kalensar wrote: 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.
Thanks so much for referencing this book. I found it extremely interesting and he makes a compelling case.
It is sad he has apparently passed away (does anyone have some information ( a link) about the author? who was he?
I would have very much liked to ask questions. As an aside can you imagine how this guy would have been derided by mainstream science/astronomy!
Highly recommended. I like to hear refutations from those forum members with better astronomy knowledge than I possess.
I do not agree with the 6.09 light years termination point and even somewhat sceptical about the 50 ly . A basis of that might be glean from this article which might be applied to negate the inverse square rule necessarily applying.
His reasoning for placing our sun "near" the centre of galaxy is very compelling and supported by clear analysis of 3rd party observation. However even though it makes sense from his photographic referents that perhaps there is just one central star in galaxies that really is controversial and does seem to conflict with EU theory.
I too have peered at the Milky way band and had trouble swallowing the notion that a core area was merely blocked out by gas/plasma clouds... especially from Hubble telescope
I find it disappointing that he did not try to estimate (or at least more clearly) his size range for the Milky way... from what I gleaned he makes it extremely !!! small relative to established thinking.
But it just makes so much logical sense! MS seem to think they can see billions of light years... which has always struck me as being absurd!
Corpuscles
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
GaryN wrote:
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.
Gary
I must misunderstand you.. but I can see the reflected light of the moon very clearly from my house at over 300,000 km away?
Dollard may have said no EM waves implying Teslas longitudinal or scalar waves, but surely didn't mean "no light or heat"!Have you got a link (or diect quote of) to exactly what he said? Again here in Australia at summer I can assure you it (our sun) belts out a lot of heat!
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Just a quick eply, will answer in depth later
Nick
You had best recheck your spectra data and how it is obtained. Reflectance spectra is spectra taken from objects believed not to be stars. It is then rationed, i.e., divided by the corresponding pixel data from spectra believed to be stars. This creates an overall lower value of spectra they term reflectance spectra. So they do not even use the original values in thier final spectra data. Almost every single obbject in the Milky-Way has a spectra different from the Sun. Since I for one do not believe spectra is caused from burning molecules to ash, the only way we know of to create spectra from chemical compounds, I do not see how spectra emitted from electrical processess and those from burning have anything in common?
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Stars or Planets? Here's more from Katirai's book from here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008. Again, I ask if anyone challenges any of the statements here and, if so, why. I don't mean to suggest that I don't challenge any of them. I'm just posting the statements first, then I may mention if I doubt any of them.
_{Spectra} _"It was [Pickering] who realized that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun. _"Pickering examined various parts of the sky visible from the northern hemisphere. _"He found that stars that resemble the sun --- are distributed with near uniformity over --- the sky. _"The whitish or bluish objects such as Sirius that have a group of strongly marked dark lines in their spectrum (indicating --- hydrogen --- in their atmosphere[s]), are however, much more numerous [in] the Milky Way than in other parts of the sky. _"Professor Pickering's research showed that the Milky Way is little more than an aggregation of objects of the type to which Sirius belongs. _"He noticed that --- the spectrum of the sun among all the objects in the Milky Way is unique. _"all the whitish or bluish objects that he thought were stars are actually planets belonging to the sun. _"There is absolutely no evidence [that they are stars]. _"it appears that no spectrum analyses were ever carried out for the sole purpose of differentiating stars from planets. _"images, taken by the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS), show [that the objects in] the Cygnus region within our own Milky Way --- appear to be planets instead of stars.
_{High Frequency Radiation} _"If we compare the sun with all the planets in the solar system, we see that the sun is a strong source of x-rays and gamma rays, whereas planets are not. _"If the sun is a typical star, then other stars must also be strong sources of x-rays and gamma rays. _"A strong detection of x-ray or gamma ray emission from any luminous point should therefore be taken as an indication that it could be a star. _"To the author's knowledge, to date this method has not been used to differentiate between stars and planets.
