----------------------------------------------------------------- See: TABLE 4-3 and TABLE 4-4, below in DISCUSSION F-C under HYPER FINE NARROW RANGE and SWITCHING is an example with terms and datas showing how easily a Mercury 'strange attractor' perfect state transforms its hyper fine distinction (switches) when a tiny element of chaos is entered into its 'strange attractor' ratio proportion equations. These sections are excerpts from the full disclosure document named Perfect.txt ----------------------------------------------------------------- SWITCHEROO IN HYPER FINE DISTINCTION - a tiny element of chaos changes everything. ___________________________ _______________________________ ___________________________________ _______________________________________ _____________________________________________ ___________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________ AN IMPORTANT OBSERVATION __________________________ It has been repeatedly mentioned that the 'Hyper Fine' quantities for each given eclipse system involving a set of states associated with given planets and given solar obits, comprise datas which are locked in tight for each term, the terms for planet radii gained by strange attractor mathematics whose wonderous forms are such that the 'attractors' seem not to be able to produce any other datas except those we want. Fundamental physics cannot get better than this thanks to such 'strange attractors'. These formed the radii in the first place before we (many humans) had a chance to mess around with planet radii and eclipses studied in Newtonian mechanics. Just how delicately fragile the radii are is easily demonstrated by forcibly changing a radii to an unreal value how (introducing a tiny element of chaos) made unreal by a very tiny amount only a few miles and watch two things transpire. First, the 'strange attractiveness' begins to unravel instead of homing in on a fixed value ('attractor'). In 'unravelling, the same proportionate equations used for the 'strange attractors' actually causes the mathematical certainty of a perfect eclipse state to begin to fall apart in rapidly expanding departures from the solar constants used to fuel the 'attractor' equations. This is the first rule - that only the constants (planet radii) themselves are in a complete system-wide co-ordinated affair. The second tone in the lobes of the human brainbox studying perfect eclipses is major stunning reversal in the flexing progressions of Hyper Fine quantities as the false math data begins to unravel from strange attractor status. By this is meant the following: flex works in the physical body system (Earth-Moon-Sun) to smaller space measures the closer a body is to gravity from mass (Moon approaching closer to Earth, Earth in orbit closer approaching the Sun). Whereas, in, for instance, the Venus-Mercury-Sun system (where a massless 'hole in space' (Mercury) eclipses the sun when the massless Mercury is in a non-mass Moon orbit around Venus (the Moon's orbit is teleported to Venus and there a massless Mercury eclipses the Sun at the center of the solar system)), in these Venus perfect eclipses also of 'strange attractors' the Hyper Fine Distinction is in reverse, that is, the closer a body is to a mass body, the larger the measure of space comprising body radii and orbital position. However, when 'unravelling', the 'reverse' form of hyper fine distinction almost instantly transforms into the other form as seen in the Earth-Moon-Sun system, and quickly thereafter, the whole system mathematically goes on to disolve with no constants through only a few more re-iterations in doing the 'strange attractor' equations using non-discrete datas for even just one of the state's radii terms. In other words a tiny amount of chaos destroys such systems completely. *=======================================================================* ########################## APPENDIX F ######################## ################### MISCELLANEOUS DISCUSSIONS ################# *=======================================================================* *----------------------------------------- HYPER FINE NARROW RANGE and SWITCHING - Discussion F-C *----------------------------------------- *=======================================================================* ########## Discussion F-A Traditional Eclipse Geometry ########## *=======================================================================* *-----------------------------------* *-------------------------* | #-|| Geometry of Ordinary Totalities | *-------------------------* | | | *-----------------------------------* In parallax geometries used by science publishers to illustrate mighty empirical eclipses, constructions begin with an observer standing on the curved surface of the Earth. The observer is located anywhere in a range between the arctic and antarctic circles. The Moon due to orbital tilt can be partially above or below the ecliptic axis between the Earth and center of the Sun. The Earth's location in orbit is irrelevant. Sighting is past the sides