Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
* I don't remember him saying anything about the theoretical Oort cloud. * The main question is whether or not he's right about measuring stellar distances. * If the spectra of blue stars are similar to the spectra of planets, then he could be right, that blue stars are planets. The blue planets, Uranus and Neptune, are gas giants and possibly former brown dwarf stars. So all his theory changes is reducing the size of the blue stars etc. * I hope to post more notes later.
ItJustMakesSense
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
So there is no real reliable method for calculating distant stars, and planetary bodies? The conventional model scientist/mathematicians whatever they are seem pretty confident in their methods. Just another disappointment but not a surprise. Im going to watch that show the universe now so I can laugh/cry.
nick c
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
While I too, would take issue with distance estimates of modern cosmology, the extreme position taken by Katirai does not hold up. Distances may not be known exactly but they involve enormous numbers. Whether a particular galaxy is 20 million ly away or, 10 million, or 5 million really does not make a whole lot of difference...it's far away!
Take some of the brighter stars visible from Earth...Sirius, Vega, Alpha Centauri, etc. They are visually quite bright, if they were planets in the Oort Cloud which is supposed to be some 50, 000 AU distant, how is it that they shine with such brilliance? If you removed Jupiter to 50,000 AU it probably would not be visible to the naked eye, would it? Uranus is about 18 AU distant and is right at the borderline for naked eye visibility. So if Sirius is an enormous planet that appears as a 1st magnitude object yet is 50,000 AU, why cannot the Hubble or an Earthbound observatory resolve it into a disc? it's light is a point source, regardless of the resolving power or telescope quality it cannot be resolved to anything but a point of light? That to me, is obvious that it is powerful light source that is very far away, a sun like object at an enormous distance.
As to galaxies, some neighboring galaxies can be resolved into individual stars; and spectrographic analysis reveals them to be of similar types of stars that we see in our night sky (ie within the Milky Way).
Why have not observations of the motion of the stars revealed that they are in orbits around the Sun? Some stars display a large proper motion, since their positions have been accurately observed for more than a century, none of these are orbiting the Sun. A good example is Barnard's Star. It's proper motion is large and it has been observed since 1916 and it is speeding across the sky at 10 arc seconds per year. There is more than enough data available to calculate whether or not it is orbiting the Sun. http://cosmos.ucdavis.edu/archives/2010 ... _Edric.pdf Would not some astronomer like to be the one who discovers that Barnard's Star is in orbit around the Sun! He would be world famous.
MosaicDave
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Well I became interested in this thread, and downloaded the "Revolution in Astronomy" PDF. At this point I've read only the first chapter, so I can't yet comment on his arguments relating to parallax measurements. Nevertheless, the first chapter is where the author comes to the conclusion that the Hubble space telescope can only see 357 times as far as the naked eye.
The reasoning leading to this conclusion contains a number of very large errors and omissions:
1) The author misunderstands the difference between the magnification and the resolution of an optical telescope. In fact, he seems to have no understanding whatsoever of the importance of resolution... One of the major reasons for building a telescope with a large aperture, is because there is a direct, inverse relationship between the size of a telescope's aperture (the size of the main mirror, in a reflecting telescope) and the size of the smallest features that it can resolve. The larger the diameter of the mirror, the smaller the objects that can be resolved. A great many web sites will cover this basic information; probably Wikipedia has a treatment of it. This is why a telescope with an accurate mirror a couple of yards wide, can make incredibly sharp and detailed images of things that you can't even see with your unaided eye. This has little or nothing to do with magnification.
2) The author also fails to understand the significance of long exposures in augmenting the light gathering power of a telescope. A respectable telescope can easily take pictures using exposure times many hours in duration; your eye does not even have any kind of integrating capability equivalent to this.
3) There's also the subject of the atmospheric image degradations, which is why the Hubble telescope is in space, and not just on top of a mountain, but this is really just the icing on the cake, when compared to (1) and (2).
The assertion that the Hubble space telescope can only see 357 times farther than the unaided eye, doesn't really make any sense at all.
