© LloydRe: Distances in Astronomy?
Mo said: Maybe more accurate data on the extra-Solar planets will give another way of determining star distances.
On Charles' thread at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7315&p=73696#p73696 I posted this just yesterday.
Better Astronomical Distance Measurements>Looks like pulsars may make it possible to more accurately determine distances to the arms and center of our galaxy.
The pulsar distance scale
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-5&page=node6.html
>>From the sky distribution shown in Fig. 6 it is immediately apparent that pulsars are strongly concentrated along the Galactic plane. This indicates that pulsars populate the disk of our Galaxy. Unlike most other classes of astrophysical objects, quantitative estimates of the distances to each pulsar can be made from an effect known as pulse dispersion, the delay in pulse arrival times across a finite bandwidth. Dispersion occurs because the group velocity of the pulsed radiation through the ionised component of the interstellar medium is frequency dependent: pulses emitted at higher radio frequencies travel faster through the interstellar medium, arriving earlier than those emitted at lower frequencies.I don't quite understand all that, but maybe someone else here will and will then explain it. A few pulsars are said to have planets too. I know that a year or more ago this site posted an article that pointed out that the margin of error is so great for objects beyond a few hundred lightyears distant, that the actual distances cannot be known by current methods of measurement. So that means the size of the Milky Way isn't even known. And that article was likely based on the assumption that so-called background stars are relatively fixed when measuring closer stars. I believe current determinations of distance are based on that assumption. That's how the outer planets were found, by comparing the positions of background stars with the planets. The planets were seen to move with respect to the background stars over periods of months or years. The same is done for many stars. If it turns out that the background stars are also moving significantly, as their normal revolution around the galaxy, then the actual distance is not known and won't be known until background objects are found to compare to. Other galaxies should be able to serve as such background objects, but I don't know if they are ever used for this purpose. Can someone ask Ralph Biggins if he knows about that? He's a satellite guy.
>About the only thing I see lacking from the work of Katirai is the prospect that the bodies seen so far away from the primaries have too little sunlight to reflect.
I was just trying to figure out if we should be able to see Mars by eye, given its size and distance and albedo, and it seems like we should not be able to if the light we see is just from reflection of the Suns light. And we should definitely not be able to see Mercury at its furthest distance from Earth, it is smaller than Mars and has a low albedo.
While doing some looking into the matter I came across this page by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
A creationist, geocentricist, conspiracist, but with lots of qualifications it seems. He also makes a case for a very much smaller universe. On the 'Resolution of the planet Mars' page he makes the claim that Mars should not be visible, but claims it is because the distance and size must be wrong. However, if the light is not from reflection, but from the x-ray planewaves from the Martian ionosphere creating the light by a process occurring in our atmosphere, then that would solve the problem, but also raise the question of what, and how far away, are many other of the naked eye visible objects that we observe.
Resolution of the planet Mars
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Mars.htm>I especially like the fact that it flies in the face of consensus
Well you should like this guy then, even if he is not correct!
Academic qualifications of Neville T. Jones, Ph.D.
https://sites.google.com/site/earthdeception/neville-thomas-jonesIn this case, I do believe scientists are correct in the distance and size of Mars, I mean if they can't get that right, then there is nothing we can believe. So if we should not be able to see Mars according to conventional science, what process makes it visible? Well, I think I have found some of the components for my model, and this would be perhaps the first part. VUV Lyman Alpha emissions of Hydrogen from the Mars ionosphere, which from Earth could be considered a disk, and that disk behaves as a point source array. The disk would have the required diameter to satisfy the visual resolution problem.
Mars Express Observations of the Hydrogen Corona of Mars
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... e-XtQ66BVw
Then how does the light travel? Well here I am stumbling around, and from all I have read, it seems like it would be far easier to introduce an Aether, but perhaps sticking more with conventional science, perhaps the expansion of a planewave into Gaussian beams, and then the propagation of those beams. The divergence of the beams may could also perhaps provide the extra apparent diameter of Mars. Then those wavefronts need to be restored, and that is where the nature of our ionosphere comes in, but there are a number of possible processes there too which have to be worked through. Plasma lensing, Compton shifting, what else?
Also it must be noted that there are coronas of other elements surrounding the planets, so it's not certain that hydrogen glow is the primary source, though I'd think it the most likely.
by Lloyd » Mon Dec 17, 2012 7:04 pm
Gary, what about spacecraft that are above the ionosphere? Do you know anything about them getting naked-eye shots of the planets? Should we be talking to any open-minded satellite scientists, like Ralph Biggins or maybe John Ackerman? Or maybe we should discuss this with a few other researchers, like Gary Gilligan. Do you think?
>Gary, what about spacecraft that are above the ionosphere? Do you know anything about them getting naked-eye shots of the planets?
Not even of the Moon, which would require no filters, no long exposures, not even a steady hand if the purpose were just to show the Moon, looking to deep space and not with a crescent Earth taking up most of the canvas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9FWmd6Pe9E
Looks easy. The good news is that NASA will be installing 4 HD video cameras in 2013, the bad news is, they won't be able to look into deep space.
High Definition Earth Viewing (HDEV)>The HDEV visible cameras are a fixed payload camera system that requires no zoom, no pan or tilt mechanisms. The four fixed cameras are targeted for imagery of the Earth's surface and its terminators as seen from the ISS
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/HDEV.html>Should we be talking to any open-minded satellite scientists, like Ralph Biggins or maybe John Ackerman?
I'd be interested to hear what anyone with appropriate credentials thinks of my reasoning for NOTHING being visible when looking outwards, away from the earth. Bring 'em on.
Okay. I emailed them. Now I'll see if either of them replies.
EU Conference
Well, Ralph replied already. His most relevant comment is that parallax is the basic method of measurement, but after that everything is based on magnitude and the conversion from magnitude to distance is very inaccurate.
He said he'll be speaking at the EU Conference and the speech may be available afterward. He's also writing a book, but doesn't know when it'll be finished.
So I think I should now ask him if he's entirely confident about parallax measurements, since the author of that book that inspired this thread seems to give good reasons not to be confident in it, namely esp. that parallax depends on the assumption that background stars are not moving significantly compared to foreground stars during the time intervals of photographic comparisons. I'll try to ask him if he thinks there's the least possibility that other stars in our galaxy could be as small as brown dwarfs, or even our gas giant planets. I suppose spectrographic analysis of stars may be able to strongly suggest whether other stars are as large as our Sun. Does that sound likely or not?
