I noticed in the Revolution in Astronomy paper that the author said scientists say the maximum distance the Sun would be visible to the naked eye is about 51 lightyears, then the author did an experiment with light and he concluded that the maximum distance if would be visible is I think about one seventh or so as far. But I'm wondering if air reduces the visibility range that much. So the Sun might still be visible at 51 ly anyway. But I'm not real confident in my reasoning.
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I've had to ditch the Stellar Magnitude system completely, that and the logarithms on calculators simply because they are incompatible with lightbulbs. Stellar Magnitude was born in Greece well before modern understandings and has been used for nothing but holding together a paradigm that just doesn't with the Wattage/distance squared equation, being light intensity in SI which also determines sight distance. Intermixing ancient history star ideas with modern understanding that we use for car headlight illumination is not feasible and a collossal failure once you move past using Logarithms.
Suns wattage= 3.83x10^26th power. divide that by the speed of light squared. What is important is that wattage is measured in Meters and not Kilometers. The equation itself is arithmetic and is written as such. So the confusion gets swept aside this way: we have to convert the speed of light over to meters because wattage for headlights is measured in meters but we cannot just add 3 zeros without adjusting the wattage to correspond or the answer will be skewed. We move 3 zeros from the wattage down below the divide sign to add the 3 zeros to get the accurate speed of light in meters; which looks like this for the problem:
From this point we can plug it directly into a calculator. I use a Linux calculator which is much better than the average ones and can directly run full equations. input would be: (3.83*10^23)/(300,000,000^2)
answer in light seconds= 4255555.555. Divide this by 3600(60sec times 60min) to get light hours= 1182.098. Divided by 24= 49.25 light days.
IF this is correct then the sun becomes 1/4 dimmer at 49 light days which means the visible universe we are TOLD is 10x smaller than it actually is. I'm not saying this is correct by any means and have run this equation every which way is feasible, but the usage of Stellar Magnitude is garbage has nothing to do with the equations for flashlights and the like; thusly, Astronomy is nothing but a belief system with it's head in the dark without using of knowledge of electricity to which Light belongs.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
kalensar wrote: I've had to ditch the Stellar Magnitude system completely, that and the logarithms on calculators simply because they are incompatible with lightbulbs. Stellar Magnitude was born in Greece well before modern understandings and has been used for nothing but holding together a paradigm that just doesn't with the Wattage/distance squared equation, being light intensity in SI which also determines sight distance. Intermixing ancient history star ideas with modern understanding that we use for car headlight illumination is not feasible and a collossal failure once you move past using Logarithms.
Suns wattage= 3.83x10^26th power. divide that by the speed of light squared. What is important is that wattage is measured in Meters and not Kilometers. The equation itself is arithmetic and is written as such. So the confusion gets swept aside this way: we have to convert the speed of light over to meters because wattage for headlights is measured in meters but we cannot just add 3 zeros without adjusting the wattage to correspond or the answer will be skewed. We move 3 zeros from the wattage down below the divide sign to add the 3 zeros to get the accurate speed of light in meters; which looks like this for the problem:
From this point we can plug it directly into a calculator. I use a Linux calculator which is much better than the average ones and can directly run full equations. input would be: (3.83*10^23)/(300,000,000^2)
answer in light seconds= 4255555.555. Divide this by 3600(60sec times 60min) to get light hours= 1182.098. Divided by 24= 49.25 light days.
IF this is correct then the sun becomes 1/4 dimmer at 49 light days which means the visible universe we are TOLD is 10x smaller than it actually is. I'm not saying this is correct by any means and have run this equation every which way is feasible, but the usage of Stellar Magnitude is garbage has nothing to do with the equations for flashlights and the like; thusly, Astronomy is nothing but a belief system with it's head in the dark without using of knowledge of electricity to which Light belongs.
Yes, his distances may indeed be exaggerated to the high side as the wattage of the sun must be converted to kilometers or the distance of light from meters to kilometers. But even taken at it is written the estimate of 12,000 ly with CCD and long exposure is quite a gap between 14,000,000,000 ly. There are a few typos in the paper, and some I would explain in an EU way such as the solar wind, etc, but overall the more I look into it to disprove it, the more I come to the conclusion he may indeed be correct. Not only about the distances but as to what galaxies actually are. A Z-Pinch surrounded by clouds of dust and plasma populated by asteroids, planetoids and planets.