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
My Position on Katirai: Undecided I'd say Katirai's theory in a nutshell is that galaxies are actually stellar systems, like the solar system, so the Milky Way is all part of the solar system. I give Katirai's theory a 60% probability of being correct. So I'm not a very strong proponent. He presents a lot of very interesting claims, but I can be easily persuaded either for or against his theory, if I hear thorough enough evidence and reasoning either way. I think it was within the last two years that this website posted info showing that the margin of error for calculations of stellar distances goes up to 100% beyond distances of about 300 to 500 ly. And I believe it agreed that that means any distances beyond that are entirely indeterminate. And that means even the Andromeda galaxy could be within 1,000 ly, as Katirai claimed. If this site has said anything further on this matter since then, I haven't noticed it myself.
Glow Mode Instead of Reflected Light
601 said: "the only issue I might have with Revolution in Astronomy [so far] 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.
LK: I suppose many or most of us agree that EU theory is the main ingredient missing from Katirai's book that could clinch his theory, if nothing else disproves it first.
Defining Stars and Planets - SJW said: "i guess the EU needs to define what constitutes a star or planet." - And Nick quoted Thornhill: "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." - SJW then suggested that brown dwarfs should be called rogue planets. LK: Katirai challenges the main sequence and H-R Diagram, but I think it might work to call all objects that emit more light and heat than they reflect stars, and all that reflect more than they emit planets. And that means, like Thornhill said, a star can become a planet and vice versa. And that would be determined possibly by its electrical environment.
Galactic Centers
Nick said: 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. - ... As I showed earlier many galaxies are resolvable into stars. ... Galactic spectra [suggest that galaxies] are composed [of] a combination of ionized gas, dust (plasma) clouds, and millions of stars.
LK: I'll post some of Katirai's evidence on that before long, I expect. Since this website agrees, or seemed to agree within the past two years, that no distances beyond about 500 ly are determinable as yet, those galaxies could therefore be located within the distances that Katirai concluded and could thus be much smaller, along with their constituents, than conventionally calculated.
Sun's Range of Visibility to the Naked Eye
Corp. said: I do not agree with the 6.09 light years termination point and even somewhat sceptical about the 50 ly. A basis of that might be glean from this article which might be applied to negate the inverse square rule necessarily applying. - http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp - His reasoning for placing our sun "near" the centre of galaxy is very compelling and supported by clear analysis of 3rd party observation. However even though it makes sense from his photographic referents that perhaps there is just one central star in galaxies that really is controversial and does seem to conflict with EU theory. - ... I find it disappointing that he did not try to estimate (or at least more clearly) his size range for the Milky way... from what I gleaned he makes it extremely !!! small relative to established thinking.
LK: I agree that he may be wrong about the 6 ly as the maximum range of the Sun's visibility via the naked eye. I think he may have overlooked the fact that his experiment was conducted in the Earth's atmosphere, which I suppose may absorb or reflect a considerable amount of light. Starlight on the other hand travels mostly through space and only travels a few miles through our atmosphere before we detect it on Earth. - But I think he may be right about the Sun being visible to the naked eye no more than about 50 ly away.
Spectral Evidence
Katirai's book says on page 150: Despite the fact that scientists analysing the atmosphere of the sun have discovered 65 elements and only years later, small traces of hydrogen and helium, theoreticians have suggested that hydrogen and helium atoms make up 99.9% of the volume of the sun.
LK: I was surprised to read this. I had not heard this before. It'll be interesting to find out if it's true or not. The book was written in 2006, and Katirai seems to have studied available known findings somewhat thoroughly, so this claim should not be hard to verify or refute, I think.
SJW said: Reflectance spectra is spectra taken from objects believed not to be stars. It is then rationed, i.e., divided by the corresponding pixel data from spectra believed to be stars. This creates an overall lower value of spectra they term reflectance spectra. So they do not even use the original values in thier final spectra data. Almost every single obbject in the Milky-Way has a spectra different from the Sun. Since I for one do not believe spectra is caused from burning molecules to ash, the only way we know of to create spectra from chemical compounds, I do not see how spectra emitted from electrical processess and those from burning have anything in common?
LK: That's very interesting. It would be helpful and much appreciated if you can provide some references for this info. I'll try to ask Brant what he may know about this.
From my previou post Katirai said : "It was [Pickering] who realized that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun.
LK: That's very interesting too. It should be fairly easy to find out if this is true. Then, if it is true, it would be quite odd if spectra from other galactic centers are very similar to the Sun's spectrum, but the spectrum of the Milky Way's presumed center at Sag. A is different. I hope someone can find an authoritative answer on this matter. Maybe Brant can.
