---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ECLIPSES | EVERYTHING HERE IS NEW FOR EARTH VIEW. | | | NONE COMES FROM SCIENTIFIC LITERATURES. | |----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | ABSTRACT 1 An entirely new perception for solar eclipses appears. | | This includes the planets Venus, Mercury, and Mars in | | pure eclipse states. So-called Perfect Eclipses form | | an understructure comprising a steady state realm | | with quantum constant properties, seen in recurring | | massless images of precise sizes in gravitic space. | | | | | | QUANTUM GRAVITY EXISTS IN SPACE | | -------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | The quantum nature manifests in precise features associated with | | certain planet bodies and their exact positions in orbit. The points | | of importance are specifically, the Perihelion and Aphelion and the | | Mean position of terran planetary orbits, and the Orbital mean of | | the Moon, which are shown to be definative constants. | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | In this, certain precise orbital positions contain eclipses when | | everything is viewed mathematically along a single common sightline | | wherein certain positions in the orbits are shown to be meaningful | | in a 'fundamental' way. A common sightline runs through the points | | of center of all of the 5 planetary bodies involved, plus the Sun. | | | | The whole picture suggests a form of resonance | | operating within the formative field of gravity. | | | | In this viewpoint the planetary orbits of the Earth, Moon, and | | Venus are calculated, as are their spherical radii in terms of | | both POLAR and EQUATORIAL sizes. The size of Mercury is also | | calculated to a precise accuracy. Also the size of the Moon. | | | | These calculations are consequences as simple proportions and | | no gravity thermodynamic equations or motions are needed to | | calculate each of the planet's polar and equatorial radii | | | | In conjunction, the Sun is shown to be a phantom image projected to | | the orbit of Venus, when Perfect Eclipses are viewed from the Moon, | | and Earth is the eclipsing body. In such conjuncts, radii for Venus | | are calculated to a same high accuracy from two independent eclipse | | state sources, the second with Venus as the surrogate Moon eclipser. | | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------------------------------------* | | | This amazing display of activity is in focus only when FULL cross | | sectional diameters of the eclipsing bodies, and the targeted SUN | | are used. These so-called 'Perfect Eclipses' are empirically not | | possible in any historical traditional observation where side arm | | (tangental) overlays percieve eclipses only via 'PARALLAXES' with | | the eyeball being unique to the human observer's point of view. A | | fundamental impact vibrations creation for the eclipse realm will | | NOT be seen, if parallax points of view (so self centered humanly) | | is concidered the truth in Reality. That long standing scientific | | conceit is mistaken. | | | | See file named: IMPACT.TXT in the ECLIPSE.HTM home page | | for more about 'impact vibrations' and how to test them. | | | | DONE | | | *----------------------------------------------------------------------------* begin 11:30 PM, December 31, 1995. finished 4:30 AM, January 1, 1996. (First draft) re-edits and touchup through the rest of the day. Greydon Moore, Canada. LETTER TO THE EDITOR OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN _________________________________________________________________________ | | | | PERFECT | EVERYTHING HERE ...................... | | ECLIPSES | ...................................... | |_____________|___________________________________________________________| | | | SYNOPSIS | | The concept of 'Duality' assumes that more than one way | | can adequately or correctly describe a system, even when | | say, two ways originally describe two seemingly dissimilar | | systems. Behind the scenes, structures or thoughts from one | | system can reveal details of the other, and visa versa, | | according to the fundamental scientific concept called | | 'Duality'. | | ------------------------------------------------------- | | In the terran region of the solar system, two different | | 'Dualities', in fact, readily show a remarkably altered | | state of 'Reality', regards eclipse structures of total | | solar kind. Five eclipse systems, not just one, are | | found to exist, hidden as sets of states, within two | | very unique principles, in 'Duality' manifestations. | |_________________________________________________________________________| A FUNDAMENTAL 'DUALITY' OF A MECHANICAL KIND Basic mechanical differences between a microscope and a telescope can be used to model a foundation 'Duality' which can be imaged by pure mathetical inferrences, to an astonishing degree of accuracy in the solar system as two multi imaged systems of operations, which can then be easily expanded to describe five complete systems of eclipse state arrays, in which the 'Duality' of the two different initial forms of observation are the whole of the underlying mechanics. ____________________________________________________________________ MODELLING A 'MICROSCOPE' ARRAY In an original system, in which no 'Duality' is in evidence, a single model of the mechanical operations (properties) of a 'microscope' can be successfully imaged in a simple thought experiment, as follows: Concider the distance in space between Earth and Venus. To make the image simple, consider that Earth and Venus are lined up in a straight line, (straight as an arrow), with the center points of both Earth and Venus formed along this single line, which connects to the center of the Sun. A third centerpoint on the line, very near the Earth, can be said to be the point of center of an eclipsing body. The small eclipsing body can superimpose, not in parallax but in full cross sectional diameter, a larger body at Venus. The larger body is viewed from the Earth, and the small body at a short distance out from Earth on the straight line, is the eclipsing body. The model gets interesting, when the Sun is imaginarily moved in this thought experiment to the orbit of venus to become the body being eclipsed by the 'eclipser' near Earth. Finally, the Sun at the orbit of Venus, can be made to move in and out discretely to stand stationary at only 3 different preferred locations: at the Perihelion of the Venus orbit, at the Mean of Venus orbit, and at the Aphelion of Venus orbit which will bring the Sun (at the Aphelion location), closest to Earth. And finally, the Earth is at a fixed point in its orbit and so is standing still, with the Earth's point of center at the Earth's Mean of orbit, midway between the Earth's Aphelion and Perihelion of ellipsical orbit. _________________________________________________________________________ Several things become immediately self evident in the mechanical model just described. First and foremost, is that the model is not mechanically telescopic in nature, it mechanically behaves as a 'microscope'. The stationary Earth is the eyepiece, thus so is the 'observer'. The Sun moving discretely in and out within the brackets of Venus eccentricity, is the object observed under the microscope. And the small body a short distance along the straight line from the Earth, the 'eclipser', (which is made to superimpose over the full cross section diameter of the Sun at Venus), this small body is the 'focal lens' inside the microscope. When the Sun is moved to different positions to be observed, the 'focal lens' must also shift accordingly, to stay in focus. The focal lens moves in proportionate lock step with the target, the Sun at Venus. In fact the 'focal lens' can do no other than lock step, in tune with the movements of the observed target which moves in and out at the orbit of Venus, even though the focal lens is far away out to Earth. To repeat: the focal lens moves in proportionate lock step with the target, in this 'microscopic' view model. One last feature, to complete this original model, is, that, although the Sun should remain exactly the same size in all positions for it when observed at the orbit of Venus, the cross sectional diameter of the 'focal lens' does not have to be of one constant size, formed so, by an immutable law that doesn't exist. In fact the 'focal lens' can 'flex' very discretely. It can change in size of its diameter as it moves discretely in and out, to focus sharply upon the Sun moving in and out also discretely in a quantal way at the orbit of Venus. _________________________________________________________________________ In all of its attributes, the array just described adequately models all fundamental properties of an ordinary microscope, except for the flexing 'focal lens'. But this is not in any way a violation of logic, in that a flexing 'focal lens', that is, one that