of spheres comprising the Moon and Sun. There are right angles at where the empirical lines of sight touch (glance past) the Moon and Sun's spherical circumferences along the parallax side arms. The longest triangle side (hypotenuse) is along the central axis from observer to the center of a sphere. In this, the central axis to the Moon may be marginally off line from that to the Sun due to an imprecise overlap. In this geometry the Moon is located around the middle of orbit but for totalities is expected to be in a small range just on the inside of its mean of orbit. In this arrangement there is no importance attached to the location of the Moon in a current eclipse, compared to a previous eclipse, compared to an upcoming eclipse, since the arrival of the Moon in position for a totality is due to what the writers say are amazingly coincidental circumstances given the Moon's orbital tilt, its eccentricic orbit, and the Earth's eccentricic orbit, each of which is one step further away from any state of constancy. In such arrangements there is no fundamental significance between any one eclipse and another. The only repeated occasional event is a totality, with the solid shapes of the Moon and Sun completely overlapping. The observer must move to positions literally anywhere from top to bottom of the curved surface of the Earth to empirically see the totality. In other words, the final sightline focusing for a totality is made by the mobile observer. When in position, the observer waits until the Moon has slowly passed over the face of the Sun. This is real time activity, thought to be the ultimate end in the mechanics of solar gravity. *=======================================================================* ######### Discussion F-B Statistical Reality of States ######### *=======================================================================* *----------------------------* #-|| Steady State Data points | *----------------------------* Much of fundamental physics is now based on statistically averaged results. For instance in quantum dynamic theory an electron at any moment in time may be roaming to far places within an atom, but over a long time will most likely be found in a particular place which can be designated as a mathematical data point, or as a particular pattern designated by a continuation of the mathematical point. The same rule applies in planetary orbits, not so much in a pattern of distribution, but as data points most often repeated at a specific location from the Sun. This is due to orbital eccentricity. If an orbit was pictured not as circular but merely oscillating in and out from the Sun, the data points would most easily be seen, appearing at three places along a straight line out from the Sun. These three places are traditionally designated the perihelion, mean, and aphelion of orbit, for closer, mid point, and farther reach of orbit from the Sun. These locations are fixed in value and are not the same as the closest or farthest reaches possible to attain per revolution in the orbit. (During any single oscillation (ie. revolution) a body will reach either inside or outside the data points by a small amount, but over time will be statistically found most often at the data points). Similarly, the Moon even though tilted in orbit slightly, nonetheless passes back and forth (up and down) through a range which crosses the straight line (ecliptic axis) between the center of the Earth and center of the Sun. Even though the Moon tends to slingshot slightly in orbit due to its closeness to Earth, there is a data point position traditionally called its mean of orbit, where over time the Moon with all of its motions averaged is significantly found more often than anywhere else in orbit. For instance this would be most easily seen if the Moon passed in and out in a straight line oscillation. In its slingshot effect, the Moon approaches Earth through a larger range in closest approaches, then slingshots out to a narrower range in outreach before stopping to return back toward Earth in a somewhat off centered eccentricity. Because of this, the Moon's mean of orbit is biased slightly toward the orbit's outreach. Extend the time period for observation a little longer, and it will be seen that the Moon's mean of orbit data point is also moving up and down, regularly crossing the main line (ecliptic axis) between the Earth and Sun due to the Moon's orbital tilt. Over time, the Moon's mean of orbit data point will appear most averaged at the place where it crosses the main line. What happens when removing the observer from intense personal experience of a moment to moment eyeball encounter with the Moon and the Sun (so seeing only their relative positions in real time), is that now a solar arrangement is seen according to its more fundamental construction based on key data points, seen as a creator might view the operation. It follows that the most fundamental solar view of all is how the data points line up in a straight line of sight, when tilts and circular orbiting are removed from