K, I don't understand your comment about light intensity and maximum visibility distance. Are you saying that the max visibility distance will be the same regardless of the density of the medium, whether the medium is thick or thin atmosphere or empty space? If so, I can't buy that. Water is a medium for EM radiation too and it doesn't penetrate far at all in that medium and I think it's due to the density.
Looking at the semicircular image apparently in front of Betelgeuse some more (at http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/2013pics/betelgeuse_and_l~), I'm wondering why it would have 2 or 3 incomplete layers instead of just one smooth layer. They make it look like a curved linear Birkeland current, instead of a sphere surface. Would the straight line in front of the plasmasphere be able to disrupt the sphere surface, making the several partial layers?
webolife
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I've stayed mostly out of this recent conversation because I have a slightly different framework for what it means for something to be "visible"... the sensitivity of the photoreceptor is of course paramount [this was mentioned in the discussion of the photometers], and medium of transmission mentioned in Lloyd's post above... there are other factors which could create magnitudes of discrepency: 1. Resonance — what is the color [relative pressure], not just intensity, of the light at the receptor, and how is the receptor configured to process it — could this affect assumptions about whether the diffuse light from a nearby bulb can be compared to the diffuse light of the distant sun, enough to bring into question whether this relation can be applied to distant stars? 2. Speed of light — how trustworthy is this assumption being applied to infer theoretical astronomical distances, when it is measurably insignificant at close ranges? 3. Magnification — all light imaging is processed through a lensing/focusing system of some sort — how is this system affecting the nature of the light being "received" in the direction of nearby vs distant objects 4. Geometry of systems — does the geometry of the transmission space [exponentially] affect both the intensity and color of the light being received, and to what degree is "redshift=distance" being assumed in determining or comparing distant objects [incl Betelgeuse]? 5. Because all light is actually "invisible" without the aid of resonant detectors, "vision" factors must be taken into account in any inferred distance ranging of stars or galaxies — is this being ignored?
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
I have previously written that curving light could mean that stars a lot closer than the distance given. I recently did the geometry and found that it would take over 90 degrees of curvature before there was a significant difference in distance. That is, the incoming light from near stars would need to be travelling into the Solar System from nearly the opposite direction from where we think the light is coming from, to get magnitudes of distance difference.
And I find other theories not much chop either. But still I much prefer those near stars to be Jupiter size. Then we could have lots of Jupiter, Neptune, Venus, Mars and smaller size bodies not too far from the Solar System. All undergoing z-pinches. This would also greatly increase the probability than only a few thousand years ago the Solar System trapped the Earth or Saturn. And that the Solar System hoovered up all the rest of the planets in not that long a period.
Unfortunately the evidence does not suggest this yet. Mo
quantauniverse
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
The story says "new image analysis suggests it is either a filament linked to the galaxy's magnetic field, or the edge of a nearby interstellar cloud that is being illuminated by Betelgeuse." I suggest it is a straight normal stellar filament from a tiny companion star near Betelgeuse. There's a center bright spot of the star centered between the filament that looks similar to Betelgeuse. Planetary nebula are dying stars, that produce these circular filaments surrounded by dust. The magnetic field determines how long and steady the star shines. Betelgeuse is losing its magnetic field confinement around it's filament or jet, causing it to become a planetary nebula.
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Mathis has now answered Gary's question about how the planets etc can be visible from Earth when their albedos should make them way too dim to see from this distance. Mathis explains this in these 2 recent papers: http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf and http://milesmathis.com/encel2.pdf. Velocities and motions of bodies with or against the flows of the solar system and individual planetary systems determine how much magnetic resistance bodies have and that affects brightness, via the charge field of spinning photons. The papers above deal mainly with Enceladus, but also numerous other planetoids, and the info generalizes to apply to all bodies, I think.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Mathis has now answered Gary's question
Lets not jump to conclusions Lloyd. He offers a possible explanation, and it appears to hold together. However, his model still has it that transverse EM waves traverse long distances in the vacuum, which I do not (presently) believe. With the correct model of an Aether, and acceptance that the Aether is a non-linear medium, then the mechanisms are very different, and conform to what has been observed in experiments in non-linear optics. The soliton and the magnon may be able to replace the present models of light and gravity, and also explain the true nature of the Sun. I always had a problem with picturing Junglelords phase conjugate model, but with a non-linear Aether model it seems like a tenable model is not only possible, but probably demanded. It is also looking like the Ohaspe model of the acicular (needle-like), nose-to-tail, non-travelling but rather 'turning' (so they all line up) packets could explain the speed of light, as Eric Dollard ponders, as a hysteresis in the Aether. So my explanation of why more distant planets, and the stars (which are mostly planets/moons anyway) appear so bright is from the VUV Lyman emissions of the hydrogen corona found around all planets and moons,even asteroids, and some non-linear processes.It doesn't matter how far away they are, the Suns effect on these bodies is dependent on their atmospheres creating the ambient heat and light of those bodies, though the diameter of the bodies, and thus the radius of their coronaspheres is going to determine the amount of energy liberated. So, neither the standard light model, nor Mathis' model satisfy me. Awkward bugger aren't I? I will have a closer look at the Mathis pages some time, I only gave them a very quick look, just in case I missed something.