With my calculations for Mars visibility, I have, as accurately as I can determine, reduced Mars to the size of a basketball at 2000 meters, at its closest approach. Now trying to figure out how bright or intense a light source would be needed to be to make a dull redish brown, .15 albedo 25 cm diameter sphere visible at 2000 meters, and then scale it back up to determine how intense the Sun would need to be to supply the minimum number of photons required for our eyes to percieve Mars from Earth, with colour. I can't make it work, anyone on TB got any ideas? I did E-Mail the people at IESNA, who have some excellent information available online BTW, but don't expect an answer until after the holidays.
http://www.iesna.org/
100 Significant Papers
http://www.ies.org/edoppts/100papers.cfm
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.
Andromeda Galaxy "Stars" — There are 3 images at these links.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/17andromeda/
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/17andromeda/observations.jpg
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0101/17andromeda/composite.jpg
http://www.unisci.com/stories/20011/0117015.htm
http://www.obspm.fr/actual/nouvelle/jablon01.jpg
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.
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?
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.
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 Light601 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 CentersNick 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 EyeCorp. 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 EvidenceKatirai'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.
@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.
http://pesn.com/2011/05/09/9501830_Eric_Dollards_Talk_on_Longitudinal_Wave_Energy/
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.
Shapley and Hubble
>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.
See Stars in Space>- Can see the moon from Mars, but no stars.
LK: The following say that stars are seen in space at least at night.
http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/navigate.htm>Apollo Astronaut Sighting Star with Space Sextant
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthread.php/126532-Astronauts-cannot-find-stars>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.
>Lloyd wrote:
Spectral EvidenceKatirai'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.
Everything has a different spectrum. And that spectrum can vary depending on the decomposition process... Burning Hydrogen has a different spectrum than electrically ionized hydrogen.. H requires air to burn while you can produce a line spectrum with electrical discharge...
Same with taking star or dead object spectra. You have to allow for the circumstance. If its a planet orbiting a star you have to allow for more of the stars light in the reflectance spectra hence the division.
I expect that every object(different than element) in the universe is going to have a different spectrum because they are evolving at different rates depending on their environmental electrical influence.... Even little spark can create new elements. Biological transmutation happens as well.
The spectrum of a dead star is going to look like a planet in my model because they are composed of nearly the same material. Iron.
I believe A live star is a iron ball covered in a layer of primarily H. Thats what you going to see when you take a spectrum. And it may vary depending on where you point your telescope on the star. But what you will see is hydrogen and other gases... You wont be able to tell what is underneath except by the eruptions from the surface that are composed of ionized surface material. Iron.>>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.
They are all different... And it depends on the intervening plasma...... Looking into the center of our galaxy has more plasma than looking out into another galaxy.
It would be helpful to include the papers they were reading to come to this conclusion, I would read them....
Evidence for Milky Way Center at Sag. A?
Does this look like a galactic center for the Milky Way?: http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/oir/images/mw_center.jpg (from http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/oir/mw/center.html).
This site shows two images of gamma ray bubbles toward Sag. A, the claimed center of the Milky Way: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/GLAST/news/new-structure.html. Here are the image links:
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/498892main1_DF1_Fermi_all-sky_1-10_GeV-226x127.jpg
http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/498894main1_DF4_bubbles_graphs-226x127.jpg
Do those images prove that the center is there instead of at the Sun? Or were those images modified to accommodate conventional distance estimates? Or what?
Too bad we don't have an answer to the evidence of gamma ray bubbles at Sag. A yet. Maybe someday. Now back to BK.
More from Katirai
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008
_{Rotation and Revolution}
_"Studying the --- binaries, --- [a]stronomers have --- found that the [orbital] period[s] --- [vary from years to days to hours] and in some cases less than an hour --- (Cyg, V1644(29) orbits --- [in] 44.6 minutes).
_"Perusal of the literature does not seem to show any discussion --- that many of them could be planets with satellites.
_"[In] the solar system, --- the orbital periods of satellites around their planets are much shorter than [that] of planets around the sun.
_"We also see that the distances between planets to their satellites are much smaller than the distances of the sun to its planets.
_"for such --- an object to [orbit a binary] in a few hours [at the calculated orbital radius], it must be moving with a speed of at least one-eighth the speed of light [whereas a much smaller orbital radius would show a much more reasonable orbital speed].
_{Velocities}
_"Astronomers [using] the Doppler effect [to determine] orbital velocity --- found that in a large majority of cases, orbital velocities of an object in a binary were much less than 50 km/sec.
_"Having both orbital velocity and the period of orbit, one can easily calculate the size and radius of orbit.
_"Having done this, astronomers were surprised by their size.
_"Some were so small that the entire orbit could fit inside the sun.
_"It follows that the size of the object itself must be as small as that of a planet or even smaller, the size of the satellites of planets.
_"In the solar system, the orbital period of Pluto around the sun is about 2.5 centuries and that of --- Sedna is 10,000 years.
_{Hydrogen Clouds}
_"It has been 35 years since astronomers discovered clouds of atomic hydrogen moving at peculiar velocities of hundreds of kilometre/second through our galaxy.
_"Some astronomers have suggested that the clouds are relatively nearby, perhaps a few hundred ly (light years) away, while others think that they are at distances of millions of ly from the galaxy.
_"the actual distances [may be] --- light days rather than hundreds [to] millions of light-years.
_{Betelgeuse}
_"[If Betelgeuse has] a diameter 600 times the sun['s] --- its volume is 216,000,000 times larger than the sun['s].
_"astronomers --- claim that its mass is only 20 times the mass of the sun.
_"[That would make] the average density of Betelgeuse --- 0.000,000,1309 g/cm^3 [or] 9,874 times less than the density of the earth's atmosphere, at sea level, --- almost a vacuum.
_"[Since] most of the mass must be concentrated at the core --- most of the [volume] inside the star would have a density much lower than what we calculated.
_"[Since] Betelgeuse is red in colour --- astronomers believe that it has a temperature thousands of degrees lower than the sun.
_"A [volume] with low temperature and near-vacuum density would be virtually transparent and would not likely show itself with a visible disc.
_"The fact that the disc of Betelgeuse is so visible that astronomers can measure the diameter of its disc proves that most of the space inside Betelgeuse could not be in a state of near-vacuum [so it's probably much smaller, closer and denser than claimed].
_{Novas}
_"An object that suddenly shows up as a luminous point of light displaying an increasing brilliance, and then later, becomes fainter or disappears over a period of time, is called a "nova".
_"Another characteristic of a nova is that its light is always faint.
_"Unlike novas, supernovas appear with luminosity many times greater than novas.
_"Since many novas show up regularly, some astronomers speculated that these objects periodically undergo a small explosion.
_"In this chapter, reasons will be given indicating that novas are not exploding stars at all but, rather, planets.
_"[Here is] why they are planets and not stars.
_"First of all, a nova's light is always faint.
_"Secondly, its colour is always white-blue, similar to that of some planets and very different from the sun.
