See covering short story surveyor.txt at cosmicastronomy.com/surveyor.txt ================================ PERFECT ECLIPSES IN TERRAN SPACE ================================ ABSTRACT A study into a deeper more fundamental nature in total solar eclipses. Proof that total solar eclipses are not co-incidental. Begin 11:30 PM, December 31, 1995. Finished 4:30 AM, January 1, 1996. (First draft) Finished 10:00 PM, January 12, 1996. (Main draft) Finished 9:30 PM, January 24, 1996. (After dinner remarks). Revised 1:00 PM, August 31, 1996. (Data tables revised). Revised October 10, 2000. (More information added). Comment regards politically correct: man, mankind, and male scientists are cited, but not by choice, the development of astronomy until recent decades was a male domain. I appologize without hesitation because I believe without question that total female/male equality is a law in Reality. Greydon Moore, Canada. 'PERFECT SOLAR ECLIPSES' THE COSMIC FOCUSING MACHINE _________________________________________________________________________ | | | | PERFECT | EVERYTHING HERE ...................... | | ECLIPSES | ...................................... | |_____________|___________________________________________________________| | | | ABSTRACT | | The concept of 'Duality' assumes that more than one | | way can adequately or correctly describe a system, even when | | say, 2 originally described systems are seemingly dissimilar. | | Behind the scenes, by 'Duality', structures or thoughts from | | one system can reveal useful details of the other, and visa | | versa, according to the fundamental scientific concept called | | 'Duality'. As an example Electricity and Magnetism can jointly | | now be described as one, not just equal, at the present time. | | ------------------------------------------------------- | | In the terran region of the solar system, two different | | 'dualities', in fact, readily show 'remarkably' altered | | states of reality regards eclipsing structures of total | | solar kind. Five eclipse systems, not just one, are | | found to exist, hidden as sets of states, within two | | very unique activities via 'duality' manifestations. | |_________________________________________________________________________| A FUNDAMENTAL 'DUALITY' OF A MECHANICAL KIND Basic mechanical differences between a microscope and a telescope can be used to model a functional 'Duality' which can be imaged by pure mathetical inferrences, to an astonishing degree of accuracy in the solar system, in multi-imaged systems of operations which can then be readily expanded to describe five complete systems of eclipse state arrays, spread throughout all of the terran planets, in which a 'Duality' in two different initial kinds 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 short distance in space between Earth and Venus. To make your 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, (straight as an arrow), which connects to the Sun's center. A third centerpoint on the line, very near the Earth, can be said to be the center point of any eclipsing body. The eventing eclipsing body can superimpose, not in parallax but in full cross sectional diameter, a much larger body at Venus. The larger body is viewed from the Earth, and the event body at a short distance out from Earth on the straight line, is the eclipser. The model gets interesting, when the Sun is imaginarily moved in this thought experiment out to the orbit of venus to become a giant body being eclipsed by the 'eclipser' near Earth. And so, the Sun in the orbit of Venus, can be made to move in and out discretely to stand stationary at only 3 different perfered 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 Aphelion location), to the shortest eclipse distance to Earth. And finally, the Earth is at a fixed point in its orbit, standing still, with the Earth's point of center at the Earth's Mean of orbit, permanently stalled midway between the Earth's Aphelion and Perihelion of elliptical orbit, to see all 3 eclipse views of a Sun at Venus. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 like a 'microscope'. The stationary Earth is the eyepiece, thus it has to be the observer. The Sun moves discretely in and out within the brackets of Venus eccentricity, so has to be the 'object' observed under the microscope. And the intervening body a short distance along the straight line out from the Earth, is the 'eclipser', which is made to superimpose covering the full cross section diameter of the Sun at Venus (cut the Sun equally in half and that is the diameter). The local eclipser body is the 'focal lens', inside the microscope, also cut in half for full cross sectional diameter superimposures. When the Sun is moved to different positions to be observed, the 'focal lens' must also move 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 so much farther away out near Earth. To repeat: the focal lens moves in proportionate lock step with the target, to make this a 'microscopic' modelled viewing. 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. Flex means the focal lens can change in diameter size, as it moves discretely in and out, by prestated exact discrete amounts, to maintain sharp focus exactly upon the Sun moving in and out also discretely in a quantal way at the orbit of Venus. Such a flexing lens can be thought of as a 'liquid cornea'. The cornea of a human eye is in fact just such a liquid lens. It can change size and thickness by tiny amounts to accomodate focus, the cornea is not a hard solid. So the idea of a liquidly changing lens already exists in the physics in an empirical part of the Universe, to wit, embodied as the focal means in eyeballs. In a crunch, the 'flex' results by forcing your own preselections upon the focal lens, to accomodate a preselected exact position for the target, if an exact size is also preselected for the size of the focal lens. And visa versa, if you wish to preselect the distance the lens is to hop skip and jump along the sight line. Or, flex can also occur if both a lens size, and distance the lens moves, are pre-selected. Then, both the size of the lens (thickness) and its skip-hop distances will have to mutually flex in a fine-line way to resolve tugs of war in their ability to finally focus sharply upon the target. Just a quick resume on some mechanics regards focusing devices, now done. Continue: _________________________________________________________________________ In all attributes, the array just described in this thought experiment successfully models the 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 in size a little smaller, a little 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 carted lock stock and barrel to the center of the solar system. In fact the array does not have to be picked up, it can simply be shoved or skid along the center line, until the Sun (original moving target in observe at Venus), lands at the center of the solar system, where it comes to rest as the observed target, now stationary, and the eyepiece (observer) now must slide in and out through 3 similiar distances, out in free space away 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 both ends of the system, that is, move the eyepiece of the observer and its attached 'focal lens' out to where the mystical Suns have been moving in and out through 3 orbital data points originally at Venus, now closer to the solar center, and return the Sun to its real place at the center of the solar system. This second method of change is elegantly easier by far because you don't have to labor to dissolve one eccentricic orbital system, then create another, in order to get it to work - the orbital system is already pre-constructed. All the model takes dynamically to work in transfigured form is a single 180 degree re-alignment, (a single flip of an electron spin so to speak), a long distance slide, and the final switcheroo at both ends. In any case, the 'eyepiece' of the observer is now strobing in and out, to 3 orbital eccentric equivalents matching the eccentricity of Venus, now in an abstract space very near the Sun and in data facts 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, it stays in lock step closely attached nearby the observer, even though the observer will be moving through distances 1, 2, 3; each more than two 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 course around the Sun, except in this model, we are interested only in data points being made twice a year, as the Earth crosses an assigned center line (a single ecliptic axis, for instance), with the Moon's 'Mean' of orbit an assumed mythical point midway between the two extends of the local Moon's orbital eccentricity that we are using as a modelling means for data points along the arrow-straight sight 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 not of a microscope, it has become 'telescopic'. The eyepiece moves in and out, as the target being observed stays stationary, so thereby, the focal lens moves in and out in proportionate lock step with the 'eyepiece' out in space, instead of lockstepping in and out with a target long distances away. All optical telescopes, in fact, obey these simple endowments 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, is in using a hand held full cross sectional diameter mechanical system called a telescope to view a distant act of gravity, as a synonymous system, by parallax. _________________________________________________________________________ QUICK REVIEW OF THE TWO MODELS 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' stays stationary. In the second model, (of telescope kind) the focal lens still moves in and out in the same way, but this time it is locked to the eyepiece, (the eyepiece itself now moves in and out), while the 'target' stays stationary. However, this is straying from the point. The point is that the solar 'telescopic' model is now embodied within a telescope setup per se, with the Sun at the center of the solar system as one end of this gigantic telescope, and the observer cum eyepiece moving in and out through a brief range at long 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, and thus is capable of orbiting in toto around the solar center. Thus, a 'Duality' is instantly revealed between the two models, since one can transform into the other, and visa versa, with no datas being changed. The only things changed are mechanical motions, the datas describing them are unchanged. 