I say you put a 800 degree body of any size at that distance and you wouldn't detect anything.
I say you are correct, but then we have to ask what it is they are actually detecting. Keep in mind that these observations are from Earth based instruments, that should be a clue. The fact that the BIPH (binocular photon machine) has not, and never will be tried out from the ISS should offer another clue.
sjw40364
Re: Rogue Planet... Or Star Without Electricity?
GaryN wrote:
I say you put a 800 degree body of any size at that distance and you wouldn't detect anything.
I say you are correct, but then we have to ask what it is they are actually detecting. Keep in mind that these observations are from Earth based instruments, that should be a clue. The fact that the BIPH (binocular photon machine) has not, and never will be tried out from the ISS should offer another clue.
Also have been thinking if light is absorbed and re-emitted after every random encounter with a particle in space, how is it we assume that the frequency or wavelength or temperature isn't changed with each new encounter? After all, isn't it now technically light emitted from a different particle than it was originally emitted from? This has always bothered me, and have an idea that it is this (electron density, I.e. also energy input and output) that causes redshift and spectral lines. Or am I to assume every electron is the same, just umm packed closer, pushed closer, pulled closer or whatever the theory? Just like every planet orbiting the Sun is the same size and mass! Right, umm...?
LunarSabbathTruth
Re: Rogue Planet... Or Star Without Electricity?
Or could a lot of objects we claim are stars just planets with current flowing through them, and much closer than they are said to be?
Well, those 'galaxies' sure look like they are just a cloud of plasma and planets surrounding one central solitary star: plasmatic Solar Systems.
I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that what we are calling 'Milky Way Stars' are just glowing rocks in a relatively small plasma cloud, and that our Sun is the only real star in the Milky Way.
Slower than some galaxies are thought to be, yet such a large angular portion that jet covers, while these galaxies don't? I say two and two ain't adding up to four. How far is it really?
sjw40364
Re: Rogue Planet... Or Star Without Electricity?
I just brought up distance because if the distance to objects is incorrect, then all mass and luminosity values to said objects are also incorrect by the same order of magnitude as the distance calculation is off.
And I am not sure if any of you can convince me that we can see any galaxy at a distance of 13 billion light-years with a mirror the size of Hubble. Actually I think such is impossible given what we think we know about light and the inverse square law. I also tend to agree that at around 50 light-years any sol sized sun would become invisible to Hubble. I also think that if the Milky Way is 100,000 light-years across and we are situated on one edge, there should be a distinct visible thickening towards the center and marked decrease at exact opposite latitudes, even with the naked eye. Yet one can only discern a slight thickening in one direction, inconsistent with a view towards the center of any galaxy. All galaxies display a distinct buldge at their centers.
When it comes to distance, size and luminosity, I think they are all flying by the seat of their pants and simply see what they are conditioned to see.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
When it comes to distance, size and luminosity, I think they are all flying by the seat of their pants and simply see what they are conditioned to see.
Yes, they see what they need to see to make their whole ball of wax hold together.
Astronomers clash over the distance to the famed North Star
(Phys.org)—The North Star (Polaris) has played an important role in human history, yet knowledge of its fundamental parameters is unsatisfactory. That problem is attributable in large part to uncertainties tied to the star's distance, which have now been resolved in a paper by David Turner and colleagues.
They rely on those Cepheid variables to build their foundation of nonsense on, but I don't believe they understand why they are seeing variability anyway, and it's more than likely they are not even looking at stars!
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Bahram Katirai's book Revolution in Astronomy is what this topic is all about. One of the best to read, and practically the only one!
His synopisis basically boils down to the same subjects that you all have stated, but he walks through the base mathematics and picture comparison to come to his findings.
Just as a rule the Sun's radius for Light is 6.09 lightyears for it's termination point. The 30ish lightyear number that is splurged is a direct result of calculating the cirumference, and is the number used to state the sun can be seen. The radius is the actual number because light travels practically( wave though it is) in a straight line. Stellar Magnitude is garbage as are the logirhythms based on that antiquated systems. The best, truest route is the EM Inverse Square Law which is simply Wattage/c squared. The Sun's light terminates at 6.09 light years according to that equation and that is the radius for which the circle math begins.
Pardon the circular format of that last paragraph.
LunarSabbathTruth
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
It seems to me that the main driving forces for the theoretical size of the universe, and the concept that galaxies contain millions of stars, are the ideas that:
1) there is no electricity in space 2) the dominant force is gravity (which is, of course, relatively weak unless the masses are very large) 3) the sun and other stars are fusion-powered, and operate by gravity 4) any thing in space that looks like a star must be fusion powered and massive
However, if #1 and #2 above are not correct, then neither are #3 and #4, so it seems to me that the question of whether galaxies contain millions, or just one, stars should be seriously considered by proponents of the Electric Universe.
(The concept of the Electric Universe is the missing component in the book "Revolution in Astronomy".)
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
(The concept of the Electric Universe is the missing component in the book "Revolution in Astronomy".)
That is exactly what I thought after reading the book, and I had intended on working on an Electrical Extension of Katirais model. As usual, I have much more intention than I have free time, so not likely to be done any time soon. I think if Katirai had ever learned of the EU model he would have realised how the two proposals would complement each other so well. I was also considering trying to contact his family and inquire if he worked with anyone else on his book, maybe he was a loner, but if there were anyone else involved, they may be interested in furthering a combined model.
