New model of the Universe.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Formation of continents.

Take a close look at the animation of two huge, diametrically opposed formations on the surface of the earth’s core. They cannot but be directly related to the formation of continents. They are both biased to the same direction (east). Continents are displaced from them to the east. Compare with the official model for the formation of continents. These huge structures are contrary to the official model of the formation of continents.

 

Link to the animation source with better quality and higher resolution.

The Cordillera – the Andes, the Iranian highlands – the Himalayas – are also two huge formations of a similar shape, also diametrically opposed to each other. Both are displaced to the east of two huge formations of the Earth’s core (HFEC). Cordillera – The Andes are displaced further from their HFEC and are more split. Iranian Highlands – The Himalayas are closer to their HFEC, and are strongly displaced to the north.

New model of the Universe.

From the above, we can conclude that before the moment of the so-called “Big Bang” in the Universe there was a certain material sphere with a diameter of about 20 thousand km, the substance in which was in the stage of the limit of density (the state of singularity). Let’s call this sphere ProtoEarth.

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, the proto-Earth’s axis of rotation shifted from conditional zero degrees to the current 23.5 degrees, and the formation of modern continents.

  
(a huge trail of clearly cosmic origin between South America and Antarctica, animation of the trajectory of a solar eclipse shadow and a schematic drawing)

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 – 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.

(schematic comparison of the official and new model of the Universe; ProtoEarth, Moon, Sun, Venus, Mercury, Mars and common center of masses between Earth and Sun)

Thus, it is very similar to the fact that the Universe looks approximately like on the Tycho Brahe's model of the Universe, only with the correction for the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass. The Oort cloud is the border of the Universe, where all the “stars” and “galaxies” formed from the proto-Earth mantle, with diameters not exceeding several tens of kilometers, are located. The diameter of the universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.

 

In all this, a correct understanding of the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around a common center of mass is very important. The ratio of diameters is approximately the same as in the animation (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).



Addition.

The rotation of Venus around the Sun is very similar to the rotation of the Moon around the Earth, except for the direction of rotation. That is, Venus is not always facing the Sun with one side, but in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side. As you can see from the quote above, in the official model of the solar system there is no explanation for such an orbital phenomenon of Venus, because it can in no way be a coincidence or the result of the tidal interaction of the Earth and Venus (at least with the official parameters of the solar system).

The paradox here most likely lies in the misunderstanding of the reference point (coordinate system). When calculating the orbital rotation period of the planet (in this case, Venus), the immobility of the Sun and the rotation of the Earth around it are taken into account, and therefore the paradox of the mismatch of the orbital and axial rotation periods of Venus (225 and 243 days) and the fact that “in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus faces the Earth with the same side.”

The answer to this paradox, most likely, is that it is not the Earth that revolves around the Sun, but the Earth and the Sun revolve around a common center of mass, and then the officially paradoxical coincidence of the orbital and axial periods of Venus’s rotation becomes quite natural. But since the convergence of the Earth and Venus occurs approximately once every one and a half years, the orbital period of Venus is 584 days (the synodic period of Venus), and the axial period relative to the Earth is 146 days (that is, exactly four times less). This is difficult for a spatial representation (especially considering the massive brainwashing with the official model of the solar system), but when the Earth and the Sun rotate around a common center of mass, this is quite possible, does not contradict visual observations of the movement of the planets and the Sun in the sky, and most importantly, this explains the fact that in each lower conjunction (that is, during the closest approach to the Earth) Venus is facing the Earth by the same side.

 

Two animations for better spatial presentation. On the second – the rotation of the Earth and the Sun around the common center of mass (the Earth is larger, the Sun is smaller).

Link to the source article in russian: Новая модель Вселенной.Часть II: АРГУМЕНТЫ.

Edited December 28, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Ghideon]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The diameter of the universe, presumably, does not exceed one light minute.

That does not seem to match observations*. Can you explain how a signal traveling at the speed of light, for instance to mars, takes more than one minute to get there?  Or, in the case of Voyager:

Quote

Voyager 2 now is slightly more than 11 billion miles (18 billion kilometers) from Earth. Mission operators still can communicate with Voyager 2 as it enters this new phase of its journey, but information – moving at the speed of light – takes about 16.5 hours to travel from the spacecraft to Earth. By comparison, light traveling from the Sun takes about eight minutes to reach Earth.

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-s-voyager-2-probe-enters-interstellar-space

 

 

*) There are other issues as well, I choose to comment on this specific issue in this post.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Ghideon
added reference

[Bufofrog]

2 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Take a close look at the animation of two huge, diametrically opposed formations on the surface of the earth’s core.

Do you have evidence for these formations?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

2 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

Do you have evidence for these formations?