So if distances are as he claims, then the center of a galaxy is more likely a single star, not millions as if distances are wrong, then scale and mass is incorrect too.
What really does it for me, is imagine you are at the edge of a galaxy that has an average thickness of 2,000 ly, just how do you see a visible band, as if it was 2,000 ly in width you would see no edge if in the middle and only one edge if close to the edge. There would be no milky way visible in the sky as you would be immersed in it. It would be everywhere. Also until Shapely changed things it was believed the sun was somewhere near the center of the milky way. But then again he believed the Andromeda galaxy was inside the milky way when he did his calculations. And a mere few years earlier we believed the milky way was the only galaxy.
Also every known solar or galactic orbit is along the ecliptic plane, but they want the center of galaxies composing millions of stars to be globular, because after all their trying they have never been able to resolve a single star out of the millions at the center. Perhaps because there is only a single star to begin with and not millions?
Sparky
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
--after all their trying they have never been able to resolve a single star out of the millions at the center.
Are you sure about that?
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Sparky wrote:
--after all their trying they have never been able to resolve a single star out of the millions at the center.
Are you sure about that?
Absolutely. Not withstanding their verbal claims to the contrary. https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&cli ... e%20images Well I take that back since every photo of a galaxy is a single star at its center. Ours just happens to supposedly emit less in infrared then every other galaxy and has a few objects circling something not reflecting light, not millions, so it must be a black hole to explain how the edge is now the center. Put our sun at the center and its infrared output is now in line with every other galactic center once they are scaled down for size and true distance. Of course, our BH just happens not to be consuming anything, why it is supposedly so quit in infrared. Hoag's object, clear of dust seems to be shining in infrared just fine without a feeding BH, likewise the Sombraro galaxy and every other one, just not ours. I am about as sure they are wrong as to the location of the galactic center, as to their belief in the sun as a contained nuclear bomb.
An individual team, including an astronomer of Observatoire de Paris, has recently observed for the first time individual stars in a very dense (but very interesting) zone of an external galaxy, enabling for the first time an eagerly awaited comparison with the corresponding zone (bulge) of our Galaxy (Milky Way).
Astronomers are always anxious to push their observations to the limit. With the advent of the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope (HST), it has become possible to study individual stars at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy (Messier 31). Resolving stars at still greater distance will require the next generation of ground or space based telescopes.
The centre of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is again in the sights of ESO telescopes. This time it's the turn of ISAAC, the VLT's near- and mid-infrared spectrometer and camera. From Chile's Atacama Desert, site of the ESO observatories, the Milky Way offers magnificent views, particularly in the southern hemisphere winter, when the central region of our galaxy is most visible (see eso0934). However, the Galactic Centre itself, located about 27 000 light-years away in the constellation of Sagittarius, hides behind thick clouds of interstellar dust, which appear as dark obscuring lanes in visible light, but which are transparent at longer wavelengths such as the infrared. In this image, the infrared observations clearly reveal the dense clustering of stars in the galactic core.
ESO telescopes have been tracking stars orbiting the centre of the Milky Way for more than 18 years, getting the highest resolution images of this area and providing a definitive proof of the existence of a supermassive black hole in the heart of our galaxy (read more in eso0226 and eso0846). Infrared flashes emitted by hot gas falling into the supermassive black hole have also been detected with ESO telescopes (see eso0330). This representative-colour picture is composed of images taken by ISAAC at near-infrared wavelengths through 2.25, 2.09, and 1.71 µm narrowband filters (shown in red, green and blue respectively). It covers a field of view of 2.5 arcminutes.
An individual team, including an astronomer of Observatoire de Paris, has recently observed for the first time individual stars in a very dense (but very interesting) zone of an external galaxy, enabling for the first time an eagerly awaited comparison with the corresponding zone (bulge) of our Galaxy (Milky Way).
Astronomers are always anxious to push their observations to the limit. With the advent of the refurbished Hubble Space Telescope (HST), it has become possible to study individual stars at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy (Messier 31). Resolving stars at still greater distance will require the next generation of ground or space based telescopes.