the construction and the basic motions are analyzed as simple in and out oscillations. *------------------------------* #-|| A Fixed Frame of Reference | *------------------------------* Data points in a straight line are what will appear anyway, if the system is viewed in a fixed frame of reference over a long time. For instance view the system on a single line connecting the Sun along the solar ecliptic axis to any nearby star which happens to be in a direct line of sight with the solar ecliptic axis. This is a more international perspective. Even though a longer time is required for observations now made in a single plane and in less than one degree of the solar circumference, over time the same data points will inevitably appear falling along that single line. The results in this fixed frame are the same as if compiled by lineal in and out oscillations. And so we have at hand an empirical array consisting of lineal data points seen in a steady state manner in a fixed frame of reference, instead of a display of rolling spheres eyeballed relative one to another at any moment in time. Now there is a single constant image perceived as the bottom line over a history of moments. This is the arena in which quantum eclipse states are understood to exist within the dynamic framework of the solar system. If thinking of a history of moments presents difficulties, realize that an observation will be made for the Earth once a year in the fixed frame of reference, and for the Moon 12 times a year. In a hundred thousand years, a hundred thousand observations are made for the Earth orbit, and over a million for the Moon. This is only an eyeblink in the solar lifetime. In analogy this is no less significant than making a statistical surmise of a hundred thousand electrons at a given excitement level of the hydrogen atom. It is by such large number surmises that the quantum states of the atom are verified. The point is that quantum gravity states are not a fantasy through an invention of imaginary data points for illusionary orbits used to build sand castles. *=======================================================================* ############ Discussion F-C Hyper Fine Distinction ############ *=======================================================================* *-----------------------------------* #-|| HYPER FINE DISTINCTION REVIEW | *-----------------------------------* In the 'Test for Hyper fine Distinction' found at the end of APPENDIX E above, it is shown that the quantum gravity equations for Mars favor certain oblative qualities for the terms in TABLE 5-1. It is understood that a similar oblative favoriteness is found for the quantum gravity states in the other 4 sets of assemblies. What this means is that proportionate terms converge rapidly to stable cross sections (through quick re-iteration) given certain hyper fine distinctions, and still converge but more slowly given other hyper fine distinctions, or given no such distinction at all. If no initial hyperfineness is given at all in the incremental terms, all of the proportions in each of the 5 sets of assemblies will nonetheless converge into the same consequential stable cross sections, after five or so steps in re-iteration. The difference with hyper fine distinction included (using existing empirical oblative radii as initial terms), is that the same stable cross sections are quickly resolved in only 2 steps in re-iteration. *-----------------* | NO RE-ITERATION | *-----------------* If the final re-iterated cross sections are assumed to be the actual original fundamental cross sections for the entities, (the bottom line in their original creation), there is no re-iterative property involved and the proportions are perfectly balanced anyway. The re-iterations therefore may act as a means by which these bottom line values can be extracted based on today's empirical data input. *-----------------------------------------* | HYPER FINE NARROW RANGE and SWITCHING | *-----------------------------------------* Hyper fine parameters have every appearance of being source rather than coincidental. They appear to operate in a very narrow window. Their existence can be tested as follows: Is it possible that hyper fine distinction is peculiar to quirks in the surety of the calculations themselves and are not a source in first cause? There is something to consider here. Mainly, terms of 10 to the power 8 are being added and subtracted to terms of 10 to the power 10, and terms of 10 to the power 13 are being divided into terms of 10 to the power 10, in factoring the states. Can this influence the outcomes, creating mathematically coherent falsehoods? In using the Mercury states as an example, if the states are described in derivations using proportions that begin and end from a different approach, there can be substantial drift in the value of the outcomes, and the hyper fine reversal observed for the states vanishes. In Table 4-4 which follows below, the incremental unit results are higher than the empirical size of Mercury, and there are fewer