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs.

https://eos.org/features/the-unsolved-mystery-of-the-earth-blobs

Quote

Scientists first spotted the blobs in the late 1970s. Researchers had just invented a new way to peer inside Earth: seismic tomography. When an earthquake shakes the planet, it lets out waves of energy in all directions. Scientists track those waves when they reach the surface and calculate where they came from. By looking at the travel times of waves from many earthquakes, taken from thousands of instruments around the globe, scientists can reverse engineer a picture of Earth’s interior. The process is similar to a doctor using an ultrasound device to image a fetus in the womb.

 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

That does not seem to match observations*. Can you explain how a signal traveling at the speed of light, for instance to mars, takes more than one minute to get there?  Or, in the case of Voyager.

I have no experimental evidence, but there are strong theoretical grounds to assume that the lifetime of one light wave (photon) is very short, and cannot exceed approximately one minute (depending on the power of the wave source). I suppose even light waves from the Sun cannot live more than one minute (approximately).

Quote

Overcoming distance in any environment, that is, regardless of the environment, cannot occur without energy consumption (or with zero energy consumption). Since a photon has a very low energy charge, and a very high speed of movement, and no medium (including space) can have absolutely zero resistance, then, accordingly, the lifetime (life) of one photon (wave oscillation of the medium - ether) is very short, not exceeding at least one minute.

Definition. The lifetime of a unit of wave oscillations (one wave) is inversely proportional to the speed of their propagation (or directly proportional to the inertia of the medium) and is directly proportional to the power of their source.

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Bufofrog]

13 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs.

https://eos.org/features/the-unsolved-mystery-of-the-earth-blobs

Thank you.

4 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

They cannot but be directly related to the formation of continents

You need to tie continent formation to the blobs, just stating what you think is not enough. 

You make many assertions here without discussing viable mechanisms.

[Phi for All]

33 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

The nature of light and the size of the Universe.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

You can't use one speculation to support another. And don't advertise your threads in other threads, please. Stick to your topic, and try to keep everything non-mainstream in one place. You have a LOT of misunderstandings about science, and it's harder to help if it's spread all over the site. Thanks for understanding.

 

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

7 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

!

Moderator Note

You can't use one speculation to support another. And don't advertise your threads in other threads, please. Stick to your topic, and try to keep everything non-mainstream in one place. You have a LOT of misunderstandings about science, and it's harder to help if it's spread all over the site. Thanks for understanding.

 

Understood. Removed that thread from my comment (message).

Edited December 28, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Ghideon]

45 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I have no experimental evidence, but there are strong theoretical grounds to assume that the lifetime of one light wave (photon) is very short, and cannot exceed approximately one minute (depending on the power of the wave source). I suppose even light waves from the Sun cannot live more than one minute (approximately).

Ok. So how does the communication with for instance a mars rover work according to your idea? The distance is approximately 3-21 light minutes depending.

 

(I'll postpone commenting on other issues such as Aether, photon life time and others)

[MigL]

I'm extremely confused by all this.
Maybe a language issue ?

You talk about the Big Bang, and movements of continental plates as if they are comparable time scales, and at the same time.
I could see if you were talking about solar system formation as this might relate to the Earth's make up, but the Big Bang event was about 9 billion years earlier.

1 hour ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

I have no experimental evidence, but there are strong theoretical grounds to assume that the lifetime of one light wave (photon) is very short, and cannot exceed approximately one minute

We have theoretical grounds to believe light does not require a medium, and ( assuming no interactions ) unlimited lifetime.
Unlike you, however, we have plenty of experimental and observational evidence to support our theories.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

To avoid complicated explanations and language issues here are one animation and two schematic images from which, I hope, everything becomes clear as day.

Link to the article with Earth Blobs animation of bigger size and higher resolution: The Unsolved Mystery of the Earth Blobs.

[Bufofrog]

Your drawing makes no sense to me.  It looks like you are saying that Mercury and Venus orbit the sun but the sun orbits the Earth???

The common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun (barycenter) is well within the radius of the Sun.

[MigL]

I don't think anyone has ever observed the orbits of Mercury and Venus behaving in the fashion that would indicate they were orbiting the sun as it orbits around a common CoM with the Earth.

Mercury's orbit has been studied extensively, and is a 'foundational pillar' of GR.
Probes have been sent to Venus; I doubt that could be done if we had the orbit all wrong.

So, again, you are presenting assertions.
Where is the evidence ???

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

24 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

Your drawing makes no sense to me.  It looks like you are saying that Mercury and Venus orbit the sun but the sun orbits the Earth???

The common center of mass between the Earth and the Sun (barycenter) is well within the radius of the Sun.

1) Earth and Sun moving around common center of mass approximately like on this animation.

 

2) Officially considered that 98-99% of mass of the Solar System is located in the Sun. Why then the barycenter of the Solar System travels beyond the boundaries of the solar sphere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg

38 minutes ago, MigL said:

Probes have been sent to Venus; I doubt that could be done if we had the orbit all wrong.