discretely changes its size from smaller to larger as needed, can dramatically enhance the performance of any good microscope. NOW FOR THE SECOND MECHANICAL MODEL, MADE FROM THE FIRST MODEL. The whole system can be picked up and paraded lock stock and barrel straight to the center of the solar system. In fact the array does not have to be picked up, it can simply be moved or slid along the center line, until the Sun (original moving target of observation) lands at the center of the solar system and comes to rest as a stationary target for observation, and the eyepiece (observer) now has to slide in and out through 3 similiar distances, out in space from the Sun. Another way of achieving the same ends, is to simply rotate the 'microscope' system by 180 degrees, then slide it along the center line, until the eyepiece arrives at the center of the solar system. And then, just exchange either ends of the system, that is, move the eyepiece of the observer out to where the mystical Suns have been moving in and out through 3 orbital data points, and return the Sun to its real place at the center of the solar system. In either case, the 'eyepiece' of the observer can now be made to move in and out, to 3 orbital eccentric equivalents matching the eccentricity of Venus, now in an abstract space very near the Sun and in truth inside the orbit of Mercury. In this new array, the in and out movement of the flexing 'focal lens' keeps proportionate lock step with the in and out moves of the eyepiece, that is, it keeps in a lock step closely attached nearby the observer, even though the observer will be moving through distances 1, 2, 3, each more than a hundred times larger than the 'focal lens' distance from the eyepiece itself. This is exactly no different than keeping track of the Moon around Earth as the Earth obits in and out around an elliptical track around the Sun, except in this model, we are only interested in data points being made twice a year, as the Earth crosses an assigned center line (a single ecliptic axis, for instance), with the Earth's mean of orbit an assumed mythical point midway between the two extends of orbital eccentricity that we are using as modelling means for data points along the straight line. At once, a fundamental difference in the behavior of the mechanical properties of the second model, inside Mercury's orbit, is noticed. It is, in fact, now the properties of not a microscope, but a telescope. It has become 'telescopic'. The eyepiece moves in and out, as the target being observed stays stationary, and the focal lens this time moves in proportionate lock step with the 'eyepiece' instead of the target. _________________________________________________________________________ All optical telescopes, in fact, obey this simple endowment of contained mechanical properties linked together in a straight line in an operating system, in which the fundamental artifacts involving the lenses operate one to another through full cross sectional diameters, to then, typically by Earth astromoners, be used to observe for instance, eclipsing solar bodies seen only in empirical parallax views. An odd (though not central to the point) juxtaposition, in using a hand held full cross sectional diameter system, to view a distant act of gravity system by parallax. In the first model, (of microscope kind), the focal lens moves in and out from the eyepiece, keeping in lockstep with moves of the target, while the eyepiece stayed stationary. In this second model, (of telescope kind) the focal lens still moves in and out in the same way, locked to the eyepiece, except the eyepiece itself is now moving in and out, while the target stays stationary. However, this is straying from the point. The point is that the solar 'telescopic' model is embodied within the telescope setup itself, with the Sun at the center of the solar system as one end of this gigantic telescope, with the observer and eyepiece moving in an out through a range of distances out in space from the Sun, but inside the orbital range of Mercury. And yet the 'telescope' model was created directly from a 'microscope' model earlier constructed as a thought experiment further out in space clustered between Earth and Venus. Thus, a 'Duality' is instantly revealed between the two models, since one can transform into the other with no datas being changed. It is intuitionally clear in an instant that in knowing if the system is a solar orbital array such as the 'telescope' model on the inside of the orbit of Mercury, or that it is the 'microscope' model clustered out in space between Earth and Venus, an outside observer can know at once many fundamental differences in the mechanical properties of the two different systems even though the datas that factor the individual parts of the system cannot distinguish which system, one or the other, in fact is being factored. We will get to the part about the mathematics in a moment. First, lets pin such systems down to only certain destined endowments. INTRINSIC 'SUB-DUALITY' In an example, if at Earth in the clustered 'microscope' model, looking directly at a Sun in Venus, you cannot know if the Sun moves back (farther away) and you the observer and the 'focal lens stay put in one spot, or if you and the 'focal lens' move back (farther away) while the Sun stays stationary, if there is a change in distance between you (the observer hence eyepiece) and the focal lens, unless you can also see a separate backdrop such as a backdrop of fixed stars to act as a referencing frame, to see which end of the model has moved. The same is true for the 'telescope' system around the solar center. Without an external frame of reference which is not a part of the 'model' system, there is no way for you to tell which end of your system has moved to result in a change in the distance between the eyepiece and the focus lens. If a frame of reference exists you can compare the frame before and after a change in your system. If you can thus see that both you and the focal lens have moved, you know the target has stayed stationary and so the system is obviously 'telescopic'. If you have stayed put, and both the focal lens and Sun have moved, you thus know the system is 'microscope'. THE MYSTERY In either case, without a frame of reference external to your system, you cannot specify what kind of mechanical event has changed your system, because the mechanical properties you can see within the system are without any unigue distinquishing feature that can otherwise tell you what you want to know. Hence you cannot know, if within either system, just what kind of system you are in if all you have is one state of that system, which changes to another. In other words you can be inside a microscope, or a telescope, and not know the difference, since both are without an enclosing wrap-around shell because they are artifacts constructed by invisible lines of force in the reaches of space. For example, if no other planets, or stars can be seen, you cannot know what kind of a system you are in, when all you have for percieving your system are its embodiments monitored along either artifact's center line. As to what kind of mechanical system is being monitored when you are the observer stationed at the eyepiece, is a mystery, when there is no orbiting, and everything moves in and out on a straight line. The kind of system giving the straight line motion, is a mystery. Even if full orbital velocities and revolutions were to be restored to both systems in full, you would still be in the dark faced with the 'mystery'. For example, concider the 'telescope' system close in to the Sun with the eyepiece and focal lens parts orbiting around the Sun in a regular way: perfect eclipse states can still routinely occur if all parts comprising the eclipse are viewed in full cross sectional diamateters rather than in parallax. Actually, the same is true for the 'cluster' with you the eyepiece and focal lens orbiting correctly, and the miracle Sun at Venus is also orbiting correctly in accord with the orbit of Venus. If the real Sun at the center of the solar system is ignored, and your interest is always focused on the Sun at Venus waiting for eclipses, perfect eclipses will likewise occur only this time, there will be small to great stretchings of the distances between the eclipsing parts on an irregular occurring basis, in which the flexing size of the 'focal lens, and its short distance orbiting around you, will vary enormously in comparising to simple stationary constant straight line sightings. In fact, for the clustered 'microscope' system in full orbit, chance eclipses identical to stationary straight line events will be rare to say the least. But no law says they cannot happen, because they will, each time you, the focal lens, and the Sun at Venus, line up in a straight line, to the center of the solar system. In any case, stationary or mobile, you STILL cannot tell what end of the system has moved when