incremental units. This is in consequence to the approach taken by the proportions of Table 4-4 below. Re-iterated From Table 4 in APPENDIX H below .oooo2438 38 Equatorial (empirical EQ) .oooo2439 MERCURY radius .oooo2437 54 Averaged .oooo2436 70 Polar ----------------------------------------------------------------------- VENUS-MERCURY-SUN from TABLE 4 of APPENDIX H ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Incremental terms TABLE 4-3 FOCAL LENS CROSS SECTION MO - 4 Merc EQ + 1 Moon EQ ------------- x SunR = .oooo2438 38 Merc EQ HIGH VP MO - 3 Merc AV + 1 Moon AV ------------- x SunR = .oooo2437 54 Merc AV MIDDLE VO MO - 2 Merc P + 1 Moon P ------------ x SunR = .oooo2436 70 Merc P LOW VA ----------------------------------------------------------------------- TABLE 4-4 Incremental terms Incremental Result ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Merc R means Mercury empirical radius (from official data tables), Mercury EQ radius = .oooo2439 (2.439 x 10 to 8 cms). MO is Moon mean of orbit. Incremental terms ...... 3 Merc R 2 Merc R 1 Merc R are general results of .. Venus orbit divided by Sun radius times Mercury empirical radius .oooo2439 TABLE 4.4 Cont. Shows a hyper fine low/high switch from table 4-3 VP ------- x Merc R = MO - (3 x .oooo2640 00) LOW Sun R VO ------- x Merc R = MO - (2 x .oooo2673 75) MIDDLE Sun R VA ------- x Merc R = MO - (1 x .oooo2775 01) HIGH Sun R What is of interest in comparing TABLE 4-3 and TABLE 4-4 is that hyper fine results have switched. Smaller incremental units are now factored for the shorter solar distance to the targeted Sun, and visa versa for longer solar distance. This in fact is a favorable plus for the idea of hyper fine distinction in principle, by demonstrating that a very narrow window is involved in the bounds of the mathematics. It also favorably demonstrates how very narrow the windows actually are in the factoring of eclipse states in the proportions of APPENDIX H. Now is time to note how forcing a single false value for a Mercury radii input term (empirical Mercury R) causes the supreme elegance of the Mercury 'Perfect Eclipses' constants sitting right on known radii value. Further, using the resulting false values to run the ratio proportions again, causes the resulting terms to further erode and unravel in the opposite mathematical direction to the constant values quickly homed into locked-in status as 'strange attractors' permeating the 'Perfect Eclipses'. *------------------------------* | NON RE-ITERATING PROPORTIONS | *------------------------------* Of special interest is the fact that equations such as those of Table 4-4 DO NOT fundamentally re-iterate. That is, they unravel. If the incremental Merc R resulted in table 4-4 are substituted back as the Merc R terms in table 4-4, the next incremental results in this case are dramatically expanded. Quickly, re-iteration becomes meaningless. It raises a question as to whether or not all of the quantum states (as listed in APPENDIX H) are due to coincidental flukes in the re-iterations, say (for instance) being peculiar to just the planetary data tables used. This tugs on the next question; how come such precise states, and so many. No attempt is made to answer this type of question with information herein enclosed. The proof for the states is considered to be their self evident accuracy and uniform systematization. Also is the fact they occur fully developed within such extremely narrow mathematical windows. *=======================================================================* ########### Discussion F-D Deriving a Set of States ########### *=======================================================================* *--------------------------* #-|| PRIORITIES IN LOGIC | *--------------------------* The rule of logic for identifying quantum states was to determine an initial semblance of a sequence for increments along the Moon orbit sightline, seeking a recognizable focal lens size, (beginning with clues provided as the Earth-Moon-Sun assembly), using for general fundamental proportions the versions listed in TABLE 1-1 of APPENDIX B. With moon orbit sightline increments inferred, a focal entity's resulting three radii were determined, the resulting radii in turn used to improve on detail via re-iteration to pin down the moon orbit sightline increments. Naturally occurring super accuracy inevitably becomes self evident in the hyper fine distinctions along the sightlines. For instance, the Mars states (of TABLE 5 of APPENDIX H) were found almost instantly, the first time tried, with the simple experimental act of placing the observer at the Earth's perihelion of orbit and a transparent Sun at the mean of Mars' orbit. Prior attempts over a 6 year period had all dealt with seeing what happened with a projected Sun at the perihelion, mean, and aphelion of Mar's orbit, with observer stationed at Earth's mean of Earth. It was already known that a Mars-like focal lens appeared on the inside of the Moon's mean of orbit (displaced Earthward by 1 Mars sized incremental), which