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 moment what accounts for the ultra hyperfine structural change in the length of the Moon's mean of orbit, to cause the radii exactitudes to appear as finished manifestations. Probably something to do with something about gravity, either Newtonian, or relativistically accomodated because of the Sun's rest state gravity. Something is there, like sonic tones, deep within the works, notwithstanding or otherwise, something is in the works. Perhaps minor chaos finally rears its head. It might just be input datas slightly out of whack, not worked out correctly for instance in regard to the radius of the Sun. It might be nothing more than a bit of chaos. In any case, at the moment, the minor adjustment is there, and works. It comes down to a raw question, which is, is empty space out there surrounding a planet really empty. Well in fact it is not, it is saturated with gravitational field density, in fact. It is not, in the raw sense, totally empty. There is more to say about this further on. In the meantime: THE HOMING-IN LAW OF STRANGE ATTRACTORS One last detail has to be stated as an insight of notice in order to be totally honest about perfect eclipse states: but the honesty is no problem at all because of what it honors. The honor is in noticing a fundamental change in the mechanics of behaviors of the two basically different manifestations of 5 Terran region eclipse systems so far found to be 'perfect'. In a quick list, there are 5 different systems involved as of this moment in time, each system having a set of 3 perfect eclipse states, distinctified by the nature of each state's particular flexing of its focal lens, which includes a set of quantum numbers for each set of 3 states within each system. Four systems are turned inward toward the solar center, the fifth system (Mars) is turned outward, Earth orbit the border where the view window changes direction from inward, to outward. Only one system is empirical, this of course happens to be good old Sol the Sun, vanishing behind the Moon periodically, or rather, good old Luna drifting casually in front of the Sun from time to time, to form co-incidental total solar eclipses. When this only empirical system is translated into perfect eclipses by the simple expediency of switching the hypontenuse and altitudes of all of the right angle triangles that form the parallax geometry humans use to see the eclipses, then, and only then, does hyperfine distinction become apparent, in which, for instance, flexing of the size of the Moon progresses from one radii size to the next, as the Earth carrying the Moon with it moves from closer in to farther out, say, in accord with repeating eccentricity positions of the Earth's orbit seen as 'steady state constants' perihelion and Aphelion orbitals, over eons of time. A local progression, of one radii size to another as seen for the flex size of the Moon sized focal lens, say smaller to larger, is synonymously seen for the Earth in the gaps the Moon leaps, where the size of Earth is seen to fit exactly in the distance the Moon moves in total to form its set of three perfect eclipse states. The flexing progression is in the same direction, ie smaller to larger, for the (etheric) Earth, which fills the gaps perfectly. METPHAPHYSICAL VRS PHYSICAL However, in dealing with the other four sets of perfect eclipse states existing in the Terran region, it is obvious that each of the bodies forming these other sets are not real, they are echoes, phantoms, massless, in which case you can call these other states metaphysical, because they are obviously there like intense holes in the fabrics of space in the solar system, but are not seen as constructions by gravity using solid bodies. Hence, metaphysical is what they are. All of these other states share a unique difference compared to the single empirical system which produces total solar eclipses as seen from Earth. The unique difference is that the hyperfine distinction progresses in converse order, that is, say, from larger to smaller radii, instead of from small to larger radii as is the case for the only empirical system. Intricacies of the focal lens flexing systems are reversed, in terms of progression of discrete sizes for the metaphysical structures. Neat is tidy to say the least. DISTINCT HYPERFINE PRECISION It is worth noting that the hyperfine distinctions of the metaphysical states are so precise, that changing any of the constants which form each state by even the tiniest amount can cause the hyperfine progression to instantly reverse over to the etheric form used by the one empirical structure, but also, the slightest change can cause states to start to unravel right out of focus, mathematically. In other words, all of the states, both the single empirical set of 3 states, and the four metaphysical sets of 3 states, act as strange ATTRACTORS that home in on constant values, which, in absolute size, once homed there, cannot change, because any change no matter if slight, can start to unravel the hyperfine integrety of the system. The idea that this solar system was created by random gathering in an accretion disk can be dropped like a dead turkey from a high flying helicopter. Just boot the bird out the door, one swift poot, and let accelaration kick in. The huffs of little feathers drifting around the ground from the impact explosion are the scientific theory about accretion disk randomness, exposed for what it is, poof. An example of just how little a term has to be changed (falsified) to cause an 'attractor' (perfect eclipse state) to reverse its 'hyper fine distinction', then to break down completely (unravel), is found under TABLE 4-3 and TABLE 4-4, found in DISCUSSION F-C under 'HYPER FINE NARROW RANGE and SWITCHING', in the SWITCHEROO.TXT file in the ECLIPSE.HTM home page, for a detailed example with a full set of terms. THERE IS MORE (MOON'S MEAN OF ORBIT) There is more to perfect eclipse states. For instance, each can be shown at a start point located with reference to the Moon's mean of orbit, no exception. Not Ganymede's orbit, not Tritan's, only the Moon's orbit appear in the multiple array of states herein called 'perfect eclipses'. For that matter similar results can be achieved by having distance markers originate and radiate out from the center point of the Earth, with ragging ends out in space which 'rag' in precise quantum quantities. But, that is a harder view to depict in simple mathematics. So, the Mean orbit of the Moon it is, this is a single reference point to which all 'flex locations' can be guaged. Each set of eclipses can be diagrammed starting with the focal lens at the Moon Mean of orbit and taking it from there. The initial location of the focal lens is offset, typically inward toward the eyepiece host planet, by a precise amount which is quantal by being a unit multiple of one radii for a given flexing planet's gap. As the focal lens moves, the number of radii accumulating (to a total of 3), progress in rigorously naked intervals, each whole unit interval slightly flexed in size from its nearest neighbor. Only three intervals are instrinic for each set of 3 perfect eclipse states. Such pattern is very clear cut for each set of perfect eclipse states. The complete set of unit interval numbers per se, for all sets of eclipse states, is itself very clear cut also. The whole set of quantum numbers, for the 4 inner systems (inward from the orbit of Earth), combine into a single unbroken chain of quantum numbers progressing in a lineal sum direction. A MORE ELEGANT SYSTEM - NO In truth, since a planet's mean of orbit is an average of 1/2 apehlion plus perihelion it might be concidered merely human's mental construct where then, 'perfect eclipses' only occur at constants, to wit a planet's perihelion and aphelion of orbit. But this trunkated view presents diffulties, for instance although only two circles of precise size lay side by side to comprise flex gaps along a sight line, the diameter of one sphere would have to be a composite of a polar radius plus a mean radius, and the diameter of the other sphere would have to also be a composite comprising one equator radius plus one mean radius. So, mean, (average) turns up in the master clockworks blueprint so there is no need to dispense with a planet's mean of orbit in order to achieve a more elegant more simplified system of states in fact as you can already see citing a need for radii composite constructs in the flex gap sightline, a more elegant system is not gained by dropping planet mean orbits from the terms. FOR INSTANCE For instance in the empirical case; the Earth-Moon eclipsing of the Sun; the initial location of the Moon is progressed forward from the Moon's Mean of orbit by one Moon radius of Equatorial size, but then backs across the 'Mean' line toward the eyepiece by one Earth radius of Equatorial size, with the Earth located at its Aphelion of Orbit. When the Earth is moved to its Mean of orbit, the Moon shifts inward a liitle, to flex to Averaged radius size, and leaps a gap of Averaged Earth radius size, and the size of the original + Moon radius unit changes to Averaged. And when the Earth is moved to its Perihelion of orbit, the Moon shifts inward once more and flexes to the Moon's Polar radius, leaping a gap equal to the Polar radius of Earth, and the size of the original + Moon radius unit changes to Polar. So obvious, these 3 flex changes are EXTREMELY small, yet absolutely precise. Count: when the focal lens (the Moon) moves to the second stop gap, the total interval from the Moon Mean of orbit is 2 Earth radii of Averaged size, and in moving to the third stop gap the whole interval to the Moon Mean of orbit is 3 Earth radii of Polar size, plus of course, + 1 Moon radius, now of Polar size, on the far side (outer side) of the Moon's Mean of orbit. A hyperfine distinction is very clear cut in this system. In particular all of this 'empirical' system's slices of space uniformly progress from large to small including the Earth itself in moving through long to shorter orbital distance from the Sun, to accord the Moon in perfect focus involving three unique kinds of flexes; change in both Moon's sizes, and change in the Earth-sized flex gaps. In this set of 3 states, the etheric Earth's radii flexing to fill the 3 gaps is offset inward from the Moon's mean of orbit by the progression - 1 - 2 - 3 in units that equal different radii of Earth, from 1 x EQ radius (-1), to 3 x POLAR radius (-3). Similar accountings take place for the other sets of perfect eclipse states, except the progression of changes in flexing gaps are reversed, 'flexing' from smaller to larger while progressing inward toward the eyepiece observer, as the Sun target otherwise progresses from longest, to mean, to shorter distance from the eyepiece, in reverse to the Earth Moon's empirical system of total eclipses. CHOICE OF PERCEPTION One unique single sightline vrs a disk's circumpherence. There is no cause precluding 'perfect eclipses' occurring from anywhere around the circumpherence of the solar system's ecliptic disk in space at any time. Each array of eclipse states can begin from any point on the circumpherence even on opposite sides of the solar system. By choice, 'perfect eclipses' have herein been described as occurring along a single axis called the 'sightline' but this is only as a convenience. In truth there is no limiting clause in symmetry or mechanics of space forebidding any point around the solar system's ecliptic disk from being start point for one or more arrays of 'perfect eclipse' states. QUANTUM NUMBER COUNTS Here are the flex property 'quantum numbers' that have counts in WHOLE INTEGER units of inward progressions from the Moon's mean of orbit, in quick lists to summarize them; as thus: 1. VENUS-VENUS-SUN states An eclipser etheric Venus at Earth, eclipses an etheric Sun, in Venus orbit. Each gap is of Venus radii size. The inward offset progression is: | eyepiece ...... - 5 - 4 - 3 moon mean orbit | focal area |.......| one Venus diameter of Averaged size. 2. MERCURY-MERCURY-SUN states An eclipser etheric Mercury at Venus, eclipses a real Sun at the center of the solar system. Each gap is of Mercury radii size. This progression in fact is also shifted in an offset by one radius of the Earth's Moon added to the Mean of the Moon's orbit. Characteristically this system is synomous with the Earth-Moon system in that both perfectly eclipse the Sun at the solar system center, and both have a + 1 Moon radii. The inward offset progression is: .....|... eyepiece ...... - 4 - 3 - 2 | + 1 moon radius | focal area |.......| one Mercury diameter of Averaged size. 3. EARTH-MOON-SUN (empirical) An eclipser real Moon at Earth, eclipses a real Sun at the center of the solar system. Each gap is of Earth radii size. The sequence starts one Moon radii advanced outward beyond the Moon's mean of orbit, it is offset outwardly by a unit equal to one radius of the Moon. The inward offset progression is: ....|... eyepiece ...... - 3 - 2 - 1 | + 1 Moon radii | focal area |.......| one Earth diameter of Averaged size. 4. EARTH-VENUS-SUN An eclipser real planet Earth at Earth, eclipses an etheric Sun in Venus orbit. Each flex gap is of Venus radii size. The inward offset progression is: | eyepiece ...... - 2 - 1 - 0 .... moon mean orbit | focal area |.......| one Venus diameter of Averaged size. _________________________________________________________________________ Lets take a closer look at what these quantum numbers say. We can use the pictogram for the MERCURY-MERCURY-SUN states as a good test case: .....|... eyepiece ...... - 4 - 3 - 2 | + 1 moon radius | focal area |.......| one Mercury diameter of Averaged size. (INTERPRETATION) In truth, quantum number pictograms such as the above are slightly misleading, in that it is a complete set of quantum numbers for just spacial displacements. The numbers do not represent the distance actually moved by quantal displacements, ie the 'diameter' formed by the shifting focal lens, which abides within the quantum numbers. DIAMETERS In actual fact, the Moon called Mercury only displaces by two radii hops, totalling a full diameter distance. How the quantum numbers, and the gap itself, relate, is that the first image of Mercury as a 'focal lens' appears miraged at a location distanced as a Moon radius equivalent excremented (+ 1 Mr)(1 radius of our own Moon) on the outside of the Moon orbit MEAN, shifted then two Mercury radii back toward Venus in orbit, to quantum location number (- 2), to then shift by two more quantum increments further inward, in actual focal lens starting as a sphere of Polar radius and finally flexing into a sphere with a radius of Equatorial size. The gap actually shifted in direct focusing equals a single diameter for Mercury, even though four radii increments end up being shown by the quantum numbers. In fact however, from start position (- 2), Mercury only displaces in focus by two radii units in total, to finalize at the (- 4) position. The distance of actual focus can be idiogrammed as: Polar radius ( x 2 ) Averaged radius ( x 3 ) Equatorial radius ( x 4 ) |... Moon Mean orbit | ........ | ........ | 0 + 1 Moon eq radius - 4 - 3 - 2 | ave radius polar radius Mercury Average diameter for recurring focal lens objects of Mercury sizes, as Venus shifts from Perhilion to Aphelion position in orbit, in which at start position ( - 2 ) two Polar radii from ( 0 + 1 Mr), Mercury is a focal lens of Polar radius, then shifts to ( - 3 ) three radii from ( 0 + 1 Mr ), to become a focal lens of Averaged radius, then shifts once more to ( - 4 ) four radii from ( 0 + 1 Mr), to become a focal lens of Equatorial radius. Note that Mercury only actually shifted two increments as a focal lens itself, the two increments comprising one sphere of full diameter. But the sphere was shaped as a Polar radius on the far side, and an Equatorial radius on the close side, hence the total cross section of the sphere is 1 full diameter of Averaged size, cammed off-centered in a very minor shift inward by the oblative difference between the polar and equatorial radius of Mercury. If this seems a bit hazy it is only because of the surreal mental gymnastics in virtual realities needed to perceive several different attributes occurring at once, inside the quantum numbers. Hints of sub-atomic particle physics are de jevu-ing around these thoughts, incidentally. DIAMETER QUANTUM NUMBERS It is possible to open up pictographs within the idiograms to further specify the 'diameter' part as other quantum numbers, but such subset quantum numbers will be uniformly as the same for the four inner Terran eclipse systems, in which 1 full diameter is the total actual displacement of the focal lens in action. The same 'gap size' vrs 'gap location' differentation is fundamental in every one of the four inward progressing perfect eclipse state systems, yielding one planetary diameter of average size as the whole incremental shift through the flexing 'gap', per system. Except for Mars. In the case of Mars, the actual displacement of Mars as the focal lens is 4 full Mars diameters of Average size. Mars is idiogrammed further below in IDEOGRAM 1. _________________________________________________________________________ VENUS HAS BALLS Lets take a closer look at what the quantum numbers say about the planet Venus. Planet Venus shows up 'twice' in flex increments defining precise locations of an 'eclipser', metaphysically miraged as etheric bodies that hop skip and jump through precise increments of space in the orbit of the Earth's Moon. What can be seen, that is uniquely definative about these two difference occurrences of 'flexes' as Venus; slices of space precisely the radii sizes of Venus. Quit a bit. In fact, a re-assuring confident mathematical progression is seen at once. The 'flex' qunatum numbers for the two different systems, SYSTEM 1, and SYSTEM 4, form a single lineal series of quantum numbers for 'flex', linking the two sequences into one sequence of five states. Here is how: SYSTEM 1 VENUS-VENUS-SUN states. (Venus eclipses the Sun) | eyepiece ...... - 5 - 4 - 3 ...... moon mean orbit | Venus flex increments SYSTEM 4 EARTH-VENUS-SUN states. (Earth eclipses the