Late this week, on Sunday night of all bad times, I found what looks like a definite math problem for finding solar distances, a method used last week (see link at top-corner of this page). I knew that my lunar-distance calculations were not perfect, but viewed them as close enough to give the method merit. However, in the middle-range lunar distances, the method gets lunar distances out of wack by as much as 900 miles, though the solar-distance results don't change much. I have new ways now to find lunar distances.

Late this week, I verified that NASA's eclipse data has .558 degree (= size of moon, called "angular diameter") as one of its absolute-largest numbers, for I found an eclipse with that angle but no eclipse having a higher number since 1981. I also found two eclipses with .4901 degree but nothing lower since 1981. The average between .49 and .558 is .524 degree, and while I'm thinking to use .524 in the new method, it's not likely perfectly accurate. The new method finds lunar distances with perfect accuracy providing one has the nearest and furthest lunar distances, which is why the .558 (nearest-distance size) and .4901 (furthest-distance size) above are important. I should have taken the time from the start to find such a method (would have saved me going back to patch up all those calculations).

We start with the distance between the two numbers, .558 and .49. Subtraction tells us there's .068 between them, which we can view as 68 tics to better understand what I'm doing. Each tic is going to represent a different lunar distance. The angle of .491 degree is .001 (one) tic more than .49, and .5 degree is .010 (ten tics) more than .49, and when we get to the average between .49 and .558, which is .524 degree, we will be half way through all .068 tics. It's a mess, I know.

[Insert-- Before explaining the tic method using the furthest-and-nearest distances of 252,650 - 221,580 miles, let me say that, it dawned on me, later this month, that one can find a lunar distance, using nothing but the angular diameter, that is absolutely true to the angular diameter. If I were an astronomer, I would have known it. Here's how it's done, where 3.14159 is pi:

360 degrees / .558 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 221,739 miles, and:
360 / .49 / x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 252,464 miles, and;
360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 236,082 miles as the average distance.

The conundrum lies where there is a full-proof way to find the average distance, by adding the nearest-and-furthest distances, then dividing by 2, and yet that method gets (221,739 + 252,464) / 2 = 237,101.5 instead of 236,082. How to explain this? It seems that when the moon size (as we see it) is exactly midway between the nearest-and-furthest moons, it's not exactly half way between the two moons in outer space, but a little nearer to the nearest-moon position.

I'm adding this insert here in case you want to change the two numbers of this tic-method below, using the two above instead in italics. This tic-method could have value in that one can find the lunar distance for any angular diameter that's plugged into it, though it's so new I haven't tested it much:

Lunar distance for .524 degree, for example:
= 221,739 + ((.558 - .524) x 451,838.2)
= 221,739 + (.034 tics x 451,838.2)
= 221,739 + 15,362
= 237,101.5 miles

You see, using the magic number, 451,838.2, allows the formula to get the average distance when using the average angular diameter of .524 degree. But when the furthest and nearest distances are changed, you need to figure out a new magic number. I show below how to do it. For calculations in the rest of this update, I used a different magic number that's not as good as the one above, and even the one above is not perfect. I aim to remove the tic calculations below altogether unless I find the perfect or near-perfect magic number. End insert]

The difference between 252,650 - 221,580 is 31,070 miles. You can use any two furthest and nearest distances you wish, and you then do your own subtraction to find the number of miles between the two. We now have two scales, the one with the lunar-angle tics, and the one with the lunar miles. We've got to marry those two scales, and we do it like this: 31,070 / .068 = 456,911.765 miles per tic. Get it? We can now convert any lunar angle-size to miles of lunar distance. I'm so happy to have created this formula. Here it is in its longform / breakdown to show the logic, where everything in the brackets amounts 15,535 miles (we need only the first line displayed when we get to the solar-distance calculations):

Lunar distance for .524 degree, for example:
= 221,580 + ((.558 - .524) x 456,911.765)
= 221,580 + (.034 tics x 456,911.765)
= 221,580 + 15,535
= 237,115 miles

If we add 252,650 + 221,580, then divide by two, to get their average figure, it's the 237,115 above. Thus, the formula matches our expectations. We can plug in any angular lunar diameter into the italics [WRONG, actually, this is wrong]. As another example:

Lunar distance for .5579 degree:
= 221,580 + ((.558 - .5579) x 456,911.765)
= 221,580 + (.0001 tic x 456,911.765)
= 221,580 + 45.7
= 221,625.7 miles

I'd rather do this starting with 252,650 instead of 221,580, for the upper figure comes with more certainly in being the furthest distance as opposed to the lower figure being the nearest distance. Here's how to get the same result with just a switcheroo in the brackets:

Lunar distance for .5579 degree:
= 252,650 - ((.5579 - .49) x 456,911.765)
= 252,650 - (0679 tics x 456,911.765)
= 252,650 - 31,024
= 221,625.7 miles

This is LOOKING GOOD [but for moons in the middle-distance range, it's not going to work well enough]. The tic-method needs better to use 252,464 and 236,082 as the furthest-and-nearest distance figures.