Well, it will be interesting to read through the author's arguments relating to parallax; maybe there will be something there after all...
--dc
michael.suede
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
I think his theory is far more plausible than you give him credit for.
The more I look at his work and the more I look at pictures of galaxies, the more I think he is right on the money.
Seriously, I think he is on to something huge here.
Consider that the galaxy in question is not a galaxy at all, but a gas giant like Saturn.
We already know our ideas of redshift are totally wrong.
Lloyd
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Mosaic Dave said: the first chapter is where the author comes to the conclusion that the Hubble space telescope can only see 357 times as far as the naked eye. The reasoning leading to this conclusion contains a number of very large errors and omissions.... 1) The author misunderstands the difference between the magnification and the resolution of an optical telescope. In fact, he seems to have no understanding whatsoever of the importance of resolution... One of the major reasons for building a telescope with a large aperture, is because there is a direct, inverse relationship between the size of a telescope's aperture (the size of the main mirror, in a reflecting telescope) and the size of the smallest features that it can resolve. The larger the diameter of the mirror, the smaller the objects that can be resolved. A great many web sites will cover this basic information; probably Wikipedia has a treatment of it. This is why a telescope with an accurate mirror a couple of yards wide, can make incredibly sharp and detailed images of things that you can't even see with your unaided eye. This has little or nothing to do with magnification.
* I don't think the author misunderstands things nearly as much as you say. It seems that you may misunderstand him. You should state which specific statements of the author that you disagree with. * He said the Hubble telescope mirror has a diameter of 2.5 meters. Is that untrue? * He said the average open human pupil has a diameter of 7 mm. Is that untrue? * Maybe he should have stated what the diameter of the human eye's lens is, instead of the pupil. Would that be about 8 or 9 mm? * He said the Hubble's diameter is 357 times the diameter of our pupils. If our lenses are a bit larger than the pupils, then he should have said the Hubble is only about 300 times the diameter of the human eye lens. So it can see only 300 times farther.
You said: 2) The author also fails to understand the significance of long exposures in augmenting the light gathering power of a telescope. A respectable telescope can easily take pictures using exposure times many hours in duration; your eye does not even have any kind of integrating capability equivalent to this.
* His book does address that and I think he estimated that extra exposure time can increase the distance that can be detected by about ten times. * He said the Hubble can see 357 times farther than the naked eye and about ten times farther than that using long exposure times. * The Andromeda galaxy is visible to the naked eye. Conventional astronomy puts its distance at 2.52 million light years. If Hubble can see 10 times 357 times farther, or 3,570 times farther, then it can see about 9 billion light years. That would be acceptable to EU theory, which contends that the distant galaxies are probably about ten times closer than estimated by conventional redshift calculations. Conventional estimates of the most distant object seen from Earth so far is said to be a galaxy at 13.2 billion light years away. So EU theory would put it at only a billion or so light years away. * The author says a leading astronomer in 1907 found by careful absolute parallax measurements that the distance to Andromeda's M31 galaxy was 815 light years. * So it's reasonable to ask just what methods were used to come up with the 2.5 million light year estimate. The Cepheid variable star comparison method is what I think was later used and it looks to me like the author is probably right that that method is not sound. Absolute parallax seems to be a very sound method, whereas the Cepheid variable star method seems to be based on unproved assumptions about those variable stars. * I haven't found any major mistakes by the author so far, but it doesn't matter if there are some major mistakes. What's important is if he's right about any major claims, such as the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, M31. If the 1907 parallax finding was correct of 815 light years, then Shapley's later method was likely based on false assumptions about Cepheids etc. The conventional method would be off with respect to M31 by 3,100 times overestimate. If the overestimate is close to accurate for most other measurements as well, then the most distant galaxy would be 4 million light years away. Couldn't EU theory live with that?
nick c
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
He said the Hubble can see 357 times farther than the naked eye and about ten times farther than that using long exposure times.