Sun) | eyepiece ...... - 2 - 1 - 0 .... moon mean orbit | Venus flex increments HOW OBVIOUS CAN IT GET ! | eyepiece ...... - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 .... moon mean orbit | Venus diameter Venus diameter SYSTEM 1 + SYSTEM 4 = [...:...] [...:...] Increments of flex | | equal to multiples EQ | | EQ | | of x 5 to x 0 O | O | of Venus radii, in a PR - single lineal series. Venus flex increments in side by side hyperfine progression of Venus 'equatorial' to 'polar' radii. _________________________________________________________________________ However, the above is a single lineal straight line incremental sequence, within a larger interface sequencing of quantum numbers. Lets now look at the larger picture. As shown in all of the quantum number idiograms above, there is a consistent flow of integer unit numbers. Consistancy is also shown in the direction the numbers lineally progress, in which all intervals have a minus value (in subtraction from the Moon's mean of orbit, bringing the focal lens closer to the observer, on the inside of the moon orbital Mean). This is a dominant feature in the quantizing of the progressions in the eclipse states. The progressions are not random sorts, there is a coherency of order, and a rule of 'single' direction, the 'rule' being that the progressions are 'all inward' from the mean of the Moon's orbit. CONTAINED ECCENTRICITY AND A SINGLE REFERENCING CONSTANT INITIATING LOCAL DISTANCES Negative scale of values, and rule of ordered numbers, only appear as shown above, when each of the sets is described from short to longer distance from the Sun, for all four of the different 'eclipser' objects that each form a set of 3 focal lens, with 1 diameter as the real distance actually moved in action. (Excluding Mars - the 5th system). The quantum numbers specifically denote offset unit variables in flexing, as termed offset from the Moon's Mean of orbit, which is a single referencing constant that is hard wired in the systems and serves as a single determinent for precisely quantifying the locations. Without this single locator used as a constant frame of reference for recognizing uniqueness in distances from eyepiece to focal lens, all of the eclipse states would just show a simple flex, maximized merely as a diameter of a known object, per system, and no unique quantum numbers for each set would be recognizable. There would be no logic, there would be no big group comprising the complete tally of quantum numbers which combines to produce one easy and self evident but large ranging insight (like seeing atomic spectrum of hydrogen all in one view). Accepting the Moon Mean of orbit as an inherent constant completely opens up a new view within the focal lens mechanics to reveal the quantum numbers, in sudden insight. The insight is clear in that the quantum numbers form a single lineal series. The coherent set of ordered numbers progresses in a single straight line of values, revealing another quantum certainty, as shown immediately below. The name of the planet shown is for each etheric body that fits the unit integer 'gaps' of actual action in the flexes along the focal lens' line of sight, as follows: IDEOGRAM 1 INCREMENTAL DISTANCES TO FOCAL LENS LOCATIONS (THE QUANTUM CERTAINTY) A single lineal series of quantum numbers; the planet named is the leap in space which fits the flex gaps: planet radii | - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0 .... moon mean orbit | [ VENUS ] --------- | [MERCURY] | + 1 moon radius --------- | [ MOON ] | + 1 moon radius planet --------- | diameters [ EARTH ] --------| | - 5 ...... [ MARS ] ............. + 3 2 diameters 2 diameters AN ABSENT VENUS POLAR RADIUS In the - 2 - 1 - 0 number set, Earth eclipsing the Sun in Venus at longest distance from the eyepiece, (at Venus Perihelion of orbit), is a Polar sized Earth, sitting right at the Mean orbit of the Moon. In this instance a Polar sized Venus does not appear anywhere in the flex gaps. Only two focal 'gaps' of the size of Venus are able to appear in terms offset from the Moon's Mean of orbit, instead of a full set of three flex 'gaps' for the other focal 'objects' found in each of the other sets. HYPERFINE DISTINCTION The sizes of all measures involved in the empirical states for EARTH-MOON-SUN listed in TABLE 3, (shown further below) uniformly morph from shorter to longer measures, whereas all states listed in TABLES 1, 2, and 4, have focal lens parts which morph from longer to shorter measures, when the eccentricic distances to the target are listed short to longest. In this case, the resulting gravitational quantum 'hyperfine' features are reversed in progression of focal lens flex terms for purely metaphysical systems vrs the one empirical (Earth-Moon-sun) total eclipse system. NO HYPERFINE CONSTANCY Mars has a functional system synonymous to an empirical system, in that an organized uniform progression in all parts proceeds as a moving camp, a pattern uniformly progressing from one size to the next. Thus it is identical to the uniform EARTH-MOON-SUN empirical structure. So 'hyperfine' distinction is not a law that is rigorously usable to predict or identify 'etheric' vrs 'empirical' states. MARS Mars is different. Its quantum numbers do not order 1 plus 1, not in the same way as do the other states which all have a progressive lineup of holes in space representing overlaying slice-sized diameters to produce a single succinct tally of quantally counted radii increments that progress in a 1 + 1 + 1 rigorous lineal order (rather than 1 x 1 x 1 gravitational order). Mars is not within the tally. In order for Mars to be intrinsically within the tally, two more sets of perfect eclipse states are needed, one having quantum numbers - 1 0 + 1, and the other 0 +1 +2. These are not seen. Nor are any other possible tally arrays seen. Instead, Mars has quantum numbers - 5 - 1 + 3 which present quite a different picture compared to the 4 other definative sets of states. For instance, 2 Mars diameters comprise each flex gap that Mars leaps between states as a focal lens. And the Mars focal lens array per se stradles the Moon's mean of orbit, offset by one radii of Mars toward the eyepiece. This is not suprising, since Mars' perfect eclipse states are in a virtual symmetry position focused in opposite direction, away from the center of the solar system, with Earth orbit marking the switch in window. This 'something different' drives the focusing manner of the Mars' re-orientated system, however the out-of-sequence focusing manner for Mars is just a surprise, there is no unreconcilable spoiler, here. Otherwise, Mars also perfectly focuses in perfect eclipse states over longer eccentricic distances that are still definable by quantum numbers. Mars also obeys three conditions for all perfect eclipse states, itemized further below as 'embodiments' under 'GENERAL SUMMARY'. Here are Mars quantum numbers for its set of perfect eclipse states, in terms of whole inter unit multiples of the Radii of Mars: MARS QUANTUM NUMBERS TWO MARS DIAMETERS IN EACH FLEX GAP | | | | | 4 x mars | 4 x mars | ... radii |............|............| | | ....... moon mean orbit | eyepiece ...... - 5 -1 | + 3 Polar Average Equatorial |............| two Mars diameters comprising (Polar plus Average sizes) |............| two Mars diameters comprising (Average plus Equatorial sizes) The 'two Mars diameters' are more correctly percieved as joint pairs, one of Polar diameter plus one everaged diameter, the second pair is one Equatorial diameter plus one averaged diameter. In this regard, Mars is a perfect eclipses system featuring quantistically flexed diameters rather than quantisitically flexed radii. As you can see, the MARS set of quantum numbers shows a different orchestration in how the Mars slices of space are formed in etheric images. full complete | terran OVERALL -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -0 +3 numbers | 16 quantum numbers representing unit distances offset from the Moon's Mean of orbit, reveal a progressive order in short to long distances from the observer to the focal lens, becoming lineal as shown, -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 -0 (and + 3 for Mars), when all of the targeting views are ordered systematically from short to longer eccentricic distances, in comparing the perfect eclipse states one then another for each of the systems in one complete collection of states, where a single unifying theme is used. The 16 quantum numbers are 15 in 3 numbers each for 5 systems = 15, plus the Moon's mean of orbit = 16. The 'theme' is; distance to target is composed in progression of short to long eccentricity for every system. Eccentricity 'distance' progression is the unifying theme that links all states together into a single long string, coupling all states together in a characteristic lineal progression of quantum numbers. Eccentricity is systematically progressed from Perihelion to the Aphelion line-up positions. In this point of view, the quantum numbers gell into a rigorous lineal order, all relative to the Moon's MEAN of orbit. Remember to keep your head on straight. Although the circles and spheres and the datas points of center are depicted side by side in flat space (2 dimensional) in representations herein, in actual space the circles and spheres line up like targets along an axis from Mars to the Sun at the center of the solar system. The intrinsic point of view is a series of full cross sectional diameters at right angles to the line of sight (across the line of sight) at right angles like lenses in both telescopes and microscopes. In full intrinsic nature, transparent soap bubbles are stationed like beads along an invisible straight line. HALF UNITS (DIAMETERS) The whole integer series of quantum numbers appears only when RADII of planet images are used as the measures of flex gap increments. But in fact planet image DIAMETERS are the actual gaps flexed. Since only three points actually define a movement of a focal lens within flex gaps, diameters can also be used to show properties, since just one sphere will then be shown fitting snuggly in place, along with slightly blurred math. However, diameter quantum numbers cannot show 'hyperfine distinctions' of Polar vrs Equatorial kind in the flex gaps. Diameters yield 1/2 unit quantum numbers, a more unweildy system. How the quantum numbers might look when presenting spherical diameters in the gaps (rather than lineal radii), is as follows: Radii | EARTH) -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 (SUN | Diameters | EARTH) -5/2 -2 -3/2 -1 -1/2 0 +1/2 +1 +3/2 (SUN | Table 1 |___________| 1 x Venus Mean Diameter Table 2 |___________| 1 x Merc Mean Diameter Table 3 |___________| 1 x Earth Mean Diameter Table 4 |___________| 1 x Venus ean Diameter | Table 5 - |___________:___________|___________:__________| + 2 x Mars diameters 2 x Mars diameters The Mars diameter spheres are not of Averaged size. The (-) sphere is of (polar plus average) diameters. The (+) sphere is of (average plus equatorial) diameters. TABLES TABLES 1 to 5, following immediately below the GENERAL SUMMARY, show a complete set of datas for all states, in a uniformly systematic compilation of quantum eclipse states, HYPERFINE radii, and other facts. GENERAL SUMMARY It is obvious by now, that a single steady state system of perfect eclipse states, seen at once in a single image in the mind's eye, in abstract space perceived by manipulation of geometry parts, or as a collection of systematically arrayed quantum numbers with many inner secrets embodied, in which the many mechanical manners of the focal lens parts are seen without question in self evident truth, becomes a very wordy toy when trying to describe the mechanically active parts by words and definational accounts. Not even thought experiements can keep the picture abundantly clear. Nevertheless, words can help. Lets continue. An existence of quantizating in solar gravity is manifesting in the form of many eclipse states definable in principles of behavior illuminating the occurrence of common properties featured in ordered arrays, all of lineal sum kind. The quantized manifestations are steady state, and include complete veracity in planetary eccentricities in the solar terran region. The planetary eccentricities are not random in particular since the eccentricities deal inclusivly only the Perihelion and Aphelion terms in planetary orbits around. the Sun. The quantum gravity states feature recurring images comprising fundamental solar constants appearing in self same size, in more than one embodiment, representing three different natures in the properties of gravitational image manifestations. 1. Real bodies (orbiting terran planets and the Moon) 2. As eclipsing lenses (echoes in orbit as moons) 3. Flex gap intervals (distance in/out for focusing) All terran planets recurr imaged in these 3 ways. ------------------------------------------------ | QUANTUM GRAVITY EXISTS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM | |______________________________________________| Planet oblate radii are properties created as images formed in pure mechanical principles. Planet radii are not random incidences with no image clone cause. Pure mechanical images are housed in two structural forms of apparatus. One has embodiments of a telescope's focusing and viewing system, the other apparatus has the embodiments of a microscope focusing and viewing system. Each apparatus incorporates a different way of viewing the Sun, using an identical local structuring for behavior of focal lens parts. The structure of the focal lens actually 'flexes' in two unique ways; in 'size' as a focal lens object; and in incremental displacement 'locations' for the focal lens object itself. More quantizing in gravity inherently exists in the form of precise 'hyperfine' distinctions, in which radii of planets exist in finite sizes that are fundamental solar constants. Each radii turns up in more than one fundamental embodiment. Recurrances of radii, occur in three different forms of mechanical embodiments, as constants. To repeat: THE EMBODIMENTS ARE: 1 Planet entity as a BODY in dynamic orbit. 2 Planet image as an ECLIPSING focal lens. 3 Planet image as a MARKER defining maximum eclipsing focal lens SHIFT displacements to elegant LOCATIONS. In its quantum gravity structure, the Moon of Earth correctly occurs in the three embodiments, in which the Moon, as a body in orbit, is also the image of the flexing focal lens, and is also an increment of displacement in the location of the focal lens (a gap) in place at precise distance out from the observer 'eyepiece'. Four other systems of quantum gravity eclipse systems do not have solid bodies, so are not uniquely self systained and do not appear in an empirical form. The Moon of earth is uniquely self contained as a recurrance of its three embodiments. It is observable as an empirical dynamic system whose quantum properties cannot be seen by the naked eye due to obstacles such as the solidness of the Moon, slightly variating velocities, and chaos in the dynamic system in the manner of orbital tilts, plus random spurious kicks given to annual eccentricities, by gravity in yearly passes with other planets including Jupiter and Saturn. When questions of mass, velocity, orbital tilt, and spurious gravity kicks are removed from the only empirical dynamic system, the pure understructure of the system is revealed by straight line perception of center points lined up to comprise superimposing images in full cross sectional diameters, and becomes coupled to four other eclipsing systems with similar quantum natures for all five systems. TERRAN ECCENTRICITY Terran planet eccentricities are intrinsically connected. The precise amount of eccentricity creates defined states of quantal nature in focal lens 'structures' built of fundamental sets of planet radii constants. The Mean orbit of the Earth's Moon is a single constant, contained within all quantum eclipse states, which 'references' the location of a focal lens for each and every given perfect eclipse state. The Moon orbit is embodied as a single constant to house planet radii in intrinsically connected terran planet eccentricities. No other eclipse states, other than those which are readily seen to be distinctly 'quantal', are possible in the intrinsically connected orbiting systems of terran planets, at least so far as herein found by me. (See HOLES.TXT in the ECLIPSE.HTM main menu for quantal 'perfect eclipses' involving Jupiter and Saturn). Since each possible eclipse state is created from constants whose existence is perfect, such states can be called 'perfect eclipses', to distinguish them from co-incidental total solar eclipses whose cause seems occurred (but is not) from original randomness and so the randomness has been concidered just co-incidentally merely amazing. It can be assumed that inherent limitations in the number of planets, and their intrinsically connected eccentricities, inhibit greater chaotic randomness from occuring in the terran region of space. Which brings the final perception right back to a finite set of non random events exclusively arrised from quantum principles in gravity. TABLES Here are the final exams, a set of five tables, each depicting quantum highlights of one set of 3 eclipse states, a set for each of the 5 systems. _________________________________________________________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------- ###################### FUNDAMENTAL PARAMETERS ####################### ----------------------------------------------------------------- |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | PHYSICAL CONSTANT DATAS 1.00 x 10 to power 13 cms | | MO Moon mean of orbit = .oo3844 01 | | MO+ Moon mean 'adjusted' = .oo3845 78766010 | | SunR Sun radius = .oo6962 65 | | EO Earth orbit = 1.495979 27 astronomical unit | | | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | ECCENTRICITIES OF ORBITS Empirical | | | | EA.....EARTH Aphelion ...... = 1.5209 95035 x 10 to 13 cms | | EO Mean = 1.4959 79270 | | EP Perihelion = 1.4709 63504 Moon radii | | VA.... VENUS Aphelion ..... = 1.0894 33439 | | VO Mean = 1.0820 89677 EQ = .oooo1738 9 | | VP Perihelion = 1.0747 45915 AV = .oooo1738 35 | | MA... MARS Aphelion .... = 2.4922 55088 POLAR | | MO Mean = 2.2794 10149 = .oooo1737 8 | | MP Perihelion = 2.0665 65211 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENUS-VENUS-SUN TABLE 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse Hyperfine Distinction is reversed. Earth/Venus/Sun at Venus Parallel converse symmetry. Total gap size is 1 Averaged Venus diameter. Short FOCAL LENS CROSS SECTION MO - 5 Venus EQ U------------- x SunR = Venus EQ Venus EQUATORIAL radius EO - VA Shortest orbital MO - 4 Venus AV ------------- x SunR = Venus AV Venus AVERAGE radius EO - VO MO - 3 Venus P ------------ x SunR = Venus P Venus POLAR radius EO - VP Longest orbital Long |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1-----1----1 Earth-Venus-Venus (obverse) | | 5 4 3 Venus radii increments | | VENUS is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo6050 .oooo6065 317295 .oooo6064 109107 | | Venus radius AV .oooo6045 .oooo6059 811089 .oooo6058 877288 | | P .oooo6040 .oooo6054 331582 .oooo6053 654488 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- VENUS-MERCURY-SUN TABLE 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse Hyperfine Distinction is reversed. Venus/Mercury/Sun at Sun Slide Rule symmetry Total gap size is 1 Averaged Mercury diameter. Short FOCAL LENS CROSS SECTION MO - 4 Merc EQ + 1 Moon EQ 4 Merc est. radius ------------- x SunR = Merc EQ Mercury EQUATORIAL radius VP Shortest orbital MO - 3 Merc AV + 1 Moon AV 3 Merc est. radius ------------- x SunR = Merc AV Mercury AVERAGE radius VO MO - 2 Merc P + 1 Moon P 2 Merc est. radius ------------ x SunR = Merc P Mercury POLAR radius VA Longest orbital Long |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1----1---1--|+1moon Venus-Mercury-Sun (recurrent) Oblation | | 4 3 2 Mercury radii increments is small | | MERCURY is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo2439 .oooo2438 3710835 .oooo2438 386969 | | Mercury radius AV .oooo---- .oooo2437 5127970 .oooo2437 540961 | | P .oooo---- .oooo2436 6666608 .oooo2436 695537 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I radius of the Moon is added to the Moon Mean of orbit, then 'n' units of Mercury radii are subtacted. