I was very skeptical while reading through this thread but i think sjw may be on to something here. Maybe the galaxies really are solar systems with one or a few stars rather than billions of stars. I never questioned mainstream thinking on this issue before but it makes no sense that we can supposedly capture images of galaxies many millions or billions of light years away yet we still can't get a good picture of alpha centauri, for instance.
What pictures of galaxies we have do appear to only have a single central object. If the distances that are bandied about are wrong it calls everything into question imo.
Sparky
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
If the distances that are bandied about are wrong it calls everything into question
Exactly! I suspect that what we are seeing with the largest telescopes, that smaller ones can't pick out, are really far away. We just don't have any idea how far and if they are moving. I see no reason that they should be moving, except to adjust their position with a neighbor or from inertia , and that could be in any direction..
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Sparky wrote:
If the distances that are bandied about are wrong it calls everything into question
Exactly! I suspect that what we are seeing with the largest telescopes, that smaller ones can't pick out, are really far away. We just don't have any idea how far and if they are moving. I see no reason that they should be moving, except to adjust their position with a neighbor or from inertia , and that could be in any direction..
Thanks Vasa, but it isn't me, I just read this man's work several years ago and started looking into it, since then the only thing I've found to critisize in his book is some of his interpretations, such as solar wind, etc, which fit an EU theory better. https://11dc5d5d-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.goo ... edirects=1
I expect they are far away too Sparky, just not billions of light years. I think the only reason we cant see as far as we think we can is all the dust and plasma that pervades the universe. A previous article shows that they now think dust may block 50% of the light, not at most 10% as they used to think. Do you realize the orders of magnitude they now use for galactic centers? Do they have an inkling that if they have distances correct, what increasing the actual size and luminosity of these objects for 40% more mass and luminosity, what they have created? If you need super massive behemoth black holes to account for an underestimated size, I mean my god, what fairy dust has to be coming next?
I have no doubt each one we see is moving, and I make no claim as to speed except relative to one another, not actual speed through space (another topic entirely ), but I seriously doubt if almost every single galaxy is accelerating away from us at fractions the speed of c, despite what we are told about redshift equals velocity and hence expansion. Like Hubble I believe it "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature," or perhaps an ignored one.
I think that 40% extra light being blocked means we can only see far, far less than the overinflated distances we are given. What they term as extinction of light in space, that blocked or refracted away. So if 40% more is blocked than they think, how much further or larger must it actually be to be of the magnitudes they claim? Or is it just the same magnitude as the sun comparatively and much much closer, just more dust to make them dimmer ?
Solar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
There seems to be a bevy of perspectives in this thread. It's pretty safe to say that even astrophysics knows that its distance relations are jacked. One of the plasmoids of our own Milky Way Galaxy has been resolved quite nicely:
That is a plasmoid of immense scale and power. Notice that it is globular as opposed to spherical like a stare and/or planet. That is because it is neither. This object is not the 'center' of the Milky Way; it is one of several aspects that can be said to exist at the relative 'center' of the Milky Way. Other smaller plasmoids, "knots" non-thermal threads (filaments/electric currents), electric and magnetic fields are also present in great abundance. Curiously, with such detail, there is no "gravitational lensing" (whatever that is).
This plasmoid (so called "point source") has been resolved even further to reveal a Triskel formation known as the "Mini Spiral" ("wheels within wheels").
