropped? That makes the heat shield look oval from the camera's point of view and reflections are moving.

I agree with that. Thanks. There is one source of light there.

But is it possible to explain such a small size sun reflection on the surface of Mars? Yellow dot on the image below is the size of Jezero Crater on Mars. Bright spot on the animation below is reflection of the Sun (from Perseverance landing video), which located inside the Jezero Crater and makes up no more than 10% of the area of Jezero Crater. Last (third) image shows how sun reflection spot looks like on Earth's surface.

Location and size of bright spot (Sun reflection), from animation above, inside Jezero Crater. That bright spot is not in the middle of the crater, and there is nothing bright in that area on two photos of that area, which are posted in the first message of this thread.

There is something very strange about the lighting on the Perseverance landing video.
1) Reflection of the “Sun” on the surface of “Mars” as if from a searchlight (too small bright spot). The height of the device at the time of this reflection hitting the frame is 9.5 km.
2) This reflection should be exactly under the Sun, that is, perpendicular to the surface of Mars, that is, point exactly at noon, but judging by the smooth movement of the shadow (on the separating heat shield) in the northeast direction (diagonally at 13:30), there is some kind of contradiction with lighting. The movement of the shadow over the heat shield indicates the position of the Sun in the southwest direction (19:30 hours) relative to the vehicle. The reflection of the "Sun" on the surface of "Mars" indicates the position of the Sun in an easterly direction (15:00 hours) relative to the vehicle.
Perseverance Rover’s Descent and Touchdown on Mars (Official NASA Video)

There nothing glinting on the Mars' surface accorting to official surface photos of that area. The more - there are no round shaped "bright spots" on the surface of that area of Mars.
1) https://www.google.com.ua/maps/space/mars/@18.4982121,77.6169751,26455m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=ru

2) https://mars.nasa.gov/mars2020/mission/where-is-the-rover/

17 minutes ago, Prometheus said:

Even if they prove correlated, with millions (billions?) of astronomical bodies now being tracked our sun is bound to be in sync with some of them for some of the time by some metric. 

The Sun is in strong sync with at least twelve zodiac constellations, for the time of several thousands years, by the metric of the clear annual frequency (1 year - 12 months).

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: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/couldnt-sun-be-cause-global-warming


Diagram source link: https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/fainting-betelgeuse/

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. Here is a link to more arguments in support of this assumption: New model of the Universe.

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.

  

24 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Can you provide me with an explanation instead of questions? You are claiming that all measurements within the solar system are off by a lot more that 10%. 

1) New model of the Universe. 2) The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

8 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Look attentively at the Stereo web site.  https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/stereo/news/fast-cme.html

That animation is cut off about 12 hours at about 07:00 a.m. (2012 july 23). No data (photos) from about 07:00 till about 19:00 on that animation in the link you provided.

12 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Not surprisingly this is not correct.  The CME on July 23, 2012 was one of the fastest CMEs recorded.  It hit the Stereo satellite about 17 hours after it left the sun and then hit the earths orbit a short time later.

Look attentively. I slowed down the animation. White ripples (solar plasma particles) appeared (hit the camera) no longer than 6 hours after the beginning of the solar flare.

53 minutes ago, Ghideon said:

Let's assume atmosphere effects cause parallax based distance measurement to fail by the huge amount you claim. Then please explain how parallax measurements are consistent with many other kinds measurements? All the various measurement methods fail but still produce similar outcome, how? 

Please provide a detailed explanation. Not unsupported claims; claiming that atmosphere can cause an effect is not the same as there is an effect. 

No offence, but what consistecy and similar outcomes can we talk about if the official calculations of cosmic distances and sizes are changing almost daily by tens of percent, light years, or trillions of kilometers? If somewhere hundreds of stars and supermassive black holes disappear without a trace and mysteriously. Here are some examples from recent news stories.

1) Betelgeuse is Smaller and Closer to Earth than Previously Thought

2) Earth 16,000 MPH Faster, 2000 Light-Years Closer to Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way

3) Researchers Have Identified 100 Mysteriously Disappeared Stars in The Night Sky

4) ‘Missing’ supermassive black hole in distant galaxy leaves scientists perplexed

3 hours ago, swansont said:

How is Mercury viewable in the HI2 FOV, which pretty clearly excludes it?

