[stack]

So what's your calculation based upon this "bright spot"? How big is Mars?

Mars diameter is about 15-20 km., based on my approximate calculations regarding the ratio of the diameters of the Earth, the Sun and the Moon, given at the beginning of this forum topic (thread).

Asked that question on NASA forum: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=53173.0

"With a diameter of Mars 6,700 km., and the diameter of the Jezero crater 50 km., the Sun should illuminate the entire crater completely and evenly."

Why is that? What's your calculation for claiming that?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

"With a diameter of Mars 6,700 km., and the diameter of the Jezero crater 50 km., the Sun should illuminate the entire crater completely and evenly."

Why is that? What's your calculation for claiming that?

Animation source title (from YouTube):
Artist’s impression of Mars four billion years ago

[JSS]

Same bright spot size on Curiosity landing video.
Complete Mars Curiosity Descent - Full Quality Enhanced HD 1080p Landing + Heat Shield impact (video title from YouTube)

Your 'bright spots' are specular highlights.

They depend on the reflectivity and surface texture of the object, they alone can not be used to directly measure the size of an object.

Look again at this image, the highlight shows up on a flat object.  You could extend the size of this object and the highlight would not change, thus measuring with it does not work. By adjusting the surface properties you can change the size of your 'bright spot' without changing the size of the object.





Here is another image showing specular highlighting.  Notice the table and the ball both have your 'bright spots'.  You can't tell how big the table is based on that bright spot. There is just no way to know if the table ends just out of frame or keeps going along the wall.  Is it a short table or a long workbench?  The bright spot gives you no information as it will not change if you add or subtract length to the parts of the table you can't see.



One simple way to actually measure the size of mars is to use basic trigonometry using it's angular size and known distance. We know the distance because of the round trip time it takes radio and radar signals to go to Mars and back, and a telescope can measure angular size. Using those two values it's easy to calculate it's actual size.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Opposition Effect (Seeliger effect) | Aerial video examples

[stack]

"With a diameter of Mars 6,700 km., and the diameter of the Jezero crater 50 km., the Sun should illuminate the entire crater completely and evenly."

Why is that? What's your calculation for claiming that?

Animation source title (from YouTube):
Artist’s impression of Mars four billion years ago

Your calculation is a gif animation of a rotating earth? How does that work?

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Sun image overlay on the HI1 camera image. I think that with such overlays they cover the real Earth, and in this case, the images of the Sun accidentally got into the template (script) of the necessary overlays.
What are we seeing here on NASA's Satellite H1?
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1147983/pg1


And this is the shutter itself, which on the HI1 camera is not needed for anything else, except for mounting overlays.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Please look at this attentively, because this is very strong arguments for a new model of the Universe.
Two traces on the surface of the Earth.
1) Ratio of diameters approximately 3 to 1.
2) Both have an eastern direction.
3) Both have an eastern position relative to their PreContinents (PreAmerica and PreEurasia).
4) Both have diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth.


In the image below, the sizes of the traces are almost the same due to the projection of the surface of the sphere onto a rectangular plane.

[stack]

Please look at this attentively, because this is very strong arguments for a new model of the Universe.
Two traces on the surface of the Earth.
1) Ratio of diameters approximately 3 to 1.
2) Both have an eastern direction.
3) Both have an eastern position relative to their PreContinents (PreAmerica and PreEurasia).
4) Both have diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth.


In the image below, the sizes of the traces are almost the same due to the projection of the surface of the sphere onto a rectangular plane.

What in the world would those undersea features have to do with a "new model of the universe"? Not to mention they are not even close to "diametrically opposite locations on the surface of the Earth":



Antipode map, check it out - https://www.antipodesmap.com/

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

They write here that around 1350 BC, Mars was in geostationary orbit, and they give good evidence.
Proof – Mars Orbited close to Earth 1350 BC (Updated)
https://cycliccatastrophism.org/2013/06/11/proof-mars-orbited-close-to-earth-1350-bc/


But if about 3350 years ago Mars was in a geostationary orbit, then its diameter cannot be 6.7 thousand km., but just about 15-20 km, as I suppose.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Hidden Pyramids? - Mars Mountains Match Pyramids on Earth
https://steemit.com/space/@proteanman/hidden-pyramids-mars-mountains-match-pyramids-on-earth
The Pyramids of Giza, the Belt of Orion and Three Volcanoes on Mars
https://q-mag.org/the-pyramids-of-giza-the-belt-of-orion-and-three-volcanoes-on-mars.html

[scomato]

They write here that around 1350 BC, Mars was in geostationary orbit, and they give good evidence.
Proof – Mars Orbited close to Earth 1350 BC (Updated)
https://cycliccatastrophism.org/2013/06/11/proof-mars-orbited-close-to-earth-1350-bc/


But if about 3350 years ago Mars was in a geostationary orbit, then its diameter cannot be 6.7 thousand km., but just about 15-20 km, as I suppose.

Mars is a large planet, and we have sent rovers the size of small cars there equipped with very good cameras. See for yourself. The same Mars reconnaissance satellites that captured your photos of the Martian volcanoes, took this awesome photo of the  Rover approaching the surface.

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter contradicts planetary science
https://cycliccatastrophism.org/2020/08/20/mars-reconnaissance-orbiter-contradicts-planetary-science/
Jupiter and Venus Papers
https://cycliccatastrophism.org/2020/10/03/jupiter-and-venus-papers/

[MetaTron]

My reading has been satisfied for tonight.  A front row seat to the motions of the planets 5000 years ago, wow.  Thanks!

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Granite is found only on Earth. It was not found either in meteorites or on other "planets" of the solar system. Officially it is unknown why. I suppose, it is because the Earth is the largest object in the Universe, with the greatest gravity and pressure in the subsoil.

The role of granites in the structure of the upper shells of the Earth is enormous, but unlike magmatic rocks of the basic composition (gabbro, basalt, anorthosite, norite, troctolite), analogs of which are common on the Moon and terrestrial planets, this rock is found only on our planet and has not yet been established among meteorites or on other planets of the solar system. Among geologists there is an expression "Granite is the calling card of the Earth".

Links to quote source in russian (did not find the same in english):
1) https://beversmarmyr.com.ua/articles/istoriya-formirovaniya-granita
2) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Гранит#Проблема_происхождения_гранитов

[AlexandrKushnirtshuk]

Paradox of visual and actual positions in space.
Brief description to avoid unnecessary complication.
The distance from the Earth to the Sun is about 8 light minutes, so from the Earth we see the Sun at the point in the sky where it was 8 minutes ago (in 8 minutes the Sun passes through the sky with an angular distance of slightly less than two solar disks) ... It is difficult to both explain and imagine, because most likely it is impossible, that is, cosmic distances are too exaggerated.



The distance from the Earth to the Moon is about 1 light second. That is, the apparent and actual position of the moon is almost the same. The shortest distance from Earth to Jupiter is about 32 light minutes. The apparent and actual positions of Jupiter differ 4 times more than in the case of the Sun.



The question and the most important thing. Why is astronomy not taking into account the actual and visible position of space objects corrected for the speed of light? The motions of the planets are calculated using Kepler's formulas. The calculated positions of the planets (that is, the actual ones) coincide with the visual ones without corrections for the speed of light. I do not question the speed of light, it has been measured and refined for several centuries. The official space distances and the sizes of space objects, respectively, are in great doubt.