[Insert -- Good news. The tic-method above is inaccurate for finding lunar distances, but does accurately find the correct numbers between the furthest and nearest. It can't find the correct lunar distances because the average number, .542, is not the size of the moon when it's exactly midway between the furthest and nearest distances. You may have assumed it too, as I did, but I've come to realize that the moon exactly midway is .52176 degree. In other words, the tic-method is going to be off inasmuch as the moon's changing size is not quite proportional to the changing lunar distances. A moon twice as far is half the size (= proportional), but a moon midway in space between two other moon spots is not midway in size between the two. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I have that correct.

I'll show below in another insert why the midway / average lunar location is at .5176 degree instead of .524. The tic-method is probably scrap due to this off-setting of things. Besides, no method for finding lunar distances is needed besides the pi-method, and that's the topic of my next update. End insert]

Here's the three lunar angular diameters I was playing with in the last update: .49, .518, .558. I didn't check these numbers last week, but can now see that .518 is not in the precise middle of .49 and .558. Do you think that by 2021, NASA should have these numbers written in immovable cosmological stone? Or is NASA that unreliable? When asking google for the average angular diameter, I get "about 31 arcmin." Do you think google could provide this number in its precision form, or is that asking the universe? Suppose someone wants to do a highly-accurate task, do you think google could cough up these basic details to keep people from trudging through google's gigantic cesspool? We don't surf the Internet, don't kid yourself, we trudge in a stinking mess.

Trudging, I found this on a page stressing lunar perigee: "On this occasion the Moon will pass within a distance of 357,000 km of the Earth, and appear with an angular diameter of 33.37 arcmin." Another gem. Did he think he's doing anyone favors by giving a precise 33.37 when his 357,000 is rounded off??? Way to go, BOZO. THANKS A LOT, SCROOGE. Now I've got to trudge on because, apparently, he/she either couldn't find NASA's distance-figure precisely, or doesn't trust it. 357,000 kilometers is 221,830 miles, but I used 221,850 in the last update because that's a number I came across while half-drowning in NASA's urination. I was saved only when a turtle came along. I hopped onto its back to make headway.

Hey, I've just nabbed this:

During the moon’s perigee, the predicted angular size varies from 29.357 Minutes at moonrise to 29.774 Minutes in the middle of its transit and back to 29.357 Minutes at moonset.

During the moon’s apogee, the predicted angular size varies from 33.493 Minutes at moonrise to 34.102 Minutes in the middle of its’s transit and back to 33.493 Minutes at moonset.

https://mctoon.net/moon-angular-size/

Okay, now, instead of the rounded-off 33.34, we have a little-larger figure of 33.493, and that's got to be just about the biggest the moon ever gets. It's equivalent to .5582 degree, and the figure I used in the last update is .558. The 29.357 arcminutes in the quote above is .4893 degree, tending to confirm Wikipedia's .48833 as the smallest possible. The accuracy of the latter is important because my solar-distance calculations of last week were based upon it as .49 degree (calculations can be easily tweaked with .48833). All's good. Forward, turtle. Mush.

Ahh, we have found a NASA page saying: "The Moon is an average of 238,855 miles." I was using 238,850 in the last update, good enough, especially as that number did not get used for solar-distance calculations. But wait, can we trust this snake, for the same article goes on to say: "When the Moon is the farthest away, it’s 252,088 miles away...When it's closest, the Moon is 225,623 miles away." How possibly can there be a host of others claiming moons in the 222,000 range if 225,623 is the nearest? Confusion.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/moon-distance/en/

It's a big deal here where there is a vast difference between NASA's 225,623 versus my use of 221,580. Here's from a NASA page:

The farthest point in this ellipse is called the apogee and is about 253,000 miles (405,500 kilometers) from Earth on average.

Its closest point is the perigee, which is an average distance of about 226,000 miles (363,300 kilometers) from Earth.

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/news/922/what-is-a-supermoon/

It has 253,000, the furthest lunar distance I've yet to see from anyone, yet NASA calls it the AVERAGE furthest distance. That's DISINFORMATION. It contributes to making all computations look unreliable by pitting one "fact" against another. I'm going to be on the back of the turtle for quite some time before finding a way to prove the true nearest distance...which they call, perigee, but I won't because it sounds too much like "purgatory."