This is wrong. Just because the Hubble primary mirror is 357x the diameter of the human eye (pupil) does not mean that it can see only 357x farther. Telescopic light gathering power is dependent upon the area of the objective lens or mirror. So the proper comparison would be the area of the Hubble primary mirror to the area of the human (night adjusted) pupil. http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M. ... _power.htm (Note, magnification is a seperate calculation dependent upon the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece.)
According to my calculations, using that formula: -The Hubble has an aperature of 2400 mm -The human eye has an aperature 7mm
LGP2400 / LGP7 = (2400/7)2 = 342.8572 = 117,551 times the light gathering
power of the human eye.
----------------------------------------------
fosborn
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
*Lloyd » I don't remember him saying anything about the theoretical Oort cloud.
Katirai wrote: In the following Chapters, evidence will be presented that many objects in the Milky Way that appear as distant stars are actually nearby planets. Further evidence will be given that at a distance of several times farther than Pluto there exist billions of large asteroids, thousands of planetoids and hundreds of planets that together with clouds of gas, dust, rocks and minerals appear as billions of stars. Since all these objects are very close to each other, from earth they all would show very small relative parallaxes, giving us the false idea that these objects are stars and are located at such great distances that the nearest one is thought to be 4.3 light-years away.
Lloyd » If the spectra of blue stars are similar to the spectra of planets
Katirai wrote: Please note that blue stars, thought to be hot stars, do not show up because they do not radiate sufficient heat. Moreover, the reason the blue objects are cooler than nearby planets and cannot be seen among planets, comets and asteroids is because they are much farther away from the sun and reflect much less heat of the sun. Unfortunately, instead of examining the possibility that these blue and cold objects could be planets instead of hot stars, astronomers twisted the fundamental law of physics and invented a new and imaginary idea. They speculated that the reason these objects do not emit any heat radiation is because these objects are extremely hot and therefore emit most of their energy in ultraviolet light. In other words, they invented the idea that the blue objects are so hot that instead of heat they give ultraviolet light. reff to.http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosm ... idfar.html
Katirai wrote: They speculated that the reason these objects do not emit any heat radiation is because these objects are extremely hot and therefore emit most of their energy in ultraviolet light.
As we enter the mid-infrared region of the spectrum, the cool stars begin to fade out and cooler objects such as planets, comets and asteroids come into view. Planets absorb light from the sun and heat up. They then re-radiate this heat as infrared light. This is different from the visible light that we see from the planets which is reflected sunlight.http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosm ... idfar.html
Why do Blue stars not show up in the mid-infrared?
Lloyd »The main question is whether or not he's right about measuring stellar distances.
What would another experienced armature astronomer have to say about it? Like Don Scott, if you look at his view of the HR diagram, it definitely conflicts with Katirai's view of blue stars = planets. Maybe I mis read something.
One other thing, if I was to sight scientific papers for serious errors, could I do better than "cool cosmos"?
fosborn
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Katirai wrote: The Sun as the Centre of the Milky Way Let us examine the sun - its volume, mass, light and other properties, to see if it is actually large and bright enough to be the centre of the Milky Way.
Katirai wrote: The concept that all the objects in the Milky Way are planets or asteroids reflecting sunlight leads us to understand that all of them must be circling the sun. The greater a planet‟s distance from the sun, the more slowly it moves. Pluto takes about 250 years to complete its orbit. This means that the most distant objects circling the sun should not be too far away from Pluto. A rough calculation would show that these objects are moving slowly and would take many thousands of years to complete their orbit around the sun. This is exactly what the Dutch-American astronomer Adrian Van Maanen (1884-1946) discovered regarding the rotation of the Andromeda galaxy. He found that Andromeda completes its rotation in less than 1,000 years.104 103
This is one big elephant to eat.
Orthogonal
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
fosborn wrote: This is one big elephant to eat.
That is to put it gently. I was intrigued by the title of this thread and have a mild interest in reading his book, but this is coming off completely crazy. If all the objects we commonly refer to as stars are really planets reflecting light from the Sun and also far enough away as to have their relative movements be extremely slow to observation, would have to extremely large in size. How is an object hundreds of AU's from the Sun going to have an apparent magnitude larger than that of Neptune.