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EARTH-MOON-SUN TABLE 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Empirical Hyperfine Distinction is normal. Earth/Moon/Sun at Sun Total gap size is 1 Averaged Earth diameter. All space harmonics change uniformly. Short FOCAL LENS CROSS SECTION MO - 3 Earth P + 1 Moon P ------------- x SunR = Moon P Moon POLAR radius EP Shortest orbital MO - 2 Earth AV + 1 Moon AV -------------- x SunR = Moon AV Moon AVERAGE radius EO MO - 1 Earth EQ + 1 Moon EQ -------------- x SunR = Moon EQ Moon EQUATORIAL radius EA Longest orbital Long |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1---1--1--|+1moon Earth-Moon-Sun (physical) | | 3 2 1 Earth radii increments | | MOON is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo1738 9 .oooo1738 4330588 .oooo1738 4309114 | | Moon radius AV .oooo1738 35 .oooo1737 9145864 .oooo1737 9125504 | | P .oooo1737 8 .oooo1737 4797042 .oooo1737 4781809 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I radius of the Moon is added to the Moon Mean of orbit, then 'n' units of Earth radii are subtacted. EARTH radii = EQ = .oooo6378 164 AVE = .oooo6367 4715 POLAR = .oooo6356 779 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EARTH-VENUS-SUN TABLE 4 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reverse Hyperfine Distinction is reversed. Earth/Earth/Sun at Venus Converse symmetry Total gap size is 1 Averaged Venus diameter. Short FOCAL LENS CROSS SECTION MO+ - 2 Venus EQ ------------- x SunR = Earth EQ Earth EQUATORIAL radius EO - VA Shortest orbital MO+ - 1 Venus AV ------------- x SunR = Earth AV Earth AVERAGE radius EO - VO MO+ - 0 Venus P ------------ x SunR = Earth P Earth POLAR radius EO - VP Longest orbital Long |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1--1-1 MO+ Earth-Earth-Venus (obverse) | | 2 1 0 moon Venus radii increments | | increment EARTH is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo6378 164 .oooo6378 7219272 .oooo6378 7219272 | | Earth radius AV .oooo6367 4715 .oooo6367 6438059 .oooo6367 6438059 | | P .oooo6356 779 .oooo6356 779oooo .oooo6356 779oooo | | same as re-iterated values | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ When using these Earth radii sizes, the oblative sizes for Venus are the same as in the 're-iterated' values of TABLE 1 immediately above for EARTH-VENUS-VENUS. MO+ is the Moon mean of orbited adjusted to be slightly longer. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- EARTH-MARS-SUN TABLE 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Normal Hyperfine Distinction is normal. Earth/Mars/Sun at Mars Virtual converse symmetry. Total gap size is 4 Averaged Mars diameters. Short FOCAL LENS CROSS SECTION MO - 5 Mar P ------------ x SunR = Mar P Mars POLAR radius MarO - EA Shortest orbital MO - 1 Mar AV ------------- x SunR = Mar AV Mars AVERAGED radius MarO - AO MO + 3 Mar EQ ------------- x SunR = Mar EQ Mars EQUATORIAL radius MarO - EP Longest orbital Long |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | MO | | 1-----1 +++1 Earth-Mars-Mars (converse) Oblation | | - 5 -1 +3 Mars radii increments is large | | MARS is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo3396 6 .oooo3398 3660 .oooo3398 4128 | | Mars radius AV .oooo3386 65 .oooo3386 2203 .oooo3386 2241 | | P .oooo3376 7 .oooo3374 0041 .oooo3374 1224 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The Mars assembly has 4 radii units per incremental shift, rather than 1 radii unit. MO is the Moon mean of orbit. Three units of a Mars radii (shown as +++ ) appear incremented further out on the other side of the Moon's mean of orbit. ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ RE-ITERATED Re-iterated means that a proportion is calculated starting by using a known input term from a table of solar Physical Constants. The result will be slightly different than the original input term. The result is then used as a new input term, resulting in a new term again altered slightly from the original input. However, the alter only goes so far, and very swiftly homes in toward a constant value in the manner of a mathematical strange attractor, a slight change continuing well into the higher digits of accuracy further to each calculation, the changes becoming so slight it does not matter. The point is, that the calculations swiftly home in on 'attractor' results that become locked-in as constants. The final constants are listed as 're-iterated' terms for the 'attractors'. Preliminary terms 'pro-tem' result from a first run of a proportion. They are given so that it can be seen how very little an input term in a proportion will actually change (already close to accurate) after first run through re-iteration, from datas taken straight from published tables of astonomy solar Physical Constants. ________________________________________________________________________ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ OBLATENESS NOTE Oblation rate for planets is orbitally progressive. Mercury ... smallest Earth ... larger than Venus Venus ... next Mars ... largest SYMMETRIES More than one kind occurs. The Mars symmetry is local, virtual (not mirror), interfaced at the Earth. The Venus and Earth kind are also local, interfaced at the Earth, though both would seem global but are not since only the focal lens is in symmetry. The Mercury symmetry has to be called slide rule, since nothing else in the system's mechanical properties point of view is changed except for location of eyepiece and focal lens, slid inward along the solar system's ecliptic axis to Venus. SET A____________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-VENUS-SUN solar term .oo3844 01 .oooo6064 10910724 Moon orbit - 5 Venus EQ .oo696265 ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus aphelion 1.49597927 1.089433439 = Venus EQ radius .oooo6064 10910724 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3844 01 .oooo6058 8772882 Moon orbit - 4 Venus AVE .oo696265 ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus mean 1.49597927 1.082089677 = Venus AVE radius .oooo6058 8772882 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3844 01 .oooo6053 65448899 Moon orbit - 3 Venus POLAR .oo696265 ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus perihelion 1.49597927 1.074745915 = Venus POLAR radius .oooo6053 65448899 |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1-----1----1 Earth-Venus-Venus (obverse) | | 5 4 3 Venus radii increments | | VENUS is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo6050 .oooo6065 317295 .oooo6064 109107 | | Venus radius AV .oooo6045 .oooo6059 811089 .oooo6058 877288 | | P .oooo6040 .oooo6054 331582 .oooo6053 654488 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SET B___________________factored datas__________________________ VENUS-MERCURY-SUN solar term .oooo1738 9 .oo3844 01 .oooo2438 38696944 Moon orbit + 1 Moon EQ - 4 Mercury EQ .oo696265 ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Venus perihelion orbit 1.074745915 = Mercury EQ radius .oooo2438 38696944 *----------------------------------------------------- .oooo1738 35 .oo3844 01 .oooo2437 540961368 Moon orbit + 1 Moon AVE - 3 Mercury AVE .oo696265 -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Venus mean orbit 1.0820995035 = Mercury AVE radius .oooo2437 540961368 *----------------------------------------------------- .oooo1737 8 .oo3844 01 .oooo2436 695537715 Moon orbit + 1 Moon POLAR - 2 Mercury POLAR .oo696265 -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Venus aphelion orbit 1.089433439 = Mercury POLAR radius .oooo2436 695537715 |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1----1---1--|+1moon Venus-Mercury-Sun (recurrent) Oblation | | 4 3 2 Mercury radii increments is small | | MERCURY is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo2439 .oooo2438 3710835 .oooo2438 386969 | | Mercury radius AV .oooo---- .oooo2437 5127970 .oooo2437 540961 | | P .oooo---- .oooo2436 6666608 .oooo2436 695537 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SET C____________________factored datas____________________________ EARTH-MOON-SUN targets Moon EQ .oooo1738 9 Moon AVE .oooo1738 35 Moon POLAR .oooo1737 8 solar term .oo384401 .oooo1738 43091148 .oooo6378 164 MOON orbit + 1 Moon eq - 1 Earth eq ----------------------------------------- x SUN radius .oo696265 EARTH aphelion = moon EQUATORIAL radius 1.520995035 .oooo1738 43091148 | low .oo384401 .oooo1737 91255047 .oooo6367 4715 MOON orbit + 1 Moon ave - 2 Earth ave ----------------------------------------- x SUN radius .oo696265 EARTH mean (semimajor) = moon AVERAGE radius 1.49597927 .oooo1737 91255047 | low .oo384401 .oooo1737 47818096 .oooo6356 779 MOON orbit + 1 Moon polar - 3 Earth polar ----------------------------------------- x SUN radius .oo696265 EARTH perihelion = moon POLAR radius 1.470963504 .oooo1737 47818096 | low |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1---1--1--|+1moon Earth-Moon-Sun (physical) | | 3 2 1 Earth radii increments | | MOON is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo1738 9 .oooo1738 4330588 .oooo1738 4309114 | | Moon radius AV .oooo1738 35 .oooo1737 9145864 .oooo1737 9125504 | | P .oooo1737 8 .oooo1737 4797042 .oooo1737 4781809 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SET D____________________factored datas___________________________ EARTH-EARTH-SUN Venus terms are from SET A. solar term .oo3844 01 .oooo6064 10910724 Moon orbit - 2 Venus EQ .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus aphelion 1.49597927 1.089433439 = Earth EQ radius .oooo6375 67744262 | low target .oooo6378 164 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3844 01 .oooo6058 8772882 Moon orbit - 1 Venus AVE .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus mean 1.49597927 1.082089677 = Earth AVE radius .oooo6364 65334053 | low target .oooo6367 4715 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3844 01 .oooo oooo Moon orbit - 0 Venus POLAR .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus perihelion 1.49597927 1.074745915 = Earth POLAR radius .oooo6353 8406702 | low target .oooo6356 779 |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1--1-1 MO+ Earth-Earth-Venus (obverse) | | 2 1 0 moon Venus radii increments | | increment EARTH is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo6378 164 .oooo6378 7219272 .oooo6378 7219272 | | Earth radius AV .oooo6367 4715 .oooo6367 6438059 .oooo6367 6438059 | | P .oooo6356 779 .oooo6356 779oooo .oooo6356 779oooo | | same as re-iterated values | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SET D-A__________________factored datas___________________________ EARTH-EARTH-SUN using an adjusted Moon radius adjusted (derived) term .oo3845 78766010 .oooo6064 10910724 Moon orbit - 2 Venus EQ .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus aphelion 1.49597927 1.089433439 = Earth EQ radius .oooo6378 72192720 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3845 78766010 .oooo6058 8772882 Moon orbit - 1 Venus AVE .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus mean 1.49597927 1.082089677 = Earth AVE radius .oooo6367 64380594 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3845 78766010 .oooo oooo Moon orbit - 0 Venus POLAR .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus perihelion 1.49597927 1.074745915 = Earth POLAR radius .oooo6356 779 no change |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | 1--1-1 MO+ Earth-Earth-Venus (obverse) | | 2 1 0 moon Venus radii increments | | increment EARTH is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo6378 164 .oooo6378 7219272 .oooo6378 7219272 | | Earth radius AV .oooo6367 4715 .oooo6367 6438059 .oooo6367 6438059 | | P .oooo6356 779 .oooo6356 779oooo .oooo6356 779oooo | | same as re-iterated values | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ SET D-B__________________factored datas___________________________ EARTH-EARTH-SUN showing 'tags' on Earth's orbit Venus terms from SET A. solar term .oo3844 01 .oooo6064 10910724 Moon orbit - 2 Venus EQ .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius (Earth orbit - 1 Earth EQ) - Venus aphelion)) 1.49597927 .oooo6378 164 1.089433439 = Earth EQ radius .oooo6376 67785866 | low *----------------------------------------------------- Mercury term from SET B. .oo3844 01 .oooo6058 8772882 Moon orbit - 1 Venus AVE .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius (Earth orbit - (1 Earth EQ + 1 Mercury EQ)) - Venus mean 1.49597927 .oooo6378 164 .oooo2438 38696944 = Earth AVE radius .oooo6366 00940859 | low *----------------------------------------------------- Mars term from SET E. .oo3844 01 .oooo oooo Moon orbit - 0 Venus POLAR .oo696265 ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius (Earth orbit - (1 Earth EQ + 1 Mars EQ)) - Venus perihelion 1.49597927 .oooo6378 164 .oooo3398 412892451 1.074745915 = Earth POLAR radius .oooo6355 51370136 | low SET E____________________factored datas___________________________ EARTH-MARS-SUN solar term .oo3844 01 .oooo3374 12243952 Moon orbit - 5 Mars POLAR .oo696265 -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Mars orbit - Earth apehlion 2.279410149 1.520995035 = Mars POLAR radius .oooo3374 12243953 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3844 01 .oooo3386 22410792 Moon orbit - 1 Mars AVE .oo696265 -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Mars orbit - Earth mean 2.279410149 1.49597927 = Mars AVE radius .oooo3386 22410792 *----------------------------------------------------- .oo3844 01 .oooo3398 412892449 Moon orbit + 3 Mars EQ .oo696265 -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Mars orbit - Earth perihelion 2.279410149 1.470963504 = Mars EQ radius .oooo3398 412892451 |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Incremental shifts | | | | MO | | 1-----1 +++1 Earth-Mars-Mars (converse) Oblation | | - 5 -1 +3 Mars radii increments is large | | MARS is the focal lens | |^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^| | Radii Data | | empirical pro tem re-iterated | | | | EQ .oooo3396 6 .oooo3398 3660 .oooo3398 4128 | | Mars radius AV .oooo3386 65 .oooo3386 2203 .oooo3386 2241 | | P .oooo3376 7 .oooo3374 0041 .oooo3374 1224 | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ____________________________________________________________________ AND FINALLY HERE ARE THE SAME DATA SETS IN PURE ASKME FORM (NO DIGITS, FUNCTIONS ONLY) ____________________________________________________________________ Anyone can use their own datas and data tables to see what they can come up with either better or worse using the naked shells tabled below in this final set. -------------------------------------- TERRAN REGION ONE FINAL TIME naked artifacts -------------------------------------- _____________________________________________________________ SET X-1____________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-VENUS-SUN common term Moon orbit - 5 Venus EQ ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus aphelion = Venus EQ radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 4 Venus AVE ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus mean = Venus AVE radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 3 Venus POLAR ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus perihelion = Venus POLAR radius 3 Venus radii as input variable, are re-iterated with 1 Venus radii as end term, to home in (strange attractor) to a constant value. _____________________________________________________________ SET X-2_____________________factored datas__________________________ VENUS-MERCURY-SUN common term Moon orbit + 1 Moon EQ - 4 Mercury EQ ------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Venus perihelion orbit = Mercury EQ radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit + 1 Moon AVE - 3 Mercury AVE -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Venus mean orbit = Mercury AVE radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit + 1 Moon POLAR - 2 Mercury POLAR -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Venus aphelion orbit = Mercury