eclpises occur representing one state than another within either system, if all you can see are the eclipsing parts only, plus yourself already self identified as the eyepiece. Orientation of the sight line itself also cannot help, in this thought experiment, because all you can see are the eclipsing parts of either system, in which solar orientation can be in any direction, for either system, when an eclipse occurs if there is no external separate frame of reference with which to make comparisons between changes in states of your system. STRETCHING I'm fudging close to the border of bad science if I do not mention that if both systems are orbital, then of course you can know your system, because vast changing stretches between the parts repeatedly occur in just one of the systems. Then you know the system has to be the 'microscope' model. Stretching occurs within a wide range, including local stretches with both you in Earth orbit and Venus on this side of the solar center and the focal lens orbiting around you at Earth. Many times, all three parts of an eclipse can line up correctly to cause an eclipse state without reference at all to the solar center. In this situation, orientation is completely random and is not law. The same is true for Venus, with its Sun in Venus orbit, moving along at faster speed to the other side of the solar center. A huge range of stretched orientations around a full 360 degrees is thus the full range in which eclipses can occur, with lines of sight most frequently falling on either side of the solar center rather than through the solar center. All of this occurs in a dynamic 'microscope' model with all parts moving in proper orbits. But, if, then, the orbiting system was restricted by the simple expedience of thought experiment, to allow only a sighting of the parts when the parts are periodically lined up in a straight line to the center of the solar system, you can still tell that your orbital system is 'microscope' because an eclipse will occur with the Sun extremely close up, then extremely far away on the far side of the solar system from you. Your eclipse has then stretched to huge long distance. Just picture in mind's eye how far away the image of the Sun will be on the far side of the orbit of Venus from you. A huge stretch in distance links you, through a drastically shrunk focal lens object, to that distant tiny Sun, in a perfect eclipse. The question is, is the resulting needed size for a focus lens recognizable as a body, or other artifact in the solar system and so is of known constant size? That answer is not at hand at this moment. The answer that is at hand is how to tell if your modelled system is 'microscopic' or 'telescopic' when you have no external frame of reference. The property of 'stretching' up to great distances is the only way you can tell if your system is 'microscope' or 'telescopic' in nature. The 'telescope' model in contrast will not stretch beyond a small fixed group of repeating 'constant' parameters when orbiting. So that's how you know the difference. THE REAL MYSTERY In fact, you cannot tell the nature of either system by the mathematics you use to analyse either system, when an eclipse occurs. If solely concerned with the mathematics, you cannot tell which end of your system moves to make a new eclipse state. So, the kind of system you are in remains a mystery. How is this so? It is because of another kind of 'Duality' also of a unique kind, which is happening within both systems. This other 'Duality' can be described as follows: _________________________________________________________________________ TRIGONOMETRY STATES Since all of the mechanical clatter being used to describe the behavior of the two mechanical systems - the 'microscope' and the alternative 'telescopic' system - are in fact simple geometric images in the form of right angle triangles of differing sizes formed along a baseline; it is obvious that the longer lengths comprise distances between the eyepiece and the Sun (between the observer and observed), wherein the distances through which the focal lens must move in both systems to form perfectly formed imaginary total eclipses with the Sun, all form small triangles. The amount the focal lens in fact 'flexes' in its short hops to comprise exact size superimposure of images, are tiny changes in the length of the 'altitude' of each small triangle. Plus also in the image are the actual eclipsers that stand upright in a stop sign manner along the baseline, in which the stop sign is geometrically constructed at right angles to the line of sight, and so is each the base of a small triangle. The bases are in fact the radii in the diameters of the 'focal lens' which 'flexes' in terms of size of upright diameter, as already mentioned above. These plane geometry images can be handled in the simplest forms of trigonometry equations, for nothing more than right angle triangles of different sizes, with the bases of each triangle, both large and small, at right angles, sitting upright like stop signs in a row along the line of sight of the observer. _________________________________________________________________________ RATIO STATES In fact, the exact same results can even more easily be achieved by doing calculations in the form of simple proportions, in which the data simply says 'the ratio of the size of this, over that, is identically proportionate to the size of over there, over that other thing'. A C That is no different at all then saying --- = --- B D so that this becomes EQUATION 1 usuable for all ratio solutions. The 'ratio' equation dealing with proportions, produces identical results to trigonometry equations dealing with plane geometry. The only difference is that the plane geometry form, identifies alignment of datas, for instance that one data is at right angles to another. Whereas the proportionate ratios simply identify size and scale in terms of widths and lengths, with no geometric alignment needed. REGARDS 'TRIGONOMETRY' VRS 'RATIO PROPORTION' RESULTS Both sets of equations, will produce identical results, even though both kinds of equations are fundamentally different in conceptual originality, Yet both work well to explain how a fundamental system in the form of perfect eclipse states can be analyzed. _________________________________________________________________________ In other words, a 'Duality', in which these two very different forms of mathematics can produce identical resulting datas, is self evident. Note that the 'ratios' in proportions version of mathematics, is far simpler to use, in that translations between angle sizes and resulting sines, cosigns, and tangents, are not required to use the pure 'ratio' form of mathematical solutions. The more unweildly 'Law of Cosines' as a worst case in conceptual baggage, is completely bypassed in using the simple proportions system of mathemics. Thank God. In fact, several different mechanical formulas comprising the trigonometry handbook may be required to solve equations leading to variable datas that comprise the solutions for the mobile and flexing 'focal lens'. Yet only one single standard simple equation solves each 4 piece proportion. All of the datas required for the 'focal lens' solutions can be done with just one equation, EQUATION 1, using simple proportions as the mathematica's variable inputs. And so you can see, the results themselves, (the datas that describe each state within a system), cannot of themselves tell if that particular state is from a 'telescope' system or a 'microscope' system. You need to have all 3 states of a particular system gathered together within an image to house it, in order to tell what kind of mechanics is being modelled or detailed by the states. The whole image itself, is the answer as to whether a system is mechanically 'telescopic', or 'microscopic'. The datas or states cannot give the true answer, because of the 'Duality' in the mathematics within both of the two different mechanical image systems. What is really wild, is that the mathematical 'Duality' instantly recognized for the eclipse states regarding the true nature of the focal lens 'flexing' eclipsers, just does not exist in the parallax view of eclipses. Ratios which can balance the parallax trigonometries by 'ratio proportions', don't exist. Wellll ... in fact the ratios do exist, sort of. What actually happens is that the ratio proportions you would use for parallax view geometry, are in the same pieces of data as used for the straight line system. But the base of each of the right angle triangles leans at a forward angle to make contact with a 90 degree right angle touching the edges of the 2 eclipsing bodies in the parallax view, so that the segments (distance) along the base line are the hypotenuse of right angle triangles. But note, that the base coming to the edge of a sphere is a full radius no less. So 'ratio proportions' can also solve focal lens distances and sizes for parallax view