Stellar Distances

In order to know the radius of a distant star you would need to know its distance or make an assumption of what kind of star it is first, otherwise one just has an angle and a triangle of unknown dimensions.

The question regarding distances is generally interesting, and it has been discussed here before. See this thread from 2009:
Thunderbolts Forum: "Star distances (triangulation method etc.)"

I did a rough calculation a while back that made me question how we can see stars in the sky with the naked eye when given their supposed stellar distances. The nearest star, Proxima Centaury, is 4,2 LY away. Translating its radius to a white pixel on an average monitor of HD resolution, it would be like viewing that monitor (with its white pixel on a black backgrund) over 600 meters away... Would you be able to spot it? Sure, there are stars of larger magnitude and illuminocity, but they are also much farther away. An interesting thought.

Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear

I stumbled across the e-book in my web surfing recently and was nearly knocked out of my chair with the arguments presented.

Seriously, the arguments are brilliant and simple.

http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm

The author takes a long hard look at just how far away we know we can see compared to how far away we are told we can see using telescopic enhancements and concludes that there is no possible way stars are as far from us as we are told by the mainstream establishment.

The author follows up with a look at how parallaxes are calculated and concludes they are also grossly in error.

Since we know red shift does not equate to distance, this is some major icing on the cake.

If a lot of you download the ebook, his site will run out of bandwidth for the day. So if you get a message saying the site is out of bandwidth come back and try it tomorrow.

If the authors calculations are correct, which they appear to be, then the stars are within light DAYS of us, not light years.

Of course the author is confused about what constitutes stars in the end because he is unfamiliar with EU theory, however his depictions of brightness and parallaxes seem spot on. There is just no way we should be able to see "billions of light years" into space.

Here is a pdf version of the ebook, hosted from Google:
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/files/AstronomyDec28-2008.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

The Sun is 499.0 light-seconds away

His theory about galaxies being star systems isn't right because we can measure the rotation rates, but I'm really digging his views about how far we should reasonably be able to see with our equipment.

"Billions of light years" is impossible.

* 499 light seconds distance is 8 minutes and 19 seconds times the speed of light.
* I downloaded something from that last link. Looking forward to reading it.

POSSIBLY A VERY MAJOR FINDING
* I read a few chapters so far and the theory is much more plausible than I expected. The author says Harlow Shapley is the one who first claimed in 1914 with very little evidence that the Sun is not near the center of the Milky Way. Before that several scientists, starting with William Herschel in the late 1700s and continuing up to the late 1800s, found much evidence that the Sun is near the Milky Way center. Another scientist in 1930 also found more evidence of the Sun's central position and that Shapley was wrong, but the mainstream ignored him.
* Sound familiar? The mainstream ignores the best studies? And guess what; Shapley is the same person who vociferously attacked Velikovsky in the 1950s and later I think, calling him anti-scientific in some way. Here are examples: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=e ... 95c947f3f0 . I found recently that Margaret Mead was one of the original promoters of global warming in 1975 and she was the president of the AAAS in 1974, the year that Velikovsky was "tried for heresy" by the AAAS for his 1950s works, Worlds in Collision etc. So I speculated that the real reason for the hysterical reaction to him was the evidence he presented that Venus is a young planet and is hot for that reason, and not because of the supposed runaway greenhouse effect due to high levels of CO2 in its atmosphere. And Mead's circle apparently didn't want his theories to be studied seriously by mainstream scientists.
* I have quite a bit to read yet and I'd like to see some of the images in the online version later. I've read I guess most of the material about problems with parallax measurements and that material is very plausible so far. The author said it's very hard to measure actual parallax of "stars", so scientists turned to measuring relative parallax instead, which involves imaging stars and seeing if any of them have moved with respect to the others. They assume that most of the "stars" are relatively fixed and those that change position relative to the others are either planets or closer stars. The author points out that they overlooked the possibility that the ones considered "fixed" may actually have moved as well, but just not with respect to each other.
* The author contends that most of what are called stars are actually planets, though I imagine they may be more likely brown dwarf stars, which can be as small as our large planets. He also thinks the Sun is the center of the galaxy and that galaxies are large planetary systems, rather than star systems.
* What I'd like to see is actual estimates of how far away the nearest galaxies actually are, but I don't know if his book gives any estimates so far. I'm also curious what he says about stellar spectra. I read a little about that so far, and that was interesting too, but there's much more to read on that yet.

* I just heard that the author of the book, Revolution in Astronomy, is dead. The book is copyrighted 2007, so I guess he died recently.
* I read the whole book now and I took notes. Here are my notes on what he said about how stellar distances are measured. Actually, this just covers the most basic method of measurement, parallax. He also covered redshift and pointed out why it's an erroneous method, which is already known in EU. He didn't cover the other methods, like Cepheid variables etc, much but explained that those variables are likely to be planets rather than distant stars.
Measuring Stellar Distances
- The maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see.
- Absolute Parallax is the angular difference in the position of an object when seen from two different places.
- However, in practice, astronomers do not look through a telescope to measure the angle for finding absolute parallax.
- Measuring that angle is too difficult and complicated, so astronomers have abandoned measuring absolute parallaxes.
- Instead, they have turned to measuring relative parallaxes.
- This is done by taking 2 or more photographs of stars six months apart and finding which ones have changed positions.
- It is assumed that the stars that don't change position don't have significant parallaxes of their own.
- This assumption has apparently never been tested.
- The fact that over 25% of the parallaxes of the fixed stars are negative indicates that they are actually closer than the stars with changed positions.
- Measurements that are negative or greater than an arc-second are wrongly discarded as errors.
- A planet 500 AU from the Earth will have an absolute parallax smaller than 0.7 mm viewed at 34 cm.
- Bear in mind that this is the absolute parallax, which is never measured.
- In 2006 a few distant objects thought to be stars were moved to the list of planets after noticing a change in their position.
- Stars appear as points of light no matter how much magnification is used.

* I don't remember him saying anything about the theoretical Oort cloud.
* The main question is whether or not he's right about measuring stellar distances.
* If the spectra of blue stars are similar to the spectra of planets, then he could be right, that blue stars are planets. The blue planets, Uranus and Neptune, are gas giants and possibly former brown dwarf stars. So all his theory changes is reducing the size of the blue stars etc.
* I hope to post more notes later.

The more I look at his work and the more I look at pictures of galaxies, the more I think he is right on the money.

Seriously, I think he is on to something huge here.

Consider that the galaxy in question is not a galaxy at all, but a gas giant like Saturn.

We already know our ideas of redshift are totally wrong.

