"Truckin', we're all goin' home...whoa, whoa, baby, back where we belong..."
Hey now, Mr Pid,
Perhaps if you had read my entries a bit more carefully before commenting you might not have missed this most important point, and I quote: "If you first increase the font sizes relative to the Sun,. Moon and Earth, and then draw a few lines through the figures, you should see how that might work."
The key word here being "relative" which accounts for the different radius of each body. The other thing you really have to do is to consider everything in two rather than three dimensions: Three-dimension based objections don't really work against two-dimension based models, or mobiles, as the case may be.
Brain Damage? No matter, it's all dark anyway.
There are a couple of problems with you model here. First, the Sun, Moon and Earth have vastly different circumfrences, and different distances between them. During a total solar eclipse as seen from Earth, the relatively small Moon appears to be able to briefly but almost completely obscure the vastly larger Sun simply because it is so much closer to us. And that period of totallity does not occur everywhere on Earth simultaneously, simply because the Moon's shadow (specifically the umbra) is much smaller around than the circumfrence of the Earth. If someone was standing on the surface of the Sun observing Earth during one of those eclipses, they might notice the dark dot of the Moon crossing in front of the Earth, but they might not. The Moon is almost as far away from the Sun as the Earth. Of course, they'd first have to solve that whole avoiding being crushed by gravity while being incinerated thing.
Jupiter has many more moons than Earth and is readily observable. It seems likely that there would be some sort of solar eclipse happening somewhere there almost constantly, but you don't hear much about them. It would seem a safer sandbox for testing out your "what does an eclipse look like from the other side" posit. Ditto Mars, although it only has two moons to test with.
Guess I picked the wrong seven weeks to not have internet access. I'll have to keep that in mind if I ever decide to quit sniffing glue...
You know, if the Sun, the stars, the Moon and all of the planets really are just two-dimensional when it comes right down to it, then perhaps Dylan was right all along when he first observed that we may indeed be:
Stuck Inside of (this) Mobile with the Memphis Blues Again.
Sometimes you just have to look at things with the eyes of a child...
Peace to everyone,
"Farin' thee well now
Let your life proceed by its own designs
Nothing to tell now
Let the words be yours, I'm done with mine"
I've come to the conclusion that Hubble, though he was correct in noticing that the Universe appeared to be expanding infinitely, was wrong in using a Big Bang to explain the expansion:
Hubble was partly wrong about the Universe's expansion, which has galaxies all racing away from each other. Instead of the entire Universe expanding, what is expanding is the Interplanetary Magnetic Field produced by this worm hole we call the Sun, which acts as a wide-angle gravitational magnifying lens. What we perceive as increasing separation is really nothing more than increased magnification. This is a much simpler explanation for the expansion Hubble observed, but it also means that we may have no idea how far away these galaxies really are until we're someday able to either observe from some point beyond the influence of the Interplanetary Magnetic Field, or grind the proper telescope lens to correct our presently compromised vision. This also means that the Big Bang is no longer necessary because the entire theory depends upon and was built upon the Universe expanding indefinitely such that at some point in Time all galaxies would essentially be alone with nothing but space and darkness in between. Not a pretty picture, but also, thankfully, false.
The Wiki link below has an excellent artist's depiction of the IPMF, and also a nice animated display of the interaction of the Earth's magnetic field with that of the sun:
We are looking through at least two of these fields, maybe more if you count the folds and ripples, whenever we view galaxies far, far away...and as the field grows like an evolving wide-angle lens, so is the distortion magnified. So what role does Earth's field play in all this? Perhaps that of a corrective lens which keeps the objects in our vision field in focus while the rest kinda fades off into the background. Works on the micro scale with my glasses and camera, so why not on the macro?
So in conclusion, as I see it, my theory does these four basic things:
1. Removes the necessity for thermonuclear reactions inside the sun, or any other star for that matter, to explain the heat and light.
2. Explains why the sun's interior (because it really has no core) is cooler than the exterior as the heat is dissipated by the worm hole.
3. Removes any necessity for a Big Bang.
4. Explains the observed expansion of the Universe in terms not nearly so drastic or pessimistic.
Anyway, it's something to think about!
Thanks to all who read this stuff...and most especially, thank you, Grateful Dead, for giving me a forum to post it.
"Marmalade.........I like marmalade" from Alan's Psychedelic Breakfast ..............Atom Heart Mother. Byrd and early Floyd; there's a time warp for ya.
Letters between myself and SDO have proved absolutely useless. The head of the show there only asks stupid, pointless question such as: Why would we need a worm hole ( to explain what we already think we know)? And this from a PhD - probably from Grenada, with apologies to Grenada.
The Pi-eyed Piper
I have no idea what you are on about Byrd, but I greatly appreciate your taste in breakfast preserves. That was always a favourite....somewhere I think I still have the 45.
Perhaps this might explain the jam we're in: Good song, by the way, and the graphics on this old analog, black and white video give excellent representations of my ideas:
If you think of optics in two dimensions, something like a contact lens, with due consideration for curved space, reflection- which apparently shows us the exact opposite of whatever stands before it - and refraction which distorts, you might see how Earth could easily be hidden in a blind spot as viewed from the Sun, and as you can see if you count each concave and convex curvature, there's an unbalanced 3 to 4 ratio between the object and the perceiver. Nice place for a problem to hide unnoticed, by everyone except maybe Jimmy Buffett, because apparently, we're all - Livin' and Dyin' in 3/4 Time:
The moon looks smaller because we're looking both through and into what essentially is a telescope's eyepiece. With our smaller moon in relation to both however, the curvature of the lens is more pronounced than either the Earth's or the sun's. As such, the moon's convex curvature facing Earth might well effectively both block us completely from view from the sun's perspective and, also convex on the side facing the sun, distort the sun's perception of Earth. Remember that all three bodies are two-dimensional convex lenses, so the light we perceive is always in some form of convection, contraction and refraction, while the stuff we never see is either directly reflected or absorbed into the opaque. If you first increase the font sizes relative to the Sun. Moon and Earth, and then draw a few lines through the figures, you should see how that might work.
Another way to consider this in two dimensions is to add a third blip to one side of a Pong game which always covers the blip behind it. The light from other blip would never reach the one left behind, who is now little more than a spectator.
I don't know if there's a rhythm to this process, but on the quantum level we know that conditions exists where electrons exchange orbits, so I don't see any reason that same principle can't be applied to the macro level I'm working on here. This might explain why we have both solar and lunar eclipses: There may be a quantum shift occurring between the Earth and the Moon that we've somehow failed to notice., so that their orbits through space in unison look like the numeral 8 - which if turned on its side, is also the symbol for infinity.
So now, marye, I'll join you in saying: To infinity and beyond!
had a way with words.