## Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### On Harmonics

Want to clarify a couple of points... the harmonic aspect of the Reciprocal System was introduced in RS2; Larson was unaware of it--yet he actually uses harmonic relationships without realizing it.

"Harmonic" simply means an integer ratio. There are no fractional parts. Should a combination of ratios create a fractional component, then the system becomes anharmonic and moves around trying to run into something that will return it to harmonic status. This is how chemical compounds form--the concept of "valence" or "oxidation state" is just a way to find those harmonic ratios.

Gopi's hypothesis is that the sun and moon are a kind of inverse spherical projection. To understand that, you must first know what a "spherical projection" is... basically when you wrap a plane onto a sphere, much like taking a map of the world and gluing it on to a ball. The "ball" in the case of the Earth is the sphere defined by the gravitational limit--the end of 3D, coordinate space. Remember that the moon is sitting right next to that limit, but not exactly on it.

Anything OUTSIDE the gravitational limit will be a scalar relationship, in other words, NO GEOMETRY. But in order to "see" it, we need geometry.

The sun is basically a "point source" of light, just like you would use in any CGI program (such as POVray--you don't need to create a glowing ball to light up the scene--just a point). In order to to project that point into a coordinate system--that has no particular geometric bias--its location is randomly distributed (Larson's words) across the projection sphere of the gravitational limit--the radius of that limit determining the radius of the object we see in the sky.

The moon follows the same projective pattern, except it is just within the limit meaning that the moon's projective sphere will be just a tiny bit smaller than that of an outside source--the sun. And this is what we observe.

Gopi's paper "did the math" to prove this projective theory--it is a bit unsettling to read, as it indicates that what we SEE is not actually what is THERE. Both the sun and the moon may be radically a radically different size than what we expect, from trying to adjust diameter and distance to make the projection seem real.

As evidence of that, look at the Antiquatis topic, "Moons--What You See Isn't What's There?", where an amateur astronomer caught a meteor impacting the lunar surface and bounced across it, forming new craters. What is interesting is that this impact event is mathematically impossible, if our dimensions of the moon are correct...
daniel wrote: https://youtu.be/-rPUhZSnlUI
This amateur astronomer accidentally videoed a meteor not only impacting the moon, but bouncing along its surface for some 2600 miles. You would think this would draw some attention, but it is being ignored... and yes, it left new craters as it bounced, visible to anyone with a telescope.

If you do the calculations, you find out why.

Path traveled: 2600 miles
Time of travel: 4 seconds

2600/4 = 650 miles per second
650 miles per second* 3600 seconds/hour = 2,340,000 mph.

Yes, that is over 2 million miles per hour and it just bounced, leaving a trail of small craters. That's over 100x faster than your typical meteor.

I would also like to point out that the moon's escape velocity is about 1.6 miles per second. The object was traveling over 400x escape velocity, so the first bounce, even at a small approach angle, should have shot that "meteor" back into space, not repeatedly bouncing along the surface. There just isn't enough gravitational pull to bring that meteor back to the surface for repeated impacts.

Not to mention that the meteor remained intact after repeated 2.34 million mph impacts... I know of no material that can withstand that kind of impact force without shattering from the kinetic energy released.

Also, where's the kaboom? There should have been a moon-shattering kaboom.

Nothing about this video "adds up" with a meteor hitting the moon, "as we know it." The fastest meteor impact seen on Earth was about 160,000 mph, which is still 15x slower than this lunar one. So perhaps the oddity here isn't the meteor--but the moon, itself.

From what I can tell, things are out of sync by 100:1. Let's increase the time from 4 to 5 seconds, just to be safe.
2600 miles/5 seconds = 520 miles per second, or 1,872,000 mph.

If we adjust 520 miles per second to 5.2 miles per second and use the "Moongate" information that says the moon's gravity is 85% of the Earths (from neutral point calculations), that would put the escape velocity of the moon at 6 miles per second--and the meteor would bounce.

There seems to be some kind of astronomical scaling problem going on here. So, do we have a 2600-mile moon orbiting at 238,900 miles--or a 26-mile moon, orbiting at 2389 miles? Or something in-between? Visually, from Earth, they would look the same, including eclipses.
Every dogma has its day...

Gopi
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

I have attached the pdf of the paper... it will be extended as a set of 3 papers most likely, but here is the first.
Attachments
Unlocking Eclipses and Planetary Distances.pdf

MWells
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:29 pm

### Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

How is this reconcilable with rather strict calculations required for orbital mechanics? The target trajectories are based on and consistent with observed mass, size, speed, etc. If there was a "scaling problem", spacecraft burn time, orientation, rate etc would all have to be modified.

Gopi
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

So far I have not found any data about the star fields observed as spacecraft maneuver in space, probably due to national security reasons or something of that nature. Until that is received, we are stuck with what can be observed from the ground.

MWells
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:29 pm

### Re: Pierre-Marie Robitaille - The Liquid Sun

Astro navigation wasn't required for the Apollo missions. The onboard computers could make use of an inertial navigation device, but this was not necessary either. The flights were pre-calculated to determine a general guide for key maneuvers. Then during the mission, distances were updated by radio transmissions from the spacecraft received from ground and timed with aid of an atomic clock. But timing, fuel, etc was all carefully planned from the ground well before the first mission.

The Apollo mission's navigation, timing, and resource requirements fit with basic observation from Earth. i.e. no significant extra time or less time, more fuel or less fuel than was expected. The planners only needed to use Newtonian physics as any relativistic effects are not important for Moon landings.