>Mosaic Dave said: the first chapter is where the author comes to the conclusion that the Hubble space telescope can only see 357 times as far as the naked eye. The reasoning leading to this conclusion contains a number of very large errors and omissions....
1) The author misunderstands the difference between the magnification and the resolution of an optical telescope. In fact, he seems to have no understanding whatsoever of the importance of resolution... One of the major reasons for building a telescope with a large aperture, is because there is a direct, inverse relationship between the size of a telescope's aperture (the size of the main mirror, in a reflecting telescope) and the size of the smallest features that it can resolve. The larger the diameter of the mirror, the smaller the objects that can be resolved. A great many web sites will cover this basic information; probably Wikipedia has a treatment of it. This is why a telescope with an accurate mirror a couple of yards wide, can make incredibly sharp and detailed images of things that you can't even see with your unaided eye. This has little or nothing to do with magnification.

* I don't think the author misunderstands things nearly as much as you say. It seems that you may misunderstand him. You should state which specific statements of the author that you disagree with.
* He said the Hubble telescope mirror has a diameter of 2.5 meters. Is that untrue?
* He said the average open human pupil has a diameter of 7 mm. Is that untrue?
* Maybe he should have stated what the diameter of the human eye's lens is, instead of the pupil. Would that be about 8 or 9 mm?
* He said the Hubble's diameter is 357 times the diameter of our pupils. If our lenses are a bit larger than the pupils, then he should have said the Hubble is only about 300 times the diameter of the human eye lens. So it can see only 300 times farther.

>You said: 2) The author also fails to understand the significance of long exposures in augmenting the light gathering power of a telescope. A respectable telescope can easily take pictures using exposure times many hours in duration; your eye does not even have any kind of integrating capability equivalent to this.

* His book does address that and I think he estimated that extra exposure time can increase the distance that can be detected by about ten times.
* He said the Hubble can see 357 times farther than the naked eye and about ten times farther than that using long exposure times.
* The Andromeda galaxy is visible to the naked eye. Conventional astronomy puts its distance at 2.52 million light years. If Hubble can see 10 times 357 times farther, or 3,570 times farther, then it can see about 9 billion light years. That would be acceptable to EU theory, which contends that the distant galaxies are probably about ten times closer than estimated by conventional redshift calculations. Conventional estimates of the most distant object seen from Earth so far is said to be a galaxy at 13.2 billion light years away. So EU theory would put it at only a billion or so light years away.
* The author says a leading astronomer in 1907 found by careful absolute parallax measurements that the distance to Andromeda's M31 galaxy was 815 light years.
* So it's reasonable to ask just what methods were used to come up with the 2.5 million light year estimate. The Cepheid variable star comparison method is what I think was later used and it looks to me like the author is probably right that that method is not sound. Absolute parallax seems to be a very sound method, whereas the Cepheid variable star method seems to be based on unproved assumptions about those variable stars.
* I haven't found any major mistakes by the author so far, but it doesn't matter if there are some major mistakes. What's important is if he's right about any major claims, such as the distance to the Andromeda galaxy, M31. If the 1907 parallax finding was correct of 815 light years, then Shapley's later method was likely based on false assumptions about Cepheids etc. The conventional method would be off with respect to M31 by 3,100 times overestimate. If the overestimate is close to accurate for most other measurements as well, then the most distant galaxy would be 4 million light years away. Couldn't EU theory live with that?

Because you are not seeing reflected light, you are seeing Hydrogen glowing in the far UV from a charged region above the surface of the planet. The light travels as a quasi-planewave, and is only visible on Earth as the UV reaching us is converted in the atmosphere and gives off light in the visible wavelengths. That is why 'stars' can not be seen from the moon, or in space, by eye or normal camera, but only through H emissions. There was great hope for balloon astronomy, show me photos of the stars even from balloon elevations.

I had said: [The author] said the Hubble can see 357 times farther than the naked eye and about ten times farther than that using long exposure times.

>And Nick replied: This is wrong. Just because the Hubble primary mirror is 357x the diameter of the human eye (pupil) does not mean that it can see only 357x farther. Telescopic light gathering power is dependent upon the area of the objective lens or mirror. So the proper comparison would be the area of the Hubble primary mirror to the area of the human (night adjusted) pupil.
http://users.zoominternet.net/~matto/M. ... _power.htm
(Note, magnification is a seperate calculation dependent upon the focal length of the objective divided by the focal length of the eyepiece.)
- According to my calculations,
using that formula:
-The Hubble has an aperature of 2400 mm
-The human eye has an aperature 7mm
- LGP2400 / LGP7 = (2400/7)2 = 342.8572 = 117,551 times the light gathering

* Nick, this webpage http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006060224122 says, "If you consider [the Hubble telescope] as a camera, its main camera is 16 megapixels at about 540 times normal magnification."
* Do you have reason to doubt that its magnification is not 540x?
* If it its magnification is 540x, it can see 540 times as far as the naked eye. Right?
* And as the author said, time exposure can increase the magnification up to about ten times. And in that case it could see 5,400 times as far as the naked eye. Isn't that correct?
* So, if the eye can see M31 at 2.5 million light years, Hubble could see 13.5 billion light years. Right?
* And, if M31 as the most distant naturally visible object is only 1,000 light years away, then Hubble could only see 5.4 million light years. Right?

Hubble is not taking 'pictures' of anything much. Ceres in the main asteroid belt is about as far as it can see using light, beyond that it must use its collection of gratings, filters, CCDs, lots of sophisticated instruments. (Edit-oops, I'm referring to Chandra here, not Hubble, but the point is that they use instruments nowadays, not visible light.) Our nearest 'star', supposedly showing a turbulent atmosphere.

* I'm not convinced that the book Revolution in Astronomy is largely correct. I read a little about debates that were held in the early 1900s and it looks like galaxies may contain many stars, but I'm not convinced that they're large stars. It's possible that they could be small stars the size of Uranus, which isn't a lot bigger than Earth.
* Here are some paraphrased statements about galaxies from the book. The main thing that stands out here is the idea that the galactic centers are single Sun-like stars while the outer stars are bluish. And don't the galaxy images tend to show that? Which of these statements seem probable and improbable?