Surrounding the so called "Mini spiral" is a torus known as the "Circumnuclear Disk" which has an intense ionization front owing to a rather powerful electric field. See "A Trip to Galactic Center"
It is known that the within the bright glow of this plasmoid, the "Mini Spiral" and "Circumnuclear Disk" constitute the 'opening' to a Birkeland Current extending some 300 light years above the Milky Way to its tip known as the Double Helix Nebula "two continuous, helically wound strands":
For all its intensity and beauty of presence this Cosmic Serpent is but ONE Birkeland Current! Study the components very carefully (bright globular plasmoid, CND (Ionizing Torus), "Mini Spiral", the towering vortex filament that is in the referenced paper and said to "meander". In other words the entire 300 light year long length 'dances' about like the head of a cobra raised on its tail). Keeping in mind that these are the component of just one Birkelnad Current in our very own Milky Way what do you (dear reader) suppose is the nature of this veritable Den of Cosmic Serpents:
That is not only a lot of Birkeland Currents, it is a lot of power and all of it is convening (or extending) towards/from one relative central location. Therefore, from ONE bright plasmoid as may be exemplified by Sag A* above one can posit several as *may* be the case for NGC 30079. Together they would demonstrate the COLLECTIVE behavior of plasma-electrodynamics ("bulk flows" "co-rotation" etc) that can present the perspective of a galaxy having ONE bright central "core" but said "core" could very well be composed of several participants. That one bright core is composed of several intense ionizing species that act collectively depending on perspective derived from viewing geometry:
The imaging processes that brought out the Birkeland Current filaments of NGC 3079 weren't used in the above image of NGC 4414. The above image simply wasn't resolved that way, neither were any one of its globular plasmoids in particular as with the opening resolution of Sag A*. To say that a galaxy is like a central 'star' with spirals, halos, jets, CME "knots" and "kinks" in its Heliosphere is only to reveal the nature of plasma scaling. Yes, larger plasma properties can be seen in smaller scale plasma phenomena; it scales nicely, thus one can move from the lab to the cosmos. The further away one gets the more the collective behavior becomes integrated as a functioning whole as opposed to seeming discordant pieces as seen here:
That image just happens to fit a model of the electron that I like. It doesn't resolve any "jets", filaments, nor "galactic winds". I could say it has the rough properties of a star and show them to you but that is because the plasma scales that way. There are many images that have been resolved due to techniques that enhance light and various wavelengths thereof far beyond the limits of human vision. Usually, from my observations, using the various imaging techniques the brightest objects are plasmoids. The top image on the following website shows the Milky Way in normal light. Use the squares to see what can be 'made visible' incorporating the um range and the instruments (PACS on the one hand, SPIRE on the other, and HIFI) that 'see' in those ranges. Obviously, these are the result of highly processed raw data and some of it is classified "depending on the level of the processing of the data they contain".
It just seems to me that some of the collective behavior and electrodynamics of plasma scaling are being taken somewhere that they don't actually go in the comparative analysis. A star is not a galaxy, a galaxy is not a star but with plasma scaling 'familial resemblance' is a natural thing.
I think star colour is probably one of the foundation stones of all astronomy, but the determination of star colour is quite a convoluted process. That there is still disagreement on the colour of our Sun shows just what a fragile process star colour determination is, yet so much depends on those colours. Here's a comprehensive description of star colour determination.
My problem here is that the space based instruments only see colour by the use of filters, and with Hubble those filters are chosen mainly to see the spectral lines of things like hydrogen and helium, but which are not from thermal causes. There is a "Yellow" filter at 508 nm, but that is also a spectral line for Cadmium , which is found in interstellar clouds. Depending on the bandwidth of the filter, there may be transition levels of other elements in there too, but to say a star is yellow based on the use of a yellow filter, well I don't understand that. Observations, some from Earth, have shown a few green stars, but they come up with some complicated reasons why they are not really green, extinction effects on blue stars for one. It all sounds very tenuous to me.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
GaryN wrote: I think star colour is probably one of the foundation stones of all astronomy, but the determination of star colour is quite a convoluted process. That there is still disagreement on the colour of our Sun shows just what a fragile process star colour determination is, yet so much depends on those colours. Here's a comprehensive description of star colour determination.
My problem here is that the space based instruments only see colour by the use of filters, and with Hubble those filters are chosen mainly to see the spectral lines of things like hydrogen and helium, but which are not from thermal causes. There is a "Yellow" filter at 508 nm, but that is also a spectral line for Cadmium , which is found in interstellar clouds. Depending on the bandwidth of the filter, there may be transition levels of other elements in there too, but to say a star is yellow based on the use of a yellow filter, well I don't understand that. Observations, some from Earth, have shown a few green stars, but they come up with some complicated reasons why they are not really green, extinction effects on blue stars for one. It all sounds very tenuous to me.
Hey Gary, yes, a lot rides on color. That helps them determine the temperature of what we shall call them stars, which since they then believe this color represents a set temperature range and hence luminosity, they also use it as distance indicators. In other words objects thought to be similar in color to the sun are judged as approx the same mass and luminosity, so they believe they can figure closely the distance by what they think our sun would appear at a set distance.