Here's google with a NASA offering "At perigee — its closest approach — the moon comes as close as 225,623 miles (363,104 kilometers). At apogee — the farthest away it gets — the moon is 252,088 miles (405,696 km) from Earth. On average, the distance from Earth to the moon is about 238,855 miles (384,400 km)." There, you see, the furthest distance is now scaled down to 252,088. MAKE UP YOUR MIND, NASA, or get out of the astronomy game, gyper.

There was a total lunar eclipse for May 26, 2021, having a huge lunar radius of 16'42.9", equal to a diameter of .55716 degree. So, let's see what the solar distance is per this eclipse. The page claims that the earth shadow, where the moon passed through it, was .7719 degree in radius, or 1.5438 degree in diameter. We divide the latter by .55716 to get a shadow 2.771 times wider than the moon, making the shadow 2,160 x 2.77 = 5,985 miles wide at the lunar intersection. You can convert both the solar and lunar size of this eclipse, into degrees, at this page:
https://www.onlineconversion.com/map_decimaldegrees.htm

To find the angle of the earth-shadow to the edge of the sun, we need the lunar distance at the time, but let's use NASA's number instead to do this math: .49 / .5572 x 252,088 = 222,180 miles. BUSTED! Although my result of 222,180 is not accurate, it's close, and therefore there seems no way to get it as high as NASA's 225,632 / 226,000. The lunar eclipse of May 16, 2022, is predicted to have a moon size of 16" 29.9" = .55 degree, for a lunar distance of .49 / .55 x 252.088 = 224,599, still less than NASA's 225,623, and .55 is short of the nearest sun at .558.

The lunar-eclipse line (same as the earth-shadow line) is obtained by placing 222,180 into box, b, of the right-angle-triangle calculator above. This box is for line, b, which extends from the core of the earth to the tip of the earth shadow. Box, a, gets the difference between the following two distances: 1) the 3,960 mile distance between line b and the edge of the earth, and; 2) the distance from line b to the edge of the shadow where the moon strikes it. The distance of 2) is half the shadow diameter, and so for box, a, we want 3,960 - 5,985/2 = 967.5. Hit the Calculate button so that line, c, the lunar-eclipse line, is found to be at an angel of .249.

Next, we need the line angle for an on-paper solar eclipse, and to get it we need the size of the sun during the eclipse, which is said to have a radius of 15'47.3", which is equal to .2631 degree, which in diameter form is twice as much, .526276. We now put a moon of that size squarely over the sun because it allows us to get the angle to the edge of the sun, because a line from the edge of the sun across the edge of that same-size moon comes straight to you eye standing in the earth, and that means the moon shadow's tip at your feet.

The previous method used the formula, .49 / lunar size X 252,650 [it's in the paragraph below this insert]. It wasn't perfect because the 252,650 wasn't likely the correct furthest distance, but we can now try that formula using the lunar distance, 252,464, obtained above by the easy-pi method: .49 / .5418332 x 252,464 = 228,313, exactly the 228,313 obtained in the eclipse calculation!! It proves that the method is accurate.

It means that:

360 / .5418332 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .5418332 x 252,464;
360 / .52175 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .52175 x 252,464; (both = 237,101 miles)
360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .524 x 252,464 (both = 238,083);
360 / .558 x 2159.1 / 2pi) = .49 / .558 x 252,464 (both = 221,738);
etc., using any lunar angle whatsoever between .49 and .558

It's important to note, though, that if the furthest-possible lunar distance has an angular size smaller than .49, the 252,464 above will go up toward 252,650. End insert]

With the moon's shadow tip being at your feet, it means that the moon shadow is as long as the moon is from the earth. Therefore, we need to know how far the moon is at the time, and we can figure it out because we know the moon size of .526276 degree. We know it's that big because we have a sun that size. We want the moon and sun to be the same size so that it has a moon shadow kissing the earth's surface, allowing us to know the length of the moon shadow. The moon at this size is at a distance of: .49 / .526276 x 252,650 = 235,235 miles, and that's the length of the moon shadow too, in which case we want 235,235 in box, b, of the right-angle-triangle calculator. For box, a, we want the lunar radius, because the shadow line goes to the edge of the moon (and to the edge of the sun) while line, b, goes to the core of the moon (and to the core of the sun). So, put 1079.5 into box, a, and hit the Calculate button to find that the lunar-shadow line, which is the solar-eclipse line too, is at an angle of .263 degree.

To find the solar distance from this point using the .25 and .263, you can do it one of two ways, or both in order to check that it's done correctly.