- A method to distinguish a star from a planet is spectrum analysis.
- In the mid 1800s Harvard Professor and leading astronomer, Edward Pickering, lettered the stars according to the strength of their hydrogen spectral lines.
- He found that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun.
- The whitish or bluish objects such as Sirius that have much hydrogen in their spectra are more numerous in the Milky Way.
- It appears that no spectrum analyses were ever carried out for the sole purpose of differentiating stars from planets.
- Galaxies are planetary systems not over a few thousand light-years distant.
- The center of a galaxy is only one star, not millions of them.
- Each galaxy has no more than a few hundred planets, rather than billions of stars.
- The clouds in a galaxy are just dust and gas, not stars.
- The center of the Milky Way galaxy is a single, massive star: our sun.
- The diameter of the Milky Way is less than 30 light-days [480 billion miles].
- The greatest distance that the Hubble can detect a great star, such as the sun, is 18,110 light years.
- In 1907 the Andromeda galaxy was determined to be only 19 light-years away.
- Later, Van Maanen measured the parallax of the Andromeda galaxy at 0.004' ± 0.005" which placed it at 815 light-years away.
- This means the Andromeda galaxy is not only nearby, but small.
- By mistaking planets for novas and Cepheid stars, astronomy went off course.
- In 1924, Edwin Hubble, resolved the spiral arms of the Andromeda Galaxy into many stars and found Cepheid variables and blue supergiants.
- But he could not resolve its center into stars, nor has anyone else done so since, though many tried.
- Astronomers claim that the small, bluish objects circling galactic centers are stars.
- The centers are only a few times larger than the bluish objects, but they should be billions of times larger if they contain millions of stars.
- The enlarged image of the nucleus of the galaxy M100 is a yellowish star similar to the sun.
- The smaller objects that have blue colors are circling that center.
- If we study the true color photographs of all galaxies, we see that each center has a yellow color similar to that of the sun.
- Jay Pasachoff writes "Color photographs of galaxies show that the central regions are relatively yellow …, while the arms are relatively blue".
- Many astronomers were puzzled to find that the light of the center of a galaxy was much brighter than the rest of the galaxy.
- In 1997 Dr. Philippe Crane at ESO said, "Something is lighting up the center of galaxy NGC 6251 and illuminating a surrounding material disk."
- Some galaxies harbor in their nucleus objects that emit more energy than all the stars in the rest of the galaxy together.
- It has been found that the nuclei of galaxies emit large amounts of infrared energy.
- If we examine recent images with excellent resolution, it is easy to count the number of spherical and luminous objects within the galaxies.
- In most galaxies there are less than a few thousand such objects.
- In the large majority of galaxies, there are less than several dozen.
- If the objects circling just beyond the center of the galaxies are hot stars, then they should illuminate the clouds surrounding them, but they don't.
- The centers of galaxies are strong sources of infrared and x-rays, while the objects circling the centers are not.
- The light of the objects circling the centers of galaxies, like Andromeda, undergoes phases, similar to those of our moon.
- In 1899, astronomer Isaac Roberts discovered that the Andromeda galaxy was rotating within a short period of time, proving it is relatively small.
- If the galaxy were as huge as claimed, it would take hundreds of millions of years to make one rotation and it would be impossible for the photographs to detect it.
- In 1909, astronomer William Huggins announced that the Andromeda nebula was a planetary system, similar to our solar system.

* Here are more paraphrased passages from Bahram's book.
- In 2006 a few distant objects thought to be stars were moved to the list of planets after noticing changes in their positions via relative parallax.
- In relative parallax star photo comparisons, the fact that over 25% of the parallaxes of the fixed stars are negative indicates that those over 25% are actually closer than the stars with changed positions, which latter are usually considered planets.
- When astronomers take measurements that are negative or greater than an arc-second they throw out that data on the assumption that they are errors.
- A way to determine not only the relative distances of stars, but also determine if objects are stars or planets, is to use simultaneously two telescopes separated by great distances to view the same object.
- This would also measure parallaxes accurately.
- The photographs of many globular clusters reveal that some objects therein do not appear as small points of light, but rather as significant discs, even through small telescopes.
- This indicates they are just light hours away and some could be even closer than Pluto (but at a high celestial latitude).
- In figure 8 the shadows of cluster objects can be seen on the objects that are located farther back behind them (and shadows can't be seen on stars).
- Evidence that "cluster-type Cepheids" may be planets is that the light of some of them is variable (like a planet going through phases like the moon).
- Because objects in a star cluster are very faint and do not shine like stars, so by conventional astronomers they are called very old, burnt out stars.
- But they are more likely young planets, not worn out or burnt out stars.
* Here's info on van Maanen & the Andromeda galaxy: http://www.weblore.com/richard/adrian_van_mannen.htm, which may or may not support Bahram's view.

* Can we get back to the main event here?
* Did anyone pay any attention to my last post at: http://thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4293&p=49036#p48987?
* I'll repeat the main points from there.
- Because objects in a star cluster are very faint and do not shine like stars, conventional astronomers call them very old, burnt out stars.
- But they are more likely young planets, not worn out or burnt out stars.
* Isn't that reasonable, that faint objects are likely to be planets or very small brown dwarfs, instead of stars, and that stars should be bright, like an electric arc?

- The photographs of many globular clusters reveal that some objects therein do not appear as small points of light, but rather as significant discs, even through small telescopes.
- This indicates they are just light hours away and some could be even closer than Pluto (but at a high celestial latitude).
* Isn't it reasonable that stars in Milky Way star clusters that show significant faint discs, instead of points, are likely planets, some closer than Pluto?

- In figure 8 the shadows of cluster objects can be seen on the objects that are located farther back behind them (and shadows can't be seen on stars).
* Isn't it reasonable that shadows on star cluster objects indicates that those objects are not stars?

I thought I would try a different tack, Lloyd. Tell me if it is logical.
The nearest Star, Proxima Centuri surely should be the test case for Sun Vs. planet determination. Chandra has had a good long look at PC, 8 hours in X-Ray.

>Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri have shown that its surface is in a state of turmoil. Flares, or explosive outbursts, occur almost continually. This behavior can be traced to Proxima Centauri's low mass, about a tenth that of the Sun.

>"This indicates that Saturn's X-ray emission is due to the scattering of solar X-rays by Saturn's atmosphere," said Jan-Uwe Ness, of the University of Hamburg in Germany and lead author of a paper discussing the Saturn results in an upcoming issue of Astronomy & Astrophysics. "It's a puzzle, since the intensity of Saturn's X-rays requires that Saturn reflects X-rays fifty times more efficiently than the Moon."

More confused scientists. Back to the drawing board I guess. I'll look at some other planets and see if their X-rays emissions make any sense. Surely the Square Kilometer Array will be able to tell us for sure, but at the rate they are going, it will be another 20 years before it is completed.

>Kiwi said: stars or just "marks" on the neg [photographic negatives?] due to crude early tech?