I agree with you, I expect that by using just about every color filter that exists we could get a different spectral image from the Sun. The first spectra of our sun showed iron and heavy elements. Only later did they find helium and hydrogen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium
The first evidence of helium was observed on August 18, 1868 as a bright yellow line with a wavelength of 587.49 nanometers in the spectrum of the chromosphere of the Sun. The line was detected by French astronomer Jules Janssen during a total solar eclipse in Guntur, India. This line was initially assumed to be sodium. On October 20 of the same year, English astronomer Norman Lockyer observed a yellow line in the solar spectrum, which he named the D3 Fraunhofer line because it was near the known D1 and D2 lines of sodium. He concluded that it was caused by an element in the Sun unknown on Earth. Lockyer and English chemist Edward Frankland named the element with the Greek word for the Sun, ἥλιος (helios). Spectral lines of helium
In 1882, Italian physicist Luigi Palmieri detected helium on Earth, for the first time, through its D3 spectral line, when he analyzed the lava of Mount Vesuvius. Sir William Ramsay, the discoverer of terrestrial helium
On March 26, 1895, Scottish chemist Sir William Ramsay isolated helium on Earth by treating the mineral cleveite (a variety of uraninite with at least 10% rare earth elements) with mineral acids. Ramsay was looking for argon but, after separating nitrogen and oxygen from the gas liberated by sulfuric acid, he noticed a bright yellow line that matched the D3 line observed in the spectrum of the Sun. These samples were identified as helium by Lockyer and British physicist William Crookes. It was independently isolated from cleveite in the same year by chemists Per Teodor Cleve and Abraham Langlet in Uppsala, Sweden, who collected enough of the gas to accurately determine its atomic weight.
Besides, any reflected light would contain the original spectra, plus any shift picked up or lost with interaction with the object.
_{Milky Way Center} _"[Astronomers] believe that this centre is completely hidden behind clouds of dust so that no light reaches Earth from that centre. _"The sun and many billions of stars are thought to be circling that hidden centre. _"many astronomers, after decades of careful study of the Milky Way galaxy, have concluded that the sun was located somewhere near the centre of the galaxy. _"Studies regarding star densities in various regions of the skies revealed that stars thin out in all directions away from the sun. _"The spectral type of stars in the Milky Way also revealed the same result. _"The proper motions, parallaxes, and radial velocities of the stars in the Milky Way showed that all stars orbit a centre where the sun is located. _"Studies have shown that all luminous objects nearer to the sun are actually moving faster than those farther away. _"The Swiss-American astronomer Robert Julius Trumpler, while studying the distances to globular clusters, came to the same conclusion. _"He was determining the distances to the globular clusters by deducing the absolute magnitude of individual stars in the cluster based on their color and spectra. _"Trumpler then compared the absolute magnitude to the apparent magnitude to calculate their distance. _"His study once again placed the solar system at the center of the galaxy. _"In 1930, Robert Trumpler's studies of distances to the globular clusters disproved Shapley's theory. _"However, Trumplers' studies, as well as many others that disproved Shapley's theory, were all ignored. _"Astronomers generally agree that the centers of galaxies have a yellowish colour and all the objects circling the centers have a bluish colour. _"Is it not odd that the sun, with its yellowish colour, is located at the edge of the galaxy instead of at the center? _"Why, then, do all objects at Sagittarius A have a blue colour? _"Shapley claimed that several dozen globular clusters make a halo around the alleged centre of the Milky Way galaxy. _"However, as previously mentioned, Robert Trumpler's studies showed that the centre of the halo is the sun, and not where Shapely theorized it was located. _"The following are two photographs each showing a galaxy from its side. _"Notice how bright the centres are. _"If we look at any galaxy, we can see their bright horizons (the bulges) that indicate where their centres are located. _"How is it, then, that we cannot see the bright horizon, the bulge, of our own galaxy? Since a distinguishable bright area cannot be found in the plane of the Milky Way, supporters of Shapley's theories concentrated on two small, separate spots in the direction of Sagittarius, which are a little brighter than other spots in the Milky Way. _"On the basis of this luminosity, they invented the idea that these two spots indicated the presence of the centre of the Milky Way in that direction. _"The fact is that similar spots also exist in other directions, the only difference being that they are a little less bright. _"Perhaps in recognition that this idea did not stand very well on its own, attention was next focused on x-rays, gamma rays, and infrared images. _"This led to a postulation that the radiation in the direction of Sagittarius suggests that the centre of the Milky Way was in that direction. _"The problem with this particular theory is that this same type of radiation also comes from other directions in the Milky Way. _"If we investigate all the 'evidence' that some have presented to show that the centre of the Milky Way is in the direction of Sagittarius, we will find that all of it is tailored to fit a preconceived idea. _"For example, some astronomers claim that after 25 years of research, they may have found faint x-rays coming from the centre of the Milky Way galaxy. _"looking toward the alleged centre, we should see a ring with a large bulge indicating where the centre is located. _"Is it not an odd coincidence that there is no such bulge anywhere in the ring at all? Furthermore, the distance of 26,000 to 52,000 