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
That's the thing I noticed with Katirai's work is that it does match well with plasma universe explanations. Granted, Katirai was not working on a model, but was merely pointing out that much of the information conveyed about many objects, by layered spectral analysis, is that they just do not match what we think of as stars. This pretty much blows a giant hole in all thoughts on space in general, up to and including all distance measurements outside of the known solar system.
It is getting to the point, for me, that we may be in a gigantic double star solar system. That other star? Galactic center! It's a known fact that the light coming from that object, were it not for the dust cloud in between it and us, would outshine a full moon. My own work on tackling Andromeda , thanks to Van Maanen's numbers and other info, has pretty much said that these objects we call galaxies just might be monstrous flippin solar systems instead of galaxies we have thought them to be. This would also explain why we see so many "Super Jupiters" orbiting other so-called stars in days. This totally turns the world of Stars on its head, but in now way contradicts the Electric nature of them. On that note, I consider the confirmed prediction made by Wal Thornhill about the energy ribbon on the heliosphere was the final nail in the coffin for the Standard Model.
One linking note between EU and Katirai was the notion on Novas. He conjectured that this was most likely a birthing process for objects. If a gas giant birthed another object( core stabilization via ejection), I really could see it doing exactly the type of action that is portrayed in a Nova scenario of spewing gargantuan amounts of dust, rocks, and lord knows what else. This really caught my attention because Katirai was the only other guy I've heard say this besides the likes of Wal Thornhill, and EU theory.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
To me the key is the assumption that light moves in a straight line through the galaxy. There are gradients of dust, of electric fields and of gravity. Any of these may well bend light. The light coming from nearby stars only needs to bend very slightly for the distance calculation to be many-fold in error.
Thus everything is quite likely much closer than that given by science, and the stars much dimmer, and the massive gamma ray bursts much much less intense. etc. etc. It cannot be shown that light travels in straight lines through the galaxy. Only that light from nearby stars bends about the same amount. So there is no need of the theories of Katirai. Mo
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
It's sad the man died, I expect with a few lessons in EU theory he might have been able to work things out in more detail. I find his book "Revelation in Astronomy" to be quite an interesting read, and I have as yet seen no evidence that counters any of his claims of how far we are able to view with a large telescope. Started looking into that the day I first read his article, as I figured that was a claim that should be easily verified. And unless someone knows of one, I have not read anything that might even imply his estimation of viewing distances with telescopes is incorrect?
The thing is all objects emit more radiation than they recieve, even in the solar system. And my problem with reflection spectra which was not mentioned by him is that it is done by ratioing. The original spectra is divided by a corresponding bands value of another distance object believed to be a star. This reduced spectra value is then called a reflection spectra, but is done only for objects not believed to be stars. If applied to an object believed to be a distant star, the same reduced value reflection spectra would be obtained. Division only allows a reduced number, or at the most the same value. 4 div 4 = 1, 4 div 2 = 2, etc, so the spectra values will be reduced across the set and can even be turned around (a high value becomes a low value).
But, be that as it may, I still believe a telescopes viewing distance is not what they try to make it out to be. I don't thin k it directly contradicts EU, as the only difference between a star and a planet is basically current input and output. Both saturn and Jupiter were once described in terms that would imply they were brighter sometime in the past. Pump enough current into something and it'll glow.
celeste
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
If you look at this: http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 4/20/text/ it shows that Hipparcos' direct parallax, gives a shorter distance than Hubble's relative parallax, which can be explained if light is bent around the Pleiades. But what do you make of this: When you compare GaryN's link, http://phys.org/news/2012-11-astronomer ... h.html#jCp to this, http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=c ... right.html Notice that with the Pleiades, and with Polaris, we have stars 300+ to 400+ ly away, and have the parallax measurements differing from the spectroscopic/photometric. In the Pleiades case, the parallax measurement is shorter than the other measurements, while with Polaris, the parallax measurement is longer than the other measurements. Is it because Polaris is in the direction of Earth's spin axis, while the Pleiades is nearly edge on to the Earth's orbital axis? Does it mean that light is bent in different amounts depending on the direction it is coming from? Does anyone know what to make of this? At the very least, it shows that the parallax measurements are not always skewed in the same direction from the spectro/photometric. I'm lost here, just pointing out that something weird is going on.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
If distances to stars were closer, then the extra-Solar planets found would be a lot smaller. The period of orbit of these planets is certain. This implies that they orbit much closer to their stars than that given by astronomers. Now the size of the star would be much less too, but the temperature could be the same, although this is uncertain to me because electrical currents could determine the temperature, and the distance away could be a factor used by astronomers to determine the temperature.
Thus the goldilocks zone could become quite different. Actually the density of these planets could indicate the validity of the distances and sizes given, and some of these densities come out to be very low. In EU it is very possible for smaller bodies to be stars, and perhaps this is actually the situation with a big percentage of stars being much smaller than astronomers think. Maybe more accurate data on the extra-Solar planets will give another way of determining star distances. Mo
Goldminer
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
[quote="moses"]If distances to stars were closer, then the extra-Solar planets found [in the vicinity?] would be a lot smaller.
You lost me on that one. The closer objects are to the viewer, the larger they appear. No?