_"Furthermore, the study of novas has shown that they always orbit a very small star of the type that astronomers call a "white dwarf". [LK: Could a white dwarf be a brown dwarf, like Saturn?]
_"a scientific encyclopaedia --- states that a nova moves around a star, its orbital period is short, and its mass is low.
_"a nova could be a planet whose light is a reflection from the light of the star it orbits
_"Supposing that a nova's light is only a reflection of star light, it follows that nova light is not as bright as that of the star.
_"The reason a nova suddenly shows up is because it is orbiting a small star.
_"As it moves around the star, it may suddenly reach a position where it reflects the light of the star in our direction.
_"The fact that these objects have a short period of orbit indicates that they are small and orbit another small object which astronomers call a white dwarf.
_"Secondly, in the above quote, one finds that novas have low mass, comparable with that of planets or satellites, and not stars.
_"Finally, some strong arguments supporting the theory that novas are planets is that some of them show up regularly and that their light changes periodically.
_{Quasars}
_"In the chapter about the Milky Way it will become clear that quasars are stars that are similar to our sun and that they are not as far away as astronomers think they are.
I hope we can get back to evidence for and against Katirai's theory now.
More from Katirai
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008
Is anyone particularly impressed with any of the following from Katirai? Or are there any statements you disagree with, and, if so, why?
_{Galaxies}
_"galaxies visible by the most powerful telescopes are not millions or billions of light-years away, but are less than a few thousand light-years distant.
_"Secondly, the centre of a galaxy is not made up of millions of stars, but rather, is made of only one star.
_"Thirdly, around the centre of a galaxy there are less than a few hundred planets, and not billions of stars.
_"Fourthly, the clouds that we see in a galaxy are not aggregates of billions of stars, but rather, they are asteroids, rocks, and minerals, some in the form of dust and gas.
_{Clouds}
_"If the Milky Way were made of stars, then we could see images of those stars in this photograph.
_"Instead, we see clouds and several objects appear to be asteroids or planets within the clouds, but no objects that could be called stars. [LK: See Nick's photo earlier, which shows stars or something within clouds.]
_"Furthermore, if the objects were stars, they would have illuminated their surrounding clouds.
_"The photograph shows that both the objects and the clouds are reflecting, rather than giving, light.
_{Milky Way}
_"These new interpretations will then be applied to our Milky Way galaxy.
_"It could be reasoned that the centre of the Milky Way galaxy may not consist of millions of stars, but rather of a single, massive star: our sun.
_"Furthermore, almost all of the alleged 'stars' in the plane of the Milky Way are either planets or asteroids, that have been mistaken for stars; the light of the Milky Way is only the reflection of the light of the sun. [LK: Or they may shine by glow mode discharge.]
_"And finally, the diameter of the Milky Way is not a hundred thousand light-years wide, but rather, it is less than 30 light-days. [LK: That's 476 billion miles in diameter, 238 billion miles radius, almost 150 times farther than Pluto.]
_{Andromeda Galaxy}
_"Astronomers believe that the sun, at a distance of 32 light-years, appears as a star of fifth magnitude.
_"In other words, the sun appears 2.512 times brighter than a star that is barely visible to the naked eye.
_"This means that the sun from a distance greater than 50.71 light-years would not be visible to the naked eye.
_"In --- Chapter 1 we saw that looking through a large telescope such as the Hubble we can see 357 times farther away than the naked eye sees.
_"Therefore, the greatest distance that the Hubble enables us to see a great star, such as the sun, is 18,110 light years.
_"Likewise, it is not possible for any star in the Andromeda galaxy to be visible from a distance of 2.4 million light-years away.
_"Rather, the distance must be tens of thousand of times less.
_"Dutch-American astronomer Adriaan Van Maanen, who was the leading expert in the field of astrometry (the precise measurement of stellar position and motion) also measured the parallax of the Andromeda galaxy and found it to be 0.004['] ± 0.005" which placed it at a distance of 815 light-years.
_"These findings suggest that the Andromeda galaxy is not only nearby, but small.
_"Further confirmation came when Van Maanen, by using a very large 152 – centimetre plate, found distinctive changes indicative of the rotation of the galaxy against the background of a field of stars, confirming that the galaxy must be small and nearby.
_{Galactic Centers}
_"astronomers speculated that the centre of a galaxy is made of millions of stars.
_"All the evidence not only negates this idea, but points to the fact that there must be only one star in the centre of a galaxy.
_"Examining the image of any galaxy, one can see that at its centre there exists only one bright and yellowish object that makes up the centre of the galaxy.
_"One can also see that all the bluish or whitish objects in the spiral arms are circling that yellowish centre.
_"many have attempted to resolve the centres of galaxies into stars and all have failed. [LK: Nick showed a link to possible stars resolved near the center of M31.]
_"Could it be that the reason for their failure was that the centre of a galaxy is not made of many stars, but rather, is made of only one star? There have been vast quantities of photographs of galaxies taken in which individual stars can be easily seen in the spiral arms of the galaxy.
_"No photograph shows a centre full of stars.
_"Astronomers claim that the centre of a galaxy is made of millions of stars but at the same time, they contend that the small and bluish objects circling the centre are stars.
_"If we compare the size of the centre to the size of each of those bluish objects, we see that the size of the centre is only a few times larger.
_"If astronomers were correct and the centre of galaxies were made of hundreds of million of stars, then the centre should have been billions of times larger than any of those stars that are circling the centre.
_"In other words, if the centre of a galaxy were made of millions of stars, the total volumes that those stars occupy, plus the spaces that should separate them, all combined would create a volume hundreds of billions of times larger than that of a single star.
_"On the contrary, the diameter of the centre compared to any of the bluish objects circling the centre is only several times larger.
_"This clearly disproves the idea that the centre of a galaxy is made of hundreds of millions of stars, unless we assume that the each of the bluish objects are made up of millions of stars or each millions of times larger than the sun.
_"However, this is not the case because astronomers, using large telescopes, have been able to resolve and study each of those bluish objects individually.
_"Moreover, by using spectroscopic instruments, they were able to determine which ones are members of binaries and even to determine the velocities, periods of orbit of some around the others and their mass.
_"The fact that the relative diameter of a centre of a galaxy is not much different from the bluish objects that circle the centre proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the centre of a galaxy could not possibly be a conglomeration of millions of stars.
_{M100}
_"There is something special about the image because it shows the central core of the galaxy M100.
_"The image on the left (see figure 9) shows the galaxy as a whole.
_"The small square in the middle shows the area that has been enlarged by the telescope and presented in the next image shown on the right.
_"This enlarged image taken by the Hubble telescope shows that the nucleus of the galaxy is a yellowish star similar to the sun.