POLAR radius _____________________________________________________________ SET X-3_____________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-MOON-SUN common term MOON orbit + 1 Moon eq - 1 Earth eq ----------------------------------------- x SUN radius EARTH aphelion = Moon EQUATORIAL radius *----------------------------------------------------- MOON orbit + 1 Moon ave - 2 Earth ave ----------------------------------------- x SUN radius EARTH mean (semimajor) = Moon AVERAGE radius *----------------------------------------------------- MOON orbit + 1 Moon polar - 3 Earth polar ----------------------------------------- x SUN radius EARTH perihelion = Moon POLAR radius In case you fell asleep at the last bang, this is the same structure otherwise known as the famed total solar eclipses of the Sun, except those solid eclipses (only one, and parallax), are thought to be co-incidental, whereas these three straight liners are all perfect, because they are not solid, they are holes in space, including the Sun which is cut in half like an orange, with multiple Moons all cut in half like grapes, and multiple Earths filling the flex gaps like conjoined light bubbles, the overlaying cores quite a sight, in particular the Sun, because everything is transparent. Looking up the center line would be like looking up a telepathic telescopic. Like looking into one of the hallowed halls of Reality. In mind's eye see a cube and sphere (six sided outline) with a star of david inside as a housing which holds the artifacts stable. SEE, WHAT YOU HAVE HERE, ARE ENERGY FORMS WHICH HAVE NO INERTIA. _____________________________________________________________ SET X-4____________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-EARTH-SUN In this attempt, radii for Venus are too low, when re-iteration is for Venus radii as flex gaps, using known Earth radii for the focal lenses. common term Moon orbit - 2 Venus EQ (low) ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus aphelion = Earth EQ radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 1 Venus AVE (too low) ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus mean = Earth AVE radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 0 Venus POLAR ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus perihelion = Earth POLAR radius ___________________________________________________________ SET X-4-A__________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-EARTH-SUN using an adjusted Moon orbit adjusted (derived) term Moon orbit - 2 Venus EQ ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus aphelion = Earth EQ radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 1 Venus AVE ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus mean = Earth AVE radius *----------------------------------------------------- adjusted (derived) term Moon orbit - 0 Venus POLAR ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius Earth orbit - Venus perihelion = Earth POLAR radius This state, using an original Earth POLAR value, is used to arrive at an 'adjusted' Moon orbit. ___________________________________________________________ SET X-4-B__________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-EARTH-SUN showing 'tags' on the Earth orbit common term Moon orbit - 2 Venus EQ ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius (Earth orbit - 1 Earth EQ) - Venus aphelion)) = Earth EQ radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 1 Venus AVE ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius (Earth orbit - (1 Earth EQ + 1 Mercury EQ)) - Venus mean = Earth AVE radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 0 Venus POLAR ------------------------------------------ x Sun radius (Earth orbit - (1 Earth EQ + 1 Mars EQ)) - Venus perihelion = Earth POLAR radius _____________________________________________________________ SET X-5_____________________factored datas__________________________ EARTH-MARS-SUN common term Moon orbit - 5 Mars POLAR -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Mars orbit - Earth apehlion = Mars POLAR radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit - 1 Mars AVE -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Mars orbit - Earth mean = Mars AVE radius *----------------------------------------------------- Moon orbit + 3 Mars EQ -------------------------------------------) x Sun radius Mars orbit - Earth perihelion = Mars EQ radius Tables finished. REMARKS Two fundamental 'Dualities' are easily summarized. 1. A mathematical 'Duality' is intrinsic where pure 'ratio proportions' cannot distinguish what kind of 'trigonometry' (parallax or center-line) point of view in being imaged when factoring of datas, even though each of the 'ratio proportions' uses identical datas for either of the two trigonometric views because of the mathematical 'Duality'. 2. A system 'Duality' is inherent in that neither trigonometry, nor ratio proportions, can tell what kind of a 'mechanical' system (microscope or telescopic) is being described by the datas being factored in the trigonometry vrs 'ratio proportions' Duality. Without the whole 'system' being embodied in view within a single external frame of reference, the nature of the mechanical system is hidden, because of the mechanical 'Duality'. 3. Without a simplified mathematical system (for instance ratio proportions), perfect eclipse states remain hidden, unless a straight line view of percieving eclipses along a 'center-line' is recognized and adopted as fundamentally a second form of trigonometry besides 'parallax' sightings. Or else, 'ratio proportions' are independently used to arrive at the same conclusions, inevitably, as those found by 'center-line' (isosceles triangle) trigonometry. CONCLUSION The finals are already here, in the blueprints of Creation. Accretion by gravity obviously had something to say about forming this solar system. It is apparent that something more fundamental, more there all along, has formed the final outer picture of just how the formation took final shaping in space, the shape we now see as the solar system's inner regions near the Sun. This is the so-called 'terran' region of solar space, which houses a unique set of small hard fast travelling planets close to the Sun, compared to the distance to Jupiter and its gas giant thin density size, and similarly for the remaining outer planets (except for Pluto). Definately in the 'terran' region, different tones in gravity are sounding loud and clear. The Will Action and Desire of the Supreme Creators Alpha and Omega, can be seen behind it all. God did not play pin ball with THIS solar system! COMMENT 1 The solar Physical Constants datas used to describe these conclusions came from detailed astronomy datas supplied to others in 1980 by astronomers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I have used them because I have not been able to find since such a simple yet complete and comprehensively integrated total set of solar Physical Constants as were those released in 1980 by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The datas were released in a publication by space artist Don Dixon (1981), who achnowledges professional help from a host of noted astronomers around the world. GM. COMMENT 2 THE 'ATTRACTOR EQUATIONS' The existence of 'attractor equations' cannot be ignored. Even if the values of input ingredients, such as the Earth's eccentricity, the eccentricty of Venus, or the size of the radius of the Sun, or the Mean orbit of the Earth's Moon, were changed - stretched to near unreasonable lengths, the 'attractors' would still home in on reasonable representations of certain fixed known physical constants and embodiments within the solar system, which would remain unchallenged. There can be nothing else that can fit the bill. For instance concider how far you might stretch the orbit of Venus until another object replaced Mercury as a focal lens object. Very very far will be the stretch, too far to be reasonable. You would either have to throw Venus right out of orbit and find a new one, for instance all the way out to Earth to accomodate the next smallest solar body, the Earth's Moon in fact, already used to form perfect and total solar eclipses at Earth, or flex Venus's eccentricity to a vigorously beaten bolo ball range to find another object besides Mercury to fit as 'flex' in the slots the Mercury sized focal lens object leap frogs to form perfect eclipses. Well, actually, I lied. 'Io', the smallest major Moon of Jupiter, would come into focus slightly on the inside sunward side of the orbit of the Earth. But. Ummmmm. First question is what kind of hard solid 'terran-like' body or 'major moon' would, according to 'attractor equations', have exactly the right size to fit incrementally in the 'flex' gaps for 'Io', if any known body can fit that particular gap. None. Yeah. Whoah. Ummmmm. For that matter, Jupiter's three other 'major moons' Callisto, Europa, and Ganymede, could all operate as a focal lens; moon Callisto being a tiny bit smaller than Mercury would fit at Venus a little closer in than Mercury, while Ganymede might fit, but well outside of the Moon's mean of orbit at Venus, while Europa would need to be in local orbit around a point of observation well beyond Earth if used in an eclipse from Earth. Hold the barks. There is also Titan of Saturn, slightly smaller than Ganymede, and Triton of Neptune, smaller than Mercury. A perfect eclipse does not exist unless all parts of the focal lens apparatus fit knit together interlinking like tops and ballbearings in tolerances allowing no room for error. So, perhaps the outer 'major' moons fit in a picture, but it will be different than the picture which precisely describes the inner terran region of solar space. For instance, the Moon's mean of orbit may not be a constant to which outer 'Major' moons are sighted by an observer at a planetary orbit's data point (Perihelion, Mean, and Aphelion of orbit). The 'attractor equations' are attractor formulas of self contained veracity. They are nothing else but the simple ratios proportions presented above in TABLES 1 to 5. Other 'attractor equations' for the outer major moons could be different, if such equations exist for them. So far, I have not seen equations for any other moons. GM. COMMENT 3 In fundamental particle physics there must be 'Duality' states of synomous mechanical kind, not seen in true mechanical nature due to the existence of 'Duality' per se. In the solar system the problem is not so severe in fact not severe at all because it is possible to just take a mere look to see what is out there in space, or to see what is diagrammed as a complete image on a large wall in a laboratory, taking the laboratory wall diagram from what can be seen in macrocosmic size as outer space, or modelled upon ideas based on semi microcosmic hyperfine structures recognized by simply looking directly into terran space in the solar system, and fine tuning your circular slide rule. - Finis - In Divine Order Greydon Moore Ottawa Canada. greydon@canada.com january 3, 1996. FIRESIDE CHAT 'Duality', as a newly emerging fundamental all reaching scientific notion supposedly connecting a cosmological, astrophysical, and fundamental particle look at things: featuring those old cosmic strings coming round for a second chance at the brass ring, boinging on the edges of nascent existence mere parts of a nanosecond after the alledged Big Bang: has been reviewed in the January 1996 issue of Scientific American to great length, most of the article as suppositions, hypothesis, and conjectures. The existence of cosmic strings is still just a fantastic idea. The 'dualities' reviewed in the article have not yet made it to where cosmic strings can be said to be truths that connect the balls of the brass monkey. Clang! Not mentioned in the Scientific American news is a fully psuedo Duality in the solar system, that has methodized human understanding of astronomy through a long history. It is where the same planetary motions can be described in a new circling orbital system first proposed as math by Copernicus, which eventually replaced the egocentric universe view which preceeded it by thousands of years. Notwithstanding that the Coperican view 'per se' had a devastating fatal mistake, that all planets travelled in perfectly 'circular' orbits, which inhibited valid acceptance of the new Copernican view for centuries due to the fact that eager believers could NEVER get Copernicus' system to work perfectly. That was a job left for a superman named Kepler, whose knowledge and consciousness almost died when he did. He fingered a few pennies at a time out of his meger wages as the director in perpetuity of Tacho Brahe's astronomy lab, enough pennies to pay a printer to print a small book of Kepler's discoveries, which the world of astronomy rejected point blank, a sufficient self sacrifice none the less that some 70 years after Kepler's demise, 1 of the 2 of Kepler's little books still in existence, both in the hands of hairy scary alchemists, passed into the hands of Issac Newton, who used Kepler's realization that planets orbited in eccentric motions, to come to conclusion: the formation of the universal Gravitational theory. Ohhh, gee, if I was James Burke I would have a lot of fun making a TV show about THIS near miss! that only TWO of Kepler's books still existed at the moment they were MOST NEEDED! In the new Copernican view, planets orbited the Sun which stayed at rest at the center of the solar system, and the Moon orbited Earth; a drastically different view than the former in which everything including the heavens, the Sun, and the stars, CIRCLED EARTH, because Earth was obviously the center of the universe, and sat there as a stationary sore for everything. The change was so drastic between the two universal views that Copernicus was not able to even discuss his life-long project with any more than a handful of trusted friends, under the gloom of instant death by church authorities who only upheld the former view, and anything said to the contrary was called heresy of the worst kind, punishable by complete irradication of the source of the heresy. But, times change, and the universal view certainly did. God no longer circles the Earth like a merry go round. In fact today, God no longer is just He, Him, or His. The Reality of the Supreme Creators Alpha and Omega, a Male and Female duo who work in total equality, a Father and Mother of everything, is now being percieved, even amongst fundamental physicists. The point is, that the two universal views were a form of psuedo Duality, not a true Duality, which had knotted the understanding of Astronomy from the dawn of historical time, in that both views adequately describe planetary motions and something about the heavens, even though the one view was totally incorrect. It was the incorrect, nevertheless, which humans saw with their naked eyes looking skyward. Every time they looked up, no matter how sincere, they saw the Sun and the Moon and all of the stars and planets circling the Earth in a daily fashion. Who knows how certain Greeks about 2,500 years ago saw atoms, and planets circling the Sun. How they did this is, sob, lost knowledge that got lost the moment it got started. The 'incorrect' view didn't change in academic, political, and religiously authorative, for millenniums. In fact, it is the incorrect view still used today by mariners and jet airplane nagivigators because the incorrect view, needing only one North Pole Star tied to a fixed Earth to navigate by instead of a host of constantly orbiting planets, is far easier to use for quick calculations. One thing seers would have noticed even if the psuedo in Duality never burst from one source into the picture: the egocentric view would eventually have modified and improved until it transformed into the correct geocentric view, but it would be foolhearty at the least to transfer the geocentric view back into the older egocentric view. Logic dictates that once something is fully understood to be intrinsically correct, there is no reason to change it, unless something new is learned about that which is thought to be already finalized to the end. Logic too, can be a trap, a blindside, which for instance, has been carried right through in time from the first days of astronomy, making its way through the transformation in universal understanding of the solar system, unchanged right to present day status, without even being questioned. Not even once did it get questioned. Not even once. It is the 'Parallax' views of eclipses that still clings to a caveman era of awareness. Everything else about astrononomy has changed completely. It is time to change this caveman idea humans still take in their own image and likeness. For instance a scientist stationed on a high cliff on the upper curve of the planet chin deep in snow querying through darkened glasses at a co-incidental total solar eclipse which came about because the tilt of the Moon's orbit just happened to bring the Moon past the priest's eyes peering high up there on the curvature of the planet into a straight line with the Sun, at a moment in time in which the Moon just happened to be drifting by at the right distance from the Earth, given the distance the Earth happened to be from the Sun at that moment, to cause the size of the Moon to fit in a complete circle over the hole of the Sun. Wow! What a co-incidence! You can see the problem; so much is dynamic in this single event, that no other laws in nature seem to account for it, and none more seem wanted. This stall in the consciousness can be let go in just 1/10th of a second flat. Get ready get set letgo! Eliminate the dynamics, which are the end product of everything else, and you have a very spectacular view of a very true understructure, which takes final form behind the dynamics which also has some local chaos in it, the chaos being the cause of perpetual blindness in humans and makes intelligence stall in staggers. Local chaos is in the manner of such as orbital tilts, the 23.4 degree tilt in Earth's spin axis, wobbling, random yearly pertubations in Earth's orbit (leading to such lovely stuff as the Perogee (closest approach to the Sun this year) and Apogee (farthest outthrow from