The centre of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is again in the sights of ESO telescopes. This time it's the turn of ISAAC, the VLT's near- and mid-infrared spectrometer and camera. From Chile's Atacama Desert, site of the ESO observatories, the Milky Way offers magnificent views, particularly in the southern hemisphere winter, when the central region of our galaxy is most visible (see eso0934). However, the Galactic Centre itself, located about 27 000 light-years away in the constellation of Sagittarius, hides behind thick clouds of interstellar dust, which appear as dark obscuring lanes in visible light, but which are transparent at longer wavelengths such as the infrared. In this image, the infrared observations clearly reveal the dense clustering of stars in the galactic core.
ESO telescopes have been tracking stars orbiting the centre of the Milky Way for more than 18 years, getting the highest resolution images of this area and providing a definitive proof of the existence of a supermassive black hole in the heart of our galaxy (read more in eso0226 and eso0846). Infrared flashes emitted by hot gas falling into the supermassive black hole have also been detected with ESO telescopes (see eso0330). This representative-colour picture is composed of images taken by ISAAC at near-infrared wavelengths through 2.25, 2.09, and 1.71 µm narrowband filters (shown in red, green and blue respectively). It covers a field of view of 2.5 arcminutes.616px-Center_Milky_Way.jpg
Thats strange because I see a single large star surrounded by very few other small objects, i.e. planets. do not equate so called globular star clusters with actual stars, they do not emit light, merely reflect it. http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/opo9734t/ http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2 ... cture.html Notice how the two background stars look in comparison to supposedly millions in the cluster and tell me the light is the same, and the single star in the 2nd image. Even in the picture they provide you see the large single source which must still be millions of those same objects seeming to orbit them, size does not allow this by the size of those other objects. http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/jablon01.jpg Some merely forground objects, faint and out of focus compared to the few solid ones, unless you believe millions of stars compared to the sizes of the nearby ones orbit in that single larger light source whos edges are not fuzzy as it would be if composed of millions of smaller discs? Again, what you are being told is to uphold a theory not based on any visual evidence, it all points to the contrary. 2+2=5 again. Notice how they also ignore the large center source and draw your focus instead to a position completely off center, G170. Even G177 isn't the center, it is the large single light source. Funny how they can resolve those clusters into all those so called stars, but not that center source that has never been resolved to anything other than a single source. What must the sizes of those objects in the first picture be if the small boxes are enlarged areas of G170 and 177 and they show stars and not planetoids and dust condensing into planets?
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I was going to post some corresponding pictures dealing with Andromeda M31, but at this point it is moot.
What I will say is that this is the most important argument of the century fully remniscent of 100 years ago. This spurred on by the dogmatic approach that has coalesced within collegiate cosmology, and fueled by ignorant astronomy. The problems I see, for example, are more of a historical problem which compounds with keeping defunct history intact only for the reverence of history alone; this being the Stellar Magnitude system which was born in BCE greece before we even had knowledge of the Inverse Square Law associated with all energies from gravity and electromagnetism. Our technology alone tells us that the Stellar Magnitude does not apply to our car headlights. So why would we should we apply this to Stars, being no different that lamps, especially when we can mathematically compute the distance with wattage with no need of logarithms? The only answer I can logically come up with is that the real answer is so small as to sound unbelievable based on presumptions about objects we have always thought of as other stars like our sun.
Another defunct problem with the collegiate cosmology is the use of Wein's Law, which has been thoroughly disproven from a Plasma point of view. Neon gas shines green not because of temperature, but because of its elemental composition alone when thoroughly induced with enough wattage to make it glow. According to Wein's Law the Sun should be BLUE according to its surface temperature where blue occurs at 1400+ F, but that is not the case because the Sun is not burning oxygen. What's most terrifying is that the Sun is the most mysterious object we know of. Its hottest at the outside, emits all energies short of gamma rays, emits so much light that it makes tiny objects like Pluto appear to be as stars, and its outer shell called the heliosphere is over one quadrillion times the size of the sun itself. That's not including the Ribbon on the heliosphere which is just so gigantic that it is surreal but still observed.
Bottom line is that if we cannot get our knowledge of the Sun correct then we are just as lost as when the earth was flat. Once we can agree on how far the Sun is visible then all the other pieces will naturally fall in to place. The important thing is that all the data is in and we do have the mathematics to figure it out. The guide isn't in our pre-light bulb days and glares everytime time we flip on the brights when we drive in a moonless night.