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I do have responses to the part of X-ray detection. We know now that Saturn x-rays from both it's rings and from it's core. We know that Jupiter lights off an X-ray tick about once an hour due to interaction with Io, being the most likely hypothesis. We know that many "stars" emit large amounts of x-rays, most notably Sirius A & B.
The one part from Katirai that is not being mentioned so far is Full Spectrum Examination, at least that is what I would call it. This technique can be used to differentiate reflected light from light sources. This is easily achieved by comparing the X-ray emission vs. the IR emission. Objects that are both very hot and emitting alot of X-rays are most likely light sources. Objects that are high on X-ray emission but low on heat emission would be performing just like one of our local gas giants. This is a very bare bones idea to say the least but it does work pretty well.
The problem I encountered, right off the bat, was both Sirius and Alpha Centauri A. They are hot and do seem to emit light; but, as mentioned from Katirai's source list, They do not have anywhere near the same spectra as the Sun. The sun has so many metals in it that it is hilarious, especially when viewed via the specific corresponding wavelengths. What it ends up looking like, to me, is that there are indeed hydrogen based stars, but the Sun sure as heck doesn't fit this model at all. The Sun looks more like an Iron-based Star with most of the iron being ionized.
More fitting with the topic, it was recently released that our solar system is an odd-ball compared to most of the other solar systems. Odd-ball in the sense that nature seems to favor days long rotations for planets even for other "stars" similar to our Sun, Tau Ceti being the example.
Lloyd wrote: Stars or Planets? Here's more from Katirai's book from here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008. Again, I ask if anyone challenges any of the statements here and, if so, why. I don't mean to suggest that I don't challenge any of them. I'm just posting the statements first, then I may mention if I doubt any of them.
_{Spectra} _"It was [Pickering] who realized that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun. _"Pickering examined various parts of the sky visible from the northern hemisphere. _"He found that stars that resemble the sun --- are distributed with near uniformity over --- the sky. _"The whitish or bluish objects such as Sirius that have a group of strongly marked dark lines in their spectrum (indicating --- hydrogen --- in their atmosphere[s]), are however, much more numerous [in] the Milky Way than in other parts of the sky. _"Professor Pickering's research showed that the Milky Way is little more than an aggregation of objects of the type to which Sirius belongs. _"He noticed that --- the spectrum of the sun among all the objects in the Milky Way is unique. _"all the whitish or bluish objects that he thought were stars are actually planets belonging to the sun. _"There is absolutely no evidence [that they are stars]. _"it appears that no spectrum analyses were ever carried out for the sole purpose of differentiating stars from planets. _"images, taken by the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS), show [that the objects in] the Cygnus region within our own Milky Way --- appear to be planets instead of stars.
_{High Frequency Radiation} _"If we compare the sun with all the planets in the solar system, we see that the sun is a strong source of x-rays and gamma rays, whereas planets are not. _"If the sun is a typical star, then other stars must also be strong sources of x-rays and gamma rays. _"A strong detection of x-ray or gamma ray emission from any luminous point should therefore be taken as an indication that it could be a star. _"To the author's knowledge, to date this method has not been used to differentiate between stars and planets.
_"it appears that no spectrum analyses were ever carried out for the sole purpose of differentiating stars from planets.
It appears so. I have read several papers on Pluto's spectra and they do it by ratioing its spectra to other distant spectra they believe are stars, no mention is made if they use only the spectra similar to our Sun or the ones they believe closest. But Pluto's spectra is not ratioed according to the Sun's, but other distant objects, again, "believed" to be stars at a distance they "believe" to be correct. _
"A strong detection of x-ray or gamma ray emission from any luminous point should therefore be taken as an indication that it could be a star. _"To the author's knowledge, to date this method has not been used to differentiate between stars and planets.
kalensar wrote: I do have responses to the part of X-ray detection. We know now that Saturn x-rays from both it's rings and from it's core. We know that Jupiter lights off an X-ray tick about once an hour due to interaction with Io, being the most likely hypothesis. We know that many "stars" emit large amounts of x-rays, most notably Sirius A & B.