Goldminer
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
GaryN wrote:
Mathis has now answered Gary's question
Lets not jump to conclusions Lloyd. He offers a possible explanation, and it appears to hold together. However, his model still has it that transverse EM waves traverse long distances in the vacuum, which I do not (presently) believe. With the correct model of an Aether, and acceptance that the Aether is a non-linear medium, then the mechanisms are very different, and conform to what has been observed in experiments in non-linear optics. The soliton and the magnon may be able to replace the present models of light and gravity, and also explain the true nature of the Sun. I always had a problem with picturing Junglelords phase conjugate model, but with a non-linear Aether model it seems like a tenable model is not only possible, but probably demanded. It is also looking like the Ohaspe model of the acicular (needle-like), nose-to-tail, non-travelling but rather 'turning' (so they all line up) packets could explain the speed of light, as Eric Dollard ponders, as a hysteresis in the Aether. So my explanation of why more distant planets, and the stars (which are mostly planets/moons anyway) appear so bright is from the VUV Lyman emissions of the hydrogen corona found around all planets and moons,even asteroids, and some non-linear processes.It doesn't matter how far away they are, the Suns effect on these bodies is dependent on their atmospheres creating the ambient heat and light of those bodies, though the diameter of the bodies, and thus the radius of their coronaspheres is going to determine the amount of energy liberated. So, neither the standard light model, nor Mathis' model satisfy me. Awkward bugger aren't I? I will have a closer look at the Mathis pages some time, I only gave them a very quick look, just in case I missed something.
Gary, I'm with you on this one. I posted the diatribe quoted below, on the "Russian meteor" thread, looks like it will get more notice here:
Goldminer wrote: Some times I am a little slow on the uptake. I have read the article, The Foundations of Scientific Musical Tuning and others on the same subject many times. I recall a discussion that I had with Walter Babin, the owner of the General Science Journal website, several years ago. He had mentioned to me that he had found a connection with the Imperial measuring system and its superiority in weather and Solar system measurements. I never did get him to divulge to me what he had found. I think I understand, now. Even our time measurements are based on the measure described in your [Kiwi posted the link]. Eric Dollard, Symbolic Operators; Steinmetz to Pythagoras, Backward in Time, complains that people do not take these relationships seriously, all the time, when he tries to explain Tesla's ideas.
So, down with the "metric system" up with the Imperial system, and phi!
It is indeed a harmonic Universe!
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
From MM:
In a recent paper, I showed that the brightness of Halley's comet
What he doesn't mention is that the comets are only visible from Earths surface, because of our atmosphere. By eye, or with a regular camera, looking out into deep space from orbit, they will not be visible, unless, as from the ISS, they view it through the Earths atmosphere, that is, it will be very close to a visible portion of the Earth. And as with the stars, the comets are more easily seen when the Sun is at a certain position behind the Earth, and the Zodiacal Light, due to the Suns equatorial dust disk, providem more matter for conversion of the otherwise invisible wavelengths (UV again) from the comets. If you are in contact with MM Lloyd, maybe you can ask him if he has an opinion yet as to if the stars will be visible from space when looking perpendicular to Earths surface, out into deep space. I don't know how we will ever prove this one way or another without a simple experiment performed from the ISS, but I'd be interested to hear his opinion and reasoning.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
After a closer look at those 2 MM links LLoyd, I think his explanations of why the models don't work using albedo, reflection etc are excellent, and he puts very well what I have been trying to say. On the 'scientific' web site forums, my questions go unanswered, as they can not show any way to make the figures work, and they never will, as Miles explains very well. However, his explanation for how it does work, well, I have issues, such as:
But what we find is that the Moon is both very warm and very bright.
But the Moon is only very bright viewed from Earths surface. The images taken on the Moon showed they needed artificial light even though the Sun was up. And there are still no photos of the far side of the Moon, even when it should be fully lit and very bright. All 'images' of the Lunar far side are from IR/UV spectral imagers and laser altimeters. The other clue is the lack of colour on the near side. There should be a giant red patch, and overall the Moon should be redish brown, as the surface has large patches of iron oxide.
Map of the surface concentration of iron (expressed as FeO) on the lunar nearside (left) and far side (right), based on spectral reflectance measurements taken by the Clementine mission in 1994. The FeO data, from 70°S to 70°N, overlays a shaded relief map. High-FeO areas occur where volcanic lavas (mare basalts) filled giant impact craters. Low-FeO areas correspond to the feldspathic highlands. Image courtesy of Jeff Gillis.