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 else that it is the orbiting clustered 'microscope' model further out in local 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 to factor the individual parts of the systems cannot distinguish which system, one or the other, is in fact being factored. The only way to know which system is at work is to see the whole system from an external (laboratory) distance. This insight may be telling you some things about elementary particle modelling and physics, in that the datas cannot tell you the mechanics if more than one mechanic can be described by the same set of datas. We will get to the part about the mathematics in a moment. First, lets pin such systems down to only certain predestined endowments. INTRINSIC 'SUB-DUALITY' In an example, if at Earth in the clustered 'microscope' model and looking directly at a Sun at 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 curtain of fixed stars, to act as a referencing frame, and so 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 you at 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 thereby 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 the target have moved, you immediately know the system is 'microscope'. THE MYSTERY In either case, without a frame of reference external to your system, you cannot tell specifically 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 these 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 perceiving your system are its embodiments monitored along all of the artifact's centerline. 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 in-out motion, is a mystery. It means only one conclusion, that such a system, or state, cannot exist alone, it has to have been created by forces or factors that are larger than the states themselves. We cannot tell at this moment, given only the existence of the states, what kind of larger parameters have in fact created the states. But we can still learn a lot about the states and their properties by being very careful with the mathematics. Read on. ORBITING If when full orbital velocities and revolutions were to be restored to both systems in full, you cannot remain 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 routinely chance-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 solely focused on the Sun at Venus waiting for eclipses, perfect eclipses will likewise occur, only this time there will be small, then large 'stretchings' to great distances between the eclipsing parts on a regularly occurring basis, in which the flexing size of the 'focal lens, and its short distance orbiting around you, will vary enormously in comparison to 'local' 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 the right straight line, even if you happen to be on the other side of the solar system from Venus, at the moment the straight line event occurs. Even so, egocentric cyclings appear in your view as the norm, in huge/tiny focal lenses. In any case, stationary or mobile, you STILL cannot tell what end of the system has moved when eclipses occur representing one state than another within either system, if all you can see are the eclipsing parts only, and 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 apparatus, 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 (wrap around background of stars) with which to make comparisons between changes of status in the galactic orientations of your system. STRETCHING I am fudging close to the border of mad 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 a Sun in Venus orbit, moving along at faster speeds 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 orbiting motions. 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, The major 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 focal lens recognizable as a body, or another artifact in the solar system, and so is of known constant size? That answer is not at hand at this moment. *** It will be much smaller than the Moon, obviously. The answer 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 given small group of fixed and most rapidly repeating constant parameters when orbiting. So that's how you know the difference. THE REAL MYSTERY, THE MATHEMATICS In fact, you cannot tell the nature of either system by the mathematics you use to analyze either system, when an eclipse occurs in any straight line system. 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. The lack of any clear cut referencing frame within a state within a system, makes it impossible for the mathemacial datas per se which describe the system to also define the system's mechanics. This is true when the sightline occurs along a single fixed straight line, with no orbiting (tranversal) motions in the system. SECOND DUALITY (the mathematics) How is this so? It is because of another kind of 'Duality' also of a special kind, which is happening within both systems. This other 'Duality' is not mechanical. It is mathematical. It can be described as follows: _________________________________________________________________________ TRIGONOMETRY STATES Please note that 'iscoceles' triangle forms - the cross sectional diameter of the Sun is the triangular base - is fundamentally different than two equal 'similar' triangles side by side and married by a common single hypotenuse up the middle with two identical bases sloping away from the end of the centerline which serves as a single 3rd side. In contrast, the iscoceles triangle form has two identical outside arms which each being a hypotenuse are longer than the centerline. The traditional form of 'similar' triangles - the trignometric geometric shape typically used to study and describe eclipses - is inadequate for studying and investigating 'perfect' eclipses. 'Perfect' eclipses are revealed in structures formed not of side-by-side similar triangles but rather of single 'iscoceles' triangles, onehalf of which is a simple right angle triangle. Since all of the mechanical clatter being used to describe the behavior of the two mechanical systems - the 'microscope' and the re-tooled 'telescopic' system - are in fact simple geometric images in the form of right angle triangles of various 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), and so form large right angle triangles. Wherein the distances through which the 'focal lens' must move in both systems to form perfectly formed imaginary eclipses with the Sun, form smaller right angle triangles of miniature same kind. On the other hand, similar triangles for every different sized embodiment are not isosceles but matched pairs like 'kites' divided up the middle when solid spheres line up in a row are engaged as the whole view, in the view's geometry. This is the gooey images in geometry that fundamental trigonometry manipulates in the parallax view of eclipses. In case you've been taking too fast a turn around the orchard, 'parallax' means a sidearm view. Hold out your arms, palms extended, and the angle sweeps outward past the sides of the Moon, and past the sides of the Sun, when a total eclipse is out in front of you. You cannot actually see the spreading angle because of such monumental long distances, but the spreading parallax angle does actually start from a single source, your mouth, for instance. In contrast, straight line sightings start straight out from your nose and continue in one straight single line right to the center of the Sun. In straight line sightings, the focal lens has to change its shape in ultra fine discrete ways when you the observer move your nose in and out, breathing, if you keep the focal lens at specific preset locations while breathing. Concider these images straight from an expanding thought experiment. Straight out from your nose, the focal lens has to change size, when you (the observer) move, no matter how slight. The change in size is already a now claimed phenomena. We have been calling it 'flex'. The amount the focal lens actually 'flexes' in its short hops to comprise exact size superimposure of images, are tiny changes in the length of the 'altitude' of miniature triangles. Plus also in image are the actual 'eclipsers' that stand upright in a stop sign manner along the baseline, where each stop sign is geometric, constructed at perpendicular right angles to the line of sight, so each diameter is the base of a miniature isosceles triangle. The same is true for the diameter of the Sun. Isosceles triangles, the dominant geometric character, do not appear in a parallax view. The bases (when only half an isosceles triangle is factored) are in fact the radii in the 'diameters' of the focal lens which flex in terms of size of upright diameters, as well as (in much larger form) the radius of the Sun, as already suggested above. Simple grade school stuff, basically. 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, sticking out sideways like tense wire semaphores in a row along the line of sight of the observer, a line that continues straight foward from the pupils of your eyes when staring rigorously straight ahead. It is far easier to do this sort of stuff on paper than it is to have you stationed like sentinal at the center of the universe. Lets instead pull back once more and just look in. We do not want to loose touch with the thought experiment. To see that 'trigonomety geometry' is the scientific method to factor such images in perfect results, look at isosceles triangles built right in. _________________________________________________________________________ RATIO STATES - NO NEED FOR THE FACTORINGS OF TRIGONOMETRY In fact, the exact same results can even more easily be achieved by doing calculations in the form of simple proportions, in which the datas simply say 'the ratio of the size of this, over that, is identically proportionate to the size of what over there, over that other thing'. A d That is no different at all then saying --- = --- B C so that this becomes EQUATION 1 usuable for all ratio solutions. The 'ratio' equation dealing with proportions, produces identical results to the trigonometry equations that deal 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 trigonometries or built-in orientations between parts deemed visible at once, as for instance not being a trigonometry part such as a sine, cosine, or tangent. REGARDS 'TRIGONOMETRY' VRS 'RATIO PROPORTION' RESULTS Both sets of equations - trigonometry, and proportionate ratios - will produce identical results, even though both kinds of equations are fundamentally different in conceptual originality, in that proportionate ratios deal only with datas whereas trigonometry deals with specific mechanical parts. Yet both forms ork equally well as intellectual tools to handle how fundamental systems 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. A The more lineal form of EQUATION 1 is: --- x C = d B so this becomes EQUATION 2. 