eclipses. But these will not be perfect eclipses. Perfectly matched accord with existing planet Equatoral and Polar radii, will be slightly out of focus, and will seem randomly co-incidental, close enough at times to seem amazing, but no cigar. You can use the 'ratio proportions' initially gained from a parallax view, to subtely keep adjusting segments of the base lines, to find where those base lines must land as lengths to become parts of perfect structures. In which case all you have done is convert the total eclipse from parallax view, to a perfect eclipse in straight line view, hence dissolving the parallax view, to end up with only the perfect eclipse states. Now, this is almost a tautology. But notice how quietly and elegantly the one view (parallax) subtely inexorably transforms into the other view, when all you did was want to expand your accuracy to see if existing solar physical constants for the radii of certain planet bodies, (Earth and Moon for instance) can actually fit in self evident truth at the focal lens in a self defining image system comprising the which of itself, constant. The answer implied here is, of course, yes. Which is why the parallax view CANNOT give you the answer, unless you are already looking for it. _________________________________________________________________________ BACK TO THE STARTING POINT Which brings us right back to the original topic, first introduced, which is that two different mechanical physical systems modelled in the depths of nearby space in the solar system, can produce the same results, in the form of constant datas, irregardless of which system is being used to model a structure that will yield the results. In this case, the first mechanical system, of 'microscope' nature, was formed along a single stand-alone straight line, as a 'cluster' between Earth and Venus orbits. And the second system, of 'telescope' kind, was formed around the Sun at the center of the solar system and so could also stand as images for a properly orbiting (albiet non existing) planet. At this point, the two structurally different images were described simply to show that identical datas can be factored from these two fundamentally different 'modelled' dynamic systems. In other words, the same datas will result no matter if using the modelling means of a 'microscope' or a 'telescope'. A 'Duality' in the mechanics of the two different mechanical models, becomes clear, due to a second 'Duality' in the form of the mathematics used to find the wanted results, that is, trigonometry vrs pure ratio proportions. In other words, the two systems of mathematics, due to their 'Duality', cannot distinguish if a 'telescope' system, or a 'microscope' system, is being described, since the 'flexing' shifting focal lens stays proportionately attached to the eyepiece, irregardless of which mechanical system, microscope, or telescope, is being used to describe the system whose 'focal length' properties are being analyzed. _________________________________________________________________________ INTERPRETATION The only way for God (the scientist) to know what system is at hand when factoring the Lab Rat, (the mechanical system being analyzed), is to create the mechanical system of choice, or, to get right out there in space, far enough away to be able to observe the whole mechanical system operating as a single self contained unit (dynamic), in which case the scientist can then know if the system is a 'microscope', or a 'telescope' in its fundamental contruction. The two 'Dualities', hide the nature of the structure from instant view. Plus, the mathematical 'Duality' hides the existence of whether a trigonometry geometry must by used to move to results, or a proportionate ratio system must be used, since both come to the SAME results nevertheless. The mechanical system 'Duality' of itself, hides the true nature of the system being analyzed, since the 'focal lens' travels along with the eyepiece, in BOTH mechanical systems. _________________________________________________________________________ What is all this nonsense about 'Duality' leading to, anyway. It is in fact leading to some astonishing facts of solar dynamics which are so well 'hidden', they cannot ever being seen without being aware of the two 'Dualities', and which otherwise cannot ever be seen also, if it is concluded that no other physical mathematical point of view other than the ancient method of viewing total solar eclipses by parallax geometry can ever reveal substantial or 'hidden' facts about how this solar system is actually constructed as a dynamic artifact in Cosmic Space. HIDDEN FACTS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM, (IDEAS RECOGNIZED). In fact, if the eyepiece of the 'telescopic' system, erected by whims of a thought experiment along a straight line on the inside of the orbit of Mercury, is simply extended out to the orbit of the Earth, and EARTH's eccentricity, instead of the eccentricity of Venus, is used to mark the range through 3 data points as that to which the eyepiece (observer) moves, and a Moon is put in place a short distance from the Earth, in fact at the Moon's actual orbital distance around the eyepiece, you are looking at nothing less than the Earth-Moon system, which eclipses the Sun. ____________________________________________________________________ In fact, if you do your mathematics sharply, no fudging, no trunkating of digits, you do all of your equations to maximum accuracy using either the 'ratio proportions' mathematica method or 'trigonometric plane geometry' method, in both cases you will come to the same conclusion, that the Moon 'flexes' in size in its orbit. And in fact the exact cross sectional size of the Moon varies between two well known values. It varies precisely between the Moon's equatorial radius size, and the Moon's polar radius size. This is only true, however, when full cross sectional diameters are used for all bodies that form the eclipse. Because of this, right angle triangle 'altitudes' along the base line of sight, form the fundamental constructs, rather than varied hypotenuse of right angle triangles as you would have in any traditional parallax view manner. The full cross sectional diameter view produces the clarity that leads to percieving guantum states in gravity. This can be said in another way, as follows: In a most important way, note that clarity only ocurrs when the eclipsing bodies are seen superimposed to their full diamaters, and not viewed as parallaxes. In parallax astronomy, the observing line of sight along a center line is what forms the hypotenuse of different sized right angle triangles. In the full cross sectional diameter view, the distances along the line of sight are actually the 'altitudes' of the right angle triangles. And furthermore, only certain positions attained from time to time by bodies in dynamic orbit are used to percieve the correct images; the random fluctuating mildly choatic nature of orbital tilts and yearly variances in degree of eccentricity, are completely ignored. ____________________________________________________________________ DYNAMICALLY MOVING VRS STATIONARY VIEW Of further interest, in fact of main interest, is in noticing that the Moon actually tracks through a very narrow gap, moving in and out, sliding back and forth along the sight line, to accomodate superimposure over the Sun in either view, (dynamic ongoing, or stationary). The in and out tracking of the Moon is just a hiccup compared to the lengths of the Moon and Earth orbits. In fact in the stationary view, having total pure superimposure over the full cross sectional diameter for both the Moon and the targeted Sun at the center of the solar system, reveals that the amount the Moon actually moves tracking in and out, is so small, it is precisely equal to the diameter of the Earth, no more, no less. Forget about parallax observations for the moment, at this moment, from now on we are solely interested in what happens when full cross sectional diameters are the law. These we can call perfect eclipses, in lieu of the more well known 'total' eclipses. And so: to continue with stationary imaging, involving eclipses of the Moon and Sun that you can see and use to formulate fundamental laws in a new way. The clue is in looking with the Earth at 3 different locations only, and comparing certain datas that must result. A predictable pattern is instantly seen, in the form of a set of three states of balanced solar Physical Data Constants, as seen entirely within two different kinds of 'flexing' involving the Moon as the focal lens. SOLAR ECLIPSES OF THE MOON AND SUN, AS VIEWED FROM EARTH ORBIT. In the strictly stationary view, it will quickly be seen that the amount of hop skip and jump the Moon makes, when slid back and forth, has its own form of 'flexing, in the manner of discrete changes in just how much the Moon actually moves from one jump to the next. What this means is that the Moon doesn't