could eclipse a Sun in the mean of Mars' orbit when seen from the mean of Earth's orbit. In the new test instance, the first proportion (from Mars mean to Earth Perihelion) immediately yielded the following result: EXAMPLE F-1 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MarO - EP ----------- x Mars EQ radius = MO + k SunR ------------------------------------------------------------------- Where +k turned out to be 3 units of an approximate Mars radius of value .oooo3328 2467 SUBSTITUTING as F-2 : ------------------------------------------------------------------- MO + 3 Mar EQ radius ---------------------- x SunR = Mars EQ .oooo3398 3660 MarO - EP 3396 6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Where Mars EQ at .oooo3398 3660 turned out to be an excellent approximation of the empirical value of Mars equatorial radius .oooo3396 6 The value for a Mars polar radius followed, with the observer at Earth's aphelion of orbit and a projected Sun at the mean of Mars' orbit. This required some experimenting, that is: EXAMPLE F-3 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MarO - EA ----------- x Mars EQ radius = MO - k SunR ------------------------------------------------------------------- Where -k came out as 4 units of an approximate Mars radius of value .oooo3605 5540 SUBSTITUTING as F-4 : ------------------------------------------------------------------- MO - 4 Mar EQ radius ---------------------- x SunR = Mars R .oooo3404 2732 MarO - EP ------------------------------------------------------------------- Where Mars R turned out too high, at .oooo3404 2732 However, trying 5 Mar EQ radii rather than 4 in equation F-4, immediately yielded the following: SUBSTITUTING as F-5 : ------------------------------------------------------------------- MO - 5 Mar EQ radius ---------------------- x SunR = Mars P .oooo3373 0906 MarO - EP 3376 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Where Mars P at .oooo3373 0906 turned out to be an excellent approximation of Mars' polar radius. With this information at hand (Mars EQ associated with +3 incremental units in equation F-2, and Mars P associated with -5 incremental units in equation F-5), it was easy to see an obvious balance in the rate of incremental units along the Moon orbit sightline, and find the appropriate terms which resulted in closer accuracy in the assembly's hyper fine distinctions (specified as TABLE 5 of APPENDIX H). In the overall, these states for Mars were clearly synonymous with the construction of the other 4 assemblies of quantum gravity eclipse states. It was noticed right away that the 'reversal' seen in other invisible object assemblies was not continued here with Mars. The so called 'reversal' is a change in the rate of equatorial to polar vrs polar to equatorial radius in the increments along the sightline, and in the concomitant size of the focal objects. Reversal or non reversal becomes plainer the greater the accuracy of the calculations. The Earth-Mars-Mars assembly initiated in the above sequence of steps (equations F-1 to F-5), revealed the assembly's hyper fine aspects right away. (A test for hyper fine distinction for Mars is summarized above in TABLE 5-2 of APPENDIX E). *--------------------------* #-|| QUALIFICATION | *--------------------------* Finding the hyper fine distinction for a set of states is not all that easy without guidance. Following intuitional leads has to be the only way, since each group of states actually presents more than a dozen unknowns, until perceived correctly. (Remember, there are no prior historical clues in traditional gravitational theory). As for detective work - the initial investigative steps are not here included, for the obvious reason that there are none to speak of. Precursive investigations can lead every which way until suddenly a fixed set of states are articulated. After which it is clear that, given certain parameters, only one array seems to exist with a coherent display of terms completely wrapped in a package, per assembly set. There are certain difficulties in pinning down the accuracy for Earth focal object states, (mentioned starting at 'Non systematic FASTIDIOUS range' in Discussion F-E below), but these questions are not explored with any serious intent. *=======================================================================* ############## Discussion F-E Fastidious Accuracy ############# *=======================================================================* *-------------------------* #-|| FASTIDIOUS ACCURACY | *-------------------------* The purpose is that you should be able to produce the same states to the same decimal results by doing the same calculations as here shown in the 'Introduction To Quantum Gravity'. To do this requires duplicating the same high rates of accuracy. As mentioned earlier (under the topic 'ACCURACY' prior to APPENDIX A above), because of the wide spread in scale between planet radii and planet orbits, the equations are fastidious, and so have here-in been reported at their most advanced stages of