the Sun this year)), and similar lovely stuff, comprising local chaos within the dynamics. Obviously, dynamics are in the works all along coaxing little sheep to go along, more directly this way and that way. Concider that the dynamics comes, not from one, from many sources. Newtonian Gravity forces per se are only one of the sources, a weaker one. There are stronger forces than old tugboat gravity of a single kind, influencing the look and feel of the solar system. Find them! So called Curvature of relativity space is not the answer. Let saint Einstein rest in peace. january 3, 1996. COUNTER INTUITIVE REALITY What is another perceptual assumption seen by humans with the naked eye that took many millennium to toss on the garbage pile of failed concepts, like the dead husks of bees? In the beginning when man first saw light, they saw dots of light moving back and forth in the heavens, which came to be called planets. These were, nothing else but dots of light that did not twinkle (unlike the stars which all twinkled) that moved against the backdrop of stars which did not much change their hardcopy arrays in space. Along came Galileo, pointing a mariner's spyglass to the heavens and being a scientist knew exactly where to point the thing to bring Mercury, Venus, Mars, and Jupiter, into focus. What he saw were disks, flat, like tiny frisby's, the fact that they were globals could not be seen in the telescope held by Galileo. What could be seen by that man was that tiny dots of light were eerily moving back and forth across the disk of Jupiter, and that features on the disk were also moving across its face, disappearing on one edge and reappearing at the other with disconcerting regularity, as were the tiny dots of light, 4 of them, drifting eerily out to the side beyond Jupiter, then coming back in, then disappearing, then reappearing a short time later eerily drifting out into the opposite direction beyond the other edge of the Jupiter disk, in total contradiction to the religious regime's only edict proclamations about the universe and heaven. The movements were so slow in any case that it was after days and weeks of nightly observation that he finally began to see the yin yang movements of the tiny dots of light. In fact, by watching with utmost care with brand new telescopes he made by hand, one after the other, to improve vision, he could finally see that the tiny dots came in from outreach, continuing eerily across the disk of the planet called Jupiter and continued, carrying out beyond the other edge, then slowed, then reversed direction back to the edge of Jupiter, it dissappeared ! shortly after reappearing Whoah ! on the opposite edge of the disk ! and so kept moving on out into space, until each reversed direction again, each dot in its own time, at its own speed, now called velocity. Galileo, not being a stinker but a true thinker, concluded the only way such dots could move that way, was by orbiting in circles around this planet, and that the only way the features of the disk itself could behave was that Jupiter was a spinning planet, (not a real flat disk), a sphere, rotating around a 10 hour spin axis. Thus ended that flat planet concept of morality, which did not last long in mind once the first spyglass telescope was turned to the heavens by Galileo, but in fact still booms when any amateur looks at a planet with a fancy telescope in their backyard or at a weekend convention. All of the planets which can be seen by telescope are too far away for globalness to be seen in them, the only thing the telescopes can display is flat faced disks. But every telescoper knows that planetary disks are actually spheres that rotate on a spin axis, not because they can see the real shape, but only because they know from facts elsewhere presented to the mind's understanding. Without that extra input: what you know: what you see: cannot tell you that the planet is as round as a hoot owl's eyeball. Do you see what I am getting at? Even in something as mundane as looking at a planet in a powerful telescope there is illusion in foolish dillusions unless there is illumination also existing in the intelligence, the kind of illuminations which can only come from a reasoning of observed facts which by first sight are entirely counter intuitive. Oh, by the way, what was Galileo's reward for such thinking, not stinking? Years in prison, well, actually, years confined to the Pope's personal estate, a worldly paradise by all accounts but he was restricted under gloom of instant death not to take a step across the property's borderline, and passed away there still talking, still teaching students gathered around his bed on the day he glided over the hill, passed away, and left the stinkers in charge of the egocentric universe he had ruined for them, by thinking, not stinking. Perfect Eclipse states exist, and oddly enough, are everything BUT counter intuitive, because NONE can ever be seen by optical light with a telescope. So, all of the illumination about Perfect Eclipses is by reasoning from within the consciousness. Which brings humans one step closer to knowing God, not any longer in the self made image and likeness of male kind, but as a powerful energy principle of 'female/male' kind as but one level of manifestion of the Supreme Creators who made this solar system exist, with all of that neat busy stuff seen as perfect eclipses hidden under the cobwebs layed over the whole view by lazy humans desparate to avoid counter intuitive headaches, which include knocks against their religious, or aetheistic, beliefs. january 3, 1996. Another form of duality you might think about right off the top, even though it here is not a true form of Duality, is the original Bohr model of the atom, using solar orbits to help explain atomic structure which was completely unknown at the time the model by Bohr was first introduced. It proved very useful (and still is) at that time, to grapple with difficult electron behavior concepts, even though the model was already known to be incorrect (false) within two years after it was introduced, because of new insights about the nature of atoms and electrons which came in rapid succession immediately after Bohr's proposal. For instance it eventually became clear (think of today) that electrons have no apparent size. They act like entities, rather than things. For example the Proton has a size that can be measured as an object but the electron has no size and so is an entity, for which a point source in mathematics is used to discuss it in a dynamic system. It's (the electron's) current image is given as a wave or cloud of a certain kind of wave structure which varies in shape between different atomic energy levels and different atoms, in which the wave (or cloud image) represents a probality, saying that within this wave or cloud-like image, or smear, is where the electron will most likely (probalistically) be found at any given instant in time, even though the electron at any given instant may not be in that area, or even be in the atom for that matter. It is just that, most likely, the electron will be found within a wave pattern defined as a density cloud in that particular area around the nucleus of an atom. Contrast this with the solar system, in which planets are in orbit, but each planet is completely different one to another and from size to size, from small to gigantic, with no two planets of the same size, mass, appearance, or density. The only similarity of any kind is in astroids and small moons, all of which are mishappen chunks of rock well peppered with impact crators (moons are all round down to about 200 km size a size limit beyond which moons can be potato shaped). Since each planet is a 'thing' which has a finite size, planets in orbit cannot model electrons. Not to mention Rydberg mathematics that define electron energy states: a whole-integer ratio kind of mathematics in predicable sums amongst energy levels, reciprocated to resulting spectrum lines of precise wavelengths: a kind of hard core lineal sum factoring that seems at first sight to be entirely missing in solar space. The fact that electrons seem smeared out entities without physical size, eliminates the possibility that the solar system per se, can be a Duality to describe the atom. Which comes right back to the Bohr model of the atom, which was nonetheless successful in its own way. That proposal is what sparked the sudden new surge in initial illuminations regards atom structuring, in that nothing at all about what atoms were really like was known before Bohr made his proposal. From that moment, scientists and researches had something tangible they could work with (the Bohr model of the atom) to help formulate new ideas in a contained way. And yet the Bohr model of the atom is NOT a 'Duality' because Bohr modelling cannot be translated directly into correct atomic imaging. The Bohr model was false right from the start, but did the job for which it was intended and so is one of the very few artificial constructs in fundamental physics that actually talked to intelligence. january 9, 1996. Regards charge. Lets assume something else about the Electron, besides knowing that it is an 'entity', and not a shapely thing like the Proton. Lets assume that there is no Electron part for mass, there is only one charge unit comprising the whole Electron, the charge force itself effecting attraction and polarization and magnetism, but the charge itself also has property that can effect physics as if by actual mass (as in the Electron's mass energy) but there is no part which has that mass, this appearance of 'mass' is a result of the unit of charge's 'hidden' way of also effecting things around it in mass-like ways. Think of how many ways it would be easier to describe the Electron if there was no mass part, the mass part being the bane of thinkers who have been trying to find it for nearly a hundred years and still cannot point to a shape that sits as a naked Electron. Oops. Relativistic transformation principles come to mind, in thinking about electrons. Meson subatomic particles also, do they have naked 'shapes' defining mass parts? A double edged question in that many mesons can be described as Electron values translated to other values generated by special relativistic transformations, and also expanded to exact higher mass energy states by ratio powers of the Fine Structure Constant. Hmmm what? Did you just SAY! SPECULATION january 3, 1996. IS EMPTY SPACE REALLY EMPTY ? It is obvious that 'perfect' eclipse states have to have a more fundamental underlying cause. What this cause is is sensed to have some kind of form in sounds or sonic harmonics, perhaps through intense superhighway gravity waves which cannot yet be sensed by physics experimenting. Something else not sensed but known in more than intuitional ways, is that relativity influence due to the Sun's gravity on the shape of space and matter nearby, is also influencing what the solar system might look like, except, the 'relativistic' influences of the Sun's gravity are expunged from the Sun into surrounding space. As a quick demonstration that such effect can be true, perceive that if relativistic transformations due to gravity is realized to 'infect' the mass of a rest state object, due to its own gravity, such as the Sun, the influence can be an increase, and if so, the amount of increase upon the Sun's own rest mass can be calculated by general relativistic transformation equations, the amount calculated being slightly less than the mass of planet Venus, yet so precise, that if this mass is added to the mass of Mars, you have in fact the actual mass of planet Venus in hand, with no scientific percentage of error in the summed results. The significant digits given for the masses of Venus and Mars, balance to the nth degree of accuracy, by this simple calculation of a suspected relativistic effect. What is most noticed, is that the 'relativistic' mass is in orbit outside of the Sun which created it, merged as part of a two-body result, the two bodies being the planets Mars and Venus. Its as if the relativistic mass effect is being expunged from its source to maintain original rest state mass (before relativity) in the source. How come the final form is such that the mass of planet four (Mars) taken from planet two (Venus), is the mass generated by the Sun's own gravity due to relativity power. Hmmm? In fact it is possible, using this coupled-mass planetary property, to work backwards and predict a rest state Sun mass, plus relativistic mass expansion quantity, to total: 1.990993 x 10 to power 33 grms and by doing deterministic equations to screaming accuracy, arrive at exactly: 1.99099305 x 10 to power 33 grms. How this Sun mass as derived, using principles stemming from gravitational (general) relativity, is found deep in the guts of the paper named RELATIVE.TXT in the ECLIPSE.HTM main menu. SPECULATION january 4, 1996. In association, think also of another general relativistic transformation effect, a change in a field density, but rather than the change being uniformly smeared throughout the field, it localizes in intense tiny 'hot spots' of precise kind, 'holes' in space, to put it candidly. What field equations can be rewritten to accomodate relativistic holes in space; who knows. Its just a thought. Certainly mass of matter, relativistically changed by gravity, seems to exist in a condensed state in intense precise hot spots in local orbits in terran regionality around the Sun, ie the Mars and Venus unit sum mass combination. Why not harmonic holes in space as well, due to relativistic contracting of space by gravity, stemming from an intuitive hunch that forces resulting from relativistic changes, are incompatable within a rest state mass and space of the field density of gravity causing the change, for instance the Sun, and so occur as harmonic recurrances of both spacial empty holes and distances, and mass condensed objects expelled out in space surrounding, to exist in a steady state manner, due to INCOMPATABILITY between rest state energy, and the tensions caused by relativistic effects which change the rest state. The tension is expunged from central source as objects of finite size in both mass, and holes in space, arrayed at precise distances apart, projected out from the relativistic gravity field effects that cause the tension. Uniformal smearing of effects due to relativity caused by gravity, do not occur. Rest state form, and relativistically altered form as extras, stay separate. One cannot help tickling the toes of the idea that even the field strength of gravity can be altered by its own relativity, but once again, it is not a smeared result, nor a change in the value of the Gravitational Constant, the field strength alterations appear as precise holes in the construction of local space, in harmonic quantal patterns. Ergo, perfect eclipse states plus one system of empirical eclipses. None are just accidental random noise. In other words, it is not the Gravitational Constant which is changed by its own relativity in a rest state object, ie, the Sun. It is the gravitional 'field' which is altered. But not uniformly like a smear throughout the field. Like mass, the effect is intensly localized into harmonic hot spots, or 'holes', that form in the fabrics or artifacts of space due to local not global changes in the pressure of the field density of the gravitational force field, formed in the weaker regions of larger area of gravity field extending beyond the rest state 'boundry' of the Sun (the rest state object) gravitationally generating the field. Once again, who can say what equations might show this in a usable arguement in physics. it is just an idea, noted, and left on the table for someone else to pick and peck and pillage. If the gravity relativistics are harmonically registering with the outer space surrounding the gravitational body, (the long arm of the law, so to speak) it can explain more about how this solar system became created. Sense how relativity in the gravity of a rest state object effects the gravity of that object, but not by changing the value of the Gravitational Constant, instead the change is in the gravity field itself, generated by and surrounding the rest state object. The effects will be harmonic, due to cause and effect, effects seeking routes leading to that which is most harmonious, most effective, most involving the least expenditure of energy, that which is most free of chaos. You can in fact, call such natural harmony pure love. Pressure density holes, in space, in the relativistically 'changed' field density of gravity, are a natural choice to evade chaos. So, changes by relativistic effects of gravity are effecting the look and feel of the solar system? Ahah, one more rung up the ladder has been climbed. Still to be answered by a thought experiment is why those particular 'holes' known as perfect eclipse states; now that humans are thinking of field pressure changes in the power of gravity surrounding a rest state body are caused by the rest state object's gravitational relativity. What thus causes the precise 'holes' in the gravitational field density of that terran space, and why are the 'holes' so far reaching from the gravitational source at the Sun. Ohoh. The Gods on Olympus are leaning toward each other. What thoughts can they input into human minds to teach them THIS. The Gods on Olympus lean together a little more closely. The conference is going to take time some heavy thinking. Counter intuitive headaches are going to occur. The Gods get ready to endure. I vote for a Cosmic sonics that effects gravity, as first choice, for a cause. Then add a second choice, gravitational relativity, to give some reasons for the existence of perfect eclipse states. GM. january 4, 1996. You see, what has to be overcome in the desparate inner struggles caused by counter intuitive intelligence, is that the Moon is a flat disk whose face never changes, when seen by a telescope in the hands of a man, or women for that matter, on Earth. Its just that the same features are seen in more detail in the telescope. Otherwise, the flat disk is the same. It is always the same flat disk with its 'Man In The Moon' features, happily cycling around the