Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear

_by michael.suede » Wed Mar 02, 2011 6:50 pm
_http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm
_Since we know red shift does not equate to distance, this is some major icing on the cake.
_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.
_https://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/files/AstronomyDec28-2008.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1

_ by michael.suede » Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:00 pm
_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.

_by Lloyd » Sat Mar 05, 2011 12:53 pm
_POSSIBLY A VERY MAJOR FINDING
_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.

_by Lloyd » Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:23 pm
_I just heard that the author of the book, Revolution in Astronomy, is dead.
_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.
_ 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.

_by Lloyd » Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:51 pm
_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.

_by michael.suede » Mon Mar 07, 2011 2:48 pm
_http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/03/image-of-the-day-mysterious-glowing-spiral-sighted-in-a-remote-star-system.html
_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.

_by Lloyd » Mon Mar 07, 2011 5:09 pm
_He said the Hubble telescope mirror has a diameter of 2.5 meters.
_He said the average open human pupil has a diameter of 7 mm.
_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.
_- 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.
_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?

_ by GaryN » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:51 am
_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.

_ by Lloyd » Tue Mar 08, 2011 2:01 pm
_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."
_If its magnification is 540x, it can see 540 times as far as the naked eye.
_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.
_So, if the eye can see M31 at 2.5 million light years, Hubble could see 13.5 billion light years.
_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.

_ by Lloyd » Wed Mar 09, 2011 7:40 pm
_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.
_ 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.

_ by Lloyd » Thu Mar 10, 2011 8:47 pm
_ 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.

_ by GaryN » Fri Mar 11, 2011 10:54 pm
_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.

_>[QUOTE]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.

_>[QUOTE]The extended X-ray glow is an instrumental effect.

_Then I wondered about X-Rays from the Solar system planets.

_>[QUOTE]"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."
_http://www.universetoday.com/9374/saturns-x-ray-mystery/

_ by Lloyd » Sun Mar 13, 2011 6:23 pm
_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:
_http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041228prediction-origins.htm.

_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.