* I didn't find anything about that at the link you provided. Do you have another link that explains what you mean?

>Gary said: Tell me if it is logical. The nearest Star, Proxima Centauri surely should be the test case for Sun Vs. planet determination. Chandra has had a good long look at PC, 8 hours in X-Ray. ... "Chandra and XMM-Newton observations of the red dwarf star Proxima Centauri have shown that its surface is in a state of turmoil. Flares, or explosive outbursts, occur almost continually. This behavior can be traced to Proxima Centauri's low mass, about a tenth that of the Sun." Its surface is in a state of turmoil. Must be a Sun. Mustn't it? The extended X-ray glow is an instrumental effect. Hmm... Then I wondered about X-Rays from the Solar system planets. ... "It's a puzzle, since the intensity of Saturn's X-rays requires that Saturn reflects X-rays fifty times more efficiently than the Moon."

* Sounds pretty inconclusive, doesn't it? First, it's an assumption that Proxima Centauri is the nearest "star". We need to find out how its distance was "measured" before we can be confident that it's the nearest "star". Re Saturn, Thornhill seems to contend that Saturn produces its own x-rays, rather than reflecting them from the Sun. Here's what this TPOD said:

>Like the Sun, Saturn radiates X-rays strongly from near its equator, though X-rays of such intensity were not expected from Saturn. Saturn's X-ray spectrum is like the Sun's, and this fact led scientists to suggest, improbably, that the X-rays from the Sun were being reflected by Saturn's atmosphere. (Why, then, doesn't Jupiter reflect X-rays equatorially? Its X-rays come from polar auroral discharges, not from a "reflection"). The hasty "explanation" requires that Saturn reflect X-rays 50-times more efficiently than the Moon!
- By comparing historical evidence with data on recently discovered unusually-low-luminosity stars, Wallace Thornhill (http://www.holoscience.com) has suggested that Saturn was formerly an independent brown dwarf star. He predicts that Saturn will continue to perplex astronomers with stellar characteristics. Saturn's X-rays are concentrated, like the Sun's, at low latitudes. Voyager 2 also found an immense, hot doughnut of plasma encircling Saturn that is believed to be the hottest place in the solar system, 300 times hotter than the solar corona! Saturn's atmosphere appears to rotate faster at the equator than at high latitudes – just like the Sun's. More similarities will emerge, Thornhill predicts.

* So it looks to me like Proxima Centauri could be as small as Saturn or smaller. Saturn may have behaved like PC before Saturn entered the Solar System. PC seems to be quite a distance from alpha Centauri, so it may be entering the AC system, like Saturn entered the Solar System 10,000 years ago.
* Here's more from Bahram's book [paraphrased].

Heat from Stars
- If we examine the light of all celestial objects having a blue color, we see that they are always dull, meaning they do not shine like stars.
- If one looks at the objects in a star cluster, one sees that blue objects in comparison to orange objects of the same size are very faint.
- This clearly shows that blue objects could not have higher temperatures than orange objects, because if they did they would be many times brighter.
- The warmer the object, the more infrared radiation it emits.
- The fact that the sun is a star with a high temperature and a strong source of infrared radiation suggests that any hot stars must be strong sources of infrared radiation.
- Stars in the neighborhood of the sun were found to be not hot at all.
- Many nearby stars are blue objects that cannot be seen in infrared light because they reflect much less heat from the Sun.
- Instead of considering that these blue and cold objects could be planets, astronomers assumed they emit most of their energy in ultraviolet light.
- See http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/cosmic_reference/nearmidfar.html
Spectra
- A method to distinguish a star from a planet is spectrum analysis.
- In the mid 1800s Harvard Professor and leading astronomer, Edward Pickering, lettered the stars according to the strength of their hydrogen spectral lines.
- He found that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun.
- The whitish or bluish objects such as Sirius that have much hydrogen in their spectra are more numerous in the Milky Way.
- It appears that no spectrum analyses were ever carried out for the sole purpose of differentiating stars from planets.

>* Sounds pretty inconclusive, doesn't it? First, it's an assumption that Proxima Centauri is the nearest "star". We need to find out how its distance was "measured" before we can be confident that it's the nearest "star".

I'm still having trouble getting above the first rung of the Cosmic Ladder. For a start, they are assuming a negligible angle of refraction of the atmosphere at the equator, but when there are lots of layers with temperature and humidity variations, and uncertain boundary layer effects, this seems highly unscientific. I think in a court of scientific inquisition, they would be hard pressed to present a solid case. The idea of a much smaller Universe has been brought up before, and mentioned in this PDF that was provided to me by a BAUT member.
http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Stellar%20distances.pdf

allynh, thanks for the Harlow Shapley and Great Debate links in the Distance Calculations thread, haven't had a chance to go through those thoroughly yet.

* Gary, your link http://www.geocentricperspective.com/Stellar%20distances.pdf is interesting, but a geocentric perspective seems totally absurd. Do you think it's actually plausible?
* Here are some quotes from the webpage. The first two are interesting, but the 3rd one is the one that seems absurd. The method described for obtaining stellar distances seems plausible and these quotes show only the conclusions.

4. DISTANCE TO SIXTH-MAGNITUDE STARS
We now consider the question, "How far away is the faintest star of comparable size and effective temperature to the Sun, that can be seen with our naked eye?" ...
Light will take [a minimum of] 1.092 x 10^5 seconds, or 1.26 days, to travel ... the maximum distance to a sixth-magnitude star (of similar characteristics to the Sun). Sixth-magnitude stars of a size and effective temperature equivalent to our Sun are therefore no more than 1.26 +/- 0.01 light-days distant from us. This is an upper limit; they can be closer than this.

6. CONSIDERATIONS PERTAINING TO CERTAIN OTHER CELESTIAL OBJECTS
... But we know from Eq. 5 that I[26] = 1/m^2 x I[6], where the 26th magnitude star is m times further from the observer than is the 6th magnitude star. And so here, m = 10^4. This means that the distance to a 26th magnitude star cannot be greater than ~ 34.5 +/- 0.3 light-years. ...

9.1 Stellar Parallax
In attempting to preserve the integrity of the paper, we are therefore drawn to the inescapable conclusion that the World does not orbit the Sun. A geocentric cosmology ... accounts for stellar parallax by assigning all movements of the stars to the stars themselves, rather than to the World. Observations will, in this case, document real displacements, rather than apparent ones, but consequently will supply no information as to the distances involved. Our results are thus only feasible within a geocentric framework.

