AlexandrKushnirtshuk

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.

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/

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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). 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. 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.

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. 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. 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).

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

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?

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.

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

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