_"The smaller objects that have blue colours are circling that centre.
_"This image is evidence that shows there is no such a thing as "hundreds of millions of stars" in the core but that there is, rather, only one star.
>Is anyone particularly impressed with any of the following from Katirai? Or are there any statements you disagree with, and, if so, why?
I mainly agree with all of those points, but Katirai talks of reflection, as do you, and I am trying to show that reflection will not work. For one thing light does not reflect from a gas, and from a sparse dust the tiny little specs of reflection would not be visible more than a few feet away. While Katirais model can not be proven, neither can the mainstream model of the cosmos, but if I can show an alternative to the standard model that does allow for the viewing of distant objects, then it would lend support to Katirais proposals. The fact that I can not make reflection work even within the Solar system indicates that something is fundamentally askew.
This is by far the most complex subject I have attempted to solve, and now it comes down to some even more uncertain ground, regarding the sensitivity of the human eye, which some think has single photon sensitivity, but even if it does, the number of photons (if they exist!) required for conscious awareness has been estimated at between 150/second to half a million/second.
>[LK: Or they may shine by glow mode discharge.]
Closer, but the conventional model of rays of light doesn't work here either. A glow in the visible range again would fall off very quickly. With all recent instruments, they are looking for the spectra of the elements, and the strongest 'light' will be the Lyman Alpha hydrogen line, but this is in the UV, and we could not see it by eye. So what makes 'stars' visible in our night sky, or the dust and debris of the Milky Way visible, when the only emissions robust enough for us to 'see' are in the UV?
As part of my search for answers, I have tried to model the reflection of the Moon, but regardless of the surface roughness I apply, or the bumpiness, a full phase moon will always display some specular effect, given the intensity of sunlight I would need to make the Moon visible to us on Earth. We see no specular effects on the Moon. My calculations so far have reduced the average reflected light flux from the lunar surface to 13.5 watts/sq.ft, using the accepted TSI at the Moon (same value as Earth) but that light is then being diffused by the surface, which means next to nothing (and I say nothing at all) would reach Earth.
[Image] http://www.3dmax-tutorials.com/graphics/il_radiosity_reflection.jpgOne piece of software that seems to be quite good at portraying the darkness of space is Celestia. Turn off the ambient light, turn off the stars and galaxies, leaving only the planets turned on, and then go visit one of the spacecraft around the Moon or Mars, and you get some idea of just how black it is out there, even though Celestia is using the illumination values calculated by using a conventional, i.e. transverse model of light waves and associated reflection and diffusion. Without that light, it would be totally black out there, apart from where there is a planetary ionosphere to look through to see the 'stars', or to provide illumination of a planetary/moon surface if you are within the relatively short range of the transverse waves created on and close to that surface. It also seems that the solar dust disk and the corona can make 'stars' visible to some degree, going on results from Apollo era low light photography experiments.
Steve, I favor quoting only specific sentences, instead of entire messages, so there's less redundant verbiage for readers. Is that an option?
Light Waves Are Not Field Waves>>Gary said: [LK: Or they may shine by glow mode discharge.]
>Closer, but the conventional model of rays of light doesn't work here either. A glow in the visible range again would fall off very quickly. With all recent instruments, they are looking for the spectra of the elements, and the strongest 'light' will be the Lyman Alpha hydrogen line, but this is in the UV, and we could not see it by eye. So what makes 'stars' visible in our night sky, or the dust and debris of the Milky Way visible, when the only emissions robust enough for us to 'see' are in the UV?In this paper, http://milesmathis.com/photon2.html, Mathis says: "Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal."
He says the photon is spinning and it can resemble either a transverse or longitudinal wave, depending, I think, on the direction of spin with respect to the forward or translational motion. Apparently, the mass of the photon is at a point on the spherical surface, so, as the photon advances, the mass moves both circularly and linearly, resulting in a stretched wave or corkscrew motion. I have a somewhat different model, but I haven't checked mine against many known facts, so I don't know if mine could explain such wave motions.
Why Photons Express Different Wavelengths
I recommend reading that paper. It's not real long. I guess it would help to quote some more of it.>- But now we must move on to ask why and how photons express different wavelengths. Electromagnetic radiation, in the form of photons, comes in a wide range of wavelengths, as we know. How is this achieved? It is achieved by a wide variation of stacked spins. As I began to show in a previous paper, it turns out that photons can maintain a linear velocity very near c over a wide range of sizes. The photon does not reach a size limit that causes slowing until it approaches the spin radius just beneath the electron. At that limit, the largest photons begin absorbing the smallest photons, and the mass increase snowballs. This turns the nearly massless photon into the small-mass electron.
- The most common photons appear at the size range of 18213 less than the proton mass and size. This is where we find the infrared photons, as I showed previously. But the small mass of the photon allows it to stack spins over a wide range of radii. In this, it is unlike the electron or proton. The proton cannot add extra spins above the z-spin without creating instability. This is why "mesons" over the baryon size are not stable. The extra spins begin interfering with the energy of the inner spins. But with the photon this appears not to be the case. Extra spin levels do not cause appreciable slowing, nor do they cause appreciable instability. We may theorize that smaller photons would be more stable, but the difference in small photons and large ones is not easily measured from our level.
- What this means, specifically, is that if we give the infrared photon a z-spin as its outer spin, we can find a smaller photon whose outer spin is the y-spin. We can also find a larger photon with another axial or x-spin on top of the infrared's z-spin. In this way, we find not only stacked spins, we find stacked levels. In other words, we find spins of a1, x1, y1, z1 and a2, x2, y2, z2 and a3, x3, y3, z3 and so on. By this analysis, a2 has twice the spin radius of z1. In fact, each spin has twice the radius of the spin under it.
- This means that photons do not come in a continuous spectrum. No, they come in stepped levels, each level double the one under it.I'm not clear on whether he suggests that photons can lose or gain "spin stacks" (and thus change "wavelength") in flight, or when encountering an atmosphere or a magnetic or electric field, but it seems possible. We should probably ask him, in the event that he may think it's worth a little time to answer. I decided to do a little more searching first though. And the following from http://milesmathis.com/photon3.pdf may be relevant.
>according to my theory and equations, there should be no universal charge density [= photon density]. Charge should be denser in galaxies than out of them, and denser near stars, and so on. By this analysis, it seems that the velocity of the photon would change in different densities. Because this appears not to be so, I assume that the mass of the photon may change depending on the charge density around it. Remember that mass is a function of energy according to the old equation Eγ = mγc2, which means that the photon's mass is already a function of the charge density. As the charge density grows, so will m. So that variable m already includes the charge density, in a way. This feedback mechanism may be what keeps c constant.