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 a single 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 a single state, cannot give the true answer, because of the 'Duality' in the mathematics within both of the two different mechanical image systems, telescope cum microscopic, and trigonometric vrs pure ratio. This is in analyzing our original 'microscopic' and 'telescopic' systems. Well, if you have slowed too far going around the next curve: the trigonometry method cannot tell you what kind of system you are in since it cannot tell you what end of the cone shaped tube has changed location, when one eclipse state progresses into another. This little uncertainty principle, points again to the 'Duality' in the mathematical methods. Have you speeded up again. HOW CAN THE MATHEMATICAL 'DUALITY' BE PUT TO WORK ? What is really wild, is that the mathematical 'Duality' can be used to recognize if an eclipse state is perfect or not. The 'Duality' can recognize if a system is a parallax, or straight line view. Only the straight line view can be a perfect eclipse. But, so can trigonometry formulas, solved for the radii and hypotenuse (not altitudes) of the image's geometric similar triangles, which, note, will not be a parallax view for the geometry constructions solved by the trig formulas, when isosceles (not mere similar) triangles are solved in the fundamental works of the trigonomety being used. How the 'Duality' can be used as an investigative tool, is that the mathematical 'Duality' can transform the systems back and forth from parallax view to straight line view and back to parallax view, by what happens when the radii of each of the two eclipsing bodies change from, say, right angles at the base line, to right angles connected at the circumpherence of the spheres, which thereby changes a straight line view to parallax, and visa versa. The alignment of each triangle's base is changed, and perceptually this is the only thing that does change, when shifting to parallax view, whereupon the perfect eclipse states vanish, as if no such things ever existed, according to humans, in the first place. The vanishing act is built into the nature of trigonometry itself when trig formulas are used to solve geometry problems involving similar triangles. Trig solutions sniff a slightly different mechanics when solving a single 'altitude' for two iscoceles triangles, vrs solving a single hypotenuse for two 'similar' triangles of identical size sharing one hypotenuse. Such nit picky in symbollic logic is almost meaningless, except that 'isosceles' vrs two identical similar triangles, are distinctly different structures. The hypotenuse (parallax) view cannot produce perfect eclipse constructs. No matter how hard you kick and crinkle the images, a hypotenuse view will always come back to radii which are just a little too long, or sight lines which are just a little too short, one fault, or the other; either fault making it impossible to identify that a perfect eclipse state exists in the view, when hypotenuse lengths are used as the trigonometry's center line of sight, since then, you can only be having a parallax view. Like I said, making the point is almost meaningless, but not quite. Either the light is on, or it isn't. One switch on the wall makes the difference. The trivial seeming switch in choice of your geometry's central line feature, is like the light switch, its on, or its off. Period. So, ability to recognize perfect eclipse functions 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' as also perfect eclipses, don't exist when parallax concepts are interfering. So this is a main clue as to how the mathematical 'Duality' can be put to work to investigate the system, to see if the system has balls, or only misshapes. For instance, is it 'parallax', or does it have 'ratio proportions' that produce perfect eclipse states. Wellll ... in fact the ratios do exist, sort of. Because what happens is that the ratio proportions you would use for parallax view geometry, are in the same pieces of data as used for the ratio proportions for the straight line systems. But the base of each of the right angle triangles in a parallax view leans at a sloping angle to make contact at 90 degree right angles touching the circumpherences of 2 eclipsing bodies in the parallax view, so the segments (distances) along the baseline are both automatically the hypotenuse of right angle triangles, and if a verticle is dropped from the right angle at the circumpherence to the baseline, thereby making it an altitude, these altitudes are in fact just a touch shorter than baseline altitudes seen for perfect eclipses. This foreshortening can be called a 'blurr', or blurring, inherent in any parallax view of an eclipse. If forcing the baselines out a bit to make them perfect eclipse proportions in a parallax, the radii of the bases cammed at an angle sloped toward you at each circumpherence of the superimposing spheres, slightly expands, taking them beyond the right size for a perfect eclipse proportion, the radii axiomatically becoming too large by slight but fatal amounts. The counter intuitive tug of war taking place in these pivot points of logic is like silly putty invented by super intelligent Daffy Ducks. But do not forget, humans invented trigonometry as a tool of their own making, but use it like gods when trying to understand astronomy. It happens because in switching to parallax view, the isosceles triangles vanish. But note, that a base coming to outer 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 cannot be seen, for instance, since the image you get at best will be slightly out of focus, 'blurred' at best, and so seems randomly co-incidental, close enough at times to seem amazing, but no cigar, not ever. 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 eclipse structures. In which case all you have done is gradually convert the 'total' solar eclipse from parallax view, to a 'perfect' eclipse in straight line view, hence dissolving the parallax view, to end up only with perfect eclipse states, via the gradual adjusts made in the mathematical datas, using 'ratio proportions'. This is true when 'ratio proportions' are used, because 'orientation' of the base line is completely out of the abstract picture produced by a pure ratio math per se. It does not matter to the math which way the triangle's base cum sphere's radius is vectored, as long as it fits as a correct balanced proportion. 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) do without question actually fit in self evident truth in the 'flexing' 'focal lens' as a self defining image system which of itself, is constant. And all you did was use a single form of mathematica, the 'ratio proportions' method, to analyze the structures. The answer implied here is yes, of course it is yes. Assuming solar body radii at ultra discrete detail do fit as absolutes and are not there as co-incidences, a multi-array eclipse state system involving all of the Terran planets, will inevitably unfold itself to you as self evident. Which is why the parallax view alone cannot give you the answer, unless you are already looking for it, the answer. Even if you do not know exactly what it is you are looking for until after you find it, you will, find it, because it is already there, ready in latent metaphysical naked space to be discovered when you uncover this naked truth in Reality, by using another mathematical method besides trigonometry, or, use the trig in a fundamentally altered valid perception. Thanks to a 'Duality' in the two kinds of triangle alignments, (parallax, and straight line), you can see in a wide open way the cleverness of how perfectly 'perfect' eclipses have been constructed in creation, brilliently. Interestingly, by perceptually manipulating just the alignments of the bases of right angle triangles, you can flip back and forth, being able to look at 'Total' solar eclipses, or 'Perfect' eclipse states, at will, the 'total' version gained from the parallax view, the 'perfect' version gained from straight line view. All you have to do is ever so subtly, discretely, change the lengths of the baseline parts by practically nothing, when flipping the triangle's bases back and forth from off-cammed to verticle (ie from kite to isosceles triangles). But only when playing with apparatus which has parts exactly at the Aphelion, Mean, or Perihelion of a solar orbit. Anywhere else in between, dynamically, will show you nothing whatsoever so interesting, no matter how furiously you flip the flippers of the pin ball machine. In the empirical universe, perfect eclipses cannot be seen in full physical view because of the solidness of the Moon, to cite one obstacle. Which is why the term 'blurred' has been used to describe parallax focusing, since the center points of the bodies, which lead to perfect eclipse states at certain exact distances apart, fall beyond only what you can see with your eyes in parallax views, and so shielded, have not provided insight in history's developement of the world's astronomy. RULE OF REVERSE ENTROPY And yet, in using only 'ratio proportions', there is a lineal one way direction only, in which your mathematics can travel. A parallax view can be transformed inexorably into a perfect eclipse straight line view, by adopting 'ratio proportion' as the only analytical method and inexorably increasing accuracy of the math. But the math cannot be used to transform a 'perfect' straight line view backwards into a parallax view that is blurred, except by decreasing the accuracy of the mathematics. On the other hand, a parallax view can stay a parallax view even when the accuracy of its mathematics is increased, but will produce no clear cut perfect eclipse state until you realize that the Moon can be 'transparent' so you can see its centerpoint and full cross sectional diameter, and the same for the Sun. In fact, both bodies are transparent in certain kinds of viewing fields, for instance both can be said to be transparent to Neutrinos, if not in fact transparent to certain frequencies of the electro-magnetic wave band. In a final remark about mathematical direction, if the parallax view is maintained for all studies of eclipses in nature, the straight line view housing perfect eclipses cannot be discovered no matter how 'accurate' the math. At this point, the problem of parallax is abandoned. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 of mechanics (telescope vrs microscope) is being used to model a structure that will yield interplanetary eclipse datas. We are once more talking about fundamental differences between a microscope, and a telescope; as both viewing, and construction, apparatuses. In which 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 on the inside of Mercury's orbit. INTRODUCING A USEFUL DUALITY At this point, the two structurally different images are described simply to show that identical datas can be factored from these two fundamentally different 'modelled' dynamic systems. It happens that the same digital datas and systems of units 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. Furthermore, the only way of telling if the system is 'total' vrs 'perfect' is in looking for isosceles triangles, which tell you that the system has to be 'perfect' if they are there. But this is only true when using trigonometry. When using pure 'ratio proprotions' as the mathematica, isosceles triangles nor any kind of triangles, are simply not available as hardcopy images, in the pure ratio proportions and pursuent equations, such as EQUATION 2 shown above a few pages back. Note, a fundamental discord is at the bottom line anyway. Our two mechanically modelled systems are formed of artifacts which exist as constant images no matter how they are measured or described. The describing method is artificial. Both trigonometry, and ratio mathematics, are human constructs artificially contrived to make mechanical analysis possible. Simple manipulations of geometric parts can provide analysis more readily than trigonometry formulas or ratio math. In fact pure geometry parts manipulation is an absolute manner of thought that can be used universally by any individual, any intelligence, anywhere in the universe. The only thing needed to have absolute control of the manipulation is to perceive in single minded thoughts the size of the Sun, size of the Moon, and so on, the sizes known by perceptual feeling rather than mentally interpreted by datas measured in artificial systems of units and seen on a piece of paper. But, not to digress. The subject at hand is how to handle the obstacles of human made mathematical systems. Rather, more to the point, how to tell what kind of mechanical system is being analysed. _________________________________________________________________________ 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 is 'telescope' in its fundamental construction. Otherwise, the duo mechanical 'Duality', hides the nature of the structure from instant view. Plus, the mathematical 'Duality' hides the existence of whether a trigonometry geometry must be used to move to results, or a proportionate ratio system must be used, since both can come to the SAME results nevertheless, in using human made mathematicas. 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' the sight cannot ever be 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, (IMAGES RECOGNIZED) If, in fact, 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 work the range through 3 data points as that in 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 (Earth), you are looking at nothing less than the bold Earth-Moon system which totally 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, if you let the Moon be transparent and the Sun also, in both cases you will come to the same conclusion, that the Moon metaphysically '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. Nothing else. This is only true, however, when full cross sectional diameters are used for all bodies that form the eclipse, and only the 3 empirical constant points (being the Earth's Perihelion, Mean, and Aphelion of orbit) are used as viewing distances between the Earth and the Sun. In this modified array, right angle triangle 'altitudes' along the base line of sight, form the fundamental constructs, (incorporated in proportionately identical isosceles tringles), rather than varied hypotenuse of right angle triangles as you would have in a traditional parallax view manner. The full cross sectional diameter view, produces the clarity that leads to perceiving guantum states in gravity, which include a body's polar and equatorial radii as two distinct terms in two distinct and separate proportionate ratios. This can be said in another way, as follows: In a most important way, note that clarity only occurs when the eclipsing bodies are seen superimposed to their full diameters, 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 real right angle triangles. And furthermore, only certain positions attained from time to time by bodies in dynamic orbit are primed to generate correct images; the random fluctuating mildly chaotic nature of orbital tilts, and yearly variances in degree of eccentricity, and in rates of velocity, are completely ignored in the fundamental equations used, only full cross sectional diameter views have the right stuff to be revelatory, the equations being either trigonomety formulas, or ratio proportions, looking upon stationary, steady state systems, to be most easily, instantly, recogized. ____________________________________________________________________ DYNAMICALLY MOVING VRS STATIONARY VIEW Of further interest, in fact of main interest, is in noticing that the Moon actually homes 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 of 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 oscillates tracking in and out as the Earth shifts between perihelion and aphelion of orbit, is just a jiggle, an intense little vibration. It is so miniscule, it is precisely equal to the diameter of the EARTH. No more. No less. In a fully dynamic orbiting view, it would be exactly like a tiny vibration on an inner rim of a sonic hexagram or snowflake. Further note in interest that this clear cut miniscule view is only self evident when the Earth is locked within its bracket of systained long going eccentricty, (perhelion and aphelion of orbit), in and out, so that the Moon is made to shift in an out accordingly, in a lock step mechanic, with that constant distancing marked by the brackets of the Earth's long term averaged eccentricity. Let's call this two-pole eccentricity (perihelion and aphelion) a steady state set of constants sustained over a long period of time, with the mean (average between the two as a constant 3rd term). The random yearly extra ins and outs by sling shots per each year's orbit gained from other passing planets, as now declared, is completely ignored. And so: For the Earth's orbit, Perogee and Apogee are the farthest in an out the Earth reaches in sling shot randoms imparted by passing other planets, per each year of orbit. These yearly slingshot boosts are of no consequence. The Perihelion and Aphelion are the sustained repeated in and out reaches determined as averages over a long period of time and so are Earth physical constants that describe the ongoing Earth's orbit in a steady state manner. This is herein officially called the 'bracketed' eccentricity and are of intrinsic vital consequences. 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 filled 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. 'Flexing' automatically results as hyperfine details resulting from precise different moon shapes in certain positions taken by the Moon in conjunction with bracketed positions for the Sun's distance from the Earth, when the entire structure is seen in full cross sectional diameter views. 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 JUMPS from one move 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 of focus along the Moon's orbit to the center of the Sun. What THIS means, is that the gaps jumped by the Moon in forming perfect eclipses are precisely known. They are in fact a distance equal to the EQUATORIAL size of the Earth, and another 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 solar 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 velocities and the like, including the same for the Moon per monthly cycle. 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, (a rogue planet may enter the solar system and skew the orbits), but then, the perfect absoluteness in the proportionalities (and also by 'Duality' using the trigonometric geometry) of solar orbital parts, will no longer be elegant, and who wants that! THE TRUE SOLAR SYSTEM In startling view, the flexes of the Moon's size as a focal lens shifting along an axis, are 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. TABLE 3 Below in TABLE 3 are the proportionate ratios proving this. To be honest, 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 hour pacing the distance in sneakers at the slow walking pace of humans. The difference under the value published as Polar radius for the Moon is miniscule indeed, almost too trivial to point out. Granted, the oblative difference (oblative is the word astronomers 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. And that is it. Perfect Eclipses have just been described for Earth-Moon total solar eclipses of the Sun! Not everyday random eclipses formed by chance every so often. These are PERFECT ECLIPSES, which come from the fundamental constructs of pure space itself which houses the Earth-Moon eclipse arrays, in a transparent Reality. Want to argue? I don't. ANYTHING ELSE ? Which brings to mind a tendency to let the eyeballs roam around a bit until they swivel like twin rays beamed directly at Venus. Now, Venus is a well known lady 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 it is closer to the Sun, it is because it is covered with a heat trapping atmosphere so dense that light can't be seen penetrating to its surface, at least cannot be seen from the Earth, penetrating. So side scanning radar is used to map the surface of Venus, to come up with an