The one part from Katirai that is not being mentioned so far is Full Spectrum Examination, at least that is what I would call it. This technique can be used to differentiate reflected light from light sources. This is easily achieved by comparing the X-ray emission vs. the IR emission. Objects that are both very hot and emitting alot of X-rays are most likely light sources. Objects that are high on X-ray emission but low on heat emission would be performing just like one of our local gas giants. This is a very bare bones idea to say the least but it does work pretty well.
The problem I encountered, right off the bat, was both Sirius and Alpha Centauri A. They are hot and do seem to emit light; but, as mentioned from Katirai's source list, They do not have anywhere near the same spectra as the Sun. The sun has so many metals in it that it is hilarious, especially when viewed via the specific corresponding wavelengths. What it ends up looking like, to me, is that there are indeed hydrogen based stars, but the Sun sure as heck doesn't fit this model at all. The Sun looks more like an Iron-based Star with most of the iron being ionized.
More fitting with the topic, it was recently released that our solar system is an odd-ball compared to most of the other solar systems. Odd-ball in the sense that nature seems to favor days long rotations for planets even for other "stars" similar to our Sun, Tau Ceti being the example.
Convince me those central light, x-ray and gamma ray sources are millions of stars circling a central Black Hole, because if not I got no choice but to believe its a single star, unless and if ever a picture of a galactic core is ever resolved into more than maybe two sources, binary, instead of the millions claimed. And don't try to convince me one picture of our claimed center is even remotely similar to any other galactic core. More like a nebula in the arms. I still have seen no reasonable explanation how if our galaxy is 2000 ly wide, we see a band on both sides and are not completely immersed in it, since we are claimed to be in one of those spiral arms?
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Believe it or not, I take the same stance as you on this subject, SWJ. I've devoted a lot of calculator time and Photo viewing time on this same area last year, but it is not anyone's position to convince you of anything. All of your points are right in sync with my hypotheses. What is poignant is that a sufficient test has not been rigged up to test the ideas for validity; hence why the Big Bang stands, but I see the Electric Universe supplanting it given it's due time because of all the accurate predictions being made.
What we are doing here is adding more fuel to the fire to help the case of observable fact finding. Polemic is certainly one route, but all the brains here also have a great deal of respect, distaste, or otherwise for many areas of knowledge concerning the cosmos. The certainty of Plasma being the engine for the forseeable future is practically set in stone.
The problem with the distances is a vast one. I see the same brand of Helios fellow called our sun as a Galactic Core too. Whatever those objects are, they are certainly related just because of visible spectra analysis. The others are right that we can and have imaged the cores resolving objects within them.
Like you, I see less than 100 objects vs the contention they are star clusters simply because I do not understand how a star like our Sun can have another star within it's heliosphere without really upsetting the electrical balance. The very notion of a heliosphere practically destroys the star cluster idea, as far as I can tell.
The other part I have trouble swallowing is that band of mist we call the Milky Way with our naked eye. Turn a telescope on it and it does not turn into a bunch of stars. It looks like gas, and it is certainly very large and far away but not that distant in the matter of light years, in my opinion.
In all fairness, I'm more likely thinking we sit in a Double Star system with the thing we call a Galactic Core being another Sun or our closest neighboring monster solar system. Sounds far fetched until you realize that we already know that object is brighter than the Full Moon. My own numbers and Michio Kaku, of all people, verifying this.
kalensar wrote: Believe it or not, I take the same stance as you on this subject, SWJ. I've devoted a lot of calculator time and Photo viewing time on this same area last year, but it is not anyone's position to convince you of anything. All of your points are right in sync with my hypotheses. What is poignant is that a sufficient test has not been rigged up to test the ideas for validity; hence why the Big Bang stands, but I see the Electric Universe supplanting it given it's due time because of all the accurate predictions being made.
What we are doing here is adding more fuel to the fire to help the case of observable fact finding. Polemic is certainly one route, but all the brains here also have a great deal of respect, distaste, or otherwise for many areas of knowledge concerning the cosmos. The certainty of Plasma being the engine for the forseeable future is practically set in stone.
The problem with the distances is a vast one. I see the same brand of Helios fellow called our sun as a Galactic Core too. Whatever those objects are, they are certainly related just because of visible spectra analysis. The others are right that we can and have imaged the cores resolving objects within them.