Earth that anyone has seen with their naked eyes every night, all year, for thousands of years when questionings first started to be asked by caveman humans who became serious. The same for the Sun, a featureless intense yellow disk that cycles around the Earth daily. So how could cavemen cum astronomers assume the Moon and Sun were anything else but flat disks which cycled the Earth, along with everything else in the sky, (because everything else was nothing more than dots of light anyway), which 'proved' that Earth was the center of the universe. The fact that the spin period of the Moon was identical to its period of revolution around Earth was 'hidden' from all thoughts about the Moon, for thousands and thousands of years. Regards the Sun: dark spots, or Sun spots, could be seen passing over the face of the flat disk of the Sun right from the first days that a spyglass telescope was pointed heavenward in the direction of the Sun, nearly blinding some original observers by the way. Which takes us right back to Galileo. He inferred that features passing across the face of Jupiter could only happen on a spinning sphere, there was no other mechanics in logic that could provide an answer. It became obvious too that the Sun was also a sphere, because it too was, ergo, spinning, says the logic once again observing sunspots going by every 35 days. Once again, counter intuitive intelligence had to fight and overcome darkness in consciousness to learn some simple truth about the Sun. January 4, 1996. On the other hand, the matter of eclipses and eccentricity still has not been straightened out in the common perceptions of the mass consciousness. In any instances where the mechanicals are properly in the right proportions, everything is seen. A common misconception created by text book artists and magazine illustrations, destroys that. It is that planets bang in and out in eccentric orbits like bolo balls. This is simply not true. Two planets, Mercury and Pluto, first and last, have large eccentricities and do work like bolo balls being vigrously beaten if their speed is revved up in a computer simulation. The other planets do not oscillate much back and forth in and out. Even the Moon waves very little, in eccentricity, respecting the size of its orbit. In comparison to its orbital size, its maximum eccentricity off central orbit is not much more than the width of three Earths lined up in a row. No bolo ball banging in and out here at the Moon. Because 'total solar eclipses' occur within a narrow range indeed for Moon location, hanging touph just on the inside of, to slightly over, the Moon's orbital mean. The amount over this line is a ballpark figure of roughly the Moon's radius itself, and on the inside the narrow range for eclipsing extends only three Earth radii, less one radius of the Moon. But most people do not know this, most people think the Moon is bouncing around out there like a ball in a pinball machine. It isn't. When equations are done correctly to see the true view, not as parallaxes but as perfect eclipses, the range focuses exactly through 2 Earth radii, in a setting of + 1 Moon radius, - 3 Earth radius, in total, no more, and no less, the actual distance moved by the Moon only and exactly one Earth diameter, no more, no less. This activity distance is 50 times less than the orbit of the Moon. A bolo ball moving one foot at the end of a rubber string 50 feet long, does not move far. So you can see at once that the Moon actually has only slight eccentricty, despite all depictions by the media and by illustrating scientists to make you think otherwise. So, this is another instance of poor deluded humans being deluded by poor deluded humans: the Moon plays video games with the Creators' concepts because there are no real details, the system is co-incidental, so everyone thinks and the strongest thinkers keep telling everyone else this view, stomping out dissent with career urgent threats. The damage is the illustrations and art work and draftperson's mechanical drawings demonstrating each artisan's personal view of the universe, er, actually, their personal views of eccentricities, and eclipses, and such. Concider that a large weather balloon and a small red tomato at either end of a football field still cannot give you a good picture of how far apart such bodies as the Earth and Sun really are in space. Artisans who get carried away with their own creative designing skills are not doing a service when the skills create totally false illusions about the real nature of solar space, which goes uncorrected year after year, century after century. One answer is to always try and have at least one paragraph giving a better picture of true space perspective, to counter the damage which any illustration of solar astronomy must cause due to problems in the sheer nature of true scale, a page, vrs a football field. January 4, 1996. In fact the Moon and Earth do not have to switch orbits to make fundamental symmetry work in the clarity of inner vision. Just make both Earth and Moon transparent, and also make the Moon vaporous enough that you can be at its very center, and then just sit there and wait until the right moment comes by when you in the Moon drift to the Earth's Perhelion, then the Earth's Aphelion of orbit, and because the big Earth in front of you is transparent you can see clear through its center and so see its spherical size in full diameter, and because you peering through the Earth are pointed toward Venus and because an echo Sun in the orbit of Venus is also transparent it too is seen full sized as a stop sign in space, then you will have eclipses, and if it comes to occur that you happen to be exactly at the Earth's mean exactly on that data point when the Sun in Venus happens to slide into point place at either Venus's Perihelion or Aphelion of orbit, then you will have 'Perfect Eclipses' even if the Earth itself is a 3 dimensional solid object. Except if humans can see transparently through solids and apparently some already can - second sight - telepathic vision, pyschic seeing, and the like. Who knows, if the whole Earth became telepathic then perfect eclipses would be the natural way to see things with the naked eye. And everything known will become more and more etheric, automatic passing into Heaven's gates. January 6, 1996. PASSING REMARK In regards to moving a 'microscope' focusing machine for astonomy modelled from spaces between Earth and Venus, to transform into a 'telescope' machine in close orbit around the Sun inside the orbit of Mercury, in abstract space, there are some thoughts to say. Perhaps this non existing planet in abstract space should be a Vulcan, perhaps not. Yet is this not more or less right where something broke up and took temporary orbit very near the Sun not so many years ago, seen as a beaded necklace with dots trailing along like beads in a closely connected string in orbit, and then disappeared just when astronomers started to get really excited? Now is not the time to break free from rigatory and start speculating about myths, it is just that I seem to remember remarking to myself once that the 'amazing new discovery of Vulcan' illustrated in a news photo I had in hand, was right in the middle of where I was putting the displaced distance between Earth and Venus when earlier working out prelimary models for perfect eclipse states. Some kind of energy band, there, near the Sun? a band which has synomous distance out from the Sun, to distances between Venus and Earth, not necessarily marked out as base lines, but within the fence of the ballpark, an orbit at roughly .414 x 10 to the 13 cms, which because of Perfect Eclipses may not be a random place near the Sun after all. Think of all the effort still going into the question of whether the astroid belt is a place that collects rubbish, or was it once a planet that broke up. Bodes Law seems to suggest so. But other concepts proposed by questioners in astronomy suggest otherwise. The Bode's Law question is one which has no easy answer, since Bode's Law in not rigorously definative for all or even any artifacts of the solar system. GM. January 7, 1996. Is it possible that flexing (in particular 'conjoint' flexing), is modelling fundamental properties in the nature of electricity vrs magnetism. Assume an analogy that electricity (charged electrons) are modelled upon focal lens that superimpose the Sun, and magnetism, which has no point source entity-ism, is 'density' in formula, akin to the empty gaps which the charged electron focal images move through, which are like mirages recurring in space in different ways. In fact, just the introduction of the word 'charge' abruptly changes the thought experiment. It may be that the gaps are synomymous with charge, in some way. Just a thought. Clearly here is a case where one equals the other, but the one is not the same as the other, although both are of identical value in sizes through 'Duality', when concidering conjoint flexing as a fundamental principle of mechanical operations in the solar system. Weak you say, weak, and I won't argue. Whoah, almost gone too far in that quick little speculation. Lets finish it for now. If anything makes clues in that last little bit of stuff, others can stuff their headaches in figuring it out. Not me, electricity and magnetism are not my main domain in intuitive physics. January 7, 1996. Power holes were actually shaped in a foundry of mighty rounds whose forges are driven by eccentricity, so that the resulting bodies took final shape with their current oblative radii being built right in, starting from the time of first being rolled, forged and pressed by jaws of force that have nothing to do with accretion disks just rubbing face powders and road dust together. Images that computer-controlled the forges of the foundry were pre-existing, or came to exist, as production started to roll the finished marbles out the door into dynamic orbits around the Sun. The orbits themselves were made in the same assembly line, not ho hum, places where wanderers chose to drift along in idle currents of their own making for awhile. The currents were straight from the assembly line's computers and the wanderers could go nowhere else. Believe it. Daffy Duck didn't program the computer. In fact Donald Duck has just announced that the theory of accretion disk isn't a theory at all, it is only an idea, it can't be a theory because there is nothing in the idea of accretion disk 'theory' that is definable as constants in astrophysics. Accretion disk theory as it currently lies bantered around, is only an idea, not a theory. Donald Duck steps back off stage. His 15 seconds of quack in the sunlight are over. january 8, 1996. It is not an object, it is an artifact of space, but has the same size, as an artifact in space, as does the focal lens object. Wow, this is kind of hard to pin into concepts that have no ratty edges. Since both the 'gap' leaped by the 'object', and the object itself are in fact nothing more than shapes in space, just what is being mouthed when talking about 'space'? You can, in being playful in hand drawn geometry, draw a set of perfect eclipse images in which actual transparent spheres sit along a sight line, and three discrete sized objects whose radii are each of different values, cluster as 3 spheres merged half together like cells half divided, the edge of one nearly touching the center point of the next, to represent a simple single line image of a focal lens system progressing along its quantum numbers, when the system is conjoint, such as the Earth-Venus-Venus, and the Venus-Mercury-Mercury systems, and the Earth-Mars-Mars systems. It is possible to render such drawings by hand or by draftsperson techniques and I have done it, not to boast, but to study. GM. The hand drawings become immediately more complex when drawing in the outlines of transparent spheres condensed as bubbles each of differentiated diameter size, merged together at radii length, to picture the music of the spheres between outer and inner positions of the focal lens, but with an 'other' sized focal lens occupying the 3 positions along the sight line, such as what you have with the EARTH-EARTH-VENUS metaphysical system, and the EARTH-MOON-SUN Empirical system. The hand drawn geometry image for these systems are rather too complex to interpret at a glance, or even to draw with self evident adequacy. The inclusion of each next data fact in a geometry drawing exponentially expands the confusing look of the resulting drawing (a Murphy's Law). And yet, in all of these systems (5 in total), only one solid body is found. Whadda ya know its the MOON around Earth!. So what? So, space is the topic. But what kind of 'space' is being mouthed when the brain talks? Obviously, the displacement lengths taken up by the focal lens, ARE a different kind of space, in principle, than are the spaces occupied by the Focal lens, in particular in that all that needs be known about the spaces occupied, are the radii, whereas it helps to have full sized focal lens 'objects' in mind when concidering the actual physics objects eclipsing through the spaces that need be known only by radii. The 'object' that eclipses, is obviously different than the distance it displaces to eclipse. And yet the measures of each, oject, and spacial displacements, can be identical in their increments of allotment along a tape measure. Yet, to repeat, both are nothing more than spaces that can be measured and factored, except for the one and only empirical system, the system we all know and cannot ignore, as the EARTH-MOON-SUN eclipse system seen with naked eyes every time a total solar eclipse of the Sun occurs. Think of the money and profit that changes hands, each time there is an occurrence. The occurrences are fundamental to human economic philosophy at the present time. And yet, that empirical religious, socio, philosophical, economic occasionally recurring event is only one of '5' structures that have 'events' built in, in two completely different manners of 'spaces' comprising the events: telescopic, and microscope, in mechanical foundations in the solar system. One space is condensation (the object size). The other space is what? what? Even though both are synonymous, or identical, sizes to focal objects, this second 'location' space is not condensate. But, rather, it seems, an opposite, a relaxation in pressures tied implicitly to rates of planetary eccentricity. Do analogies exist for two opposite states of manifestation like this, elsewhere in physical phenomenas? Hmmmm? Hmmmm? There are mysteries to solve by ferreting the clues, no doubt. january 8, 1996. You can make a mistake! Being an amateur, yet being able to handle fundamental forms of simple mathematics, you can sit down at the kitchen table and spend long hours, and decide that you using simple trigonometry can work out for yourself exactly how far the Moon has to move to accomodate 'total' solar eclipses of the Sun, when the Earth is moved from its Perihelion orbit of averaged eccentricity, to its Aphelion position, a range within which you now say occur total eclipses, a range you designate up front, to keep your curiosity motivated search simple. The range is real, the eccentricity datas published in every astronomy textbook. You choose the range because it is so easy to understand. This is in response to daily media and astronomical hype that TWO, not one, but TWO! total solar eclipses are occuring back to back on the North American Continent within a two year period, an occurrence extraordinarily rare in the annals of long term astronomy. Hence the media hype and screetching proclamations on TV, all of it bewildering, to say the least. A Moon leaping in giant bolo ball occilations center page, a mighty slice of blazing Sun zooming on the right side the page, an Earth on the left side of the page with a small square marked where the best observing of the eclipse will be, so will concentrate there in the square the world's best eclipse dominating scientists. That that bolo balling Moon is bolo balling so FAR, in the illustrations, is what has peaked the curiousity - is the Moon really going to be moving that FAR, one year to the next, between the two back to back total solar eclipses ? What you do is immediately sit down at the kitchen table and with your high powered (accurate to 13 significant digits) electronic calculator, proceed to calculate just how far the Moon can move in total to accommodate Total Solar Eclipses, when the Earth itself is bracketed within the range of its own constants of eccentricity (perihelion and aphelion). You really want to know just how far the Moon must move in total, and chose the bracketed eccentricity as controls you can use, already built in, in the solar system to get around a problem screetching in your face and created by the media, that the Moon boings in and out like a hard hit bolo ball when forming eclipses. So, you yourself want to know, just how far DOES the Moon move ? You see right away just how far the Moon moves in total, in and out, within the bracketed range of the Earth's eccentricity you have preset for yourself in an understandable simple model. The Moon hardly moves at all! a skip small as the Earth's diameter, in total leaps in space between maximum and minimum distance out from the Earth in keeping with these 'bracketed' total solar eclipses you have created by intellectual curiousity on your kitchen table. Just one hunch of a nudge worm, so to speak. In fact, suddenly you can see a new Earth itself as a ball bearing, rolling in space along a sight line to lubricate the total solar eclipses of the Moon in a precise and V E R R Y intriguing way. Three weeks later you discover the mistake! that you have committed the 'cardinal' sin! Instead of using correct 'parallax' trigonometries', all along starting from day one, hour one, minute one, at the kitchen table, you have been using instead, pure straight line sightings viewed along a center line, to factor your eclipse models. Wait a minute! Already you have factored eclipse states to a perfection where the Earth diameter has to drop out between the cracks when total solar eclipses occur bracketed entirely within the Earth's own averaged eccentricities