approximation 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 hit upon the light of Venus. Instead of just throwing a glance in that direction, why not lock the eyeballs right on 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 (in abstract space inside the orbit of Mercury) all the way out to the orbit of the Earth, why not move it out only as far as the orbit of Venus? Not a bad trick, because the 'telescope' model already has the eccentricity of Venus built right in. It was put there as our original thought experiment kept expanding in one way to the next. Now, I forgot to emphasize 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, no where else, in order for the fun amongst the Polar and Equatorial sizes for both the Moon and 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 line in orbit (in which the Earth appears as a recurring 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), along these gaps, (these being equal to radii of Earth). Picture bubbles empty of mass yet formed in space, interleaving like transparent soap bubbles co-joined each radius to edge, to help form models for the mind to cope with energy forms which have no inertia (the bubbles, ergo the gaps, in straight line lineal array along the Moon's orbital axis, the gaps are without mass so have no inertia yet are formed of precision sizes to existing mass bodies and so are 'energy forms'). And so we come back to our 'intuitive' 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 just shove. We can leave Earth's eccentricity right behind, by giving the eyepiece of the telescope a little shove, with the focal lens attached, and push 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, in our ever expanding thought experiment, we can now just play around anew, having some fun with a new moon around Venus. 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 when moved in closer to Venus, to the enlarged Sun. Our Moon 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 a straight line from Perihelion, to Mean, to Aphelion; 3 distances from the Sun which is sitting nobly stationary on center stage 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, just one, close to being 1/3 larger than our Moon, that will 'flex' in size as an eclipsing 'moon' at Venus for the Sun, and it 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 all the bills to be a moon for Venus that can actually eclipse the full cross sectional size of the Sun, and flex along its orbit axis just right too in a perfect manner. It flexes in not one but both ways of 'focal lens' flexing. The object happens to be the planet Mercury. Now, it is obvious that Mercury is not where it isn't 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, also jumping in and out in orbital distances by gaps that in total equal the diameter of Mercury, the same kind of mechanical thing you saw at Earth, except this time, instead of one full sized Earth filling the gap through which the Moon vibrates when eclipsing the Sun, at Venus you have one full sized echo of Mercury filling the gaps caused by a Mercury ghost, jumping back and forth as an eclipsing moon in a system made of vapor that is now suddenly ALSO definable as constants, at Venus. No doubt about it. The Gods on Olympus are pleased that you did your mathematical homework so intuitively. You have just passed the milestone test. So accurately did you pass in fact that you can now see how 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 self 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 and out to the 3 constant positions of Venus eccentricy, that is, the Perihelion, Mean, and Aphelion positions which Venus systains as steady state constants over a long period of time in orbit around the Sun. So lock step is this cosmic device, that Mercury's planetary equatorial and polar radii are calculated to intense accuracy in two separate different ways both yielding identical terms for Mercury's oblate radii. See TABLE 2 for Mercury perfect eclipses. Do you see what is happening? Our original thought experiment is starting to take on some spin of its own. 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! all three say 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 contrast, our Moon fits the bill for one form of flexing, and the size of the Earth itself fit the bill for the other form of flexing, in total cum perfect solar eclipses of the Sun, which we here on Earth can actually see from time to time by plain eyesight. However, it is Venus and a phantom (soace bubble) 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 perceiving exact Polar and Equatorial sizes for Mercury. Just how slight? In comparison to the size of the Sun, the small eccentricity of Venus is actually real noticably small in terms of total distance wobbling in and out in yearly orbit, an oscillating distance just a bit more than twice the size of the Sun. And so, oblative changes in the size of Mercury MUST be minor for such an object to fit as a flexing 'focal lens' in the cozy arms of the Venus orbit eclipse states. Nothing else can fit, in actual fact. There are no major moons in the solar system which have radii or diameters necessary to fill the gaps perfectly filled by a phantom massless Mercury. It is worth pausing to note regards any apparent 'oblative' sizes for Mercury when it is seen by telescopes from Earth against the intense yellow-white backdrop of the blazing 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 in fact produces a very reasonable small oblative variance in both for 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, flexing through exactly similar sizes in both forms of 'flex', as a focal lens perfectly eclipsing the Sun, and as a bubble-like gap filler when the Mercury echo fits into the yaws of creation at Venus. It is suggested without embarrassment that the oblative shape of Mercury calculated by principles from laws as consequences of perfect eclipse states, are the Polar and Equatorial radii of Mercury, herein predicted, without embarrassment. Perhaps wrong. Time will tell. But, no embarrassment. _______________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- ######################### CRITICAL DATAS ########################## --------------------------------------------------------------- FACTORED VALUES FOR TERRAN PLANETARY EQUATOR AND POLAR RADII The following values are results of factored 'terms' shown in sets as TABLE 1 to TABLE 5 further below. The same values are also shown as results of factored 'datas' in replace of 'terms', shown also in sets as SET A to SET E, below the 5 tables. These 'perfect eclipse' values were calculated in March of 1989, using JPL datas published at the back of a careful coffee table book titled: UNIVERSE, Text and paintings by Don Dixon, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1981. With assistance from the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Values below indicated as 'Year 2000' were found on Internet site: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planetary_home.html At this site, individual datas for each planet were found in the 'Fact Sheet' link under each of the planets whose links are found half way down the HTM file linked by the above URL. Let's start with predicted polar and equatorial radii of Mercury, as calculated in 'perfect eclipses' as proportionate ratio equations shown in TABLE 2 further below, and again in SET B further below. Next are new Mercury radii values obtained via proximity satellites circ. July 2000, which indicate degree of flattening as yet unknown for a Mercury mean radius of 2439.7 km. year 2000 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo2439.7 .oooo2438 386969 Mercury radius AVERAGE .oooo2439.7 .oooo2437 540961 POLAR .oooo2439.7 .oooo2436 695537 Mercury flattening not indicated in year 2000 The JPL datas from 1981 lists no Mercury flattening, shown next. JPL 1981 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo2439 .oooo2438 386969 Mercury radius AVERAGE .oooo---- .oooo2437 540961 POLAR .oooo---- .oooo2436 695537 blank means unknown as of 1981 The same URL reference source shows degree of flattening for Venus also currently unknown, listing a Venus mean radius of 6051.8 km. Venus perfect eclipse values are listed in TABLE 1, and also SET A. year 2000 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo6051.8 .oooo6064 109107 Venus radius AVERAGE .oooo6051.8 .oooo6058 877288 POLAR .oooo6051.8 .oooo6053 654488 Venus flattening not indicated in year 2000 The year 2000 data for Venus is slightly larger compared to JPL datas from 1981, (which indicate an approximate flattening, shown next). JPL 1981 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo6050 .oooo6064 109107 Venus radius AVERAGE .oooo6045 .oooo6058 877288 POLAR .oooo6040 .oooo6053 654488 The same URL reference source shows degree of flattening for Earth. Earth perfect eclipse values are listed in TABLE 4, and also SET D. year 2000 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo6378.1 .oooo6378 7219272 Earth radius AVERAGE .oooo6367.45 .oooo6367 6438059 POLAR .oooo6356.8 .oooo6356 779oooo The year 2000 datas for Earth are slightly clipped compared to JPL datas from 1981, shown next. JPL 1981 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo6378 164 .oooo6378 7219272 Earth radius AVERAGE .oooo6367 4715 .oooo6367 6438059 POLAR .oooo6356 779 .oooo6356 779oooo The same reference source shows degree of flattening for Mars. Mars perfect eclipse values are listed in TABLE 5, and also SET E. year 2000 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo3397 .oooo3398 4128 Mars radius AVERAGE .oooo3386 .oooo3386 2241 POLAR .oooo3375 .oooo3374 1224 JPL 1981 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo3396 6 .oooo3398 4128 Mars radius AVERAGE .oooo3386 65 .oooo3386 2241 POLAR .oooo3376 7 .oooo3374 1224 The same reference source shows degree of flattening for the Moon. Moon perfect eclipse values are listed in TABLE 3, and also SET C. year 2000 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo1737.4 .oooo1738 4309114 Moon radius AVERAGE .oooo1737.4 .oooo1737 9125504 POLAR .oooo1737.4 .oooo1737 4781809 Moon flattening not indicated in year 2000 The JPL datas from 1981 lists some Moon flattening, shown next. JPL 1981 data perfect eclipse values EQUATOR .oooo1738 9 .oooo1738 4309114 Moon radius AVERAGE .oooo1738 35 .oooo1737 