Like you, I see less than 100 objects vs the contention they are star clusters simply because I do not understand how a star like our Sun can have another star within it's heliosphere without really upsetting the electrical balance. The very notion of a heliosphere practically destroys the star cluster idea, as far as I can tell.
The other part I have trouble swallowing is that band of mist we call the Milky Way with our naked eye. Turn a telescope on it and it does not turn into a bunch of stars. It looks like gas, and it is certainly very large and far away but not that distant in the matter of light years, in my opinion.
In all fairness, I'm more likely thinking we sit in a Double Star system with the thing we call a Galactic Core being another Sun or our closest neighboring monster solar system. Sounds far fetched until you realize that we already know that object is brighter than the Full Moon. My own numbers and Michio Kaku, of all people, verifying this.
Harlow Shapley believed that everything in the universe was located within our own galaxy. He thought that the Galaxy was quite large – 300,000 light-years in diameter – and that the sun was not at the center. Shapley also argued that spiral nebulae (spiral-shaped patches of light observed through telescopes) were nearby clouds of gas located well within the Milky Way.
Shapley based his ideas on the size of the Milky Way on observations of globular star clusters. The distance to one prominent globular cluster, M13, had been determined. Shapley assumed that all globular clusters were roughly the same size, and so used their apparent size on the sky to determine their actual distances (the more distant an object is, the smaller it will appear to us). He found that the globular clusters formed a loose halo around the flat, disk-shaped body of the rest of the galaxy. In the same way, he determined that the galaxy was 300,000 light-years in diameter and that the sun was located 50,000 light-years away from the center...
In 1908, Harvard astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt had studied photographs of the Magellanic Clouds (the two galaxies closest to the Milky Way). They showed that the Magellanic Clouds were made up of clumps of individual stars, some of which were Cepheid variable stars. Cepheid variables are a type of star which changes its luminosity regularly, pulsing from faint (and cool) to bright (and hot) over a period of one to one hundred days. Repeated observations of such a star will show it waxing and waning in brightness, as shown in the light curve below. The trick then became to determine the distance to one (any one!) Cepheid variable star, in order to set a zero point to this relation between intrinsic luminosity and period. With this known, the true distance to any Cepheid could be determined: measure the period of the luminosity variation, observe the apparent luminosity, and calculate the distance at which the star must lie in order for it to appear this bright. The problem was that there were no Cepheid stars near enough to the Earth that parallax could be used to determine their distances. Shapley calibrated the period-luminosity relationship for Cepheids in a rough fashion, and estimated the distance to the Magellanic Clouds. He found that the distance was less than the diameter of the Milky Way, and concluded that extragalactic nebulae were part of the Milky Way... Spiral nebulae are now know to lie far beyond the Galaxy. http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/geas/lectures ... ide01.html
So every single thing that determined our Sun was not the center of the galaxy has been shown to be incorrect, every single so-called fact is nothing but misinformation and incorrect assumptions. The Milky-way was the entire universe when such studies were undertaken. If you based the center of the galaxy upon things not residing inside the galaxy, of course your results will be skewed. I would love to see a non-biased study performed today, without using cephid variables that sound suspiciously like planets going through orbital phases, quarter, half, full etc, just like the moon.
Curtis was correct to claim that spiral nebulae are separate from the Milky Way. The question was settled in 1923 when Edwin Hubble, using the new Mt. Wilson 100-inch telescope, detected Cepheid variables in the great nebulae in Andromeda (M31). Using Shapley's calibration of the period-luminosity relation, Hubble concluded that M31 was at a distance of 1.2 million light-years – far beyond the outer limits of the Milky Way.
So using Shapley's callibration which assumed they were part of the Milky-way, Hubble concluded that they were over a million light yeras away. How can you use a calibration assuming a star is inside the milky-way and then using that lumionosity derived value (that they are close) decide it actually means millions of light years??? No wonder our luminosity versus distance calculations are so messed up.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
@corpuscles
Gary
I must misunderstand you.. but I can see the reflected light of the moon very clearly from my house at over 300,000 km away?
Yes you can, but there is no proof it can be seen from the Space Station, other than when looking sideways, though the Earths atmosphere.
Dollard may have said no EM waves implying Teslas longitudinal or scalar waves, but surely didn't mean "no light or heat"!Have you got a link (or diect quote of) to exactly what he said? Again here in Australia at summer I can assure you it (our sun) belts out a lot of heat!