Formulas for the motion of the planets work, spacecrafts fly in their calculated orbits, but it is quite likely just on a different scale. Changing just one calculated coefficient will lead to a change in three parameters: distance, speed and size. Do you understand what I mean? The whole point may be in one single calculated coefficient, which distorts the actual parameters of space (real distances, speeds and sizes). However, such a distortion does not affect the ratio of proportions - just the scale is different, and it most likely does not correspond to the actual cosmic distances, velocities and sizes.

Edited December 28, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[Bufofrog]

36 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

1) Earth and Sun moving around common center of mass approximately like on this animation.

It is not like that, the barycenter is in the wrong place.  Convince me you are right with evidence.

36 minutes ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

2) Officially considered that 98-99% of mass of the Solar System is located in the Sun. Why then the barycenter of the Solar System travels beyond the boundaries of the solar sphere?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter#/media/File:Solar_system_barycenter.svg

That is the location of the barycenter for the sun and ALL of the planets together.  Notice that even with the gravity of all of the planets, the barycenter is still closer to the sun than your representation of the Sun-earth barycenter.

Edited December 29, 2020 by Bufofrog

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Where is the evidence ???

1) This evidence proves that solar flare coronal matter reaches SOHO and STEREO Ahead in several (3-4) hours. That means either wrong speed of solar flare coronal matter, or SOHO and STEREO are located not on the distance of the earth's orbit (from the Sun), because solar flare coronal matter reaches Earth in 2,5-3,5 days. Here is one example as proof, but there are many such examples in the SOHO's and STEREO's animation archives.

2) Why in the SDO satellite photo, the Moon has a clear (not defocused) outline, given the fact that the camera is clearly focused on the Sun (the surface structure is clearly visible), and the “fact” that the Sun is officially 400 times farther than the Moon?This is also because the Moon has no atmosphere, but with a distance difference of 400 times and a clear focus on the Sun's surface, the Moon's contour cannot be as clear as in that SDO photo.

3) Compare the scales of Earth's and Mars' surfaces on the sattelite photos. The Earth's scale on the image below is 20 meters, the Mars' scale is 2 kilometers.

4) Birds "on Mars".

Human shadows "on Mars".

1) NASA – Mars VS Devon Island 2) Nasa’s rover not on Mars but on Greenland

5) How can one of the largest Black Holes in the Universe with a mass of 100 billion Suns disappear?

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

Edited December 29, 2020 by AlexandrKushnirtshuk

[MigL]

Really ?
We ask for evidence, and we get … conspiracy theories ???

I'm starting to think this isn't the right forum for you.

[Ghideon]

 

8 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Human shadows "on Mars".

I'm sure your posts makes sense to you, to me it looks more like pareidolia. Or the result of using image editing software.

19 hours ago, Ghideon said:

(I'll postpone commenting on other issues such as Aether, photon life time and others)

This discussion seems to move into areas that I'm not interested in so I'll leave until there is some science to discuss. 

 

Edited December 29, 2020 by Ghideon

[joigus]

That's enough of that, then. Isn't it?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

8 hours ago, MigL said:

Really ?
We ask for evidence, and we get … conspiracy theories ???

I'm starting to think this isn't the right forum for you.

Out of the five evidences I have given, only one (fourth point) has some shade of conspiracy - and that is not unreasonable.

[Phi for All]

3 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Out of the five evidences I have given, only one (fourth point) has some shade of conspiracy - and that is not unreasonable.

!

Moderator Note

Then leave it out of any future discussion. We don't trust ignorantly-designed, make-believe explanations involving conspiracy. Evidence is needed, not guesswork involving photographs. This is your last chance to support this concept with something reasoned and trustworthy.

 

[swansont]

4 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Out of the five evidences I have given, only one (fourth point) has some shade of conspiracy - and that is not unreasonable.

Actually yes it is.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Evidence is needed, not guesswork involving photographs.

I propose an experiment that is possible to implement. Not very expensive and complicated experiment, that can prove the existence of aether. With your permission, I will post this message also in the thread "The nature of light and the size of the Universe", because this applies to that topic as well.

 

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

[Phi for All]

4 hours ago, AlexandrKushnirtshuk said:

Can someone explain the nature of these huge lens flares?

!

Moderator Note

Enough! We ask you to clarify what you're talking about and support it adequately, yet every new post makes everything less clear. It seems clear you can't understand the explanations the other members are giving you because you can't see beyond your own concepts.

Your style of argument is polluted with conspiracy fallacies, and somehow you think questions you can't answer but also can't be bothered to research properly are interesting and meaningful. You clearly are not ready for the type of reasoning science requires. Please don't post any more threads where you suspect cosmology of some kind of intellectual coverup. This is a place of knowledge and learning, not pitchforks and leeches and ignorant fears. We wish you well, but you don't listen, and that's required in discussion. Maybe you should start a blog somewhere?

If you stay, please read more than you post. You have a LOT to unlearn. Thread closed.