So, if the photon mass changes depending on the photon density around the photon, would that help solve the problem of light from objects in space reaching Earth? If mass changes, I suppose that means energy changes, and does that mean wavelength changes too? (By the way, toward the end of that paper he shows that the photon density [in Earth' lower atmosphere, I think] is about 56 million photons per cubic meter.)
Aether Photon Spin
>SJW said: I am still out on photons being an actual thing, not merely an artifact. Ive posted in other places what I think is wrong with MM's photons being force carriers, but the stacked spin idea is intriguing, will have to read some more. I for one think spin is tied into everything, as everything we observe is spinning.
- they say light is a transverse wave and needs no medium to propegate, yet no one seems to be able to explain wave propegation without a medium. ... Of course I believe in an aether>Mathis says: "Since the wave of light belongs to each photon, via spin, the wave is neither longitudinal nor transverse. Longitudinal and transverse waves are defined as field waves, and light is not a field wave. Light is a spin wave, and the spin is neither transverse nor longitudinal."
Could be, but how might that help explain the visibility of distant objects any better than a field wave model? I'm going to take another look at Katirais "Revolution in Physics" though, as I balked at some of his ideas previously, but a spinning aether 'particle' prodcing the electric field seems plausible. If the aether, as JL wondered, is a rotating magnetic field, then it would produce an electric field, a background field.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=2856
@Kalensar>Mass is merely the illusion given for slow moving waves of light interacting within the holographic matrix.
Yeah, I think it's all going to come down to an information field in the end, but attempting to fill in the steps along the way is kind of, er, interesting? I was going to say fun but...
>but the stacked spin idea is intriguing, will have to read some more. I for one think spin is tied into everything, as everything we observe is spinning.
Yes, intriguing for sure. Katirai in his "Revolution in Physics" book also has everything spinning, and at very high rates. Where I balked was with his introduction of another 'particle' orbiting the electron, the Samareh, or Electromoon. He figures Sun-Planets-Moons should have an equivalent at the smaller scale, Nucleus-Electrons-Samareh, and makes some interesting observations based on that idea. He relies on the existence of an Aether for much of what we observe at the larger scales, and that light, electricity, magnetism and gravity are all manifestations of flows or vibrations of the Aether. But what is the Aether? I think eventually it will reduce to an information field, the Matrix, as kalensar says, but a rotating magnetic field may be part of the progression from information to matter.
How far down the rabbit hole do we want to go? I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't have taken that red pill, ignorance may well be the easier path.Oh hey Nick,
SJW has a point about galactic distance issues [based on Cepheids] having an affect on the question of AAAD. Despite what many of us accept as the scalability [what I have in the past called "scalelessness"] of plasma effects or fractality of EU geometry, a much smaller universe does present a better frame to the minds of those struggling with the possibility of AAAD. Some folks are still stuck in the standard paradigm that actions at an atomic scale cannot be applied to the supra galactic scale and vice versa. For example, the idea of "charge" for some is only acceptable for atomic/electronic applications and no further, whereas I see a continuum of applicability between subatomic forces, van der Waals, molecular level "gravitation" [the Casimir effect], electric "voltage" potential, and macro level "gravitation" — AAAD at any level [eg. acceptance of the non-contact between electrons and protons] opens the eyes to understand the possibility of AAAD at any other level. Astronomical distances present a challenge for AAAD which requires this scalability paradigm shift.The Fingers of God calculation of galaxies and quasars is surely an illusion based on incorrect assumptions about redshift equivalence to distance and velocity, which are false assumptions. The redshift is due to ionization, not distance or velocity, as Thornhill, Mathis and others have explained.
Galaxy Images
SJW, how many galaxies have you studied? And of those what percent showed a central light source? Did you look for any that seem not to have a central light source? I was looking at images of the Magellanic Clouds, which are said to be the nearest galaxies to our own and I didn't see a clear center in either one. Here's a pretty good image of one: http://www.abc.net.au/science/starhunt/images/slideshow/Magellanic-Clouds/magellanic_01.jpg. Here's a link for other images of the Magellanic Clouds: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22mage ... 0gHhp4G4Dg . And here's a link for images of galaxies: https://www.google.com/search?q=galaxy& ... 2gXm4oGwDQ .Fingers of God Pattern
>SJW said: And I agree [redshift is due to ionization, not distance or velocity], but all light is quantized equally in all directions because we are the center of an EM disturbance, not on its edge. - As for quasars the only clear picture I have seen of one shows a galaxy just like any other, no difference except one is active, i.e. a new star forming planets. I happen to agree with Kal that the light you see is reflected light, not emitted light, this is why it is redshifted. Ask those scientists what the redshift value of the galactic core is compared to the entire galaxy.
Where do you get that redhifted light is reflected light? If that were the case, and if Katirai's theory is right, then most light from space would be redshifted. But only some of the galaxies and all quasars have redshifted light. If you'd look at the TPOD on the Fingers of God map of galaxies and quasars at http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041018fingers-god.htm, you can see that conventional distance measurements cause the arrangements of redshifted objects in groups or clusters to be highly distorted into elongated elliptical shapes pointing toward Earth. Katirai claimed that other galaxies are star systems like the Milky Way (= the solar system?), not that the Milky Way is the center of the universe. So your idea doesn't fit with Katirai's either.
More from Katirai
http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008
If anyone disagrees with any of the following statements by Katirai, feel free to say which ones and why.
_{GalacticCenter Centrifugal Force}
_"If we assume that the centre of a galaxy is made of millions of stars, then that centre must also be spinning on an axis.
_"If so, then what force arranges and keeps all these stars together in a sphere and makes them orbit? Why has the spin of the centre not rearranged the stars into a flat plane? Why is the shape of the centre of a galaxy spherical and not flat?
_{Short Galactic Rotation Time}
_"the galaxies as a whole must be rotating, and the rotation must be detectable.
_"Was such rotation ever discovered? The answer is yes.
_"In 1899, a Welsh astronomer, Isaac Roberts, discovered that the Andromeda galaxy was rotating.
_"The detection of the rotation of the galaxy within a relatively short period of time proves that the galaxy is relatively small.
_"If the galaxy were as huge as some have claimed, it would take hundreds of millions of years to make one rotation and it would be impossible for the photographs to show its rotation in such a relatively short period of time.
_"Later, the reputable astronomer, Adrian van Maanen also announced that he detected the rotation of several galaxies and confirmed Roberts' findings.
_"Enter Joel Stebbins, who had studied the spectroscopic data on several spirals (including Andromeda), and came to the same conclusion that they were indeed rotating.
_"In 1909, an English astronomer, William Huggins, announced that his studies showed that the Andromeda nebula was a planetary system, similar to our solar system.
_{Galactic Stellar Wind}
_"The velocity of the solar wind near the earth has been measured and found to be about 500 km/sec.
