With respect Mr Sandokhan, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. Have you ever looked at Jupiter through any kind of optical instrument? Oh yes and 636 meters is pretty specific. Where do you get that from? Jupiters diameter is 88,000 miles unless you can prove me wrong.
You need to prove your own self right. Those astronomical measuring methods are flawed. Read Kings Dethroned.
The random guy who wrote Kings Dethroned provides no real evidence astronomical measuring methods are flawed. He simply just says that they are. And that's just not good enough I'm afraid.
He doesn't just say that they are wrong, he shows how they are flawed. No one has shown the analysis to be wrong.
As far as your invitation to read Kings Dethroned is concerned I will politely decline. As I'm sure you would decline to read the many books that I could quote and will verify everything I say on here.
I haven't declined in addressing anything. If you would like to provide evidence for the size and distance to Jupiter, I would be happy to look at it.
For your own query, see the work Kings Dethroned. Otherwise perhaps you should not ask us questions if you are unwilling to look at the evidence.
This is essentially the summation of Kings Dethroned (It falls into the classic, "everyone is doing it wrong bucket"):
"By that almost inconceivable blunder real and
imaginary angles came into conflict on two different
planes, so the triangulation was entirely lost ; and as
a consequence the distance of the moon is no more
known to-day than it was at the time of the flood. "
The author believes he is showing how all astronomical measurements are wrong and then proceeds not show what the correct measurements should be. A measurement method he believes he has that is superior to the ones commonly used back in the day. Yet no revelation as to what the size and distances of celestial objects are using his method. Odd.