posted on Aug, 19 2008 @ 01:57 AM
First of all, bare with me for my english writing skills are not good at all.
Here it gows:
I am amazed to see that everyone on this new thread and also the old one is bashing this guy without offering some counterproof to his theory. I know
that for some it may be quite obvious that planets do exist as it is for me, but this guy tried to figure out if NASA is telling us the truth and made
the calculations to prove it right or wrong. That should be encouraged since NASA isn't exactly trustworthy.
Now to hey_amigo, sometimes when your calculations are so different then the rest of the world's, it may not mean that the whole world is lying to
you. I've read your calculations and from what I understood you imagined all the "heavenlly bodies" (sun, earth, moon, mercury) side by side and
calculated its proportional sizes (area of the body seen from earth) to eath other. Thats ok (I think), you stated that Mercury is 81 268.3451
smaller(visually from earth if they were side by side) then the SUN.
So, here is your flaud assumption:
at 2 439.7 (touching the sun, because thats the distance of mercury's radius) mercury appears
0.0012% the size of the sun.
Acctually at 2 437.7 the surface of Mercury would not touch sun's surface, but it's center. So in order for Mercury's surface to touch the sun's
surface you would have to count in 2 437.7 + SUN's radius, because you may be comparing 2d sizes of these bodies, but when you calculate its
distances from us you must consider 3 dimensons. Aftrer all the universe(visible universe) is 3 dimensional.
Even considering the Sun's diameter you will not have an accurrate size ratio difference. I did not calculate it myself, but it should make much more
I had the trouble to write you this because it seemed that this mistake shook your entire belief system, and maybe you can see this mistake as well so
you can get back to earth.
Peace to us all.