_"We also find that the spiral configuration of the solar wind is exactly similar to that of the spiral galaxies.
_"Using NASA's Hubble telescope in 1994, Dr.
_"Holland Ford measured the rotation of the gas near the centre of the galaxy M87, located in the constellation of Virgo.
_"By measuring the red and blue shift "Doppler effect", of the moving gas, he found that the gas circled the centre with a velocity of 500 km/sec, similar to our sun in early 2003.
_"In that same year, some observers announced that they had detected a high-speed wind created by the spin of the nucleus of galaxies.
_"the centre is made of one star and the wind is created by the star's spin.
_"Just as the sun's spin creates solar wind, similarly, the spin of a star at the centre of a galaxy also creates wind, both at 500 km/sec.
_{Galactic Evolution}
_"The author believes that by looking at a very large number of galaxies in different stages of their development, we can learn how they develop or decay.
_"Having looked at photos of many systems, including galaxies, the author was unable to find even one example of a rotating cloud that could be assumed to be in an early stage of galaxy formation.
_"On the other hand, numerous photographs show that stars are in different stages of creating planetary systems that erroneously have been called galaxies.
_"For example, some photos show a star giving off clouds of gas and dust into surrounding space.
_"In others, showing a later stage, the newly-released clouds form a ring around the star.
_"Then, other photos show clouds condensing, creating planets.
_"Still others show planets and clouds circling the star, while in other photographs, we see that the planets and clouds are not circling the star.
_"The reason that the planets and the clouds circle the star is because the star itself is spinning.
_"Some photos show that during eruption, stars begin spinning.
_"A spinning star causes its clouds and planets to revolve around itself and may have a large number of planets circling it.
_"Finally, there are photographs that show a spinning star continually giving off clouds of dust and gas, circling the star in a spiral formation.
_"Within these clouds of matter, planets are being formed.
_"Many astronomers believe that when stars erupt, they are dying.
_"On the contrary, the images presented here indicate that an erupting star is not dying, but rather, is beginning to create its planetary system.
_"Eruption is a beginning, not an end.
_"The eruptions on our earth release large amounts of dust and volcanic minerals into our atmosphere.
_"As such, a very large and hot body, a million times larger than the Earth, such as a star, must naturally have such great eruptions to release enormous masses of clouds into its surrounding space.
_"As the star gives off a layer of its outer shell, it may display a spectacular brightness that astronomers call a supernova.
_"However, the following image shows a star that was not spinning, and for this reason, its gravitational force was able to pull the newly formed planets back to itself.
_"As the planets are sucked into its center, further eruption makes the star begin to spin in different directions.
_"This spin causes the newly released clouds of matter to circle the stars in the same direction as the star.
_"Astronomers call these stars planetary nebula.Non-redshifted Galaxies
SJW, your link to info on red-shifted galaxies at http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=75 has a link to galaxies that are blue-shifted at http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/nph ... er=30000.0 and the list of them is rather long. It looks like there are over 8,000 galaxies between magnitude 17 and 23 that are blue-shifted, not red-shifted. Maybe the same NASA site can be used to find the number of known red-shifted galaxies. I don't have time to check right now.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:
Sag A* - Arched Filament Complexhttp://images.nrao.edu/Galactic_Sources/Galactic_Center/338
A very nice paper on the image and other aspects is available here:
A Radio Polarimetric Study of the Galactic Center Threadshttp://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1999ApJ...526..727L
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"http://images.nrao.edu/Galactic_Sources/Galactic_Center/407 ("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" http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~ghezgroup/gc/publications/2003skytel.pdfIt 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":
The Double Helix Nebula: a magnetic torsional wave propagating out of the Galactic centrehttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0512452
Holoscience Image: http://www.holoscience.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Double-Helix-Nebula.jpg note the location of the bright "Circumnuclear Disk" labeled CND along the galactic plane of the right side portion of the image.
Also see subheading "Electric Galaxies have Electromagnetic Hearts" http://www.holoscience.com/wp/the-black-hole-at-the-heart-of-astronomy/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:
"Core of Galaxy NGC 3079"http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr2001028c/
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/pr2001028a
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:
Dusty Spiral Galaxy NGC 4414
http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/galaxy/pr1999025a/large_web/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:
"Core of NGC 4261"
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1992/27/image/a/format/large_web/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". http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/Pacs http://herschel.esac.esa.int/twiki/bin/view/Public/SpireCalibrationWeb?template=viewprint
http://herschel.esac.esa.int/twiki/bin/view/Public/HifiCalibrationWeb?template=viewprint
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.
STAR COLOURS
http://www.southastrodel.com/Page029b.htm
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.More from Katirai
See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008.
If you disagree with any of the following statements by Katirai, please say which ones and why.
_{MilkyWayCenter}
_"[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.Those are nice views of edge-on galaxies, Steve. Here's one showing the Milky Way edge-on.
http://spacefellowship.com/news/art13010/an-amazing-interactive-360-degree-panoramic-view-of-the-entire-night-sky.html
Who wants to copy and paste these images for side-by-side comparison?@kalensar
>I think i found the final nail in the coffin in this idea for this thread. Running the wattage/distance squared equation for the Sun. It's pretty funny and I'll show the steps.
There is no possible way that reflected light can account for the visibility of distant objects, and nobody has come forward to attempt to prove that it can. So what alternatives explanations are there?
I've been reading this fellows PhD thesis, and it may explain light travelling in the vacuum.
>Abstract: Beams of light tend to broaden as they propagate in linear medium. However, in a nonlinear medium (in which the index of refraction is proportional to the intensity) self-focusing can compensate for diffraction. In this case, the beam can create an index change similar to the one of an optical fiber and to guide itself in this self-induced fiber. These beams keep their shape and dimensions invariant along propagation. We called this type of beams spatial solitons. The beam that creates the fiber can be composed of more than one mode (e.g. TEM00 + TEM01+...), in this case we called this type of soliton: composite soliton.Search Tal Carmon PhD thesis to find the pdf
And search this for another pdf about the EM Vacuum.
Nonlinear Structure of the Electromagnetic VacuumMaximum Reach of Solar Radiation?
Well, Kalensar, your calculation above at http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7920&p=76331#p76277 is very interesting, though I haven't yet tried to analyze it for potential errors. But the general idea seems potentially sound.
More from Katirai
(http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008)
As usual, if anyone disagrees with any of the statements below, please say so and say why. My silence doesn't mean that I agree with it all, just that I haven't had time yet to study everything carefully. I tend to agree with the general direction of the arguments, but not necessarily with some or many details.
_{Sun Composition}
_"The core of the sun must, therefore, be made of radioactive elements.