Method-one: put the lunar-eclipse angle of .249 into the alpha-angle box at the triangle calculator, with 1 in box, b. Hit calculate to find ..0043459 mile as the length of line, a. This means that for every 1 mile along line b toward the earth and sun, the lunar-eclipse line spreads out by .0043459 mile. Next, find the spread of the solar-eclipse line by putting .263 into the alpha-angle box with 1 in box, b. Hit Calculate to find a spread of .0045902 mile per mile toward the earth and sun.

We are still on method-one. We need to know how much more the solar-eclipse line spreads than the lunar eclipse line. Simple math, have no fear of long decimals, unless you enter them wrong into the calculator: .0045902 - .0043459 = .0002443 mile. Now that we know that the solar-eclipse line spreads out by .0002443 mile more than the lunar-eclipse line, per mile toward the sun, we need to know how many increments there will be until the lines reach the sun. This was my genius moment of some 15 years ago. It seemed like genius because it actually worked, there was actually a way to fulfill the task, but, alas, it was only a vivid look into the mechanics of an angle known to all astronomers.

As the catch-up distance (.0002443 mile) goes laterally, or perpendicular to line b, all we need to know is the distance laterally between the start of the solar-eclipse line at the center of the earth, and the start of the lunar-eclipse line at the edge of the earth. As that distance is 3,960 miles, the math is this easy: 3,960 / .0002443 mile = 16.21 million miles to the sun. There are 16.21 million increments of .0002443 mile in the lateral direction, and 16.21 million increments of one mile in the vertical direction toward the sun. It's not genius, it's the mechanics of an angle. Astronomers have known this concerning eclipse lines, but they hid it from the world. Spread this around in a video, if you have the courage to risk being labeled a nutcracker by your audience.

Method-two. This method allows one to follow the logic in case the calculator method is confusing, or seems capable of playing a trick on you. We saw that the lunar-eclipse line spreads a total of 966.5 miles from where the moon strikes the shadow to the edge of the earth. We saw that, during that spread, the lunar-eclipse line has moved 222,180 miles toward the earth and sun. So, this is as simple as saying: the lunar-eclipse-line spread is 966.5 miles per 222,180 miles toward the sun. To find how much spread this is per one mile toward the sun, it's as easy as: 966.5 / 222,180 = .00435 mile, which nearly matches the .0043459 obtained by method-one. They should match exactly, except that the calculator doesn't give more decimals for the .25 and .264 angles, suggesting that method-two is more accurate unless we have all the decimal places.

The solar-eclipse line spreads a lunar diameter laterally over 235,235 miles toward the moon and sun. So, the math for method-two is: 1079.5 / 235,235 = .004589...as compared to .0045902 in method-one. Now for the tah-tah-dum: 3,960 / (.004589 - .00435) = 3,960 - .000239 = 16.57 million miles (method-one got 16.21). I say method-two should always be used; scrap method-one except to use it as a rough checker.

Solar Distances Not in the Right Order

I've removed this section, seeking high precision on solar distances, because the magic number I was using for the tic-method was not accurate, and so why fill your mind with wrong solar-distance calculations. The next update has more-accurate solar distances by the easy-pi method of discovering lunar distances.

Checking NASA's Figures

Changing my lunar size of .49 degree (= under 222,000 miles) in all the calculations to .50 increases solar distance substantially. For example, the one of June, 2011, worked out to near 30 million whereas it was at 17.32 million when using .49. However, the latter is the moon's smallest size, they say, and I've even seen someone give it as .48833, which then makes the solar distance work out less rather than more. I don't think it's possible to use .50, though it can explain portray NASA as desperate for now having the nearest moon at 225,623 miles.

Reducing my use of 252,650 (furthest lunar distance), for all calculations, to 245,000 miles, makes the solar distance work out less than a million miles less, meaning that astronomers, if they want the math to produce 93 million, will need a substantially further distance than 252,650 miles. That's impossible, and, besides, NASA and google are now giving 252,088 miles are the furthest.

The Royal Museums Greenwich, which agree with the 252,088 distance, say: "The average distance between the Earth and the Moon is 384 400 km (238 855 miles)." Subtracting 238,855 from 252,088 = 13,223, and so we do 238,855 - 13,223 to get 225,262 miles as the nearest-possible distance. I've read that modern technology had the true distance to within a couple of feet? Looks like the astronomers are cruds, fakes, same as NASA with its faked lunar and mars landings. Here's some really good math: NASA + tax dollars = Hollywood junk heap.

Someone says: "When the Moon is the farthest away, it's 252,088 miles away...When it's closest, the Moon is 225,623 miles away." Perhaps the person wrote wrongly, because I just found that middle number (shortly above) to be 225,262, and so, if this person got, 225,263, he/she may have copied it wrong as 225,623.