This iron oxide is not from iron rich impactors IMO, it is sputtered on from CME ions, just as it has been on Mars. If the Sun is a full spectrum emitter of light then this should reflect a distinct redish colour. The Moon would seem to be a full spectrum emitter even though I can find no data, as long exposure digital photo taken under Moonlight looks identical to a daylight image, including a blue sky. The Digital Blue Sky at Night(PDF) http://www.osa-opn.org/opn/media/Images ... f?ext=.pdf
So something doesn't add up here, there should be red patches easily seen on the lunar surface, and there aint. They could be orange or yellow, or black too, but I'd think they would be a Mars red/brown. Aluminum oxide is what supposedly gives the Moon a gray colour, but as the spectrometer can only measure the surface exposed materials, there should, IMO, be obviously red patches under a full spectrum sunlight. I might be wrong though...
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf: Because the ambient field of the Sun is always rich in antiphotons. I have shown in many papers that the ambient field sums to a left field, but in those same papers I have always reminded you that data indicates a mix. In the field of the Earth, data from both atmospheric tests and from quantum experiments indicates that photons outnumber antiphotons by about 2 to 1. MM So the charge photons from the Moon interacts with the charge photons from the Sun and there is some photon/antiphoton interaction which produces light. This seems reasonable to me but other theories of Miles are much less reasonable, in my view.
One would not expect stars to produce much light by the above photon/antiphoton interactions. So these interactions would not effect star distances in astronomy. Mo
Goldminer
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
moses wrote: http://milesmathis.com/encel.pdf: Because the ambient field of the Sun is always rich in antiphotons . . . In the field of the Earth, data from both atmospheric tests and from quantum experiments indicates that photons outnumber antiphotons by about 2 to 1. MM So the charge photons from the Moon interacts with the charge photons from the Sun and there is some photon/antiphoton interaction which produces light . . . One would not expect stars to produce much light by the above photon/antiphoton interactions. So these interactions would not effect star distances in astronomy. Mo
What "atmospheric tests and quantum experiments" would these be? What evidence is there for "antiphotons," and "charge photons?"
Oh well, never mind. This is the NAMI board index.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Well then Goldminer, you do not accept the premise that there is more light coming from planets and moons than that which can be explained by reflection. And this extra light comes from the region where the Sun's light meets such a body.
I think that Miles Mathis, at milesmathis.com, gives a good theory for photons being actual physical particles that spin clockwise or anticlockwise. Light is emitted when photon meets antiphoton, exactly like when electron meets positron.
And you are right, this is the board for discussing such new ideas. Mo
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Gary, if you want me to contact Miles, could you phrase your question for me the way you want it? I have a few questions too, but I don't take the time to write lately. He also usually doesn't answer me very usefully.
Mo, I don't recall Miles saying that a collision between photons and antiphotons produces light. Photons are light themselves. Collisions just cause them to be deflected.
moses
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
milesmathis.com/comet.pdf "A retrograde comet is moving against the magnetic field of the Sun. A majority of the Sun's photons are spinning left, but the retrograde comet is trying to orbit to the right. Therefore the comet is experiencing a sort of "photon spin friction" at all times. As the charge field of the comet interacts with the ambient charge field, we get spin cancellations at the photon level (and therefore at all higher levels). These spin cancellations are caused by actual edge-to-edge collisions of real photons (like opposite cogs colliding), and in these collisions a higher number of photons are re-directed. Being re-directed means they are given escape trajectories from the normal radial trajectory they were previously on. This creates more light escaping the vicinity, which leads to greater brightness for viewers. This creates not just more light, but more heat. It creates a release of energy at all frequencies, since the energies of the cancelled spins must go somewhere. The spins sum to zero, but the energy does not.The two energies are integrated and released. This effect is analogous to what is currently called a matter-antimatter collision. Since photons are material—they have radius and mass—they are just the smallest particles of matter. When right photons meet left photons, we get these magnetic field effects, one of which is increased brightness. We see the same thing when electrons meet positrons, or protons meet anti-protons." Basically I have trouble differentiating between his charge photons and light photons. I am thinking that a right spin charge photon interacts with a left spin charge photon and produces a whole range of photons, some of which is visible light.
I did lose interest in Miles because his astronomy explanations completely disregarded plasma physics, and that annoyed me. But I think there is value in his basic ideas. Mo
fosborn_
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
GaryN wrote: From MM:
In a recent paper, I showed that the brightness of Halley's comet
What he doesn't mention is that the comets are only visible from Earths surface, because of our atmosphere. By eye, or with a regular camera, looking out into deep space from orbit, they will not be visible, unless, as from the ISS, they view it through the Earths atmosphere, that is, it will be very close to a visible portion of the Earth. And as with the stars, the comets are more easily seen when the Sun is at a certain position behind the Earth, and the Zodiacal Light, due to the Suns equatorial dust disk, providem more matter for conversion of the otherwise invisible wavelengths (UV again) from the comet.
Hi Gary... Do you have some examples of this? thanks..
I will have a closer look at the Mathis pages some time, I only gave them a very quick look, just in case I missed something.