_"This enormous energy, including the heat energy that is generated by massive amounts of radioactive elements that exist inside the sun, plus the hot, turbulent ocean-like liquid gases over the surface that create the waves, vibrations, friction and heat, can explain why the sun is a source of light, heat, and other radiation.
_"It also explains why the sun has given energy at a steady rate for millions of years.
_"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.
_"They believe that the sun gives light and heat because hydrogen is being converted into helium.
_"Theoreticians claim that "The changing of hydrogen into helium in the sun results in the release of the sun's energy in the form of heat and light.
_"" If this idea were true, then during the millions of years that the sun has existed, all of its mass and at least most of its atmosphere should have been converted into helium.
_"The fact that hydrogen and helium constitute a small percentage of the atmosphere of the sun lead us to the understanding that the idea could be false.
_"In contrast, the presence of a very large amount of radioactive atoms inside the sun is a sufficient and plausible explanation for the sun to produce its great energy.
_"If one studies the characteristics of radioactive elements, one finds that these elements naturally radiate heat, as well as x-rays and gamma rays.
_{Solar Wind vs. Gravity}
_"The force of the magnetic wind, then, must cancel most of the sun's gravitational force.
_"Were it not for the solar wind, the earth and all the planets in the solar system would have collapsed into the sun in a relatively short period of time.
_"The force of the solar wind, plus the centrifugal force resulting from the orbital motion of the planets, keep the planets from being drawn into the sun.
_"Physicists did not bring into account the force of the solar wind when calculating the mass of the sun.
_"It is a gross error, because the force is so great that it cancels at least 90 percent of the sun's gravitational force.
_"In other words, the actual mass of the sun must be far greater than what astronomers have traditionally calculated.
_{Milky Way Composition}
_"If it is understood that the sun is composed of very heavy elements that are radioactive, then a rough calculation will show that the average density of the sun must be at least 3.5 times higher than the earth.
_"Since the sun's volume is 1,300,000 times the earth, its mass must then be at least 4,550,000 times the earth.
_"To see how large the mass of the sun is, let us assume that the sun is the centre of the Milky Way.
_"Then, let us estimate how many objects, such as luminous spheres, planets, and asteroids could be circling around it.
_"Let us consider that the sun's mass is equal to the rest of the Milky Way.
_"Calculation shows that in the Milky Way, there could be one million planets similar to Mercury, one million planets similar to Mars, one hundred thousand planets like Earth, hundreds of millions of asteroids, each hundreds or even thousands of kilometres wide, fifty planets --- as large as Jupiter, plus clouds, rocks, minerals, and gas filling all the spiral arms belonging to the Milky Way.
_"The total mass of all the planets, --- asteroids and clouds combined would still be less than the mass of the sun.>As usual, if anyone disagrees with any of the statements below, please say so and say why.
_{Sun Composition}...
I don't believe Katirai had ever considered an EU or ES model, but I get the feeling that if he had, he would have embraced it. As my model of the Sun is different from all the other alternatives though, I like to think he would have picked mine.>"They believe that the sun gives light and heat
Not proven. Still waiting for NASA to offer up the evidence of any transverse waves being emitted by the Sun.
Kalensar, what does 3.83x10^26 refer to, which you divide by c^2 to get t (time in seconds)? Is it Energy?
Last Quote from Katirai
This is from the last part of his book at http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008.
If there are disagreements, please say why.
_{Milky Way Object Count}
_"In fact, if we carefully study the Milky Way, we find that in its plane, there are no more than several thousand objects that could actually be called planets.
_"As demonstrated in the preceding text, the idea that there exists hundreds of billions of stars is an illusion that is based on the idea that every point of light is a star.
_"In reality, it is much more likely to be a planet, planetoid, asteroid, or clouds of dust and minerals.
_"Are there that many planets or planetoids in the Milky Way? The answer is no.
_"If one looks at the sky on a clear night, there appear to be millions of stars visible to the naked eye.
_"In reality, the number of visible stars is only 2,800.
_"the total number that could be seen all around the earth is about 6000.
_"Astronomers claim that there are four hundred billion stars in the Milky Way.
_"On the contrary, when we look at many photographs of the Milky Way, we see that all of them show a mass of clouds with only a small number of objects in between the clouds.
_{StellarVisibilityRange}
_"Astronomers believe that the sun from a distance greater than 50.71 light-years would not be visible to the naked eye.
_"The distance of 1,000 light years is so great, that no star could be visible to the naked eye even it were thousands of times brighter and larger than the sun.
_"If the suggestion that the 2,000 light year width of the Milky Way were true, then the distribution of stars visible to the naked eye would be the same in all directions.
_"We would not be able to see the configuration of the plane of the Milky Way in any direction.
_"In other words, we would not see the plane of the Milky Way.
_"The fact that our naked eye can see the plane of the Milky Way as a band of misty light so clearly proves that the width of the Milky Way must be much less than 2,000 light years.
_"This simple experiment demonstrates that the sun from the distance of 6.09 light-years would not be visible to the naked eye.
_"the sun, at a distance of 32 light-years, appears as a star of fifth magnitude.
_"In other words, the sun appears 2.512 times brighter than a star that is barely visible to the naked eye.
_"This means that the sun from a distance of 50.71 light-years would be barely visible to the naked eye.
_{Galactic Rotation Time}
_"Pluto takes about 250 years to complete its orbit.
_"the most distant objects circling the sun should not be too far away from Pluto.
_"A rough calculation would show that these objects are moving slowly and would take many thousands of years to complete their orbit around the sun.
_"This is exactly what the Dutch-American astronomer Adrian Van Maanen (1884-1946) discovered regarding the rotation of the Andromeda galaxy.
_"He found that Andromeda completes its rotation in less than 1,000 years.Kalensar, I commented on Katirai's experiment before. I said it seems to me that, since his experiment was performed in Earth's atmosphere, the air may have absorbed some of the light, whereas in space the light might go much further. Do you have any data on how much light is scattered or absorbed in air?
Distance of Sun's Visibility
I think the maximum distance the Sun is visible would be dependent on the intensity of its radiation. So can you tell us how much the intensity is reduced by Earth's atmosphere? If the atmosphere reduces it much, then Katirai's calculation would be based on a wrong assumption.
Betelgeuse
Pavlink posted links to Betelgeuse images on this thread: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9801. Here's the first image.
[Image] http://www.sciencespacerobots.com/2013pics/betelgeuse_and_linear_bar.jpgThe orange spherical blob in the middle is apparently what we normally see as the star, but here it looks like an atmosphere or cloud around an inner white star. The semicircle to the left of it seems to be the bow of its plasmasphere. The article that was linked in the thread said the star is approaching a wall of dust, but the linear feature appears more likely to be a Birkeland current, since it seems to be helical.