* I think a 6th magnitude star is about the faintest stars visible to the naked eye. A 26th magnitude star is the faintest visible through Earth-based telescopes.
* And the author showed that the visible stars are no more than 1.26 light-days away, while 26th magnitude stars are no more than 34.5 light-days away.
* On page 3 of this thread I paraphrased Bahram as saying that the diameter of the Milky Way is less than 30 light-days [480 billion miles], which is about the same as what the above webpage says.

Parallax
- For instance, while he correctly notes that the failure to detect stellar parallax was an argument against the heliocentric model, he quickly concludes that this was circumstantial evidence for geocentrism (or as he prefers, the Tychonian model).39 Of course the heliocentric model can explain the lack of trigonometric parallax if the stars are at incredible distances. This turned out to be the case, and there is compelling evidence that even the nearest stars are more than 200,000 times farther from us than the Sun is. If lack of parallax was evidence against heliocentrism and for geocentrism, then one would expect that when parallax was finally detected in the 1830s, trigonometric parallax would be taken as evidence against geocentrism and for heliocentrism. However, this is not Bouw's conclusion. Instead, Bouw modifies the Tychonian model so that the Sun in its annual motion drags along the distant stars. In other words, Bouw cries foul whenever physicists change models (as with modern relativity theory) to correctly describe new data, but he feels free to tinker with his model at will to meet the challenge of new results. It is impossible to refute any theory with these kinds of rules.
- Bouw uses the same skewed rules in discussing star streaming.40 The Sun is moving through space, as can be deduced by proper motions (the gradual motion of stars across the sky) of many stars. The first measurement of this was done more than two centuries ago by the great German-born English astronomer William Herschel (1738–1822), though the measurement has been refined many times since then. When the proper motions of many stars are considered, we find that stars seem to stream out of a region called the solar apex, presumably in the direction in which the Sun is moving. Conversely, stars appear to stream toward a convergent point, called the solar antepex, diametrically opposed from the solar apex and presumed to be the direction from which the Sun is moving. This would appear to be strong evidence that neither the Sun nor the Earth is the centre of the universe, but Bouw baldly asserts that stars could be moving past the Sun rather than the other way around.

>Nick said: If stars are nearby objects, why are bright stars such as Sirius, Vega, A Centauri, etc. not resolvable as disks by telescopes? (afaik the only stars that has been resolved as a disk are a couple of red giants such as Betelgeuse and Antares.) It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that they are extremely bright objects, ie suns, at great distances. If they (Sirius, Vega, etc) were a part of the solar system, being so bright, we would see them as extended objects and not as a point light source.

* So far, we don't seem to have come up with definitive proof yet that the stars are at the distances conventionally claimed. I posted much of Bahram's evidence that the stars are within 30 lightdays distance, which I think is about half a trillion miles. One of his claims was that the central stars of galaxies are single yellow stars like the Sun and the other stars are blue and white, because they give off mostly ultraviolet light, I think. And he claimed that these stars are actually planets. So the reason Sirius etc are not imaged as disks could be that they're planets, between the sizes of Uranus and Jupiter.
* When you look at other galaxies, I think you do see single yellow stars at the centers, as he claimed. So his reasoning seems reasonable so far. It may be that conventional astronomy has used reliable ways to determine the actual distances to stars, but I haven't seen evidence here yet of what those reliable ways actually are. Bahram suggested that Cepheid Variables are not reliable, because they seem to be planets, like Uranus, or Venus, instead of large stars, like the Sun.
* I'm very open to hearing of solid evidence that the stars are actually at the distances conventionally claimed. So, if anyone knows of such solid evidence that hasn't already been disproved by Bahram, please post it, or a link to it.

* Nick, or anyone, can you help determine the maximum and minimum distances of stars, based on angular visual diameters?
* Here are the visual diameters from Earth of the Sun, Moon and some stars per Wikipedia.
Sun----------- 1929"
Moon--------- (same)
R Doradus-- 0.057"
Betelgeuse-- 0.0545"
Alphard------ 0.00909″
a-Centauri-A 0.007″
Canopus----- 0.006″
Sirius-------- 0.005936″
Altair-------- 0.003″
Deneb------- 0.002″
Pr-Centauri- 0.001″
* The sky is divided into 360°; each degree is divided into 60 arcminutes and each arcminute into 60 arcseconds. The star with the largest visual diameter after the Sun is R Doradus at 0.057 arcseconds. The Sun's and Moon's visual diameter is about 1929 arcseconds viewed from Earth.
- R Doradus's visual diameter is 33,842 times smaller than the Sun's and Moon's visual diameter.
- If the real diameter of R Doradus is the same as the Moon's real diameter, 2160 miles, its distance would be 8 x 10^9 or 8 billion miles.
- If its real diameter is the same as Neptune's real diameter, 31,000 miles, its distance would be 1.15 x 10^11 or 115 billion miles.
- If it's the same as the Sun's real diameter, it's 3 x 10^12 miles away. 1 lightyear is 5.9 x 10^12 miles, so 3 x 10^12 divided by 5.9 x 10^12 = .508 or about half a lightyear.
- If it's 1,000 times the Sun's real diameter, it's 3 x 10^15 miles away. 3 x 10^15 divided by 5.9 x 10^12 = 508 lightyears.
- The conventional claim is that it's 370 times the Sun's diameter and 204 lightyears away.
* If R Doradus diameter =: ---------------- then its distance =:
Moon-size: — 2160 mi. ------------------ 8 billion mi. === 0.0014 ly
Neptune-size: 31,000 mi. --------------- 115 billion mi. == 0.019 ly
Sun-size: ----- 864,000 mi. ------------- 3 trillion mi. ==== 0.508 ly
1000 Sun-size: 864 million mi. -------- 3,000 trillion mi. = 508 ly
- So, ignoring other constraints, that star could be at any of those distances.
* And Sirius, having about one tenth the visual diameter of R Doradus, would be at a distance ten times as great as the range for R Doradus. Right?
* Brightness, or luminosity, is conventionally used to help determine distance, but it's based on uniformitarian Nebular theory assumptions. There is surely a maximum possible brightness per surface area and that could probably be determined from arc-mode plasma measurements. That's probably been done somewhere, but who knows where to find the info?
* This says something about luminosity, but I don't know what the numerical quantity per square cm per second means. Does anyone?
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1108184/files/p177.pdf

Abstract: The project of a dedicated 510 MeV electron-positron storage ring with the luminosity above 10^33/cm^2/sec is proposed. Its energy corresponds to a maximum of the phi-meson resonance production (Phi-factory). An essential feature of the project is the solenoidal focusing used to obtain round beams at the interaction point.