Analysis of Revolution in Astronomy I sifted through Katirai's online book at http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008 (and elsewhere) in order to analyze what seem to me to be the most important statements. I think this analysis starts with Chapter 3 or so. I'm sure some of the statements are likely to be wrong, but most seem very plausible to me so far. Would anyone like to say which of these statements seem to be wrong and why? I may go through the whole book in this way, if it seems helpful.
{Distinguishing Stars & Planets} _[Some objects formerly called stars were reclassified as planetoids in 2006.] _[Through a telescope planets appear as disks, but stars appear only as points.]
_{Color} _"Astronomers have applied Wein's law [which assigns temperatures to colors] to all luminous objects without first differentiating between objects that emit light and those that reflect light. _"[In] these two [true color] photographs side-by-side --- the object that astronomers claim to be a star --- actually [looks] similar to the planet Uranus. _"celestial objects having a blue colour --- are always dull, meaning they do not shine like stars. _"the boundaries --- of the disk[s] of the blue objects [are sharp]. _"In contrast, the bright and yellowish object seen in figure 3 is very similar to the sun ---[;] it does not resemble [a planet] in colour or brightness. _"in a star cluster (see figure 5), one sees that blue objects in comparison to orange objects of the same size are very faint. _"distances [to] all objects in a star cluster are more or less the same. _"[If] blue objects [had] higher temperatures than orange objects, --- they would be [much] brighter.
_{Heat} _"[The best way] to distinguish stars from planets is [perhaps] to find out which ones are strong sources of heat [or] infrared radiation[,] emitted by any object that --- radiates heat. _"all celestial objects emit some infrared. _"[Since] the sun is a star with a high temperature and --- [is] a strong source of infrared radiation, it is reasonable to assume that any hot stars must be strong sources of infrared radiation. _"when astronomers mapped the sky --- in the neighbourhood of the sun they were surprised --- that all these [blue] objects were not hot at all. _"The following is a quote from NASA. _""In the near-infrared region, the hot blue stars seen clearly in visible light fade out and cooler stars such as red dwarfs and red giants come into view. _"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. _"astronomers --- speculated that the reason these objects do not emit any heat radiation is because [they] are extremely hot and therefore emit most of their energy in ultraviolet light. _"we know that in the solar system the sun is the main source of infrared (heat) radiation and not the planets, [which] are only reflecting the light of the sun. _"[They] must also reflect the infrared radiation that they receive from the sun. _"Since hot stars are sources of infrared radiation then an infrared photograph should show the hottest object as the brightest one. _"Notice how bright the star indicated [in this photo] by an arrow is and how it is similar to the sun---. _"This infrared photograph shows a star and many faint and whitish objects. _"The author believes that all the whitish objects are planets that belong to the Milky Way. _"According to Professor Pickering that [yellow] star is located far beyond the limit of the Milky Way but because of its great luminosity it shows up among the objects belonging to the Milky Way.
601L1n9FR09
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Hi Lloyd, If the blue stars that do not show up so well in IR (and are supposed to be hotter), who's to say these are not objects in glow mode plasma discharge , or whatever the terminology is? I will look again but as far as I can see the only issue I might have with Revolution in Astronomy is that it did not address the problem that objects too remote from their primary have far too little light to reflect (from the primary). If these objects are self illuminated by means of plasma in glow mode, that issue is resolved. In short EU/PC reconciles what little I found lacking. Eerrr...so far anyway. Is this just another one of the dozen or so pesky problems that the electric universe explains without inventing another theory? Some smart guy once said "if you are not simplifying the equation you are not solving the problem." I am a simpleton. Ignorance IS bliss. I will get back to you if I see anything. I am suffering from post apocalyptic depression at the moment.