accuracy. Otherwise, the end digits in resulting radii can seem to bounce around with no control. A slight change for instance in the value of the Moon's mean of orbit can (but not necessarily) result in much greater deviations in a resultant radii. However, even with some wide swings in constancy, it quickly becomes apparent that only certain entities are selected by natural mathematical boundaries, and that through a quick step in re-iterating, the radii values completely close in on an entity's known (or anticipated) empirical size. *-------------------------------------* | Non systematic FASTIDIOUS range | *-------------------------------------* For instance, use of the empirical mean of Moon orbit MO = (.oo384401 x 10 to 13 cms) for factoring the terms in the Earth states of TABLE 3 of APPENDIX H, results after re-iteration, in Earth radii downshifted by about .045%, which is a little low but still within a range for oblateness for Earth. It could mean that the Earth states (as presented in TABLE 3 of APPENDIX H), properly are 1--1-1 1m rather than 1--1-1 1MO+, and that an MO+ term in these structures is merely a myth in the editor's mind. These are editor's thoughts only, not meant to be arguments. *---------------------------------------------------------------* MO vrs MO+ vrs SOME OTHER ADJUSTMENT FOR THE MOON ORBIT *---------------------------------------------------------------* Use of known empirical Moon mean of orbit MO = .oo384401 as a control term for delineating Earth polar radius in the Earth-Earth-Venus states of TABLE 3 of APPENDIX H, results in Re-iterated Earth radii downshifted by about .O45%, which as mathematical states are slightly blurred, in comparison to the more brilliant focus of the other four assemblies of states. In example, using the Venus radii terms of TABLE 2 of APPENDIX H in the proportions of TABLE 3 of APPENDIX H, and using MO rather than MO+ as the Moon mean of orbit term, the results are: EXAMPLE F-6 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MO - 2 Venus EQ 6378 7254 --------------- x SunR = Earth EQ radius .oooo6376 0358 EO - VA low MO - 1 Venus AV --------------- x SunR = Earth AV radius .oooo6364 0358 EO - VO low MO - 0 Venus P -------------- x SunR = Earth P radius .oooo6353 8406 EO - VP low ------------------------------------------------------------------- Whereas, use of MO+ (from TABLE 3-2 of APPENDIX B) results in well focused Earth-Earth-Venus states, as shown in the following proportions, in which the empirical radius values are listed under each factored value: In an aside comment: the rate at which the above Earth EQ is 'low' is only about 2/3 the whole of Mercury's oblateness. EXAMPLE F-7 ------------------------------------------------------------------- MO+ - 2 Venus EQ ------------------ x SunR = Earth EQ radius .oooo6378 7254 EO - VA 6378 164 MO+ - 1 Venus AV ------------------ x SunR = Earth AV radius .oooo6367 6444 EO - VO 6367 4719 MO+ - 0 Venus P ----------------- x SunR = Earth P radius .oooo6356 779 EO - VP 6356 779 ------------------------------------------------------------------- *-----------------------------------* #-|| A SINGLE ALL PURPOSE APPROACH | *-----------------------------------* If a single all purpose approach is sought for re-iteration for all of the state assemblies, in using for instance .oo3845 for the Moon mean of orbit and .oo69635 for the sun radius, many of the results in the 5 sets of states fall within the most empirically accurate oblative limits, except for a few out of sync values; the polar radius for the Moon in TABLE 1 of APPENDIX H is marginally higher, by about 022%, and the polar radius for the Earth in TABLE 3 of APPENDIX H is marginally lower, by about .007%. In this general situation, all of the radii values for Venus in TABLE 2 of APPENDIX H, are higher than the empirical value, by about .04%. The radii values for Mars are higher by about .038%. The Sun radius value of .oo69635 is higher than the current empirical value of .oo696265, by .0124%. *---------------* | FOOTNOTES | *---------------* Regarding two of the Appendixes: Appendix A This is the empirical planetary data used to formulate the introduction preceding the Appendixes. The averaged radii as used are 1/2 the sum of equatorial plus polar. Appendix B These are the actual eclipse state datas, taken from Appendix H. Note that in Table 1-B of Appendix B the polar equivalent of the Moon is marginally smaller than the Moon's present day oblateness. This is more noticeable than that the Moon's equatorial radius is also marginally smaller than its present day equatorial radius. The downshifts are to the same degree for both Moon EQ and Polar radii, showing that the proportions themselves are locked into a valuable exact range. The slight downshifts makes sense if it is true that the Moon may have acquired extra dimension by external bombardment after its original creation. The marginal discrepancies are equal for both the Moon's polar and equatorial radii. In view of this, extra present day dimension by bombardment may account