>- Nick: The difficulty lies in the fact that the measurable movement of the star's position (relative to more distant background stars that do not move) is very small.

* It's an Assumption that "background stars ... do not move", which Bahram's book challenges.

>- Nick: It is small because the stars are so far away!
(Their distance is also why they do not show as disks when magnified by the largest telescopes.)

* It's an Assumption that "they do not show as disks" because of distance; it's possible that it's not because of great distance, but because of small size.

>- Nick: The stars are no where near our solar system. Many stars show no movement at all, in other words they are at tremendous distances, measured in light years. Mainstream's measurement of distances arrived at by the parallax method are probably reasonably accurate.

* It's an Assumption that "stars are no where near our solar system".
* It's an Assumption that "stars show no movement at all". They show little or no movement relative to so-called background stars, but Bahram surmises that the background stars are simply moving at the same rate. He says almost 25% of stars have negative parallax values, which is evidence that they're all moving, but conventional scientists simply throw out the negative values as assumed errors. Have you ever heard of THAT before - throwing out data? Sounds reminiscent of ignoring electrical and plasma effects in space. THEY SUPPRESS DATA. Doesn't that bother you? As Bahram stated, absolute parallax should be very reliable, but astronomers don't use absolute parallax; they use relative parallax, meaning relative to background stars, which ASSUMES that those stars are relatively fixed.

>- Nick: While the Electric Universe has challenged the precision of many of the measuring sticks of astronomy it does not deny that we are dealing with great distances. Or that galaxies are composed of millions of stars, and that we are a part of one those galaxies, etc, etc, etc.

* I think we're well aware of what EU and conventional science claim on this issue. We may agree that "galaxies" are composed of thousands or millions of objects, but we question the sizes of those objects and the sizes of those galaxies. If the sizes are smaller than assumed, then the distances are less than assumed. If those stars are 100 times smaller than assumed, then they're 100 times closer than assumed. If they're 1000 times smaller, they're 1000 times closer. Etc.
* I think the only thing likely to settle this matter soon is to determine what is the maximum possible brightness of an object, as in an arc-mode discharge.Then we can determine the possible distance based on brightness. I see a lightbulb about a mile away in the daytime. It's on a pole that's probably 8 inches or so in diameter. The pole visually looks about as wide as Venus at night. The lightbulb, which is turned on, is probably 200 watts and looks visually about half the diameter of the pole, although it's probably smaller than that. People standing at that distance are very hard to see, but the lightbulb is plain to see. Brightness seems to make things appear a bit larger. Lightning is said to be about an inch in diameter generally, but it usually looks about 5 or 10 times that thick.
* So can you help us find out what maximum brightness is possible for stars and how to determine distance based on brightness and visual diameter?

* Gary, good luck with BAUT.
* I heard that EU Theory now considers 500 lightyears the maximum that can be measured somewhat accurately presently, so any measurement beyond that is unreliable for stars. That means the diameter of the Milky Way might be as little as 500 LY.
* We'll have to wait a bit for more details.

>>* Nick, I said: It's an Assumption that "[stars] do not show as disks" because of distance; it's possible that it's not because of great distance, but because of small size.

>* And you replied: It's not an assumption, it is a fact. If you moved close enough to Sirius it would show itself as disk. Is that debatable?

* Actually, this Hubble image of Sirius shows it as a disk, not a point.
[Image] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Sirius_A_and_B_Hubble_photo.jpg

* Something you haven't yet acknowledged here is that there are TWO reasons that other stars can be seen as points, instead of disks, when viewed through a telescope.
The first reason is that a star may be at a great distance.
The second reason is as Bahram said, that the star or object may be of small size.
The reason can also be a combination of great distance and small size.
You don't actually disagree, do you?

* I propose that its size isn't yet determined, but it MAY be much smaller and closer than assumed.

>th[e]n you have to explain why it is so bright. At a magnitude of - 1, and yet it does not show as a disk in any telescope. Solar system objects such as Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are not visible to the naked eye yet have been telescopically resolved as disks. Sirius is a point light source as opposed to the above which are revealed to be disks in telescopes. The bottom line, why is it so bright yet does not show itself as an object? The theory that it is a Sun like object at a far distance, approximately 8 light years, fits these observations.

>A few questions: In your scheme of things, what is the source of the light we see from stars, reflected or generated by the star?

* It depends on the electrical environment. Saturn, before it entered the Solar System, seems to have been very bright periodically, when it encountered stronger electrical current sheets, although it usually was not much brighter than the present full Moon. Brown dwarf stars would generate their own light, but planets would reflect light. The difference between those two can be very fuzzy.

>where do you propose that a star, Sirius for example, is located? how large is it?

* It's probably beyond the Kuiper belt and, as I calculated in my earlier post, it could be as small as Venus or one of the gas giants or up to the size of the Sun or larger.
* I understand that EU Theory now considers parallax measurements of stars to be highly unreliable beyond a few hundred lightyears. And that still seems to be based on relative parallax, which may also be inaccurate even for closer measurements.
* So, as I said in the prior post, I think luminosity needs to be studied in greater depth to determine stellar distances more accurately. Conventional assumptions about luminosity are based on the stellar fusion theory, but we need to study it from the perspective of arc mode and glow mode electric discharge. According to http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1997/33, Hubble found a star ten million times more luminous than the Sun, but only 100 times larger in diameter. Of course, the actual diameter wasn't observed, just guessed at. But I don't think science knows yet how small an object can be and still be highly luminous.

>...and Pluto are not visible to the naked eye yet have been telescopically resolved as disks

I don't see Pluto as having been resolved as a disk, do you have an image source? Hubble does not see very far in the visible, and at the distance of Pluto, you get about 5 pixels resolution. Then they use their imaginations and lots of computing to arrive at a pretty image. I couldn't begin to imagine the math involved, maybe it does work as they say, but the general rule seems to be that the more complex a system, the less certain, or reliable, its behaviour. This is a Hubble image of the tenth planet, they don't know its distance yet, but farther out than Pluto. This is what they start with before their math.

NASA page. http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/NVA2~8~8~14305~114846:Hubble-Finds--Tenth-Planet--is-Slig

They have not figured the exact size, as they have not determined its surface brightness yet. I still can't figure out how that works.

Looks like an over-processed mess to me Lloyd. The Hubble can't even 'see' one pixel at that distance, so it is all done by instruments, amplified, diffracted, filtered, then computer processed.

>what is the source of the light we see from stars, reflected or generated by the star?