just move and wander a little, it can't, due to the hard core fixed nature of the proportions, which allow only three positions to occur for the Moon along the straight line to the center of the Sun. What THIS means is that the gaps jumped by the Moon in forming perfect eclipses is precisely known. It is in fact a distance equal to the EQUATORIAL size of the Earth, and a second distance equal to the POLAR size of the Earth, both together comprising a full gap equal to one mean diameter of the Earth in total. Now, isn't that neat. Calculated states in gravitational law are so precise that social delicacy isn't even required. These are so precisely co-ordinated, that NO OTHER VALUES ARE POSSIBLE. It means that the Moon and its size, and the Earth and its size, and the Moon's distance from the Earth, and the Earth's distance from the Sun, are EVERYTHING BUT CO-INCIDENTAL. The only thing co-incidental about the real system, is that it is dynamically always constantly in motion, and this brings immediately to mind such questions as orbital tilts, and maximum Perogee and Apogee positions of the Earth per yearly revolution in orbit, and the like, including the same for the Moon per monthly orbit. Just take away the static, the scrathy stuff, the random bit of chaos in the system, and you have at home a brand new system in which all of its parts are CONSTANTS, which, given the system we actually have in place today, can have no other values. Well, they can, but then, the perfect absoluteness in the proportionalities (and also by 'Duality' using the trigonometric geometry) of its parts, will no longer be elegant, and who wants that! In this startling view, the flexes of the Moon's size as the focal lens shifting along the axis, are also quantumly precise. in truth, at one position, the size of the Moon is equal to the Moon's Polar radius, and at another position it is the Equatorial radius of the Moon that fits perfectly within the 'flexing' realm of the Moon's cross sectional diameter as the focal lens. Well, in fact, the perfect eclipse version for the Moon's Polar radius is slightly under the size of the Moon today, but the difference is so slight you can walk through it in an afternoon. Granted, the oblative difference (oblative is the word astronomers like to use when discussing the non-exact spherical shape of the Moon, or of any moon or planet), for the Moon is very slight, very slight indeed, there is hardly much difference between the Polar vrs Equatorial radius size of the Moon, but it is nonetheless measurable, and astronomers make very careful note of it. ANYTHING ELSE ? Which brings to mind a tendency to let the eyeballs roam around a bit until they point like twin rays right toward Venus. Now, Venus is a well known body in the sky, said to be, casually, roughly the size of the Earth, but now known to be hotter than the mad hatter's oven, and not just because its closer to the Sun, it is because it is covered with an atmosphere so dense that light can't be seen penetrating to its surface, at least cannot be seen from the Earth, penetrating. So radar is used to map the surface of Venus, to come up with an aproximation of its physical size. But more about that physical size in a moment. First, lets turn our attention to another possibility, now that our eyeballs have roamed around and just by luck have happened to catch sight of Venus. Instead of just throwing a glance in that direction, why not move the eyeballs right to Venus itself. In fact, this is easier said than just talking about it. For instance, we already have a modelling means already in place to do just that. Here is how. Instead of moving the eyepiece of the 'telescope' model from near the Sun all the way out to the orbit of the Earth, why not just move it out to the orbit of Venus. Now, I forgot to mention that when raving about the amazingly precise perfect eclipse states found for the Moon orbiting the Earth, that the Earth has to be moved exactly to its Aphelion, Mean, and Perihelion positions in orbit, for instance along that famous straight line to the center of the Sun, in order for the fun amongst the polar and equatorial sizes of the Moon and the Earth to become self evidently obvious, found amongst the two 'flexes' regarding the Moon's actual size as a focal lens, and its actual places in orbit (in which the Earth appears as an echo in the fundamental gap hop skipped and jumped by the Moon), a gap which says: this is where you have to put me, (me being the Moon). And so we come back to our 'longing' long distance look to Venus. Well, we don't have to 'long' or 'moon' (to use a bad pun) any longer (to use another bad pun). Instead we can just give the eyepiece of the telescope a little push, with the focal lens attached, and shove it until it collapses enough to arrive right in the middle of the orbit of Venus. And there, with an elegant new totally impossible construct in the solar system having just been made, we can now play around anew, having some fun. But WHAT fun this is! For instance, all you have to do is remember your first year physics textbook, to know that something has to be in the orbit of the Moon, in order for that 'something', now at Venus, to eclipse the Sun. What in fact you have done is simply shoved Earth (with the Moon attached) to Venus, and, either leaving the Earth there (because this will work just as handily due to 'Duality' since it is only a data point for the observer's eyepiece and not a solid object in space at this point, or switch the Earth for Venus, in which case the Gods of Olympus and hard core science can start breathing easy again. So, Venus it is. The Moon is now in orbit, around the planet Venus. Well, obviously the Moon is way to small to fit in place as a proper eclipsing object there. If the Moon is the proper size to fit over the Sun when the Moon is all the way out hanging tight with the Earth, how much smaller the Moon will seem in proportion to the Sun, when moved in closer, to Venus. It is too small to eclipse the Sun at the center of the solar system. So we can just throw the Moon away and forget the whole idea. But why do we have to do that? Everything is already in place to answer a simple question that has to arise in curiousity, and that is, what is the proper size for a Moon to actually eclipse the Sun, if the Moon is orbiting Venus, instead of Earth, and is in fact at the same orbital distance from Venus as it is from Earth, in lock step with Venus which itself moves in and out in the brackets of its own eccentricity of orbit, sliding along the straight line from Perihelion, to Mean, to Aphelion, 3 distances from the Sun, which is sitting nobly stationary at a standstill right where you want it at the center of the solar system. All of this still does not answer the question, which is, what is the size of the moon going to be, at Venus? Well, the answer is not hard to find. In fact there is an object that will 'flex' in size between Venus and the Sun, which jumps between distances in and out on the line of its orbit, in which these 'jump' distances also flex, and here, something new and remarkable is noticed. Only one object, of a certain precise size, can fit the bill to be a moon for Venus that can totally eclipse the full cross sectional size of the Sun. That object, in fact, happens to be the planet Mercury. Now, it is obvious that Mercury is not where it is supposed to be, orbiting Venus. But's that's the same as saying peas and carrots are not the same thing, which they are not. The fact that Mercury 'fits' around Venus does not mean to say that Mercury is supposed to be there, or once was. All it means is that if you put an object the size of Mercury at Venus, then EVERYTHING about that system falls into exact place neatly and nicely. In fact what you have, is a 'hidden' Mercury twin, jumping in and out in orbital distances by gaps that in total equal the diameter of Mercury also, the same mechanical thing you saw at Earth, except this time, instead of one full sized Earth filling the gap through which the Moon jumps when eclipsing the Sun, at Venus you have one full sized Mercury filling the gap caused by a hidden Mercury, jumping back and forth as an eclipsing moon in a system that is now suddenly ALSO definable as constants. No doubt about it. The Gods on Olympus are pleased that you did your mathematical homework so accuractely. You have just passed the hardest test. So accurately did you pass in fact that you can now see that the object named Mercury in orbit around Venus, 'flexes' too (just as did the Moon away out there around planet Earth) in a precise way, yet only very minimal, yet more than enough to be counted, and thus if these flexes serve as new calculations for 'polar and equatorial' radii for Mercury, then in fact the same exact two radii are also accounted to the exact same accuracy in the amount of 'flex' that simultaneously occurs, as the focal lens named Mercury, hops skips and jumps, while