I think MosaicDave nailed it on exposure time. I don't know how long the exposure integration must take to be analogous to viewing through your eyes, but it wouldn't be very long. Telescopes can train on a spot for hours.
GaryN
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Because you are not seeing reflected light, you are seeing Hydrogen glowing in the far UV from a charged region above the surface of the planet. The light travels as a quasi-planewave, and is only visible on Earth as the UV reaching us is converted in the atmosphere and gives off light in the visible wavelengths. That is why 'stars' can not be seen from the moon, or in space, by eye or normal camera, but only through H emissions. There was great hope for balloon astronomy, show me photos of the stars even from balloon elevations. http://books.google.ca/books?id=1wkAAAA ... rs&f=false
Orthogonal
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
GaryN wrote: That is why 'stars' can not be seen from the moon, or in space, by eye or normal camera, but only through H emissions.
Sure they can, what is Hubble taking pictures of? The reason we do not see stars in pictures from the Apollo project is because they had to set a very quick exposure time on the camera's due to the relative brightness of reflected light on the lunar landscape and astronaut suit, the stars are relatively very dim. Similarly, the human eye would restrict in bright conditions making it difficult to see stars. Obviously there is no scattering on the moon due to its lack of an atmosphere which is why the sky is black. However, if they were on the moon's night side or pointed the camera away from any lunar landscape and set a long exposure, they would pick up a lot of starlight. The human eye would also dilate (equivalent to longer exposure time) and pickup starlight. I'm pretty sure astronauts spoke of seeing incredible starscapes when transitting the dark side of the moon.
Lloyd
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
I had said: [The author] said the Hubble can see 357 times farther than the naked eye and about ten times farther than that using long exposure times.
And Nick replied: This is wrong. Just because the Hubble primary mirror is 357x the diameter of the human eye (pupil) does not mean that it can see only 357x farther. Telescopic light gathering power is dependent upon the area of the objective lens or mirror. So the proper comparison would be the area of the Hubble primary mirror to the area of the human (night adjusted) pupil. http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M. ... _power.htm (Note, magnification is a seperate calculation dependent upon the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece.) - According to my calculations, using that formula: -The Hubble has an aperature of 2400 mm -The human eye has an aperature 7mm - LGP2400 / LGP7 = (2400/7)2 = 342.8572 = 117,551 times the light gathering
* Nick, this webpage http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006060224122 says, "If you consider [the Hubble telescope] as a camera, its main camera is 16 megapixels at about 540 times normal magnification." * Do you have reason to doubt that its magnification is not 540x? * If it its magnification is 540x, it can see 540 times as far as the naked eye. Right? * And as the author said, time exposure can increase the magnification up to about ten times. And in that case it could see 5,400 times as far as the naked eye. Isn't that correct? * So, if the eye can see M31 at 2.5 million light years, Hubble could see 13.5 billion light years. Right? * And, if M31 as the most distant naturally visible object is only 1,000 light years away, then Hubble could only see 5.4 million light years. Right?
GaryN
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
Orthagonal posted:
Sure they can, what is Hubble taking pictures of?
Hubble is not taking 'pictures' of anything much. Ceres in the main asteroid belt is about as far as it can see using light, beyond that it must use its collection of gratings, filters, CCDs, lots of sophisticated instruments. (Edit-oops, I'm referring to Chandra here, not Hubble, but the point is that they use instruments nowadays, not visible light.) Our nearest 'star', supposedly showing a turbulent atmosphere. Proxima Centuri. http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2004/proxima/ How is it imaged? http://chandra.harvard.edu/about/scienc ... .html#ACIS It is seeing x-rays from 'hot gas'.
Orthogonal
Re: Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear
GaryN wrote: Hubble is not taking 'pictures' of anything much. Ceres in the main asteroid belt is about as far as it can see using light, beyond that it must use its collection of gratings, filters, CCDs, lots of sophisticated instruments.
So what is it we are really looking at when detailed pictures are posted of distant stars and nebula from Hubble? Are they just artificial reconstructions of the spectral data into what it would look like were we close enough to view it?