The eclipse of September 16, 1997, is given a moon of 16' 44.2" (no mistake, I've checked it twice) = .5551 degree. One website claims .558 as the largest moon. Wikipedia gives even bigger with "34.1 arcminutes" = .5683 degree, but I reject the latter. Nobody else I've seen has it that large. For the smallest, the same Wikipedia page gives 29.3 arcminutes = .48833 degree.

AHA! The eclipse of September 28, 2015, has a moon size of 16' 44.5 = exactly .558 degree, BEAUTY! The eclipse of January 9, 2001 has a moon size of 16" 43" = .5572 degree, and .5576 for the one of December 30, 1982.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2015Sep28T.pdf

Aha, just found the eclipse of November 28, 2012, with a lunar size of 14' 42.2' = .4901 degree! IT MEANS I DON'T NEED TO CHANGE MY .49 UNLESS IT GETS SMALLER = A CLOSER SOLAR DISTANCE. BEAUTY.
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot2001/LE2012Nov28N.pdf

The eclipse of November 18, 1994, likewise has a size of 14' 42.2' = .4901 degree. Along with the .558 above, we can thus determine that the average moon size is at least close to (.49 + .558) / 2 = .524 degree. I've just checked eclipses from 1981 to the present, and did not see any under .4901 or over .558.

I've just checked how many arcminutes the moon's largest size of .558 degree is, and as it's 33.48 arcminutes, I've just googled "moon diameter 33.5 arcminutes" to find this: "Between different full moons, the Moon's angular diameter can vary from 29.43 arcminutes at apogee to 33.5 arcminutes at perigee". It just so happens that 29.43 arcminutes is .4905, very close to the .4901 I found with two eclipses. So, there we go, we now have reliable information claiming that the smallest and largest sizes are indeed .49 and .558. but as NASA doesn't know how to measure as much as it knows how to decorate itself, we still don't know what distances those two numbers represent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion

AHA! I've found where the Wikipedia writer above got his sentence. It's at a NASA page: "Our moon has a range of sizes between 29.4 and 33.5 arcminutes..." That's on page 9.3 of the webpage below, a page with a table giving the distance of 356,400 kilometers -- 221,456 miles! -- for the 33.5 size!!! BEAUTY, NASA just shot NASA in the foot again. NASA = LIAR, true, indisputable math. The same table has 406,700 kilometers -- 252,712 miles -- for the 29.4 (.49 degree) size. Is the truth too hard for the goobs over at NASA, or have they confused their minds too much by changing numbers over and over again due to not having a clue on true lunar distances? They portray themselves over there as techno-geniuses. FARCE.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/YOSS_Act_9.pdf

I think I can give you the accurate nearest and furthest distances now, by finding how many average moons are in the average lunar orbit. The average moon is now definitely found to be almost-exactly .524 degree, and when divided from 360 degrees (full circle / ellipse), we find 687.0229 moons (2,159.1 miles each). It predicts that the absolute-average / mean lunar orbit is 687.0229 x 2,159.1 miles = 1,483,351 miles.

Wikipedia's article on "Orbit of the Moon" gives the nearest distance as 225,700 miles, meaning that the writers of the article are NASA mouthpieces without their wits about them. They should know better if they are experts. The article doesn't even have the courtesy to give the precise average lunar distance, but gives it as: "On average, the distance to the Moon is about 385,000 km (239,000 mi) from Earth's center...With a mean orbital velocity of 1.022 km/s (0.635 miles/s)..." Okay, with the mean velocity of .635 miles per second = 2,286 miles per hour, and with an orbital period of 27.32166 days (per lunar month) = 655.72 hours, the article is claiming an average orbital distance of 2,286 x 655.72 = 1,498,976 miles, much more than my 1,483,351 figure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon

Someone else says: "The Moon orbits Earth at a speed of 2,288 miles per hour (3,683 kilometers per hour). During this time it travels a distance of 1,423,000 miles..." Terrible math because 2,288 x 27.332 does not equal 1,423,000, but this person seems to have the same mean lunar speed (at 2,286) as the Wikipedia article does.

So, using my figure instead of theirs for the orbital length, we do: 1,483,351.145 [miles] / 3.14159 (pi), we find an orbital diameter of 472,253.21 miles, which makes the average lunar distance half of that: 236,082 miles, not their average of 238,860. The difference between these two numbers is not small.

[Insert December 30 -- BUT JUST HANG ON A MINUTE. Let's go back to the problem found at the outset of this update, and spot the number in italics as part of the problem:

360 degrees / .558 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 221,739 miles, and:
360 / .49 / x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 252,464 miles, and;
360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 236,082 miles as the average distance [WRONG].