Evidences. Actual, factual, real, official, but contradictory.

Here are several examples of SOHOs and STEREOs photo animations which proves that solar plasma (matter) from direct solar flare reaches both SOHO and STEREO in several (2-5) hours, depending on the power of solar burst and the speed of solar plasma (matter) in it respectively. White ripples on the animations are material particles of solar plasma.

First (bigger) animation - STEREO Ahead. Second (smaller) animation - SOHO C3.

But solar plasma (matter) from direct solar flare reaches Earth not faster than 2 - 3,5 days, depending on the power of solar burst and the speed of solar plasma (matter) in it respectively. Simple example of a big contradiction in official data.

Official locations of SOHO and STEREO spacecrafts in space, in case someone doesn't know.

Here is my explanation for the above contradiction. The SOHO spacecraft is located in the common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun. The STEREO spacecraft is moving on the orbit of Venus in the Solar System with approximately the same parameters as on the scematic image below. The flow of solar plasma from a solar flare very quickly loses speed in space.

Some additional facts in support of the model above.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Let's assume for a second you are correct. Then measurements that rely on angle and known distances on the surface of the earth gives wrong scale or distance for nearby celestial bodies. According to your idea: is basic trigonometry wrong or is measurements of distances on earth wrong? (Or both, or something else?)

Please provide a detailed explanation. 

Atmospheric refraction (lensing) effect can casue huge distortions, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies. Atmospheric refraction cannot be taken into account properly, when applying basic trigonometry to calculations of cosmic distances, and sizes of cosmic bodies.

1 hour ago, Ghideon said:

Please provide a detailed explanation why you reject the results of basic geometry. Please include necessary mathematics to explain your version of parallax measurements.

All celestial, orbital, tregonometrical, mathemathical 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 speed - 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 speeds).

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

Feb 23 2020 (a date in your animation) was a new moon.  May 6 2010 it was third quarter, meaning its position was 90 degrees different. So it would have been in front of or behind the earth.

Time lapse on that animation is 8 days (2020-02-22 - 2020-02-29). There is no Moon near the Earth on STEREO photos. In spite of the fact that both "Earth" and Mercury are clearly visible in that photos. Let me remind you their sizes, so that you understand the ratios well, as well as the fact that with such ratios the Moon should be visible, but it is not there, and it appeared there only in 2007. Earth - 12.7 thousand km., Mercury - 4.8 thousand km., Moon - 3.5 thousand km.

21 minutes ago, swansont said:

You were asked for models, i.e. math, and they aren’t in your posts. You were asked how we see these objects, if photons only travel 1 light-minute, and you’ve dodged that one, too. How do we have these satellite images if that’s the case?

On actual examples of the absence of the Moon near the "Earth" on STEREO photos, I have proved that most of sattelite images are modified, montaged.

This image is also an actual (factual) and undisputed evidence of space photos montage:

My explanation according official model and math (calculations).

All celestial, orbital, tregonometrical, mathemathical 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 speed - 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 speeds).

I will try to explain it once again in simple, well-understood words. The photon has no mass, but it has weight, that is, the photon creates pressure on matter. Without aether, light is an absolutely immaterial phenomenon that directly interacts with matter. Without aether, light is a paranormal (not scientific) phenomenon. Science has a prioral concepts and statements, that is, obvious concepts, that do not require special proofs (evidences). Aether is from such kind of category.

9 hours ago, Janus said:

Given the apparent size of the Earth in the photo, the light from the Sun and the date (which would make it a new moon).  I estimate that the Moon should be just about where the object labeled Mercury is in this image.    In other words, "Mercury" is mislabeled, The picture shows the Earth, Venus and the Moon, while Mercury is out of frame.  It is just the angle from which this photo was taken and telescopic foreshortening that makes Venus "look" closer to the Earth than the Moon is.

In that photo, only Mercury, Venus, "Earth" without the Moon, and Mars. Here's an animation of the photos for more clarity.

Link to the STEREO photos archive: https://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/images

The paradox is that in the STEREO photographs, there is no Moon near the "Earth", but in the photograph of the MESSENGER spacecraft (made on 6 May 2010) from about the same distance and position as the STEREO, "Moon" near the "Earth" is for some reason clearly visible.