Because these stars are detected, and not seen in the conventional sense, the instruments they use will also pick up the objects, and more strongly, the atmospheres above the objects, that are fluorescing, surprising (again) many astronomers with the strength of the emissions. The deeper I look into all this, the murkier it all gets. I believe less of what the astronomers tell me than before I started looking, but there is as yet no simple, conclusive evidence either way, IMO.

>Nick said: Sirius is many thousands of times brighter than Pluto. It cannot be a small object far away, what kind of small object could emit that bright of a light?

* Did you misspeak there? We're suggesting that Sirius may be a smaller object that's closer than assumed, not farther.

>- ... the parallax method should be reasonably accurate, after that the margin of error increases with distance. My understanding is that it's pretty good to around 500 ly.

* Does the parallax method involve observing an object and its background at 6 month intervals when the angle from the object to the 2 different positions of Earth is at a maximum angle? How would an astronomer know that the background stars haven't moved significantly in that 6 month interval? I just calculated that an object orbiting the Sun at 1,000 AUs would move about 20 arcseconds in 6 months. Stellar parallaxes are less than one arcsecond, so it seems that objects could be within a few thousand AUs and the closer ones would show such a parallax motion of under one arcsecond. One lightyear is over 63,000 AUs.

>I do not think there is any reason to doubt that we are in a spiral galaxy of immense size, accompanied by several small satellite galaxies and dozens of globular clusters all of which are resolvable into stars. And we can see other nearby spiral galaxies with their attending satellite galaxies and globular clusters, and can resolve them into stars. We can get a rough estimate of the distance by just asking how far away would the Milky Way have to be to have that apparent size and brightness?

* Your statement of faith doesn't seem to help much to explain how we can be certain that stars and galaxies etc are as distant as is normally assumed. I hope to hear soon of a reliable means to determine distances, whether by parallax or anything else.
Here are Parallaxes in arcseconds of some stars.
Sirius 0.379
Procyon 0.288
Ross-780 0.213
Altair 0.194
Arcturus 0.090
Regulus 0.045
Antares 0.024
Betelgeuse 0.009
Hadar 0.006
Rigel 0.004

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Distances in Astronomy?

Mo said: Maybe more accurate data on the extra-Solar planets will give another way of determining star distances.

>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.

In 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.

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

>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.

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.

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 Light

601 said: "the only issue I might have with Revolution in Astronomy [so far] is that it did not address the problem that objects too remote from their primary have far too little light to reflect (from the primary). If these objects are self illuminated by means of plasma in glow mode, that issue is resolved.

LK: I suppose many or most of us agree that EU theory is the main ingredient missing from Katirai's book that could clinch his theory, if nothing else disproves it first.

Defining Stars and Planets
- SJW said: "i guess the EU needs to define what constitutes a star or planet."
- And Nick quoted Thornhill: "Brown dwarfs captured by a bright star will have their power source stolen, lose their radiance and become gas giants. This explains a mystery known as the 'brown dwarf desert,' around main sequence stars."
- SJW then suggested that brown dwarfs should be called rogue planets.
LK: Katirai challenges the main sequence and H-R Diagram, but I think it might work to call all objects that emit more light and heat than they reflect stars, and all that reflect more than they emit planets. And that means, like Thornhill said, a star can become a planet and vice versa. And that would be determined possibly by its electrical environment.

Galactic Centers

Nick said: Almost a hundred years of observations have shown that Sag A is the location of the center of the Milky Way and the Sun is located in one of the spiral arms. I have never seen any reasoning or evidence presented that refutes this.
- ... As I showed earlier many galaxies are resolvable into stars. ... Galactic spectra [suggest that galaxies] are composed [of] a combination of ionized gas, dust (plasma) clouds, and millions of stars.

LK: I'll post some of Katirai's evidence on that before long, I expect. Since this website agrees, or seemed to agree within the past two years, that no distances beyond about 500 ly are determinable as yet, those galaxies could therefore be located within the distances that Katirai concluded and could thus be much smaller, along with their constituents, than conventionally calculated.

Sun's Range of Visibility to the Naked Eye

Corp. said: I do not agree with the 6.09 light years termination point and even somewhat sceptical about the 50 ly. A basis of that might be glean from this article which might be applied to negate the inverse square rule necessarily applying.
- http://www.blazelabs.com/f-u-photons.asp
- His reasoning for placing our sun "near" the centre of galaxy is very compelling and supported by clear analysis of 3rd party observation. However even though it makes sense from his photographic referents that perhaps there is just one central star in galaxies that really is controversial and does seem to conflict with EU theory.
- ... I find it disappointing that he did not try to estimate (or at least more clearly) his size range for the Milky way... from what I gleaned he makes it extremely !!! small relative to established thinking.

LK: I agree that he may be wrong about the 6 ly as the maximum range of the Sun's visibility via the naked eye. I think he may have overlooked the fact that his experiment was conducted in the Earth's atmosphere, which I suppose may absorb or reflect a considerable amount of light. Starlight on the other hand travels mostly through space and only travels a few miles through our atmosphere before we detect it on Earth.
- But I think he may be right about the Sun being visible to the naked eye no more than about 50 ly away.

Spectral Evidence

Katirai's book says on page 150: Despite the fact that scientists analysing the atmosphere of the sun have discovered 65 elements and only years later, small traces of hydrogen and helium, theoreticians have suggested that hydrogen and helium atoms make up 99.9% of the volume of the sun.

LK: I was surprised to read this. I had not heard this before. It'll be interesting to find out if it's true or not. The book was written in 2006, and Katirai seems to have studied available known findings somewhat thoroughly, so this claim should not be hard to verify or refute, I think.

SJW said: Reflectance spectra is spectra taken from objects believed not to be stars. It is then rationed, i.e., divided by the corresponding pixel data from spectra believed to be stars. This creates an overall lower value of spectra they term reflectance spectra. So they do not even use the original values in thier final spectra data. Almost every single obbject in the Milky-Way has a spectra different from the Sun. Since I for one do not believe spectra is caused from burning molecules to ash, the only way we know of to create spectra from chemical compounds, I do not see how spectra emitted from electrical processess and those from burning have anything in common?

LK: That's very interesting. It would be helpful and much appreciated if you can provide some references for this info. I'll try to ask Brant what he may know about this.

From my previou post Katirai said : "It was [Pickering] who realized that all objects in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun.

LK: That's very interesting too. It should be fairly easy to find out if this is true. Then, if it is true, it would be quite odd if spectra from other galactic centers are very similar to the Sun's spectrum, but the spectrum of the Milky Way's presumed center at Sag. A is different. I hope someone can find an authoritative answer on this matter. Maybe Brant can.