The conundrum lies where we find the average distance by adding the nearest-and-furthest distances, then dividing by 2, and yet that method gets (221,739 + 252,464) / 2 = 237,101.5 instead of 236,082. How to explain this? The .558, .49, and 2159.1 (lunar diameter) in the math above are NASA's numbers, not mine. There's nothing wrong with the math as long as .524 degree is the middle/average angular size of the moon, and it is the smack-middle between .558 and .49. The only way to change the .524 is to change either the .558 or .49 or both, but we can't change them on a whim. Here's from the last update on how I arrived to those numbers:

Late this week, I verified that NASA's eclipse data has .558 degree as one of its absolute-largest numbers, for I found an eclipse with that angle but no eclipse having a higher number since 1981. I also found two eclipses with .4901 degree but nothing lower since 1981. The average between .49 and .558 is .524 degree...

Again, when we convert .558 to miles, we get 252,464, and when we convert .49 to miles, we get, 221,739, and when we find the middle between them, it's 237,101.5, not 236,082. But when we get the middle between .558 and .49 and use it in the math like so, 360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2, we arrive to 236,082, not 237,101.5. It's perplexing.

360 degrees / .558 degree gets us the number of moons in a full circle around the earth, which is able to get us the distance of a lunar orbit if we just do, 360 / .524 x 2159.1 miles. Once we have the length of the orbit using that method, we divide by pi to get the diameter of the orbit, and finally we divide by 2 to get the radius, which is the distance to the moon. That's why I did: 360 / .524 x 2159.1 / 3.14159 / 2 = 236,082 miles. For the purposes here, it doesn't matter that the lunar orbit is not perfectly circular, nor does it matter whether we have the correct lunar diameter. The purpose here is to explain why the unassailable math gets 237,101 versus 236,082.

To find the moon's angular size when its 237,101.5 miles from earth, we do the math backward:

360 / (237,101.5 x 2 x 3.14159 / 2159.1) = 360 / 689.987218 moons = .52175 degree per moon

The average-distance moon is now .52175 rather than the .524 above. The latter is what I assumed to be correct, but now I'm scratching my head. The average distance here is still not close to the one claimed by NASA. End insert]

When we divide .558 by .518 and multiply the result by 221,580, we get almost 238,690, not quite 238,850, but close. The diameter numbers are not quite in sync with the distance numbers because different writers give slightly-different sets of numbers. The middle number between .49 and .558 is NOT .518, but more like .524. Someone else says the closest distance is 221,702 (why so "precise"?). ???

If we think that the average size of the moon is .524 because that number is the middle ground between the smallest and largest sizes of .49 and .558, then the furthest sun, at .524 degree too, is the size of the average moon. Why would God choose the furthest sun to match to middle-distance moon? Is there spiritual meaning behind it? Jesus has taken as many blasphemous shots as the moon is littered with craters. Did God create the moon to be a symbol of Jesus, since both cosmic bodies appear to us as the same basic size? When the Father, so to speak, passes across the Son in the sky, the moon gets a bright "corona" = CROWN. Hallelujah. A fiery crown of vengeance a-comin.

By the way, the "S.D" beside the solar and lunar radius numbers of NASA's eclipse pages stands for "semi-diameter," as if maybe NASA doesn't want anyone like me to know what they are. Why doesn't NASA just use "Rad(ius)."? Another total eclipse with moon near the shadow equator is at January 4, 1993. Here's the details:
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/LEplot/LEplot1951/LE1993Jun04T.pdf

Here's another right-angle-triangle calculator if you prefer it:
http://www.cleavebooks.co.uk/scol/calrtri.htm

News

John Solomon headline helps to spread disinformation: "Omicron overtakes Delta, now accounts for 73% of all new U.S. COVID cases". Although Mr. Solomon tends to be on our side in the COVID scheme, he's a rigid news man who respects mainline news people, and often quotes them. Solomon is half smart = all mud. If he were just a glass half full of water, it wouldn't be so bad, but he's a glass half water + half mud = all mud. Omicron was brand-spankin new just a couple of weeks ago, and so does that headline look like reality to you, or globogoon propaganda? Does Solomon have no other way to frame this story? Of course he does. The headline should read: CDC Guilty of Giving False Teeth to Omicron

We can't love God unless we contemplate who He is, unless we form an image in our heads of what He's like, but we can't fully know who He is that we might love Him fully. We may become hesitant, asking questions. To each of us, we need to decide whether God is worthy of our love, and secondly whether we will love Him, and thirdly what it means to love God. For unless we love God as He wants to be loved, I'm not sure that we will enter His Kingdom. I just don't know, yet we've been warned that love is the most-important thing to God. If it's important to Him, then it seems He's worthy of our love, for God cannot command that we love Him unless He wants to love us. He's not wanting a one-way street where we must love Him but He does not love back, as some demonic tyrant upon this earth would have it. If we think that God is big enough to love us back, we have only half the story. The other half is that He loved us first...that we might love Him back. He's the glass full of pure crystal water. Go ahead, check out your heart to see whether you can say, "I love you, Lord, especially if You love me." John Solomon is not interested in any of this.