the whole focal lens assembly moves in lock step in and out with the eyepiece of the telescope, as the telescope eyepiece in turn is moved in an out to the three constant positions of Venus eccentricy, that is, the Perihelion, Mean, and Aphelion positions which Venus systains over a long period of time in orbit. Ho hum, how wordy those humans can get, one God on Olympus mutters to another. Not wordy actually, confused, says another. Not confused, says a third, academic. Ahah! say all three simultaneously. What was that rumble I just heard in my head, says someone on Earth, who continues writing: Mercury, in other words, fits the bill for both forms of flexing. In constrast, the Moon fits the bill for one form of flexing, and the sizes of the Earth itself fits the bill for the other form of flexing, in total cum perfect solar eclipses of the Sun, which we here at Earth can actually see from time to time by plain eyesight. However, it is Venus and its hidden moon named Mercury which now has our undivided attention at this critical moment in time. Read on. Notwithstanding that Venus has by far the smallest eccentricity in the solar system. Compared to some planets, Mercury or Pluto for example, Venus has almost a circular orbit. It is that small eccentricity, however, that makes ALL the difference when it comes to percieving exact Polar and Equatorial sizes for Mercury. It is worth pausing to note regards any apparant 'oblative' sizes for Mercury when it is seen by telescopes from the Earth against the intense yellow-white backdrop of the nearby Sun, that astronomers have not yet given an oblative sizing for Mercury. Astronomers say that any difference between Polar vrs Equatorial radii for Mercury cannot be distinguished. It seems evident, thus, that if Mercury did have oblativeness, it would be an extremely small variance. In fact, our model has just produced a very small obvlative variance in both of its 'flexings' regards Mercury as a focal lens, (compared to the oblative of Earth's two radii used by the real Moon for total solar eclipses), when a 'hidden' Mercury slues at Venus, perfectly eclipsing the Sun. ____________________________________________________________________ WHAT ABOUT EARTH AND VENUS Which brings us back almost to the point where we first started: to create a mechanical structure clustered out at Earth, with a Sun moved all the way out into the orbit of Venus, to create a model known to have the mechicanical properties of a 'microscope' when viewing a body in orbit around Earth, eclipsing a full sized Sun in the orbit of Venus. It wasn't just to point out the differences between a telescope, vrs microscope mechanical system, was it? Think again. What in fact WOULD be the size of a body here in the Moon's orbit right out here at Earth, a body that can eclipse a Sun in the orbit of Venus. Well, it turns out, there are TWO bodies that will do the job very nicely, thank you. Not one, but two! In fact, one of the bodies (it turns out to be the Earth) answers another question that scientists like to ask all the time, and that is the question of symmetry. If a system works one way, will the system also work when turned around to try and make it work the other way. Scientists and thinkers used to like Rube Goldberg devices because they always worked only one way, and often had a hidden step in them that was impossible. But we are not looking for cartoon creations in the form of Rube Goldberg devices when talking about symmetry. Fundamental laws in physics are thought to be more perfectly correct if symmetry is found. And indeed it is, in this case. A symmetry will occur if the Moon and the Earth simply exchanged places, in other words, the Earth now orbits the Moon, and the Moon carrying the Earth around with it, now orbits the Sun. But wait! What kind of symmetry can possibly be suggested here in that a simple glance heavenward, for instance by an astronaught on the Moon who is looking toward Earth as the Earth moves over the Sun. It is clear to even someone who is very short sighted who needs very thick eyeglasses that hardly work anyway, that the Earth is GIGANTIC compared to the Sun. And so a total eclipse of the Sun by the Earth, when seen from the Moon, simply is not possible. Here comes Rube Goldberg again, spinning in the grave, topsoil flying over his newest cartoon, thanks to humans who want to look for symmetry and can't find it. But wait, why give up here, since we are having so much fun already, especially when discovering that in the proportions of space Mercury is right at home in orbit around Venus even if the gravity resulting from such an arrangement could throw a real monkey wrench into the existing solar system's inner regions of today. Forget that Mercury has to be at Venus, it doesn't obviously, because obviously it isn't there at this present time, but you can IMAGE one there, or at least an echo as an artifact of space itself, exactly the size of Mercury, orbiting Venus, and presto! suddenly you have an even more elegant and well mannered solar system than you ever thought possible. So, getting back to that myopic observer on the Moon, vigorously wiping eyeglasses under the sweaty helmut and muttering about the wonders that the EARTH is just too LARGE to fit over the hole in space made by the Sun. Well, this observer got a failing grade from the God's on Olympus, for failing to make the simple next step in logic, for failing to ask the simple question, it being, 'if the Earth is in orbit around the Moon, if the Moon and the Earth have exactly changed places so as to be fundamentally and cosmically symmetrical, where does the SUN have to be, in order to be eclipsed by the Earth? Now this is a perfectly reasonable, respectable, question, according to the Gods on Olympus because they already know the answer. The only thing needed is for those lazy humans on Earth to wake up and learn the answer too, and heaven knows, its been nearly four millineum, in fact let's be accurate, its been more than 5,000 years since humans first started noticing how to predict eclipses and they STILL haven't discovered the answer. Well, since its nearly lunch time and even Gods get hungry, they decide enough is enough and 5,000 years is way too long to keep failing to get it, to keep missing the truth. So, the answer is sent straight to Earth on a short distance dispatch and is found to be very easy to pass through from the brain out into the communicated word. The answer is that the Sun has to be out at VENUS, in order for the Earth to eclipse it, when the eclipse is seen by an observer on the Moon. See how nicely the Gods made the solar system? you can move things around almost willy nilly and still have things connect perfectly together to form artifacts in Cosmic Space. Wellll, perhaps not so simple, but still verrry elegant. That's in reference to how quickly you can see the system when the Sun is moved up to Venus. Echos of objects of planet and star size are certainly cropping up where the naked eye sees nothing there. The uncovered eye sees all, and the Gods on Olympus are pleased. What you do see right away is that only particular locations for the Sun as target, work. In fact, only with the Sun at the Perihelion, Mean, and Aphelion positions of Venus' eccentricity will the system work, in which the Earth moves in and out along the orbit of the Moon in a flexing way, as the focal lense of a 'microscope' mechanical apparatus. Which leaves the question of how far the Earth must leap frog back and forth sliding in and out along the sight line of the Moon orbit, looking straight at the center of the Sun at Venus. It turns out, that the hop skips and jumps, total an exact length in space that is already known. In fact, that exact length is well, exactly the diameter, exactly the size, of Venus. Another profound echo has just appeared! In fact, if the math work is done to the ultimate degrees of accuracy, not hard to do when the will and desire are there making you do it, it turns out that 'flex' along the jump line is of course also a rule, and the flex is exactly equal to a minor difference in sizes which can stand for (perhaps are) calculations of both the Venus Polar radius, and Equatorial radius, in apparent sizes. Apparent is the word because Venus can't be seen physically in the flesh by optical telescopes under its skin of dense cloud cover, nevertheless, an anticpated overall size for Venus has long been suggested by astronomers using radar, and this suggested size falls toward the low end of the 'flex' just mentioned, as if the suggested size is closer to an actual 'polar' size for Venus, rather than, say, an 'equatorial' size. Notwhithstanding the difficulties of accepting straight away that the flex sizes calculated for Venus are in fact the actual sizes of Venus, flex sizes for the discrete changing shape of the Earth are also calculated, these being a 'Polar' radius equivalent, and an 'Equatorial' radius equivalent, which