>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.

>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

>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.

>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....

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.

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.jpg

One 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 E_γ = m_γc², 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.)

>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

If you accept the existence of aether, then the question is, is the aether moving or stationary. Mathis has photons as the aether, so the aether would be constantly moving at high velocity, although Mathis says they can also move at lower velocity until others push them back up to light speed, I think. I think this is the only theory I've heard of where photons are the aether and they're moving close to light speed all the time. This changes quite a bit the usual way of looking at aether. I think it explains a lot of things, as his many papers show. If the photons are spinning, this can explain why electric and magnetic fields push things at right angles. If a spinning ball hits an object, it tends to bounce at right angles to its initial direction.
- And, as I mentioned previously, if the photons are the medium, then it may be the moving medium that gives the appearance of waves.

More from Katirai (on Light)
Since the next section from Katirai is related to the light/photon discussion, I'll go ahead and post it now. Again, it's from http://www.scribd.com/doc/61291192/AstronomyDec28-2008 and if anyone disagrees with any of these statements, please say why, if you like.

_{Galactic Illumination}
_"If we look at some galaxies, we find the light of the centre illuminates the entire galaxy.
_"If we consider that the centre of a galaxy may be one star, it follows that the centre illuminates the clouds and planets circling it.
_"If we assume that the centre is made of millions of stars, and also assume that hundreds of billions of stars are circling the centre, then the light of the centre would be dim compared to the light of the stars circling it.
_"This is simply because there would be far more stars circling than the number of stars making up the centre.
_"This point is all the more poignant since astronomers also believe that the objects circling the centre are very hot stars, because they are blue.
_"Many astronomers were in fact puzzled to find that the light of the centre of a galaxy was much brighter than the rest of the galaxy (see figure 14).
_"For example, on September 12, 1997, Dr. Philippe Crane and his team at the European Southern Observatory in Garching, Germany, announced that using the Hubble Space Telescope, they had realized that the nucleus of the NGC6251 galaxy is shining so brightly that its light illuminated the central region of the galaxy.
_"They wrote, "Something is lighting up the centre of galaxy NGC 6251; --- The strange beast that rules the centres of galaxies: a bright central object is illuminating a surrounding material disk.
_"" What is this " --- strange beast --- "? The author contends that it is a single star, around which circle planets, asteroids and clouds.
_""With increasing refinement in infrared astronomy, some unexpected findings have surfaced.
_"For example, it has been found that the nuclei of galaxies emit large amounts of infrared energy.

_{Galactic Cloud Illumination}
_"if the objects circling the centre of the galaxies are hot stars, then they should illuminate the clouds surrounding them.
_"The photographs tell another story.
_"None of the blue objects in the photographs illuminate their surrounding clouds.
_"Furthermore, the light of the blue and white objects is faint and dull.

_{Galactic Object Counts}
_"If we examine recent images with excellent resolution, it is easy to count the number of spherical and luminous objects within the galaxies.
_"In most galaxies there are less than a few thousand.
_"In fact, in the large majority of galaxies, there are less than several dozen.
_"Despite this, some persist in the old belief that spiral clouds in a galaxy are aggregates of billions of stars, appearing as clouds from a distance.
_"The photograph of M88 taken in ultraviolet light distinguishes the planets from the clouds.
_"It shows, not billions, but only a few hundred planets within the clouds.
_"The image shows the spiral galaxy M77, taken in ultraviolet light, shows a star in the centre with about a dozen planets around it.
_"The images show three spiral galaxies: on the left, M33; the middle, M74; and on the right, M81.
_"The photographs were taken in ultraviolet light.
_"Notice the size of the centre stars relative to their planets around them.
_"There does not seem to be a big difference in size – perhaps several times, at most.

_{Radiation from Galactic Centers}
_"In our solar system, the sun is a strong source of heat energy, x-rays and gamma rays, while the planets are not.
_"If the objects in a galaxy are planets circling a single star, the same should hold true.
_"This is exactly what infrared and x-ray images of galaxies show.
_"They confirm that the centres of galaxies are strong sources of infrared and x-rays, while the objects circling the centres are not.

_{Phases in Galactic Objects}
_"a further indication suggesting that objects circling the centre of the galaxies are planets is that the light of these objects undergoes different phases, similar to those of our moon.
_"Astronomers' observations have found this exact phenomenon in many galaxies such as Andromeda

>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.

>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 Complex

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"

It is known that the within the bright glow of this plasmoid, the "Mini Spiral" and "Circumnuclear Disk" constitute the 'opening' to a Birkeland Current extending some 300 light years above the Milky Way to its tip known as the Double Helix Nebula "two continuous, helically wound strands":

The Double Helix Nebula: a magnetic torsional wave propagating out of the Galactic centre

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"

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

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.

>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 Vacuum

Maximum 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.

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.jpg

The 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.jpg

I 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.

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.

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 the Moon is only very bright viewed from Earths surface. The images taken on the Moon showed they needed artificial light even though the Sun was up. And there are still no photos of the far side of the Moon, even when it should be fully lit and very bright. All 'images' of the Lunar far side are from IR/UV spectral imagers and laser altimeters. The other clue is the lack of colour on the near side. There should be a giant red patch, and overall the Moon should be redish brown, as the surface has large patches of iron oxide.

>Map of the surface concentration of iron (expressed as FeO) on the lunar nearside (left) and far side (right), based on spectral reflectance measurements taken by the Clementine mission in 1994. The FeO data, from 70°S to 70°N, overlays a shaded relief map. High-FeO areas occur where volcanic lavas (mare basalts) filled giant impact craters. Low-FeO areas correspond to the feldspathic highlands. Image courtesy of Jeff Gillis.

This iron oxide is not from iron rich impactors IMO, it is sputtered on from CME ions, just as it has been on Mars. If the Sun is a full spectrum emitter of light then this should reflect a distinct redish colour. The Moon would seem to be a full spectrum emitter even though I can find no data, as long exposure digital photo taken under Moonlight looks identical to a daylight image, including a blue sky.

So something doesn't add up here, there should be red patches easily seen on the lunar surface, and there aint. They could be orange or yellow, or black too, but I'd think they would be a Mars red/brown. Aluminum oxide is what supposedly gives the Moon a gray colour, but as the spectrometer can only measure the surface exposed materials, there should, IMO, be obviously red patches under a full spectrum sunlight.

>>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.

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.

← PREV	Powered by Quick Disclosure Lite © 2010~2021 SCS-INC.US	NEXT →