If we love God, we will watch our lives as we live it, to identify the wrong and stamp it out, to instead open the taps to all good thinking and behavior. It would be of great help if everyone in the world were going down this road too, but alas, most people are a tripping stick, a glass of mud thrown into our faces, and now the leaders and their followers, both rich and poor, aspire to become a slave's rope around our necks. And so let's shine our I-choose-God light as dark souls arise to confound humanity. If those who are spit from God's mouth come against us with omicron, we come against them with the Alpha and the Omega. Shine the Light of War, saying: I CHOOSE JESUS OVER YOU. No one who hates Jesus will take cover under His wings. The one who takes cover under His wings has won the war already.

Let the words of Jesus generate in us the attitude that God loves, for if He loves our attitude, we will be on the receiving end of His love. When all is well, do not say that God never gives me anything. If you have peace, you have more than His enemies already. If you have confidence of eternal life, you are rich beyond measure. When you have peace, enjoy your tranquility more by saying, "I love you, Lord, you are good." Keep your feet from the sinful gangs, and turn on the Jesus generator in your soul. Life in God is a generator. It pumps us up. Everything pumped up does work. Be pumped today. Slumber not, pastors, but blow up your churches, make some noise. Please make some noise.

The monsters have the notion that God is cruel, and, yes, they are half right, because he does have a cup near-filled with wrath in one hand. It's reserved for monsters. They have keen insight to know that God is cruel toward them. They know, but rather than take to His loving hand, they blaspheme his cruel hand. Cruel for cruel, sayeth the Good Judge, evil for evil.

Monsters don't always look like monsters because they take on a "goodness" of their own, thinking they are more good than God, and therefore they will attack and beat His people, thinking them to be the evil ones. Monsters are distorted of brain because they routinely eat snake guts without realizing. Infiltration of evil spirits rots their thinking until they have most everything backward. A venom sack develops under their tongues by which they betray God's people. The sting of death for the one who gives the sting of death, sayeth the Good Judge, but irreversible Resurrection for the one who remains in the Vine of Jesus. The one in the Vine knows the difference between good and fake-good evil. satan is the fake-good evil. Here's a good example of spewing fake-good evil in less than a minute:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/Hu3ASEt2pW1q/

You see, the CIA's Washington Post has a story claiming that the country is close to a civil war, and that's because the CIA and its globalists hoards have been trying to incite both political sides to start shooting bullets for fueling a civil war. But the Republican "terrorists" have not been biting at this lure, good for them. What the Republican militia might do at the red line -- they've been contemplating it, let's not be naive -- is shoot the politicians who've been pushing a civil war (it's been obvious by the ludicrous and provocative measures they've taken step-by-step), not the riotous leftists on the streets who are merely their pawns. The politicians have proclaimed war, and so if they get war in return, I, for one, won't cry for them.

The military has been purging its ranks of Republicans who resist the vaccines, and this assures a more-obedient military for martial-law exercises. The CIA has justified spying on Republicans of all kinds because they are supposedly susceptible to becoming violent. The signs are everywhere that the people who deserve to be shot and/or imprisoned crudely are those who stand with and beside the CIA in its internal programs. By law, the CIA is not to engage the internal elements i.e. spy on American people, but who does the CIA think it's kidding? Everything you see happening today is thanks to Trump, never forget it, because many Republicans and Christians are poised to empower him again for what ought to become another fruitless presidential term that allows the globalist machine to exercise its muscle and gain more upper ground. Here's just a small CIA operation, back in old times, that will curl your spine:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/TNvcjF5AkiUc/

The White House this week has released an accusation against unvaccinated, claiming that they will cause much death and human destruction THIS WINTER, suggesting what the plan is: to blame the deaths and maimings from vaccines on the unvaccinated. Expect this plot as the natural way forward for the worthy-of-cruel-death, demented leaders.

The demented are probably using the vaccinations and maimings of children to incite the terrorism / civil war. They just keep going deeper, step-by-step, until they have an artificial environment created ripe for feigning terrorist plots by the unvaccinated. Don't be surprised if this takes place this winter.