turn out, both, to be identical to the two radii for Earth already previously calculated for the existing system that we have always used to observe 'total' eclipses of the Sun, and in fact, I am happy to report, the actual size of the Earth (look it up in any astronomy manual) is exactly the same 'polar' and 'equatorial' radii just calculated from proportionate ratios out there in space, well, actually down here on a sheet of paper. In actual fact, the sizes for a 'focal lens' Earth that turn up as ratio proportions on a sheet of paper are identical in all ways that you can measure, to the sizes we actually have already for the Earth. There is no difference seeable between the ratio proportion sizes, and the sizes learned by going out there with a hot air balloon and a long tape measure using the trade winds to get you around the equator, and the puffing tailpipe of a volkswagon engine to get you over the poles. That is the hard part, if you can find a scientific society to finance the trip and a hot air balloon. You don't need to. Actually, you can just jog to the local library and you will see that the 'polar' and 'equatorial' radii for Earth that science hails as accurate are the same radii you have also just hailed as accurate by the ratio proportions involving kinky perfect eclipse states for an echo of the Sun at Venus, solved on a sheet of paper, and which you can see in mind's eye as clear as day as gigantic artifacts of construction up there in solar space, (made ridiculously tiny by sheer long distance), due to the miracle of joint dual flexing in the focal lens of those perfect eclipse structures. We know this is true for the Moon orbiting Earth, and for a hidden planet Mercury in exact short distances from Venus. In both of these former cases, the Sun is at the center of the solar system. So now we are changing everything, moving the Sun out to Venus and saying look here! we now find the mysterious radii of Venus that we can't find by telescopes, due to the dense atmosphere of Venus, just by looking at the precise gaps formed in the 'flex' of orbit lengths by an Earth around the Moon, perfectly eclipsing the Sun at Venus. But how can we know, how can we say that the Venus sized 'flexes' automatically calculated for hop skips and jumps for an Earth in the Moon's orbit that eclipses a Sun in the orbit of Venus, are also the real polar vrs equatorial sizes of the planet Venus? We can't, we can't know for sure, except when a satellite circles the poles and the equator of Venus and sends home streams of datas that only scientists using computers can love with a passion. But can we give up? Can we say we can never know the oblative size of Venus (the size of its polar and equatorial radii) by mathematical means alone. We can give up trying and call it a day. Or, we can try another unanswered question that springs brightly to mind. And that is, what, since Venus is so close in size to the Earth, what if VENUS was put in orbit around the Moon, instead of the planet Earth being there to eclipse the Sun having all that new fun, in the orbit of Venus. It turns out that very much indeed there is reason for playing willy nilly once again with the solar system by replacing the Moon with a brand new Venus, now in orbit around the Earth. Because, by doing that, you can now calculate the two radii of Venus to identical accuracy, in two more ways, not one more way, but two. Remember that funny thing we did when we collapsed the telescope and put the eyepiece at Venus, and got rid of the old Moon still clinging in orbit, and instead put Mercury there, and found not only that Mercury eclipsed the Sun, it also hopped skipped and jumped in a flexing way along the sight line of its orbit at Venus, and that the jumps were of Mercurial size, and so, because you now had 'flexed' sizes (albeit very small) for Mercury gained from both its 'flexing' as a focal lens, and its 'flexing' as a gap along its own sight line, that you could now reasonably suppose that you have perhaps, just calculated the actual physical dimensions for the planet Mercury, right down to the last drops of accuracy. Why not do the same for Venus, in moon orbit around Earth. Well, in fact, you can. And here is how. It is very simple, really. Just put a Venus in the orbit of the Moon, instead of the planet Earth, in the symmetry system you want to take a closer look at, and you will find that when Venus hops, skips, and jumps, to eclipse the Sun moving in and out to the 3 key data points of Venus' eccentric orbit, that the gap through which Venus hops is exactly equal to, in total all the way in, to all the way out, well, how about that! it is exactly equal to, you've already quessed it, exactly equal to the size of VENUS itself. Another solar system echo fills the big screen! I forgot to mention that it is important that you put the Earth at its mean of orbit, and let the Sun standing stationary in standby at Venus do the work of moving around, or rather, slide in and out along the sight line, in lock step with the eccentricity of Venus in solar orbit. TWO JOINTED SYSTEMS And so we have a new second hidden system - this being 'microscopic' in nature rather than 'telescopic' - in which the eclipsing object, and the distance the eclipsing object moves in flexing within its 'focal lens' system, are both of identical size. In the new second such system, Venus is now the flexing focal lens, and is also the flexing gap through which Venus hops skips and jumps to form perfect cross sectional focuses. In other words, in the first such system, putting an object the size of Mercury in an orbit around Venus and have it eclipse the stationary central Sun as Venus moves in and out in its eccentricity, actually, all you would have to do is mark the near side of Mercury (facing Venus) and the far side (facing the Sun) and say with great gusto that this is exactly how far Mercury has to move in total to eclipse that Sun, which is true. Would the God's lie? Of course not. But you might, a bit, lie that is. In fact to get the true picture as it actually is, you have to have Mercury leap frog a gap that is specifically the size of a 'polar' radius for Mercury, then another gap that is specifically an 'equatorial' radius size for Mercury. And now we have just uncovered that same conjointed principle happening for Venus when bolted to the Earth in substitution for the Moon, in orbit around Earth, to thus eclipse a Sun punting like a large transparent golden beach ball in the orbit of Venus. This is nice. Because we can use the oblative size found for Venus when Earth was the eclipser, and from that we can see if we can come up with calculations for precisely flexed sizes for Venus as the eclipsing body in this 'microscopic' focal lens array. And it turns out we can. The newly calculated apparent 'polar' radius and 'equatorial' radius that we now calculate for Venus, turn out to be, well, you've already quessed it, exactly the SAME, I mean T H E S A M E as the sizes for Venus previously calculated in an entirely different system, when Earth was the eclipsing body. So there are THREE different ways these same exact radii sizes for Venus, are calculated, by the shape of Cosmic Space in the local region of the solar system. Two of these calculated radii come in the form of hops skips and jumps along a sight line upon which a focal lens is moved by the constructs of Cosmic Space, and the third is for radii sizes of the focal lens itself, when the focal lens is a clone of Venus. This is not a time to get lazy so you think you have lots of time to shout hallellulias to one hand clappers in the forest. The most tedious and accurate ratio proportions you can do, will do no less, every time they will turn up exactly the same sizes for Venus, no matter which system - ratio or trigonometry - you choose to double check. That just about does the TV show. There is little more to say, except that of course MARS can't be left out of the picture. WHAT ABOUT MARS ? It turns out that when Mars is put in place in the orbit of the Moon around Earth, getting rid of the Moon, and when the whole observational point of view is turned around (in another fundamental symmetry you might want to ask about) so that the Sun is suddenly out there in the orbit of Mars, that the focal lense assembly flexes and morphs once more in such a way that only MARS can turn up conjointly as the oject of size filling precise gaps of certain kind along the sight line, as well being the flexable eclipser object. In fact the joint 'flexes' seen for Mars are somewhat much larger in proportions than those for Venus, and Mercury, and the Moon as well, the Earth also, in the original physical system we see in space everyday, and in fact the flex-calculated sizes for 'polar' and 'equatorial' radii for Mars we automatically calculate, (due to intrinsics in the newly constructed symmetry system), can have no other answers. We find that the calculated radii sizes