It doesn't matter whether I think it's valid or not. I just want to see the amateur photo's against the one's we are shown by so called experts who then go on to say, oh we had to add in this and that to show how it would be in colour.
So what is it?
What do you see with your scope?
The basis of the theory is simple.
You can't have light or heat without friction and you can't have friction without sound, because sound is vibration and frequency just as light is...and heat.
There's a reason you're told about thunder and lightning and seeing the light before hearing the thunder.
It takes a longer time for the sound to hit our ear drums and vibrate than it does to see the light that is the immediate product of that sound/vibration and frequency.
I see Jupiter spinning, and changing, just like THEY say it does. I see the moons in orbit, changing from night to night, occasionally passing behind and occasionally passing in front. It is either a globe with objects in orbit or it is a fake of exactly how a gaseous globe would behave with other objects in orbit.
I forgot about your "theory" that you can't have light or heat without friction.
Pour some meths into a small metal container, put a flame over the top. Heat & light with no friction or sound.
At school, one example of an exothermic reaction was to add water to anhydrous copper sulphate. Not only does it change colour, it generates heat. No sound or friction.
Burning any gas. No friction or sound.
Burning magnesium, really bright light, no sound.
Thunder and lightening is not just following what I've been told, idiot. It is an effect almost everyone observes. If there was such a massive delay between the human brain processing light and sound, then we would have massive lip sync issues just talking to someone. You can record thunder and lightening with a camera and see frame by frame that the sound track doesn't match by a long way, but anyone talking into the camera does.
You can block sound but not light. You can block light but not sound.
Again a musing with no evidence for it and so much evidence against.
What will your daily failed musing be tomorrow?
Anyway, some discussion for us normal folk (anyone else, yeah yeah, I know, maths is faked, bowing to authority, work of the lizard people blah blah), there was some discussion about the drop over the horizon as objects got more distant. Basically how much of the base of the object would disappear with distance.
Just because it is a new thing I've discovered and have been wanting to learn more, I modelled it with Geogebra:
You must be logged on to see external links
The observer is at point A and their apparent horizon (assuming level ground) is the green dotted line. B is where the object is and the distance along the surface is marked in red as d=xxx. You can drag B about. The perpendicular drop between the horizon line and the location of B is marked in blue. You can zoom in to put in values more in line with the view of the tiny fraction of the earth we have, just use a scroll wheel.
At the top you can drag the slider to change the radius of the planet or hit the Earth Radius button to set our radius in miles (all measurements are in miles). Underneath that there are two values. There is measured drop. Basically the app is drawing a line between the horizon and B, then by some internal method, perhaps it's own internal scaling, working out how long that line is. Below that is the calculation with the formula I came up with, drop = r - cos (d/r), where r is the radius of the planet and d is the surface distance between the two objects.
There is no random squaring of distances.
.
Annoying it has merged those two posts made an hour apart, but it never puts a gap in or allows and edit, because the first was made more than 5 minutes ago.