9125504 POLAR .oooo1737 8 .oooo1737 4781809 ____________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- ##################### PROPER ECLIPSE IMAGES ###################### --------------------------------------------------------------- WHAT 'COHERENCY' DO YOU ACTUALLY SEE ? What you do see right away is that only particular locations for the Sun as target, work. There is a coherency involving a significant number of different bodies and intervening space links between them, the fact is that only bodies of certain sizes, and interlinking distances in space, can work for the coherency and only those bodies existing as present day Terran planets, and their orbits, and their eccentricities, and their plaentary flattening, happen to be the body facts needed for the coherency. There is nothing else out there. The coherency as seen in metaphysical space, has no hair, has no fur, the coherency's images are sharp and clear. In diagrams, schematics, and datas in this disclosure, moon bodies (Earth, Venus, Mercury, Mars, and the Moon) are shown as radii whereas in fact they are actually diametric spheres, that is, at each focal point along the sightline in the Moon's orbit a sphere occurs around a data point of center, the sphere superimposes the Sun at the Sun's full cross sectional diameter. These spheres overlap. The radius of one extends observerward into the radius of the next over toward the observer, the radius of this next over extending outward into the body of the other sphere farther out. Both radii are of discretely different dimension. For instance if the radius of the 1st sphere is a Polar radius, the radius of the next sphere over will be a Mean radius, in which case the radius of the first sphere will not quite reach to the centerpoint of the 2nd sphere, whereas the radius of the 2nd sphere reaching back will slightly cross beyond the point of center of the 1st sphere. Picture now the structure not as lineal distance radii but as circumpherences around the edges of the spheres, and you will see a minor hyperfine gap of two kinds at the 2nd sphere's point of center where the circumpherence of the 1st sphere does now quite reach the 2nd sphere's point of center. Whereas the circumpherence of a 3rd sphere reaching back (which will have an Equatorial radius) will slightly overlap the point of center of the 2nd sphere, in fact making contact with the circumpherence of the 1st sphere, so that a point in space along the sightline where the two circumpherences touch is slightly cammed offcenter toward the 1st sphere from the 2nd sphere's point of center. In analogy, think of the point of center of the Sun being pulled slightly off center by the gravitational pull of Jupiter, except, in the case of our 'Perfect Eclipse' modellings and illustrations, the offcam is not gyrating around in a circle (the Sun) but merely displaced as a tiny niche along the eclipse system's sightline. The amount of the gap is the oblative quantity of the moon body flattening, in other words the (Equatorial radius - the Polar radius), and this tiny measure will be extending away from the observer, from the far side of the 2nd body's point of center, toward the 1st body. This is the only place where the hems of the overlapping circumpherence spheres of the 3 perfectly eclipsing spheres actually make coherent contact. In a big blaze of imagery, picture the spheres not as circles but as full 3 dimensional overlapping transparent globes, or overlapping soap bubbles. These are the 'holes' in space that comprise the formulas of 'perfect eclipses'. In truth, describing such a 3 dimensional system made of overlapping bubbles of different sized circumpherences is not easy (is very wordily unwieldy) in text form, in lieu of graphic images which can reveal the whole show in an instant in self-evident truth. Unfortunately such detailing by graphic displays is not feasible without going to major graphic softwares and proper program readers to display the carefully crafted graphic images. I am undone here in not having the programs or acquired skills to do such graphics here at home on the kitchen table. But, with proper video and or graphic animated sequences, the 'perfect eclipses' in full measure can most easily be displayed to an eager public, without wordy text which only a few hard dedicated readers are able to translate into correct images in their mind's eye. The overlapping (concentric) spheres could look something like this, (next), a diagramatic schematic for a perfect eclipse structure involving a phantom Sun in Venus orbit, and the observer at Earth, the concentric spheres would be found as overlapping circles in the region labled 'focal lens moon'. - Diagram taken from SYMMTRY.TXT. SYSTEM 1 - schematic terms for 4 body system - TELESCOPIC 1 2 3 4 Observer at Earth | target at Venus | focal lens Moon | | | | ||| | | | *...|*|..............* * * ..................................* ||| | | | Sun | | | A 0 Perihelion .....................| | .........................| | .............................| LONGEST target length from observer _______________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- ############### SIMPLE PERFECT ECLIPSE SCHEMATICS ################ Eq = equatorial radius Mo = mean radius Po = Polar radius --------------------------------------------------------------- TABLES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and SETS A, B, C, D, E, are both further below. SCHEMATIC FOR TABLE 4 (SET D) SUN at Venus aphelion | at Venus mean | | at Venus perihelion | | | EARTH Eq backshifted by leap = 0 Venus Po radius EARTH Mo backshifted by leap = 1 Venus Mo radius EARTH Po backshifted by leap = 2 Venus Eq radius | | | | | | *--------------*-*-*-----------------------*----*----* EARTH MOON mean of orbit at mean of orbit SCHEMATIC FOR TABLE 1 (SET A) SUN at Venus aphelion | at Venus mean | | at Venus perihelion | | | VENUS Po backshifted by leap = 3 Venus Po radius VENUS Mo backshifted by leap = 4 Venus Mo radius VENUS Eq backshifted by leap = 5 Venus Eq radius | | | | | | *---------*-*-*----*-----------------------*----*----* EARTH MOON mean of orbit at mean of orbit SCHEMATIC FOR TABLE 3 (SET C) SUN at solar center | | MOON Po backshifted by leap = 1 Earth Eq radius | MOON Mo backshifted by leap = 2 Earth Mo radius | | MOON Eq backshifted by leap = 3 Earth Po radius | | | | *----*----*--------*-*-*---------------------------------* | | | |- Moon mean of orbit + 1 Moon Eq radius | | EARTH at perihelion of orbit | EARTH at mean of orbit EARTH at aphelion of orbit SCHEMATIC FOR TABLE 2 (SET B) SUN at solar center | | MERCURY Po backshifted by leap = 1 Earth Eq radius | MERCURY Mo backshifted by leap = 2 Earth Mo radius | | MERCURY Eq backshifted by leap = 3 Earth Po radius | | | | *----*----*--------*-*-*--*------------------------------* | | | Moon mean of orbit | | | Moon mean of orbit backshifted by ? Mercury | | VENUS at perihelion of orbit | VENUS at mean of orbit VENUS at aphelion of orbit SCHEMATIC FOR TABLE 5 (SET E) SUN at solar center | | MARS Po backshifted by leap = ? ????? Eq radius | MARS Mo backshifted by leap = ? ????? Mo radius | | MARS Eq backshifted by leap = ? ????? Po radius | | | | *----*----*--------*-*-*---------------------------------* | | | Moon mean of orbit + ??? | | SUN at MARS at perihelion of orbit | SUN at MARS at mean of orbit SUN at MARS at aphelion of orbit _______________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- ##################### DISCLOSURE CONTINUED ######################## --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 pulled all the way away 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 metaphysical Sun echoing in the orbit of Venus. It wasn't just to point out the differences between a telescope, vrs a microscope's 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 new 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! But only two, no others of right size will be found anywhere in the solar system. SYMMETRY 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 exchange 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, the Earth gloms over an area in space many times the size of the Sun. Here comes Rube Goldberg again, spinning in the grave, topsoil flying above 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 would throw a noisy 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 a recurrent 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, because of those nicely uncovered 'Perfect' eclipse states involving a Mercury at Venus. So, getting back to that myopic observer on the Moon, vigorously wiping eyeglasses under the security helmut and muttering about the wonders that the EARTH is just too LARGE to fit over the hole in space made by a Sun at the center of the solar system. 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 exchanged 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 five millennium, in fact let's be accurate, its been more than 6,000 years (of recorded history) since humans first started noticing how to predict eclipses and they STILL haven't discovered the answer. Well, since its nearly launch time and even Gods get restless, they decide enough is enough and 6,000 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. This is true. In order for the Earth to eclipse it, when the eclipse is seen by an observer on the Moon, the Sun has to be at Venus. 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 real working 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 eyes see nothing there. The uncovered eye sees all, and the Gods on Olympus are pleased. 