as compiled over centuries of observing time. When now, suddenly, urgently, converting to the correct 'parallax' geometry view, the details you have already noticed as self evident in your playtime eclipse structures, vanish! The whole system you were looking at, at once becomes merely co-incidental. Approximation to Earth's size, but only to a couple of significant digits at most, verrrry blurred, compared to the matchup of significant digits you have become used to over the past three weeks. Ohhhh oh, to bad. Bad mathematics. No prizes of any kind for such bad mathematics. Such poor physics. Such failed amateur intelligence. Such sad insight. Thank GOD you didn't tell anyone else! You are frantic. You are sweating WILD over all of the time you have just wasted! Not so. Suprise is the instant result. And curiousity intensified by many orders of magnitude. What do you do? Play the game so as not to get whipped by the boys who occupy the ivory towers and thereafter, correct your mistake, and no longer look at anything in other than correct 'parallax' views?, in which something approximately Earth in size is there in the niche but not in molecular fits. Yeah, right, coincidental. When the view opens up to include yearly maximum extends in Apogee and Perigee of this year's orbit, the niche is only vaguely something around the size of the Earth. Your climax may be fading back into the walls of time. Or keep on going, keep on seeking to try to figure out WHY perfect eclipses occur when all you did was geometrically change the line of sight from parallax widening side arms radiating outward touching the outer edges of eclipse bodies in view, when seen from Earth, or continue with the new unexpected inner dimensional view seen by seeing all observations in single line run straight up what you have been calling the sightline, through the midpoint centers of all of the bodies you have been seeing as being capable of eclipsing. Quit a 'moral' dilemma, you might think. But not really. Religious points of view, and dogma, have no place whatsoever in the understanding of truth in Reality. And so it is. Perfect Eclipses exist. Your idiotic mistake was not a mistake at all, it was a really good example of an intuitional telepathic hit that had a lot of juice. january 8, 1996. But oops what else do you do? Make the same bonehead mistake that everyone in the business of physics keeps trying to do, to close in on THAT which is all of the variations in datas that keep coming up when doing derivations this way and that way, to resolve into but 1 set of balanced basic constituents. Except, the balancing to constantly the same datas just won't work. The more you try, a data falls to the downside or upside of a value and just won't average when trying to result to just 1 focuser for all 3 eccentricity points. One day the flash bulb goes off, the little extra opening window of light in your mind where a new idea has flashed into awareness complete, in 1/10th of a second flat. And that is, what will happen if you abandon the averaging, and see what results in doing each calculation to its maximum accuracy. The first thing found (because at this moment you are still playing the old record once more with singers lifting off their tip toes singing their sourest notes the loudest), and try one from the sudden idea, and lo and behold! come up with an Equatorial radius for both the Moon, and the Earth. Lets see, let's try the Averaged radii value for these two bodies as inputs, and whoah! willya lookit that! the Averaged radius results as the 'end' term in output. So the next step suddenly becomes obvious, there is no question, it is predicted, you PREDICT that the third term should have Polar radii throughout, and lo and behold the prediction is vindicated, as a Polar radius for the Moon spills out as the final term in the equations. This is instantly after you have put the Earth at its perihelion position (in predicting) and done the equation. That is when you start to fathom what kind of 'hyperfine' facts are the law in the whole panarama of total solar eclipses and now know without question that eclipses are not co-incidentals. If you think the persona in the above scene is me, as a matter of fact you are right. It took from spring of 1983 to the winter of 1989 for the light to dawn, that 'hyperfine' distinctions define the whole of the collection of the ball bearings which lubricate the inner flows of the solar system. . GM. January 8, 1996. Concider what Newton did when first describing orbiting bodies as being self sustained by their mutual attractions of gravity. Everyone else prior to Newton's conclusions, said a centrifugal, or centripedal, force must be at work, or other more bizarre concepts that hoved back to the view that the Earth, no matter how clever Galileo and Kepler had been in demolishing that concept, had to be at the center of the universe and attracted everything to it. Religious organizations still particularly liked any of the many conflicting theories which put themselves above all others, including lesser gods in the universe, at the universe's very center. This, when they wore rags ornimented as regal garments and drank water filthy with sewage and removed the heads of anyone who differed with their opinions and still did not know how to use toilet paper. Let's face it, they stunk. This was only three hundred years ago. Scientific query dissolved the biblical seven days of 24 hours creationist mind set done by god to give the universe a center, Earth. Newton intuited that the gravity of a big body like Jupiter lusted to merge with the bigger gravity of the Sun. How this lust worked was simple from there on. An orbit did not have to be circular, (as stated in stark mistake by Copernicus but later proven corrected by Kepler and his three laws of thermodynamics), because the gravity of Jupiter and the Sun pulling each other toward each other, would cause Jupiter to start pulling toward the Sun, until the centrifugal force (outward straight line throw) of Jupiter's faster curving velocity would become enough to overpower the two gravities of Jupiter and the Sun, causing Jupiter to move back out due to centrifugal physics, and so, an eccentricic orbit could be sustained forever if no other outside interference acted on that two body system. Newton's logic was impeccable when it came to such fine points of mechanics. Newton's consciousness of course was not impeccable because he concluded, and stated emphatically in his proofs in every diagram, that the point of view he presented was the only one possible. Which included his great diagramatic horks explaining total solar eclipses, all rigorously detailed in parallax points of view. Which continued the problem in humankind's understanding originated right at the start in caveman days when cavemen first began to learn that startling total solar eclipses could be predicted in advance by thought. A harder side to new knowledge can again be explified by Newton, who defined a Universal Gravitational Constant to account for how much gravity each body in the solar system actually had, no easy task since Newton had to combine five different pieces of measured datas to come up with the single stated fact; that package of interfaced parts now known as the Universal Gravitational Constant. Another obstacle is that the solar ratio of the Sun diameter to the size of the Moon is roughly 400 to 1, a ratio that is touph to depict on a sheet of paper to scale. Roughly the same ratio, 390 to 1, is the number of times further away the Sun is than is the Moon from Earth, and it is this remarkable combo that forms what scientists rail as the 'amazing co-incidences' that marks the reason why 'amazing eclipse co-incidences' can occur in the first place, that remarkable duo ratio of roughly 400 to 1. In practice such scales are like comparing pin heads on one straight pin that is 400 times longer than another, with one pinhead 400 times larger than the other. Such scales cannot be hand drawn in correct geometry images, because even the thickness of the pencil lead can ruin the intended image's true picture. THE LET'S SING HYMES AGAIN TODAY HOUR Now you know why eclipses are amazing co-incidences. See how interesting the lord made things with such co-incidences, praise the lord. Amazing yes, astounding to viewers who can afford the money to travel to places to view each one at its best. Don't forget to carry smoked glass with you or you will smote your eyes. January 8, 1996. THE FOG ON THE WINDSHIELD MODEL OF ECLIPSES Okay, if you have slowed once more, here is a quick junior thought experiment to help speed you up again. Look at the windshield wiper on your car, the wiper on the side right in front of your face. See how mist has accumulated on the windshield? Turn the wipers on to wipe the mist off now. The sweep forms a wipe that originates at a single point, the nub of the wiper. The sides of the clear window are parallax, ie they splay outward from bottom to top, an expanding wedge of clear window on either side of fog. Stop the wiper in mid stroke, leaving it sticking vertically straight up in front of you, and draw two straight radial lines from the point of the blade, down and out capstone-fashion to the top end of each of the sides of the swipe that has cleared away the morning mist. You have just drawn the geometrical image of a 'kite' (equal right angle triangles cut on both sides of a single hypotenuse). Each sidearm edge of a swipe, (now an altitude), forms a 90 degree right angle that connects the straight line radial to to the top tip of the blade, like straight lines under the cap of a mushroom. Neither of the two straight lines at the top enters fog and thin sections of clear window appear below the fog arc above each line. Yes you can't get this far without having an illumination. You've just bet the house cat and car on winning the loto. You have just generalized the parallax of an eclipse. To complete the picture, connect the two ends of the swipes in the mist, in a straight line that crosses the hypotenuse. That line is a foreshortened diameter seen as the area in view by aching eyesight and a snaking telescope in a total eclipse. See how there is a slight difference in the length of the blade, noted where that new line crosses the hypotenuse inside the sweep. That little 'difference', just a small nip, to the end of the blade, you can call a 'blurr', in this junior thought experiment. If you draw new lines that extend the outer edges of either wipe further toward the top of the windshield, into the fog, and draw a line straight across the top of the windshield, extending it out to touch the extended edges of the wipes, while locating it perpendicular to connect across the top of the blade (its very tip) which is still stopped in freeze frame fully upright, the width of that new line is the full cross sectional diameter of a sphere whose centerpoint is the very tip of the blade, and you can see at once that the blade has now become a single altitude up the middle of an iscoscles triangle of two equal sides, and the side of each swipe has become hypotenuse for new right angle triangles with the 90 degree angles now radiating straight across from the top of the blade as a single 180 degree angle. Some of the new straight line across enters fog (above the fog arc) at either side of the clear window. Of course there is more. At the bottom of the screen is the lower arc of the wipe, which defines the total area swept clear of morning mist. This is your smaller 2nd body in an eclipse. The eclipsing Moon is pictured here at the lower end of the wiper blade, in the smaller arc of wipe. For instance, draw a line horizontally straight across from one lower tip of wipe to the other. See how the line cuts straight across the wiper, below the bottom tip of the blade. Ergo! Ergo! What do you think THAT is telling you. If you have blinked once too often, think of the lower tip of the blade as the center point of the eclipsing object, just as the top tip of the blade is the center point of the object being eclipsed. You can have the fun of seeing in your inner eye how that bottom edge of the wipe fits right in to model principles of eclipses. You have two kinds of views, parallax, and straight line lookies, right in front of your face. Since you can do this whole thought experiment in slow motion with the car running, dissolve the thought experiment, and revv your engine once more. This time, you slowed, then sped up again, without going through a curve. January 8, 1996. STRING THEORY SPECULATION Assume that Jupiter and Saturn formed early on. At the time of forming, both giant bodies began producing gravitational fields of their own, saturating surrounding space with their own potentials that breathed, increasing and decreasing regularly in the direction toward the Sun in maximum when both giant planets were in a straight line conjunction with the Sun. Forget the conjunctions, just feel the fields swirling around as something in the vortexes of space, swirling eddies, local small pockets of chaos, holes, that began to appear in the eddies on a recurring basis, small inner metallic planets with molten lava for surfaces, the lava kept getting shaped in the local tiny swirls in the local chaoses of the many fields of gravity sweeping by each other, over and over again in increasingly regular harmonic patterns, all hand picking options hand in hand with the gravities of the inner small dense planets, the local swirls themselves concentrating as changes of state where relativity tranformation powers generated with enough force in the Sun to field infect by strings, in relativistic strains and tensions the eddies at long distance, carrying outside, information from relativistics which kept conflicting with the conditions of rest state within the Sun. Until the relativistic-rest state conflict in incompatabilities was resolved into hardcopy harmonic dynamic patterns that continue today, the results from the conflicts hidden until revealed by steady state 'perfect' eclipse insights. STRING THEORY SPECIALISTS MIGHT WANT TO TEST THEIR FRUSTRATING INFINITY EQUATIONS ON THESE NON INFINITE HABITS IN THE GREATER GRAVITY DANCE OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM. In fact, one would rather speculate without being ashamed that the resulting harmonic patterns are deliberate, not random whims devoid of any guiding master plan acting through higher intelligence. You see, what made such patterns possible in the first place? Somewhere, a way further back, something had to make the rules that could then allow laws to come together in plans that work. What is the most harmonious set of laws and patterns you can imagine? Sound! the principles of sonic behaviors, which can be mightier and more extended in scale than light because atoms are not needed to be the orchestra for the patterns. And what is the most harmonious shape of all, a shape that has more crystal facets and progressions than any other geometry? hexagrams of course, six sided, twelve sided, with six sided stars within, 12 sided stars a fundamental plateau, capable of expansion in all directions and be local as well in lesser and greater densities of image. Who, then, created the original hexagram and original 12 sided star? It is not the kind of stuff that comes spewing out of a black hole or new big bang to form yet another parallel universe amongst infinite many. Only certain principles work to comprise a Creation, well done, in the image and likeness of God, who in this case, since so many principles of more than one kind are involved, will have a form that is best to manifest the Creation, their form, a mighty Cube and Sphere of incredible overpowering light known as the Supreme Creators Alpha and Omega. Lets see if the string theory theorists can come up with better cause than this! - Finis - This is all there is. I have core dumped thoughts that have been quietly building and accumulating for nearly three decades. And finally at last can relax in peace. My responsibility to you is done. Greydon Moore Ottawa Canada January 12 1995. january 10, 1996. (A few fragments got left over during the creative rush. Do not read the following if not interested, you already have the heavy stuff above). GM. Input remark about astronomer and cosmology specialists who can look to see if there is any direct tie-in between quantum gravity eclipse states and spin/period interger ratio coupling between Mercury, Venus, and Earth. In other words can the two integer numeric conditions be united through one underlying cause. Granted the integerr ratio coupling can be determined as gravity caused, inexorably acting small powers of force and influence. But concider more, why the exact spins. YIN YANG IN THE BOONDOCKS Its a yin yang problem. Even if you as observer move a long distance through space to result in a small change in the location of the focal lens seeing a distant fixed target, this is not any different than the target moving long distances while you stay stationary observing the same small change in distance to the focal lens. This is true when there is no externally separate frame of reference. Spin/period coupling is true when there is no long distance sightings of eclipsing nature, and an external frame of reference is intrinsic in factoring the spin-period couplings per se. Input remark about keeping the model simple by using the Moon mean of orbit for all investigations. Each 'system' reveals a topical object of particular kind at that same orbital distance and nothing else possible there will fit. It did not take long to notice that nothing else would fit anyway, even if the Moon orbit was extended as long as it would take to have something else fit. There were no other takers, nothing else would fit having the right size to fill vast empty spaces around the short Moon orbit no matter how long reaching the look out into the vast empty reaches, unless your reach was allowed to grow to absurdly unreasonable lengths, and even then, nothing to fit any gap increments in your flexing anyway. The duo gap slice and focal lens sizes of known constant physical measures, seems appeared in views which have the Moon's mean of orbit as a single constant, in orbit at the same close distance around the host planet. Input remark about running computer simulations to see if a terran planetary orbit and eclipse structure, when gyrated by a passing object, to result in a question: will the gyration quickly resolve itself into new steady state quantum occurrences, or, even, decay back to the original rest states instantly fast in contrast to long gradual terms in time. For instance, if the Moon is kicked, where will it finally land, and will it work its way into landing in a perfectly quantal way. Will the kick subtely alter other planet orbits and eccentricities, but in a way that can only result in perfect eclipses once again? And furthermore, will only those single constants produce pure and exact quantum numbers in an unquestioned lineal sequence. A hint from Reality? Mighty big hint is all I can say. GM. THE BREADBASKET OF MAJOR EVENTS The Venus-Mercury-Sun eclipses are a slide rule symmetry. In fact it is very much like holes opening up in space, which do not have matter but have punched their way, or condensed, into existence, without inertia in their formations. The random chaotic fluff from tilts amd motions is of no importance. Re-edits and touchups through the rest of the day. Four days at once in total to finish, expanded from first complete draft of 700 lines, to 1950 lines with fillers in between the front to finish already done, plus a philosphy of science discussion started after the fact on the final day, written in 20 hours including sleep. Then the discussions, and detail filtration and time passes fast. And then rereading the drafts, bigger ideas keep creeping in to expand the container. A poem is being formed in how to view a local region in the universe. The poem has tones of mighty sounds and harmonics filling the background. The background radiates with glory seen anew in etheric light. GM. January 24, 96. 