JD
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Even emitting in IR may not mean a star per se. They say Brown Dwarf stars fuse Deuterium instead of hydrogen. Regardless, but in an EU universe even planets are connected to the circuit. Magnetic Induction is becomming quite a common use for cooking, I expect there is alot going on in the center of planets and stars to make their centers hot. Of course so far the only large planets I have seen all have gaseous atmospheres. With enough current those gases could easily glow, so i guess the EU needs to define what constitutes a star or planet. We know stars are not contained thermonuclear devises, they are much worse, a magnetically contained electrical Z-Pinch connected to lightyear (x billions, debating that now) Birkeland Currents connecting, well, everything.
nick c
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
sjw wrote: so i guess the EU needs to define what constitutes a star or planet
Thornhill wrote: Sometimes, for dynamic reasons or to spread the electrical load over a greater surface area, forming stars will electrically fission into binaries or multiple star systems. This scenario may explain some of the surprising abundance of multiple star systems and close orbiting 'hot Jupiters.'
Also, the birth of plentiful brown dwarf stars and smaller bodies in proximity along an electrical umbilical cord provides the opportunity for capture by bright stars to form planetary systems. Capture is greatly enhanced by electrical energy exchange where the cross-section for capture is that of a star's huge electrical boundary, called the heliosphere (~200 AU wide), or 'astrosphere.' Brown dwarfs captured by a bright star will have their power source stolen, lose their radiance and become gas giants. This explains a mystery known as the 'brown dwarf desert,' around main sequence stars. The capture process of a brown dwarf involves drastic electrical readjustment from being an anode to a cathode, which the captured star achieves by a cometary-type electrical expulsion of matter from its heavy-element core and atmosphere, forming satellites and rings. Some of the expelled debris escapes to become families of comets, asteroids and meteoroids. It is a process entirely analogous to the observed electrical splitting of comet nuclei, often as they too approach the Sun.
The applicability of this model to the solar system is obvious with the distant gas giants sporting rings and many satellites. Saturn, with its spectacular ring system, appears to be the most recently captured. The inner planets are satellites lost to the gas giants/former dwarf stars. Astronomers have recently begun to suggest that the environment close to a dwarf star is conducive to life. But there is far more to this idea in an Electric Universe. So the Sun's weird assortment of planets and their satellites are an adopted family and not primordial. Comparing gyroscopically stable axial tilts may show some familial associations. Significantly, Saturn, Mars and Earth seem related via this hypothesis.
highlight added
So the distinction between a gas giant planet and a red/brown dwarf star is dependent on it's electrical environment. If Jupiter were moving through the galaxy by itself, outside the influence of the Sun, it would be a brown dwarf star. It seems to me that a star's ability to act as an anode is going to be dependent upon the amount of matter it contains. Here there is a gravitational factor in the EU model. While it is understood in the EU that matter and mass are not the same thing, and leaving that discussion for elsewhere; the more massive the star the larger it's sphere of influence and the more of the available galactic current it can receive. This will determine its' position on the H-R diagram. So in nature, there is a continuum of celestial objects within the galaxy, from a small rock or asteroid up to massive giant stars and everythng in between. Classification of these objects is a part of the effort of humans to better comprehend the universe.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
And yet I cant except that explanation either. Jupiter, whether a rouge or circling our sun is a planet and if they want it to be a Brown Dwarf simply because it might be wondering, then it needs to be classified as one now. Since it is a planet, then no matter its location it is a planet, it would simply be a rouge planet. Just as almost all the stars in the night sky. Nor does spectra make a difference, as pluto reflects equally in the spectra, and is only differentiated as a planet from a star because it moves. Likewise any beyond the orbit of Sedona could likewise merly be planets, not stars. Visualy we know our star is yellow, and almost all alactic centers are yellow.
Again, before Shapely every study showed our sun was located near the center, but he decided it was at the edge based upon his belief that the Adromeda Galaxy was located within our Milky-Way. His basic premise was incorrect. Others including Hubble based it upon Cephid variables, an unknown variable, their reasoning if researched shown to be lacking.
Put the sun back in the center of our galaxy and once again visually all galaxies once again become similar. The only difference that can be used is planets reflect light, stars do not. Even yesterdays TPOD shows a perfect example of a single star galaxy lit only by its center star. http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2012/12 ... explode-2/
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
The only difference that can be used is planets reflect light, stars do not.