Yes, he did mean no light or heat is transmitted, and ONLY longitudinal waves will travel long distances.
* Eric Dollard states the sun does not transmit any transverse electromagnetic energy.
* When the longitudinal waves hit surfaces it converts the longitudinal waves to transverse waves.
You can watch the video, Part 5, from this page. At about 5:10 Dollard speaks. I can't find the video that has his full presentation, but he talked just prior to the piece here about how NASA was puzzled about the non-visibility of the stars etc from the first shuttle missions, and then how they put a grating on the shuttle main windows so they could see the stars. That would have been so that they could see the Lyman Alpha emissions from those 'stars', I believe.
I have read quite a few mission reports from the Gemini and Apollo missions, along with crew voice transcripts, and there is no evidence that heat was ever a problem, and that the complaints were about being cold, even when they should have been in full sun on the translunar coast. On Apollo 8 they said the windows had fogging and ice crystals on the outside, even when the Sun was supposedly on those windows. Nothing NASA has said makes me believe it is hot in space while in the Sun, other folk may reach different conclusions, of course.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
GaryN wrote: @corpuscles
Gary
I must misunderstand you.. but I can see the reflected light of the moon very clearly from my house at over 300,000 km away?
Yes you can, but there is no proof it can be seen from the Space Station, other than when looking sideways, though the Earths atmosphere.
Dollard may have said no EM waves implying Teslas longitudinal or scalar waves, but surely didn't mean "no light or heat"!Have you got a link (or diect quote of) to exactly what he said? Again here in Australia at summer I can assure you it (our sun) belts out a lot of heat!
Yes, he did mean no light or heat is transmitted, and ONLY longitudinal waves will travel long distances.
* Eric Dollard states the sun does not transmit any transverse electromagnetic energy.
* When the longitudinal waves hit surfaces it converts the longitudinal waves to transverse waves.
You can watch the video, Part 5, from this page. At about 5:10 Dollard speaks. I can't find the video that has his full presentation, but he talked just prior to the piece here about how NASA was puzzled about the non-visibility of the stars etc from the first shuttle missions, and then how they put a grating on the shuttle main windows so they could see the stars. That would have been so that they could see the Lyman Alpha emissions from those 'stars', I believe.
I have read quite a few mission reports from the Gemini and Apollo missions, along with crew voice transcripts, and there is no evidence that heat was ever a problem, and that the complaints were about being cold, even when they should have been in full sun on the translunar coast. On Apollo 8 they said the windows had fogging and ice crystals on the outside, even when the Sun was supposedly on those windows. Nothing NASA has said makes me believe it is hot in space while in the Sun, other folk may reach different conclusions, of course.
SJW said: So using Shapley's callibration which assumed they [other galaxies?] were part of the Milky-way, Hubble concluded that they were over a million light yeras away. How can you use a calibration assuming a star [?] is inside the milky-way and then using that lumionosity derived value (that they are close) decide it actually means millions of light years??? No wonder our luminosity versus distance calculations are so messed up.
LK: Can you tell us where you read that? If it's true, it certainly sounds fishy. I'd better keep a note of this.
From the Apollo 11 transcript: http://history.nasa.gov/ap11fj/11day4-loi1.htm [As the crew sleep, Apollo 11 falls towards the Moon, now accelerating under its gravitational pull in the final leg of its outward journey. On waking, the spacecraft passes into the Moon's shadow and they see star constellations and the solar corona clearly for the first time.[...]] - 071:59:20 Armstrong: Houston, it's been a real change for us. Now we're able to see stars again and recognize constellations for the first time on the trip. It's - the sky is full of stars. Just like the night side of Earth. But all the way here, we've only been able to see stars occasionally and perhaps through the monocular, but not recognize any star patterns. - 071:59:52 McCandless: I guess it's turned into night up there really, hasn't it? - 071:59:58 Armstrong: Really has. So, they easily saw constellations when they weren't in bright sunlight.
More From Katirai's Online Book http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008 LK: Do you see any statements here that you disagree with and, if so, why? _{Binaries and Multiples} _"By studying the period of orbit of many binaries, it was found that many of them are very short. _"Some complete their orbit in a few hours, some less than an hour. _"Moreover, Doppler Effect studies revealed that in many cases, the orbital velocities of these objects around their companion were small. _"This proves that the size of orbit and the distance separating the two members of the binary must be small. _"This, in turn, suggests that the size of these objects must be small [like planets].