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 Earth-sized moon, flexing in the usual way, as the focal lens 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, focused straight to the center of a Sun at Venus. It turns out, that the hops skips and jumps, total an exact length in space that is already known. In fact, that exact length is well, exactly the size, exactly the diameter, of Venus. Nothing more. Nothing less. Only one solar body fits the niche. That body is Venus. Wait a minute, lets take one step backwards. How does this happen? This happens only when the Sun is skipped from Perihelion to Aphelion orbital points in one jump, out there being observed from the centerpoint of the Moon at the Earth's Mean of orbit. and Earth is in the Moon's orbit eclipsing the metaphysical Sun. How far does the Earth move, back and forth, in and out, when the Sun moves back and forth, in and out, between the Aphelion and Perihelion orbital positions in the orbit of Venus. The size of the gap through which the Earth abruptly shifts, is precisely the size of Venus. Venus drops through the cracks of physics, right into the open. Yes, 'THIS' Venus, is fitted right in a gap tight up along a short straight line in space with Earth gliding along it, in and out. Another profoundly vibrating echo has just sounded a cosmic harmonic tone, rather loudly. In fact, if the math work is done to ultimate degrees of accuracy, not hard to do when the will and desire are there making you do it, it turns out that the 'flex' along the glide 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 POLAR, and EQUATORIAL, radii for Venus, in apparent sizes. Apparent is the word because Venus can't be seen openly in the flesh by optical telescopes under its atmosphere of dense cloud cover. Nevertheless, an anticpated overall size for Venus has long been suggested by astronomers using radar, and this suggested size (a 'plus - minus factor' upon a single radius, given in uncertainty by scientific astronomers), falls toward the low end of the 'flex' just mentioned, as if the radar 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 now calculated for Venus are in fact the actual sizes of Venus, flex sizes for the discrete changing shape of the object 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 here in space, well, actually down here on a sheet of paper, using simple 'ratio' proportions in lieu of identically resulting trigonometry for iscoceles triangles. 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 empirical sizes we actually already have 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 now just hailed as accurate by the ratio proportions involving kinky perfect eclipse states for an echo of a 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 out in solar space, (made ridiculously tiny by sheer long distance), due to the miracle of dual 'flexing' in the focal lens of the perfect eclipse structures. All this, because you wanted to know what happened when you switched the Moon and Earth in place in space to investigate symmetry. Instant switcheroo! Instant answer. We know flex is true for the Moon orbiting Earth, and for a hidden planet Mercury in moon orbit 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 moon orbit length by an Earth around the Moon perfectly eclipsing the Sun at Venus, in a fundamental symmetry statement taken from the bare faced existence of normal total solar eclipses in the sky. Would Gods lie? 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 actually 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 equator and poles 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 writeoff. Or, psst! psst! hint! hint! 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 echo 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 good ways, not one, but two! Wait, you say, how is that possible? Here is how. 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 did Mercury eclipse the central Sun, it also hopped skipped and jumped in a flexing way along the sight line of its own orbit at Venus, ie, that the jumps were of Mercurial size also, and so, because you now had 'flexed' sizes (albeit the 'size' of 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 iotas of accuracy? Remember those words Equatorial and Polar radii? Those physical dimensions, yelped when Mercury flexed as a stop sign, and hopped skipped and jumped along the sight line flexing in same size, news which only turned up when you did something that seemed to be wrong, putting a planet that didn't seem to belong, where it was most needed to speak to the sunlight. God how that planet spoke! Why not do the same for Venus, put it in the wrong place, make it the new moon instead of Earth, and leave the hooting mythical Sun in the same place as before in the orbit of Venus. And create a whole new symmetry situation. Can you do this, is this legal? Well, in fact, you can. And here is how. It is very simple, really. Just put an echo of Venus in the orbit of the Moon, instead of the planet Earth, in another 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 news! it is exactly equal to, you've already quessed it, exactly equal again to the diameter of VENUS itself. Hmmmm! Another solar system chord fills the big music mansion with more harmonious sounds. 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 transparency at Venus do the work of roving around, or rather, glide in and out along the sight line, in lock step with the bracketed eccentricity oscillated by the real physical Venus in solar orbit. TWO CONJOINTED SYSTEMS And so we have a new hidden second system - this being 'microscopic' in nature rather than 'telescopic' (see the file named 'SYMMETRY.TXT' for extensive discussion on 'microscope vrs telescope' symmetry) - in which both the eclipsing object, and the distance the eclipsing object moves by flexing within its 'focal lens' system, are of identical size. In the new second such system, Venus (not Earth) 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 fact just put a marker on the side of Venus facing the Sun, and another marker on the side of Venus facing you at Earth, and this is exactly how much the focal lens named Venus will oscillate in its short distances out from Earth in eclipses. In other words, in the first such system, putting an object the size of Mercury in an orbit around Venus and having it eclipse the stationary central Sun as Venus glides 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, the same size as Mercury itself, 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 let Mercury go free to 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, because only those two sub-gaps exist in that particular space, uncovered at last. (More about polar vrs equator later). And now we have just uncovered that same conjointed principle happening for Venus when bolted to the Earth in substitute for the Moon, in orbit around Earth, to thus eclipse a Sun sunning like a glowing beach ball transparently obvious 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 for another '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, almost the SAME, I mean almost the 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 holes in space of similar 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 Venus sized hops skips and jumps along a sight line upon which a focal lens is formed by the constructs of Cosmic Space, and the third is for Venus radii sizes of the focal lens itself, when the focal lens is a clone of Venus. All of this is due to symmetry for the Earth-Moon eclipse of the Sun, in which the symmetry has two expressions, not just one. 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. Except, don't use parallax geometry, it won't work, too much blurr marring the better details of the system. Its like being short sighted when you look at parallax eclipses, even if your eyesight is as sharp as a bank inspector, what you will see is a blurred eclipse, because of obstacles caused by parallax. That just about does the TV show. There is little more to say other than detailing the electronics, except that of course MARS can't be left out of the picture. WHAT ABOUT MARS ? It was the worst of times. Even worse than that. The eons humankind thought Mars was the god of war. 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 lens assembly flexes and morphs once more in such a way, that only MARS can fit the demands of the system just now created in proof by methematical disclosure, meaning MARS turns up as conjointly the only oject of size filling the precise gaps of certain kind along the sight line, as well, being the flexable eclipser object also. No other body will fit, only Mars, nothing else from anywhere in the solar system, only Mars has the right size to fit the box. Nothing else is even close, off by an oceon of naked empty space. Mars fits, in complete detail, between in right down to the finest details of Mars you can possibly have, the EQUATORIAL and the POLAR radii of Mars. It is another 'microscopic' mechanical system, this time turned around, and facing outward toward Jupiter in farther solar space. In fact the conjoint 'flexes' seen for Mars are somewhat much larger in proportions than those for Venus, and Mercury, and the Moon as well, the Earth also (the original physical system we see as total everyday). Still, in fact, the flex-calculated sizes for 'polar' and 'equatorial' radii for Mars we automatically calculate, (due to intrinsics in the intrinsically 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. For references, see TABLE 5 and SET 5 further below. Take a look at the two sets of facts (terms, and datas, cited immediately above as references). 