9 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

You're welcome. Now please return the favor and answer some of the questions posed to you. They were asked specifically to challenge the ideas you've put forth, and they'll show where you've gone wrong, but only if you take the time to cooperate with the members who are taking their time to help you, and answer the questions. Please.

The answers to all your questions, adressed to me, are at the very beginning (first post) of two my threads "New model of the Universe." and "The nature of light and the size of the Universe.", only for some reason you all either do not understand them, or simply pretend that you do not understand.

Thanks for your cooperation and happy new year.

 Look at this attentively, please. I did not found this in english wikipedia, so I translated it from russian wikipedia.

Quote

Later, in 1887, Michelson, together with Morley, conducted a similar, but much more accurate experiment, known as the Michelson-Morley experiment, and showed that the observed displacement is undoubtedly less than 1⁄20 of the theoretical and probably less than 1⁄40. In the theory of non-entrained aether, the displacement should be proportional to the square of the speed, therefore the results are equivalent to the fact that the relative speed of the Earth in the aether is less than 1⁄6 of its orbital speed and is undoubtedly less than 1⁄4. (Опыт Майкельсона)

Looks like the results of that experiment showed the actual speed of the Earth in its orbit, which (Earth's orbit) is much smaller than the official one, and accordingly, the speed of the Earth in such an orbit is much slower.

Looks like the results of that experiment are correct in case of such kind rotation of Earth and Sun around common center of mass approximately as in this animation (Earth is bigger).

35 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

When you say lens flare I assume you mean Coronal Mass Ejection.  I don't know what you think needs an explanation.

I mean not CMEs, but huge transparent round (spherical) lens flare, which slowly moves from left to right.

35 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

I wish you would answer Swansont's question about how these statements support your ideas:

• 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.

Those 5 facts are just coincidences in official model of Solar System. But those 5 facts are obviously some kind of regularity, and they are regularities (not just coincidences) in my model of the Universe.

And here are the evidences (real facts) in support and confirmation of my model of the Universe.

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs

25 minutes ago, swansont said:

Quote

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

This is not a model of the nature of light. This is known as dodging the question, and if you continue you will find the discussions closed.

The title of the thread is "The Nature of Light and the Size of the Universe." And animations of those lens flares, based on factual data (space photos), are directly related to the issue of the size of the Universe. As far as I understand, you have no assumptions about the nature of those huge lens flares? So as you have no explanation of such extraordinary differences in position of NEOWISE 2020 Comet on SOHO's and STEREO's photos animations. Those are the factual data (evidences - which everyone demands here from me), which have no official explanation, and can not have any logical explanation in the official model of the Solar System (not even mentioning about the official model of the Universe).

The same message (post) as in the thread "New model of the Universe." But this applies to both topics, and this is very important.

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

Can someone explain this?

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

The Oort cloud is much further than 60 light seconds. The only body of non-trivial size inside that radius is the moon.

 

And the facts that:

• 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).

These are ordinary coincidences that do not indicate any regularity . . .

And just in case the other three "simple coincidences":

• 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.

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

It’s going to be a problem for both proposals because mirrors do not have 100% reflectivity, not because of any aether.

Aassumed this but did not know for sure. Thanks for the info.

49 minutes ago, swansont said:

If light disappears after 60 light-seconds, why can we see stars more than 60 light-seconds away?

Since you are already familiar with my assumption that the Oort Cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the "stars" and "galaxies" are located. Let me ask you where the stars and black holes disappear from the officially unlimited space?

1) Researchers Have Identified 100 Mysteriously Disappeared Stars in The Night Sky

2) ‘Missing’ supermassive black hole in distant galaxy leaves scientists perplexed

28 minutes ago, swansont said:

One objection (of many) to this model is what happens to this photon energy is unexplained. Energy is conserved, so the aether has to absorb that energy, and you need to explain what happens when the aether heats up. 

Reasonable statements. I may assume that aetheric heating somehow transforms into cosmic radiation (somewhere in the Oort Cloud) which then radiates inside the Oort Cloud. During solar minimums the level of cosmic radiation is growing.

The baseline temperature of outer space is −270.45 °C. Absolute minimum is -273.15 °C. Looks like something is heating in space. Why not aether?

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

I hope you are joking.  You know light travels 300,000 km/sec, right?  Those are going to be big mirrors!!

Another proposition, but I doubt if it is possible to implement cleanly such experiment.