'THE AFTER DINNER MUSIC' In looking for space contraction in gravitational relativity, one may presume that the amount of SPACE due to an assumed contraction of the DIAMETER of the Sun, (from a rest state size and area to something slightly smaller due to its own Gravitational relativity), might also, via internal tensions, appear in local ways outside the Sun, contributing in some external way to solar system construction. Let's call these: Gravitational Relativistics: to separate the ideas from the more wide sweeping ranges of General Relativity, since all effects to be discussed accrue from a rest state body's gravity seen in steady state. In one view, space contraction effects that would otherwise contract a Sun's own radius, instead, is spat out from source due to tensions in incompatabilities between a rest state, vrs changes incurred by the rest state's own gravitational Relativitistics. There is another picture, however, which is possible, regards the gravitational relativistic contraction of an object's rest state size (space contraction), a big picture which makes more intuitive sense. In the case of a rest state diameter, let's say it instead contracts where it sits, resulting in more rest state mass density within a smaller diameter, (whereas the rest state MASS increase per se' due to relativity, is already known to be expunged from the Sun's diameter source area, as if increased DENSITY is incompatable with increased MASS, so increased MASS is spat out into orbit; Venus/Mars masses). SPACE IS ASSUMED OTHERWISE - A BIG BANG RED SHIFT EXPLANATION ? In the case of SPACE; a Sun radius contracts where it sits: All of space in the universe contains local regions that are relativistically contracted around each body itself, for instance a Sun is seen slightly smaller than actual rest state size (due to an assumed contraction in space - radius - by gravitational relativistic effect), hence a pulling in (contracting of space) around relativistically excited gravitational objects would be occuring everywhere as local (not global) events throughout the universe, except that such local events are occurring everywhere, so that the phenomena itself is universally global. Each however is local, all of the universe is not marginally contracted or pulled in around a Sun shrunk by its own gravitational relativity (this would thus make the effect global per event). Instead, the space between each Sun's point of center is the same, but the distance between actual Sun diameters is stretched (due to the contraction). Hence, each effect is local, not global. The further the view out into space, the more these local areas of space contracted by Gravitational relativistics accumulate in sheer volume of numbers, in which case these contractions by Gravitational relativity would contribute to an increasing red shift effect, as seen by local observers (at Earth) peering out through longer and longer reaches, all of it having increasingly distorted distances in the space BETWEEN the intrinsic increasing number of local distortions in contractions around each gravity object, seeming to stretch space away from the local observer, toward each source body of effect, the stretched space between contracted objects translating directly into being doppler shifted toward the red end of the spectrum by gravitational relativistic contraction of the space areas housing the sources of the doppler effect. Gravitational lensing notwithstanding. Yipe what a pile of words to describe an idea that has no equations that can be done by this joe job speculator. GM. Imagine what theoretical physics speculations are like in the world at large, to Joe Job readers. Just read any of the heavy stuff in Discover or Scientific American magazines. Then realize that these articles are the reviews, the summaries, the updates, the easy to understand 'word forms' of the math and hyroglyphic short hand forms. Image what the original papers and discussions look like. The fewer who can understand, the better the paper is thought to be. Poor Joe Job writer has not a clue as to how to write mathematical hyroglyphs, (boleon for instance) and so can't ever tap the three or four in the world who might be able to understand. Joe Job writer wants the stuff to be plain to everybody. Joe Job only wants to do the thing without triggering dog barks. How to get around this problem. Ahah! a model - the 'Raisins in the Cake' theory of the expanding universe: like a raisin cake being baked in an oven, as the dough expands, the raisins in the dough grow farther apart. But the raisins being hard stay the same size, and sometimes clump in a mysterious way into galactic and super galactic clusters of raisins within the otherwise uniformly expanding dough. Cosmic String Theory is an attempt to explain the clumping, just as an example of where theoretical speculations keep harping. Instead of a 'Raisins in the Cake' theory of an expanding universe that leads straight to observation of uniform increasing red shift the further away from observation source, (hence 'boom' appears the 'Big Bang' in direct result, due, ahem, to space itself exploding and expanding), let's concider the Big Bang red shift as counter intuitive, and look instead to the raisins themselves, and say each is locally contracting space around itself due to each raisin's own Gravitational relativity, so that the distances between each raisin are actually stretched, the lengths between each is increased, in direct result of each raisin's local contraction. THE 'RAISINS IN THE BOX' We can call this 'the Raisins in the Box' reason. GM. The raisins grow smaller as they dry, for instance. But if each raisin is pinned to the same place in the box, the distances between the raisins grows larger as each raisin contracts, even though the volume of the whole box can remain the same size. Except the shrinking would be instantaneous: switch gravitational relativistics on, and the raisins instantly contract, ergo, the DISTANCES between each raisin LENGTHENS in accord. Think of it this way: if the Sun wraps a bit of its own rest state space around itself in a contracted way, due to its own Gravitational relativistic effect on its own Size, then the space between us (at Earth) and the Sun must be stretched a bit to compensate, and this stretch should obviously cause light to take a little longer to travel the stretched distance. But since the Gods on Mount Olympus have decreed that the light starts with a given frequency to travel the space irregardless if the space is a little longer or not, the stretch in space actually results in a stretching of the wavelengths of light, toward the red end (and radio end) of the spectrum, in fact, a longer distance to travel per wave trying to beat in the same tempo as the original frequency. The Gods on Olympus call this stretching in frequencies 'the after dinner music'. Jan. 24, 96. GM. January 24, 96. BACK TO THE BEFORE DINNER MINTS In looking to effects caused by Gravitational Relativistics in a body's gravity, it helps to think of effects in steady state. For instance, think of putting a space ship in a steady state standing position just outside the event horizon of a black hole, in order to study what happens to the space ship by Gravitational Relativistics due to the black hole's powerful gravity in the vacinity of the black hole. Eliminate 'motions', and 'station keeping' steady state views become constant. This is true for any effects on Mass, on Space, on Light coming to the space ship, and from the black hole, even between two space ships sitting in steady state, station keeping at two different distances from the black hole's event horizon. You would have to be near the black hole to see any effects in a major way, but the only way to see the effects clearly is in steady state embodiment, such as by station keeping your space ship in a constant place within the effective domain of the black hole's gravity. In keeping with this, straight line effects between distant gravity and observer are also possible, yeilding datas sustained as constants. In this domain, gravitation sources sit in steady state anyway. They do not have to be moving near the speed of light (Special Relativity), for relativistic effects to be easily noticed. In steady state, a gravity object's Gravitational Relativistics occur none stop. The only thing needed to make the effects powerfully noticable is that there be lots of gravity contained in a small area. Or alternatively, lots of gravity appeared in a point source way, at a long distance, even though the gravity density within the source generating area can be thin and spread out. At very long distances, for instance to a distant galaxy, the generating area of the gravity's effects becomes more or less a point source, seen in steady state embodiment. But, this doesn't conduce to matters at hand. If seeking to find direct analogies in behavior between Special Relativity and Gravitational relativity, slowing of time (time dilation) is already known to occur in gravity objects. Also, a warping or bending of space is observed in certain ways, said to be a curvature. Doppler shifts upon photon frequencies are not at all commonly cited for Gravitational Relativity. And gravitational effects on Mass, and the Size of an object are not cited because there seems to be no way of showing that such effects are occurring. However, the two-body mass objects seen as planets Venus and Mars are in fact an observable direct consequence of gravitational relativistic effects involving the Sun, in which it is clear that Sun rest state mass has expanded, in accord with tiny mass expansion effect of General Relativity, the effect being tiny in that the gravity of the Sun in total is for fairly thin matter having not much density per unit area within the Sun's diameter. There is not much change from rest state below the Sun's Gravitation relativistics. Powerful changes would not be seen until the Sun is collapsed toward all intense gravity-dense small regions as a black hole, to bring Gravity relativistics in accord to Special Relativitistic effects happening close to the speed of light. With this encouragement, it is possible to pursue other ideas, looking for other 'accords'. The accord picture has nothing whatever to do with so called 'curvature of space' per se. However, instead of light photons being attracted by gravity toward an object when passing close by an object; for instance, a star passing behind the Sun wherein the star light seems to bend toward the Sun as the star approaches the Sun's rim; instead, the star light is simply passing into local nearby space being distorted by inward CONTRACTION by the Sun's self centered gravitational relativistic effects in steady state existence, the light seems to bend when entering the Sun's contracted space, rather than the photons being attracted inward. In other words, the photons have to enter the range of the Sun's shrink in its own space, in order for seeing that constant effect has happened. Not much different than light passing through a media such as water. In another gulp at 'Before or After Dinner Mints', light pulling away from a gravitational object can doppler shift toward the red end, and, if at the surface of the Sun, light earlier seen at Earth in one frequency coming straight toward the observer, would now appear blue shifted by doppler effects from the Sun's gravitational relativistic forces. All light pulling away from gravitational sources and streaming toward Earth will have a doppler red shift, and all light approaching Earth from outer space will blue shift due to Earth's gravity. If the Earth, Moon, and Sun are lined up in a straight line during an eclipse, interstellar light vectoring straight to Earth from beyond the solar system should be slightly even more blue shifted due to the lineup of gravitational bodies, this red and blue doppler shifting of light in gravitational (general) relativity synonymously in accord to dopper red and blue shifting in Special Relativity Theory, even though, note, the degree of red and blue shift gravity caused is not the same rate of shift as is velocity caused in transformations of special relativity. In converse, when greater gravitational mass lies beyond Earth as for instance incoming (light) from long reaches far away across the universe, a red shift (rather than blue) might be the net result of gravitational relativistic transformations on light. 1. The amount of doppler red shift on light incoming toward Earth accumulates, as the light continues to pass through gravity sources on its long distance travels toward us over time. But this may not be enough to account for the apparent Red Shift that yields Big Bang concepts. 2. There is a second Red Shift, also involved. Contracted space around each gravitational object results in lengthened space between each body (the 'Raisins in the Box' reason). 3. A third systemic Red Shift might be due to photons being fundamentally still attached to their source, so that as a photon moves through time long distance, the force needed to keep overcoming the original bond to source is taken out of the photon's frequency, so that the original rest state energy ever so gradually is depleted in the struggle thus the frequency's wavelength experiences a gradual red shift. In this scenerio, so far, three sources combine, in producing a resultant apparent Red Shift. 4. A fourth effect could also contribute, in the manner of TIME, as slowed by gravitational relativistic effects. Think of all of the accumulative gravity between here (Earth) and an object at the percievable edge of the universe. All of that gravity contributes one net effect on time, the farther away into the far reaches of space, the slower is the time that you are looking at. You may see events proceeding at a slower pace way out there at the edge. On the other hand you have to be inside a field of gravity to experience time slow. Since you can't be in the gravity through which time slowed photons are passing, you may see instead a side step, an alternative effect to balance the slow of time. The carrier waves of those long distance events; the photons of light bringing the information to you at Earth; instead glow, in keeping with a feeling that you do not see inside rest state situations to see gravitational relativistic effects, instead you see the effects outside of (external to) the objects producing the effects. In which case, time would not seem slowed, rather, the carrier particles which contain the information of slowed time, themselves, slow, but not below the speed of light, instead, the slowness is expressed as a red shift of the wavelengths. The very same Information is being brought to you, the only difference is the frequency of the messangers carrying the information is slowing, it is red shifting in accord with effects on TIME. In this case the fourth red shift is due to tired photons, but not because the photons wear out, just, that the time frame for the photons is not rest state, due to the continuing accumulation of gravity collective over very long distances. The gravity can be in interstellar dust and interstellar medias. If neutrinos do have mass, a lot of time-delayed effect on photons would result over large distance between a source and observer, due to the gravity in the sheer number of neutrinos filling the space. Wow 4 effects combined, contributing to the apparent Red shift in net result, rather than the counter intuitive obvious, that space is uniformly expanding over time. How can this be real. Concider four different sounds or timbres contributing to one single note in music you hear. Without knowing anything about the harmonics of sound, and blending, you would hear only the note itself and go running around looking for a unique instrument that produces it. The note, in fact, was produced by four different instruments playing together simultaneously. How could you ever know that, if you did not look around to see the counter intuitive fact of 4 different instruments making the one single sound. Speaking about one note heard by observers, the 'parallax' view of total solar eclipses is a 'one note' phenomena. The inner harmonics that combine to form the note is missed by counter intuitive observing. In Reality, Perfect Eclipses EXIST ! - Finis - In Divine Order Greydon Moore e-mail greydon@canada.com