_{Small Dense Stars} _"such phenomena as "collapsed stars", "neutron stars" or even "black holes" --- [if] considered as planets, all problems [with them] are solved
_{Star Clusters or Planet Clusters} _"a star the size of our sun located a distance of a few light-years away, no matter how great the magnification by telescope, would never show up larger than a point of light. _"The fact that with small telescopes many objects in a cluster show up with relatively large discs indicates they are close – i.e. light hours away rather than thousands or millions of light-years, --- [e]specially considering the fact that their light always is very pale indicating they are not intrinsically bright at all. _"Astronomers agree that objects in star clusters are always faint and dull. _"For this reason, they speculated that the objects in a cluster must be burnt out stars. _"They did not consider the possibility that the objects could be planetoids or planets rather than stars. _"The author suspects that the distances of some of the globular clusters could be even closer to us than --- Pluto _"Considering that these objects would show up faint and with significant discs when viewed through a small telescope indicates they are very near to us. _"It should not be surprising that all of them may be reflecting the light of the sun. _"That is the reason why in figure 8 the shadows of objects can be seen on the objects that are located farther back behind them. _"The arrow shows an example of a shadow created by one over the other behind it. _"If we look at the images of a cluster (see figure 8) we see that objects in the forefront are brighter than those farther back. _"The fact that there is great contrast in faintness between the objects that are inside the cavities (identified by the arrows in the figure 9) and those surrounding the cavities indicates that the objects are reflecting the light of the sun. _"Spectroscopic study of the objects in a globular cluster reveals that these objects have different constitutions than that of our sun---.
_{Planet Formation} _"The --- images of star clusters [may show] how large planets are created. _"All the planetoids or asteroids are slowly coming together and the combination of a large number of them creates a large body. _"The planetoids or asteroids are created by condensation of clouds of minerals. _"In most circumstances the clouds do not condense into one large body, such as a planet, all at once. _"Within the clouds many individual packets, asteroids, are created. _"The relatively small gravitational forces of these asteroids slowly force them to combine into larger objects, such as planetoids. _"Many planetoids combine into much larger objects creating large planets. _"When cloud density is high, the process of condensation into asteroids or planetoids is much faster and the formed planetoids or asteroids are so closely packed that from a distance, they may appear as one body. _"However, when cloud density is low, the condensation into planetoids is much slower and the distances between newly formed planetoids are much greater. _"the understanding that these objects are planetoids and not --- burnt out stars, leads us to [suppose] they are young, not old, probably the youngest objects in the Milky Way galaxy. _"The reason they are the youngest is because the condensing clouds are away from the galactic plane and are not very much subject to the disturbance and pressure of the solar wind.
_{H-R Diagram} _"the famous Period and Luminosity Relation and the main sequence stars are based on the --- assumption that objects in a cluster are all stars. _"If [this is wrong], then the whole idea of H-R diagram and main sequence is [wrong].
_{Cepheids} _"the light of some [objects in star clusters, called Cepheids] fades periodically [for] periods of --- less than a day. _"Astronomers believe --- the change in light is caused by the change in size and temperature of the star. _"such large, massive and glowing objects could not possibly cool down and shrink and then heat up and swell in such short periods of time. _"However, if we consider that the object is a planet then it is reasonable to see that it is spinning and that the change in its light is caused by its spin. _"As the object spins the side that is a better reflector of light facing Earth, appears bright. _"When this side turns around and faces away from Earth then the object appear[s] darker.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Come on guys, the reason you cant see stars very well from any craft is you need a big enough shadow, such as night side of earth or night side of moon.
On waking, the spacecraft passes into the Moon's shadow and they see star constellations and the solar corona clearly for the first time.
Thanx SJW. I have seen a few posts regarding this not seeing stars in space thingy and my take has always been exactly that. In open space or the bright side of the moon there seems to be this question. Interesting, this incident in the transcript specifically mentions the moon shadow. It certainly stands to reason, I think I will re-research this and not feel so outta the box this time.
The world ended over a week ago and I haven't seen a single stinkin' zombie!