for the discrepancies. Superfluous bulge by gravitational tide might also be a factor. On the other hand, if 3.845 x 10 to the power 10 cms is used as the Moon's mean of orbit in the proportions of TABLE 1-1 of APPENDIX B (this value is found in some recent Planetary Data Tables), then the marginal discrepancies for the Moon's resulting equatorial and polar radii vanish completely. The same is not true for Venus radii as determined in TABLE 2-1 of APPENDIX B. Any increase in the length of the Moon's mean of orbit results in noticeable increase in the determined size of Venus. (It may be for the moment, that a well established equatorial and polar radii for Venus are still masked under the planet's cloud cover. If this is true, the current scientifically estimated size of Venus may be roughly about 99.77% of the actual size). However for TABLE 3-1 the Moon mean of orbit is marginally increased. Term MO+ from TABLE 3-2 of APPENDIX B is used as a determined value of 3.84578766 x 10 to the power 10 cms. No attempt is made to explain this adjustment, other then that with MO+, the proportionality between the Earth's equatorial and polar radius is calculated with perfect accuracy via the proportions of TABLE 3-1, using values completely independently determined for Venus radii in TABLE 2-1. *=======================================================================* ################# Discussion F-F Speculations ################# *=======================================================================* *----------------* *----------------* The constant linear statistical image (outlined in Discussion F-B above) presumes no outside interference causing new perturbations. Presuming new perturbations, a computer model could tell if the new positions of the effected bodies can maintain the same exact proportions in separations, even if actual distances apart are changed. Another question is raised. Since a fixed frame of reference and a long time period for analysis can explain the existence of the empirical eclipse system for the quantum Earth-Moon-Sun states, how are the other eclipse states involving a phantom Venus, Mercury, Mars, and Sun explained? Not as easily. There is obviously more factors at work besides ordinary Newtonian mechanics which deals exclusively with temporal bodies and the universal gravitational constant. Einstein general relativity theory, and super gravity theory, now contend the earlier Newtonian insights. For instance, suppose gravitational relativistic effects are incompatible within the field generating the effect, and the effects become externalized to long distances from the major field. *----------------* *----------------* There is otherwise very recent work suggesting the existence of another short ranged force in gravity (a 5th or even 6th fundamental force) having perhaps to do with the number of proton (charge) vrs neutron (no charge) particles constructing the atoms of a material of a given mass. (The rate of charged vrs uncharged quantities is termed the isospin, which varies amongst different substances per given amount of mass). The other recent candidate is a postulated ever so slight gravitational difference between particle and anti particle weight. This might be a factor in quantum gravity states. *----------------* *----------------* Another suggestable speculation is that composite factors comprising the net effect known as gravity do exist, this includes a geometry pattern which is always there but manifests not haphazardly yet piecemeal in the molding of condensing material. Seemingly, this has to include some mechanical properties shared between gravity and the optics of light. Molding a vacant Sun at Venus and Mars, with vacant Venus, Mercury, and Mars transparencies at the orbit of the Moon, clearly falls outside the realm of tangible mass behavior, unless of course the visible masses somehow turn out to be responsible for the invisible artifacts. Intuition suggests the visible masses are a result of deeper sensations. Suppose there is a figure which is stationary, or at least has a steady stateness, through which accretion material moves and gets molded in rotation. This is not so far fetched. The image of steady state spokes splayed outward through the rings of Saturn comes to mind. The Trojan structure (a basic six sided geometry) involving Jupiter, is in its own right a major geometry in the form of a steady state image. *----------------* *----------------* External bombardment adding extra mass to a body after original solidification would show up more in the radii measures of the Moon and Mercury, since these two bodies have such smaller sizes. Any extra mass would be more apparent than, for instance, the same mass bombarding the Earth. The resulting radii of the states in both TABLE 1 of APPENDIX H (for Moon focal entity) and TABLE 4 of APPENDIX H (for Mercury focal entity) are both factored as just slightly less than the present day empirical values for them. email: greydon@look.com Peace Power and Plenty everyone. Greydon Moore, Canada DONE