light years to the centre is not small. _"If we were to look in the direction of the centre from this distance, we would be able to see a large percentage of all the stars belonging to the Milky Way in that direction. _"How is it that the number of stars in the ring, all around, is almost the same? _"In figure 6, the blue colour circle around the sun represents the limit of several thousand light years in which stars would be visible to an observer on Earth in the middle of the circle. _"Beyond the blue circle, no star would be visible due to the haze of interstellar dust. _"If the above ideas are true, then all visible stars within the circle would be moving around the center (Sagitatrius A), and no star would be moving towards or away from the center. _"However, many studies (including the Hipparcos data) have already confirmed that in the neighborhood of the sun, some stars move towards, while some others move away from the alleged center. _""Astronomers have discovered that many stars in the vicinity of the sun have unusual motions --- " "Using data from ESA's Hipparcos satellite, a team of European astronomers has now discovered several groups of 'rebel' stars that move in peculiar directions, mostly towards the galactic center or away from it. _"" In the author's view, the concept of 'rebel stars' is highly [doubtful]. _"If such objects exist in this galaxy, then they should exist in other galaxies as well. _"Furthermore, if the concept of rebel stars is true, then all of the blue objects allegedly located at the so-called center of Milky Way must also be rebels, as they should be located in the spiral arms rather than at the center of the galaxy. _"Furthermore, our sun must also be a rebel star, as being yellow, it should be located at the center rather than at the edge of the galaxy. _"The fact that the so-called stars in the neighbourhood of the sun move toward or away from the so-called galactic center disproves the idea about the location of the center. _"On the other hand, if we assume all objects in the Milky Way are circling the sun then, from our perspective, we would see groups of so-called stars moving in different directions. _"Further confirming that the objects in the plane of the Milky Way are asteroids or planets that circle the sun, astronomers in the early twentieth century noticed that all objects nearer to the sun move faster than those farther away. _"The fact that all the so–called stars nearer to the sun move faster than those further away indicates that the sun must be the centre of the gravity of all these objects. _"Astronomers believe that Sedna, a few times farther than Pluto, takes ten thousand years to complete its orbit around the sun. _"Let us examine clear photographs of the Milky Way, These pictures show that all objects in the Milky Way are reflecting light rather than giving light. _"The fact that the centres of galaxies are strong sources of infrared, ultraviolet, x-rays and gamma rays and that our sun is just such a source, would suggest that the sun could be the centre of Milky Way. _"If we look at the images of any galaxy and compare the size of its centre with any of its planets, we would see that the diameter of its centre is only several times larger. _"The diameter of the sun in comparison to the diameter of its largest planets is at least ten times larger.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
_"If we look at any galaxy, we can see their bright horizons (the bulges) that indicate where their centres are located. _"How is it, then, that we cannot see the bright horizon, the bulge, of our own galaxy? Since a distinguishable bright area cannot be found in the plane of the Milky Way, supporters of Shapley's theories concentrated on two small, separate spots in the direction of Sagittarius, which are a little brighter than other spots in the Milky Way. _"On the basis of this luminosity, they invented the idea that these two spots indicated the presence of the centre of the Milky Way in that direction.
Ahh, but here comes the interesting part. Please show me in the following basic illustration of what our galaxy is believed to look like, where there is one spot that no matter which direction you gaze in the ecliptic plane that all the surrounding dust disk is the same rough distance? Half way between the core and edge as claimed? Or near the center? http://www.universetoday.com/65601/wher ... milky-way/ And I am to believe that this http://spacefellowship.com/news/art1301 ... t-sky.html is 2000 ly thick at less than 25,000 ly since that is the center, and it only covers such a small band in the sky? I am sure someone good at math could calculate the odds of that being correct given scale, etc. That someone good at math is not me though
I also Say the Voyager probe will ultimately substantiate this. It will meet no outside influence from the claimed galactic center because the Sun is the galactic center. The particles will continue exiting and entering into our system just as they have been, There will be no drift as would be required if meeting an outside magnetic field supposedly causing our Sun to circle, except of course where the Birkeland Currents enter and exit.
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Bwsides, if the EU view of a star is correct, then I say the outer plasma ring we see all around us is the secondary Z-Pinch filiments, parts of which are in glow mode, which some mistake as the galactic center. http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-conten ... onment.jpg Voyager still has such a long way to go before it actually leaves the environment of the Sun. Clear outside the galaxy, IMO. Sorta like this? http://light-years.net/resources/Bar+Sp ... axy.lg.jpg The more balanced the current flow from Bar to Spiral to Round.
), but I seriously doubt if almost every single galaxy is accelerating away from us at fractions the speed of c, despite what we are told about redshift equals velocity and hence expansion. Like Hubble I believe it "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature," or perhaps an ignored one.