Part of the plot is wherein the CDC ceases to take PCR tests for COVID as of January 1, 2022. Prefect timing, because this is going to help hide the fact that the vaccinated are contracting viruses, and dying from them. We should seek to know what God's input is at every stage of this "game."

A MUST LISTEN:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/HyfcAzGk0Zwq/

Did the WHO make an admission because he has a heart:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/fLecimwsriYE/

Do you think the WHO and others are now pushing the threat of killing children to make people rise up with guns in order to trample them in return? canadians are too comfy-comfy to rise up. Globalists have turned the people to mush, and so it's not looking likely that Westerners will rise up this winter for something like a civil war. Maybe when the goons block grocery shopping broadly, we might finally hear from pre-tribulation pastors indicating that they're becoming a wee-wee-bit concerned.

If half the stores block access to unvaccinated, there's yet the other half to shop at. This can force the government to make a law to force all grocery shops to prevent entry, but that law is illegal because it's de facto government-forced vaccination.

This looks good: "The US Supreme Court Wednesday evening agreed to hear legal challenges to the Biden Regime’s vaccine mandates" (Gateway Pundit). The one court lower than the supreme court allowed Biden's mandates, and so it seems that if the majority of the nine supremes wanted to have it stick, they might just reject this case altogether. On the other hand, perhaps they are plotting to make it the hard law of the land just in time for the post-Christmas globalist attack. We shall soon see. Broad, government-backed, tyrannical mandates risks mass upheaval.

Don't take the Pfizer pill that's supposed to deal with COVID. Do not trust Pfizer. Just risk getting the virus, you probably won't know you have it, especially as most people have already had an infection. If you have a light infection, you also spread a light virus, if at all, because light viruses pass faster, in a day or two. The pro-mask / pro-vaccine goofs have ruined the world for two years, and are willing to do it for another year. Probably, most people dying are God's enemies, perhaps those whom might become some of the most violent against us. The vaccinated are dying most at this time, and they are mainly in the liberal camp. The goons wanted to get us vaccinated by now, and are seeing their plot slipping away with feeble omicron; it's not working for them, and so expect them to become desperate, meaning something drastic to get themselves back on top. Keep beating them down.

There have been warnings from quite a few medical people that vaccinated people have yet to suffer their fatal or-near fatal or permanent-injurious event. If that happens, liberals will feel betrayed, and it won't go well for globalists all the way to national and local liberal politicians. There is nothing happy about this, yet I can see that God's allowing anti-Christs to die / suffer but saving most of His own. It's logical. Keep close to Jesus. The anti-Christ movement is not from the top only, for millions of people on the lower rungs have facilitated the anti-Christ society for decades, and "payday" is expected. It's not going to be pretty. Liberals are poised to kill their own children now, and this will not go well for the goons at the political / Illuminati top. Pity the parent who says publicly that he/she is glad that he/she killed his/her son/daughter "for the greater good." Forward with vaccines in spite of the death. SICK PEOPLE.

The media is not reporting the fact, even now, most deaths are from vaccinated. It's time to ban the vaccinated from tight spots, the planes, the buses. They are dangerous. Stay away from the breath of the vaccinated, because we don't yet know what has been manufactured in their bodies that the body seeks to exhaust from the lungs. That's the new message that needs to go out: THE VACCINATED COULD BE DANGEROUS, especially the "boosters." It is very possible that, since omicron is a dud, the goons might try to implant a more-serious infection via the boosters. Seriously.

Just take a minute or less with this to see what a STUPID DOCTOR looks and sounds like:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BMqtdNEnqIgS/

Did you hear him? He said that we can't vaccinate ourselves out of this "pandemic." He thinks we're still in a pandemic...that never took place. He pushed the vaccines to begin with, never had a mind to reveal to his audience that vaccines were from 1st-degree killers. He is responsible for many of the deaths due to giving the vaccines and the pandemic credibility. These people are going to feel ashamed of themselves, but will put spin on their reckless ways to make themselves look like they had been caring. That's why this doctor uses "pandemic," to justify his wrong position throughout the COVID scheme. He was "above" being a conspiracy theorist, and thus helped the conspirators. He wanted to keep the "respectable" road, and became a foolish accomplice by that choice. He should go away from the Internet, a failure. I would praise him if he apologized with a sincere heart.

Does anyone remember when Trump tweeted, "Despite the constant negative press covfefe"." Some of his people said it was NOT a spelling mistake. What might "COVfefe" mean concerning COVID?

Here's a short dagger into the tyrannical mindset of Australia delivered by Australia itself:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/sGzjyWYO33fs/

By the way, if you've been watching Del Bigtree, I just want to say that I heard him say something (can't remember what it was) to indicate that he's not a normal Christian, yet he's trying to rally Christians.