Pavlink said Betelgeuse is actually a triple star system. Maybe the next image shows the approximate locations of all 3.
[Image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Betelgeuse_radio_wavelengths.jpg/260px-Betelgeuse_radio_wavelengths.jpgI quoted Katirai recently regarding Betelgeuse. He showed that the conventional estimates of its mass would make the red/orange sphere so thin in density that it would surely be invisible. So I think it's likely that it's much closer than claimed. If it has a plasmasphere, it may be close to the size of Jupiter, as a brown dwarf star. It's said to be 640 ly away and its diameter is 43 to 56 milliarcseconds, which converts to 730 to 1200 solar radii, or 3.4 to 5.6 AU in radius, about the distance minimally to the outer part of the asteroid belt (beyond Mars) or maximally to just past Jupiter's orbit. Let's estimate 4.5 AU. One Google book says for Jupiter, "the plasmasphere has a radius only about eight times the radius of Jupiter, or 8 x 143,000 km, which comes to just over 1 million km. 4.5 AU is about 670 million km. That's a 670 times reduction of the diameter, which would entail a 670 times reduction of the distance. 640 ly divided by 670 is just under one lightyear away. If that's correct, it would be about 12 times farther than what Katirai estimated for the diameter of the Milky Way. In that case Betelgeuse is outside the Milky Way, or I need to reduce the estimate of the Betelgeuse plasmasphere diameter to less than 100,000 km, which may be too small to be possible.
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_linear_bar.jpg), 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?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?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.
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.
>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.
>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.
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.
[Image] http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/feo_near_far.jpg
>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/PDFs/9357_19075_97281.pdf?ext=.pdfSo 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...
>>Mo quoted Miles: 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.
>Mo said: 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.In Miles' quote above, "the charge field of the comet" means the photons emitted by the comet. And "the ambient charge field" means the photons emitted from the Sun, the main emitter in the solar system. He also calls his charge photons B-photons, I believe, which means bombarding photons. He doesn't seem to talk much about slow photons, but when he says the charge field is recycled, he means photons are absorbed by matter at the poles of protons etc and emitted from matter at the equators of protons etc. In the case of neutrons they emit photons via the poles. It's the photons as they're emitted that he mostly talks about, which are part of the "charge field" of any particle or body of matter.
- Miles doesn't ignore plasma physics, he explains that the law of gravitation is a misnomer, so he calls it the unified field theory, being a combination of gravity and EM forces. He explains that the EM portion predominates at some scales, while gravity predominates at the planetary scale. But even there EM forces can be substantial. He actually says the magnetic force allows planetoids to orbit stars and planets. I think he's helping to explain plasma phenomena.
Gary and company, Mathis has posted a new paper relevant again to this or related topics at http://milesmathis.com/bright.pdf.
It's called The Brightness of the Sky
Here are some quotes.>[Quoting someone:] The luminosity on the Earth's surface is about 10,000 footcandles. But according to a paper at JGR, the luminosity at altitude is much lower: The brightness of the daytime sky has been measured using rocket-borne stereocameras. An upper limit of 0.0075 candle/ft 2 was found for the brightness at altitudes ranging from 80 to 220 km. This limit is consistent with the brightness being due entirely to Rayleigh scattering. No evidence of high altitude clouds was found.
- What do they mean by "this limit is consistent with the brightness being due entirely to Rayleigh scattering"? Well, they simply mean that if we are given the first number for brightness near the surface, then the brightness at altitude is consistent with that number, given the loss in atmospheric density. But they don't mean that the brightness at the surface is explained, because it isn't. The baseline brightness is never derived straight from equations, because — given current equations and theory — it can't be.
- Even the Rayleigh equation is back-engineered to match the known brightness.
You will say, "Prove it. Do you have some data they are hiding from us?" I don't have to prove it with hidden data from SOHO or something like that, I can prove it straight from logic and from the numbers above. Even without any numbers from scientific papers or orbiting satellites, we know that it gets darker as you go higher in the atmosphere. Every high-altitude pilot knows that. We are told that is caused by the thinner atmosphere, which doesn't scatter as much. OK, so that means that lower altitudes scatter more, and they scatter more because they are denser. See the problem yet? According to the Rayleigh equation we just studied, each particle causes a dimming. A denser atmosphere is composed of more particles, therefore a denser atmosphere should cause greater dimming. More and more photons should be reflected up or scattered to the sides (where they would also escape back into space).
- ... So this scattering mechanism and equation are both opposite to data. A denser atmosphere should reflect or absorb more, but they have a denser atmosphere reflecting less . Increasing brightness at lower altitudes contradicts the equation above and any logical application of scattering.
I hope you are beginning to see that the brightness of the atmosphere is a huge mystery, one that has never been explained by the mainstream. Like the brightness of the Moon, it is another gigantic piece of data that is strongly negative to current theory. Rather than admit that and post it as a question, they hide it. They build big equations to conceal it. They then borrow energy from the vacuum while you aren't looking, creating new photons from nothing. Borrowing from the vacuum isn't only a trick used in symmetry breaking and other esoteric problems. It is used here in Rayleigh scattering, though it is (somewhat) better concealed.
I will show you how to solve this mystery. I think you will be shocked at how simple it is. All we need is my charge field. I have shown that the Earth is recycling charge that it gets from the Sun. Some light and heat comes directly from the Sun, without being recycled through the Earth. But what turns out to be a majority of the charge from the Sun is taken in by the Earth at her poles, recycled through the core, and emitted most heavily near the equator (or 30o N and S, to be more precise). It is the Earth's spin, combined with the spherical shape, that allows for this charge channeling. All bodies channel charge like this, from the electron to the proton to the nucleus to the Moon to the Sun to the Galaxy.
- Since charge is made of real photons, we have a field of photons rising up from the surface of the Earth at all times. Since these photons are rather small as photons go, and since they peak in the infrared, they get mistaken for heat in many situations, and are given to many other causes. But I have shown they are best understood as charge — the same charge that is represented by the minus sign on the electron. Once we have this field, the gradient of brightness is easy to explain. Since the charge is emitted by the Earth, its density falls off with altitude, by the surface area equation. In other words, we have denser charge nearer the surface. It is this charge field that incoming light is mainly interacting with. Yes, molecules in the atmosphere then rechannel this charge, and charge fields are always denser near matter. But when it gets right down to it, what we have here is another charge interaction. Without rising charge, there is no way to explain the brightness gradient on the Earth.
I think by saying some and heat and light come directly from the Sun, Miles means the heat comes as IR light. The part that comes from the Sun I gather would be the part we can see from here coming from the Sun, but only part of that would be entering the polar regions and being recycled through the Earth, mostly out through the equatorial region.