for Mars are exactly the same as the physically measured polar and equatorials radii for Mars. No dispute about it. You can say so with assurance because there is no difference between the sizes you calculate using hidden 'Duality', vrs the sizes measured over centuries by telescopes pointing to Mars. Both are the same. So why argue. Let the Gods on Olympus argue such questions as 'are those the sizes we wanted'? Notwithstanding their loud and noisy disputes, what with thunder bolts and all, the fact remains, that we humans here on Earth can see the SIZES blueprinted in the fabrics of Cosmic Space, which don't need a telescope or ruler and compass to find, just, merely, to confirm. HYPERFINE DISTINCTIONS Hyperfine distinctions can have two meanings. The first has already been discussed ad nauseum, this being the 'flex' itself of each of the 'moon' bodies perfectly eclipsing the Sun, as well as a similar flexing in the gaps when the 'moon' bodies shift in a quantistic way to accomodate perfect eclipses at differing long distance positions of either the target (Sun) of a microscope moving in and out, or the eyepiece of a telescope moving in and out to target a fixed stationary Sun. The second form of Hyperfine Distinction can be introduced as something that is needed to get any system which has conjoint identicalness in its flexings to balance perfectly in all ways. For instance, the two inner systems which have conjoint flexing - Mercury at Venus, and Venus at the Earth - both require an extremely small increase in the Moon's mean of orbit, for the radii of each space object to come into a sharp focus as both the same in value for radii of the body found as the focal lens, and also the gap the focal lens skips across, to form perfect eclipses. The adjusted increase in the size of the mean of the Moon's orbit is actually very slight, yet it is calculatable, and is needed to accomodate each of the eclipse state datas perfectly. For example, when first balancing the 'ratio proportions' used to analyze a body the size of Mercury at Venus, the radius size calculated for Mercury as a focal lens is not quite the same as the radii size for Mercury spectrified as gap lengths along the sight line. In order to get the two sets of datas to merge into one, requires that a minute difference be added to the mean orbit of the Moon. The difference is tiny. It is in the range of having the radius of one of the tiniest Moons which orbit Saturn, added to the Moon's mean of orbit around Earth. But the adjustment works. And then, in coming to the second conjoint flexing system, Venus at Earth; again it is apparent that the two radii for Venus in the two different kinds of flexes, are not exactly the same. So, again, adjustments are incrementally made to the Moon's mean of orbit, until the two ranges of values converge and the two sets of radii for Venus become one, in the two different ways of flex. The amount of increase upon the Moon's mean of orbit, turns out to be exactly the same as the increase used to cause Mercury's conjoint sets of radii to converge into one. Who knows at this moment what accounts for the ultra hyperfine structural change in the length of the Moon's mean of orbit, to cause the radii exactitudes to appear as finished manifestations. Probably something to do with something about gravity, either Newtonian, or relativistically accomodated because of the Sun's rest state gravity. Something is there, deep within the works, notwithstanding or otherwise, something is in the works. THE HOMING-IN LAW OF STRANGE ATTRACTORS One last detai has to be stated as an insight of observation in order to be totally honest about perfect eclipse states. But the honesty is no problem at all because of what it honors. The honor is in noticing a fundamental change in the mechanics of behaviors of the two basically different manifestations of all of the eclipse states so far found to be perfect. In a quick list, there are five different systems involved as of this moment in time, each system having a set of three states distinctified by the nature of each state's particular flexing of its focal lens. Only one system is empirical, this of course happens to be good old Sol the Sun moving behind the Moon periodically, or rather, good old Luna moving casually in front of the sun from time to time, to form total solar eclipses. When this only empirical system is translated into perfect eclipses by the simple expediency of switching the hypontenuse and altitudes of all of the right angle triangles that form the geometry of the eclipses, then, and only then, does hyperfine distinction become apparent, in which, for instance, flexing of the size of the Moon progresses from one radii size to the other as the Earth carrying the Moon with it moves from closer in to farther out in accord with eccentricity positions of the Earth's orbit. The same progression of one radii size to another as seen for the flex size of the Moon sized focal lens, say larger to smaller, is also seen for the Earth in the gaps the Moon leaps, where the size of Earth is seen to fit exactly in the distance the Moon moves in total to form its set of three perfect eclipse states. The flexing progression is in the same direction, larger to smaller, also for that mysterious Earth which fills the gaps perfectly. However, in dealing with the other four sets of perfect eclipse states existing in the terran region, it is obvious that each of the bodies forming these other sets are not real, they are echoes, phantoms, massless, in which case you can call these other states metaphysical, because they are obviously there in the fabrics of space in the solar system, but are not seen as constructions by gravity using solid bodies. Hence, metaphysical is what they are. All of these other states share a unique difference compared to the single empirical state which produces total solar eclipses as seen from Earth. The unique difference is that the hyperfine distinction progresses in converse order, that is, say, from smaller to larger radii, instead of from larger to smaller radii as is the case for the only empirical system. The whole of the focal lens flexing systems are reversed in terms of progression of discrete sizes for the metaphysical structures. Neat is tidy, to say the least. It is worth noting that the hyperfine distinctions of the metaphysical states are so precise, that changing any of the constants which form each state by even the slightest amount can cause the hyperfine progression to instantly reverse, but also, to cause the state to start to unravel right out of focus, mathematically. In other words, all of the states, both the single empirical set of 3, and the four metaphysical sets of three, act as strange attractors that home in on constant values, which, homed there, cannot change. The idea that this solar system was created by random gathering in an accretion disk can be dropped like a dead turkey from a high flying helicopter. COMMENT In fundamental particle physics there must be 'Duality' states of synomous mechanical kind, not seen in true mechanical nature due to the existence of a 'Duality' per se. In the solar system the problem is not so severe in fact not severe at all because it is possible to just take a mere look to see what is out there in space, or to see what is diagramed as a complete image on a large wall in a laboratory, making the laboratory diagram from what can be seen in outer space, or modelled upon ideas based on hyperfine structures recognized from looking at terran space in the solar system. CONCLUSION The solar Physical Constants datas used to describe these conclusions came from detailed astronomy datas supplied to others in 1980 by astronomers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I have used them because I have not been able to find since such a complete and comprehensively integrated total set of solar Physical Constants as were those released in 1980 by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The datas were released in a publication by Don Dixon, who achnowledges professional help from a host of noted astronomers around the world. The finals are already here, in the blueprints of Creation. Accretion by gravity obviously had something to say about forming this solar system. It is apparent that something more fundamental, more there all along, formed the final outer picture of just how the formation took final shape in space, the shape we see now as the solar system's inner regions near the Sun. This is the so-called 'terran' region, in case you had your text book out and thumbed through it in a handy way (no pun intended) before finishing reading this last sentence. The Will Action and Desire of the Supreme Creators Alpha and Omega, can be seen behind it all. God did not play billiards with THIS solar system! - Finis - Total time dedicated to the task of writing this paper is 22 hours. In Divine Order Greydon Moore Ottawa Canada. greydon@canada.ca