Though still preliminary, any attempts to use reflected light to make the planets of the solar system visible to us fails miserably. The Moon, by my very crude so far estimates, is not going to by visible by eye until the observer was within about 50,000 miles. I have some e-mails out to scientists and also to 3d modellers specialising in lighting who should be able to reproduce all the known parameters and actually calculate exact illumination levels. The figures are not going to jive by a long way I'm certain, so the simple light ray model currently employed is going to have to be junked. I still maintain Dollard is correct, that the Sun emits no transverse EM waves, that is no light or heat, but unless NASA will perform some simple experiments that could easily prove or disprove that idea, then we'll all remain in the dark. That idea that our Sun is very hot could have been tested cheaply and easily many years ago, just launch a probe at the sun that could transmit basic data back to earth, and see how long it survives. NASAs Solar Probe mission seems to have been scrapped in favour of the Solar Probe Plus mission, but it will not just keep going towards the Sun 'till destruction, which is what I'd like to see. Wonder if we'll ever see a real image from the probe looking like this artists impression? http://solarprobe.jhuapl.edu/
nick c
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
sjw wrote: And yet I cant except that explanation either.
You can accept or reject it as you wish. You asked a question and I answered it. The position you are taking has nothing to do with the Electric Universe, that is why some of the posts on this thread have been moved here (from the Electric Universe board).
sjw wrote: Jupiter, whether a rouge or circling our sun is a planet and if they want it to be a Brown Dwarf simply because it might be wondering, then it needs to be classified as one now.
Nature does not issue a manual of "classifications." The electrical conditions acting upon the specifics of the compositon of a body determine how humans perceive it. Given the right combination of (hypothetically) circumstances Jupiter or similar object could be classified as a "comet." see: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hubbl ... -tail.html You are only seeking to give it a name, that will not change what it is...
sjw wrote: Nor does spectra make a difference, as pluto reflects equally in the spectra, and is only differentiated as a planet from a star because it moves.
Well not to nitpick, but Pluto is not "classified" as a full fledged planet! since you are so obsessed with official classifications see: http://www.universetoday.com/13573/why- ... -a-planet/ But be that is it may, yes, it's observed movement allows for a determination of it's orbit of the Sun. However, you are wrong about spectra not being distinguisable between stars and planets. Though the light is reflected from the Sun, some of the frequencies are abosrbed according to the chemical composition of the reflecting object. These appear as absorption lines in the spectra and allow for the classification of objects. Rocky bodies like Mars, Asteroids, dwarf planets, moons, etc. have absorption lines in accordance with the minerals in their rocks. Atmospheres of planets, moons, etc have absorption lines according to whatever gases compose the atmosphere. Stars are almost invariably dominated by hydrogen and some helium, their spectra is very different from that of a planet. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balmer_line
sjw wrote: Again, before Shapely every study showed our sun was located near the center, but he decided it was at the edge based upon his belief that the Andromeda Galaxy was located within our Milky-Way. His basic premise was incorrect. Others including Hubble based it upon Cephid variables, an unknown variable, their reasoning if researched shown to be lacking.
This statement is confusing. True, Shapely's basic premise, that M31 and others of its' type, were objects inside the Milky Way was incorrect; but that has nothing to do with his conclusion that Sun is located in one of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. Almost a hundred years of observations have shown that Sag A is the location of the center of the Milky Way and the Sun is located in one of the spiral arms. I have never seen any reasoning or evidence presented that refutes this.
sjw wrote: Put the sun back in the center of our galaxy and once again visually all galaxies once again become similar.
No it does not. I cannot make any sense of this statement.
sjw wrote: The only difference that can be used is planets reflect light, stars do not. Even yesterdays TPOD shows a perfect example of a single star galaxy lit only by its center star.
The text of the TPOD supports what I am saying, not your position. The photo in the TPOD is interpreted by you as a single star surrounded by a disk of material, not by the writer of the TPOD. As I showed earlier many galaxies are resolvable into stars. It stands to reason that as one looks deeper into galactic space present instrumentation will not be able to resolve individual stars within those distant galaxies. Galactic spectra are consistent with the proposition that they are composed a combination of ionized gas, dust (plasma) clouds, and millions of stars. Again the spectra are unique to the differing classifications of types of celestial bodies. Planets, stars, nebula, galaxies, etc. have spectra which are easily distinguished. You could give a specialist a mystery spectra and they will tell you to what type of object to it belongs. This one is an O type star, that one is terrestrial planet or moon, etc. etc. I am not a defender of consensus astronomy, we know that they have taken the wrong road in many cases, but they are correct about some things.