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. _______________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- ################## ASSOCIATED OTHER REFERENCES ################### --------------------------------------------------------------- GRAVITATIONAL HOLOGRAMS Are 'perfect eclipses' manifesting as gravitational holograms ? Electromagnetic holograms we already know in plenty as massless (non solid) images made solely by laser light. Sonic projections can be said to also be a form of holograms made of sonics (sound) except you have to picture a player's trumpet in mind's eye, you cannot physically see the trumpet playing when you hear a trumpet playing St. Louis Blues' sharp, distinct, and clear in empty space. No trumpet is physically there, only an energy form generated from coherent sonic wave patterns produce the music. Albiet sonic energy forms excite molecules into the production of responsive vibrations which actually produce the sound. The sound is non existent in a vacuum, whereas a laser hologram can be produced by human ingeuity in a vacuum. Notwithstanding that sound and light principles are in many ways identical except light also has manifestation behavior known as special relativity, which can be apart from solid mass vibrations which produce sound. A hologram in practice is that which produces a non physical image comprised only of energy. Energy eclipses (perfect) are not a fallacy since energy forms without inertia abound in the physical world anyway. A thought has come to mind that perfect eclipses may be nothing less than gravitational holograms. The question then is why ? these 'perfect' images, and how does gravity form them. Look to other items in the ECLIPSE.HTM main menu for further insights to the mystery, for instance a 'flow tube' formed around Saturn and Jupiter in size equal to the diameter of the orbit of Earth's Moon so that a coherent flow tube (cylander) of more or less constant diameter can be seen to be extending through the central reaches of the solar system, something like a backbone with images. Also look to a link to a file named RELATIVE.TXT meaning Interface Relativity, which links special relativity (electromagnetism) and general relativity (gravity) together in a way analogous to the fact that electricty and magnetism handshake each other pound for pound inch for inch. In the Interface equations it is shown that the mass composite (Mars mass subtracted from Venus mass) is equal to the amount by which the mass of the Sun would increase if gravitational relativity also influenced rest mass of the gravitational body (Sun) generating the relativistic influence by its (the Sun's) amount of mass-of-gravity-in-radius effect. (For quick reference, see further below: SPECULATION January 3, 1996, IS EMPTY SPACE REALLY EMPTY ?). More about the 'flow tube'. If the Moon's orbit was tipped upward and facing the Sun, and moved in two more recurred projections outward to two locations; one around Saturn, the other ringing Jupiter; and you stuck your head in and looked along the length of this flow tube from Saturn past Jupiter to Earth, this is the artifact already in place through the center of the solar system. A 4TH LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS For another clue you might also want to check COUPLING.TXT in the ECLIPSE.HTM main menu, in which it is shown that all of the planets are interconnected into one giant massless moving system via Kepler's 3rd Law which traditionally only demonstrates that period-orbital coupling can be shown for each planet by a single same structural equation. COUPLING.TXT reveals that any planet's orbit and period can be determined, just by knowing something about any other planet's 3rd Law terms. This 4th Law of Thermodynamics is so complete that (for instance) any planet's period can be known (if not already known) simply by knowing some (any) other planet's orbit and period. It is almost tautological to claim a bigger concept (4th) Law on the heals of Kepler's 3rd Law, but a tautology the 4th Law is not. Concider a car being pushed from the rear - the car moves forward. Push the car from the front and the car moves backward. This is tautology and nothing new in physics can be claimed from it. But the 4th Law is different and you can see the whole solor system in one fluid motion because of it, further, you can predict and thereby instantly learn missing terms within planet's motions, because of it (4th) law. Whereas you can learn nothing in a car's tautology, only that the car moves forward or backward at the same velocity depending on the magnitude of your shoving force. HYPERWAVES Also check the ECLIPSE.HTM main menu for HYPERWAV.HTM, a link to several files dealing with an underneath blueprint featuring forms which calculate the masses (Mev's) and wavelengths (Compton) of numerous basic elementary particles to extreme accuracies including Mev's associated with different (isospin) charge states of the particles in view. First cause equations, which produce different masses (Mev's) for different particles, are not known in physics theories (particle masses are inferred by very complex forms of analysis and theories). But here in 'Hyperwaves' the masses (Mev's) are almost spectrum-like, so interconnected in coherencies that the mass-wavelength parameters of one particle predict the mass-wavelengths of another particle to complete known accuracy matching the best known datas for such particles gained from accute particle accelarator researches. The 'Hyperwave' equations which produce such remarkable particle clarity are identical in kind to 'ratio proportions' which display 'perfect eclipses'; that is, that pieces of datas and terms added and subtracted, and multiplied by other factors added and subtracted like 'recombinant' genetic code bits, produce yet other particle datas and terms. Very nice stuff, but more complex than 'perfect eclipses'. _______________________________________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- ################### PERFECT ELIPSES CONTINUED #################### --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 each gap when 'moon' bodies shift in a quantistic way to accomodate perfect eclipses at differing long distance positions of either the target (Sun) moving in and out in the mechanics of a microscope, or the eyepiece of a telescope moving in and out to focus on the Sun as a target at the solar system's empirical center. Do not forget, that all of the 'hyper fine distinctions' we have been discussing are the polar and equatorial radii of each of the planetary bodies involved, these are not the kind of datas which come merely from parallax views of total solar eclipses involving the Earth and the Moon at any of the times and seasons at which these experientially visible eclipses occur (you watch with smoky glasses, and see the diamond necklace all of a sudden). For elements in causality and fundamentals, ignore personally watched total eclipses, these, these 'normal' celestial clocktime eclipses do not have any 'hyper fine distinction'. Somethings occurred first, to spread out and become one of the manifestations (a thermodynamic, involving motions and masses - these being what are seen every so often as a total solar eclipse). The eclipses which have 'hyper fine distinction' are 'perfect' but cannot occur in a 'normal' way except by deeming the planets, the Moon, and the Sun, as transparent, and echos of the planets and Sun occur in massless states in other than their hardwired thermodynamic locations. Concider how sound can project, or be projected, even around corners, so that a rock and roll band can be heard playing loud and clear where there is no physical band, not even stereo loudspeakers. A big band plays swing, you can hear the trumpet, hear the drums, distinctly there yet dislocated in free space. Looking there to the source of the noise, nothing to see, nothing physically solid is there except vibrating molecules of something else not trumpet metal or the shells of drums. A SECOND FORM OF HYPER FINE DISTINCTION A second form of Hyperfine Distinction can be introduced as something that is needed to get one of the systems which have conjoint identicalness in its flexings to balance perfectly in all ways through its harmonic parts. Like the Venus-MERCURY-Sun system, whose outstanding quantum feature is that all radii are alike, all relate to the size of Mercury, the Earth-VENUS-Venus system also has outstanding quantum similarity in its total of conjoint radii. This quantum similarity in radii can be given the identification 'conjoint' or, 'conjointness', for the mechanical property of 'flex' in the focal lens for a system, and its leap-frogging gaps in space. For instance, in discussing the conjointness of the 'Earth-EARTH-Venus' system, the following must be understood: The Moon's mean of orbit requires an extremely small increase, for the radii of each space object comprising 'Venus' hopscoth flexing at Earth to come into a sharp focus, with both groups of radii flex having the same values; Earth radii for the focal lens eclipser, as well as the same sized 'gaps' the focal lens hopscotches along; to form a set of 3 perfect eclipse states. The slight adjust to increase the size of the Moon's Mean of orbit is actually very minor, yet it is calculatable. This single variable can cause both groups (comprising all together six basic radii) to converge to equalities, where the radii of one group, and the other, both become sets of datas already known by keen study with telescopes and space craft. The variable is in the active Mean orbit of the moon, where the eclipses actually occur displaced from the Moon's Mean of orbit. For example, when first balancing the 'ratio proportions' used to analyze a body the size of Venus at Earth, the radius size calculated for Venus as a focal lens was not quite the same as the radii size for Venus spectrified as gap lengths along the sight line when Earth is the focal lens. 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 a radius approximating Phoebos (the bigger moon of Mars of 13.5 Km), added. But actually add a little larger, roughly add about 17.7 Kilometers, practically nothing, added to the Moon's mean of orbit at Earth, and holes the size of Venus strung out from Earth will fit together in all ways tight. In fact if you want to get esoteric beyond belief, just merge the two Moons of Mars together, and the resulting radius will be about the right size to adjust the orbit of the Moon. That is how small the adjustment you have to make, is. Yet the adjustment works. But, six more empty holes filled with explicit character in space? An analogy is at hand when a liguid turns to vapor, holes of exact sizes can expand from nothing when pressure is released. For instance think of holes expanding into view in a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber when the bubble chamber is explosively decompressed at the instant charged elementary particles are experimentally fired at relativistic velocities into the chamber. The two sets of Venus datas balance right away, come into merge as identical results, with the original set of datas for Venus stemming from the Earth-VENUS-Sun symmetry. All three data sets become identical, by adjusting the orbit of the moon ever so discretely in a single hyperfine way for Earth-EARTH-Venus perfect eclipses. In coming back to the nature of the conjoint flexing system involving Venus at Earth; again, it is apparent that the two kinds of 'flex' radii for Venus are not exactly the same at first. So, adjustments are incrementally made to the Moon's Mean of orbit to check this out, and it is found that the two ranges of values converge, by increasing the Moon rest state orbit by a tiny amount, and hark, the two sets of flex gap radii for Venus become one. Who knows at this mome