Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Bahram Katirai

Post by bperet » Sat Nov 02, 2013 10:57 am

I will take a read of his web site. Larson, in Quasars and Pulsars, already determined that the distances to quasars, as measured by conventional techniques, is greatly exaggerated--they are a LOT closer than we think they are. This situation may also apply to dwarf stars (x-ray stars, red/white/yellow dwarfs, etc) because they also contain a significant portion of atoms moving in time (being the result of an implosion of a supernova). This could also distort measuring techniques.

The basic problem with astronomy is that we have a single point of reference, the Earth, and the best "triangulation" we can get is the 186 million mile separation when the Earth moves to the far side of the sun, from the initial measure. That's not exactly a large angle to make a triangle with, to measure stellar distances. All we really know for sure is that there is a light source, "over there." Distances are all inferred from color, temperature, etc., not actually measured. And the RS keeps pointing out that science exaggerates everything, not only quasar distances but geochronology, as documented in daniel's paper of the same name.

I think I'll work on a simulation to take concepts from atomic properties and let the computer build up from there--using atomic laws, something we have better defined, instead of astronomical ones, and see what the simulation produces at the astronomical level.

But one thing is for sure--what we've been told is more fantasy, than fact. But rather than guess, I'll see if I can get some "natural consquences" of the RS, without any assumptions.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Are Galaxies Really Solar Systems?

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 03, 2013 10:38 am

As incredible as Kitarai's claims seem, I have not yet been able to refute them--and that is most disconcerting!

Larson also said that the center of the galaxies was a single object, like a giant, white dwarf--not a collection of stars, but a fluid-like mass of matter that is in the intermediate and ultra-high speed ranges. (Larson got his galaxy model from his bathroom sink--watching his beard stubble spin down the drain! That whirlpool is the same as galactic rotation, except it is dumping out into the cosmic sector.)

Also, according to Larson and put to maths by Nehru, globular clusters form from the cosmic microwave background radiation. Which means any section of space (void or vacuum) will be slowly flooded with particles and rays from the cosmic sector, which eventually aggregate to make atoms, atoms to dust, dust to rocks--the first stage of aggregation will be dust clouds, and as chunks of matter form, those dust clouds will become dust balls that gravity will compress into planets. So the first stages of globular cluster formation will be planets--not stars! Eventually, planets will collide and become large and hot enough to form a star, with the remaining planets, still being outside the gravitational limit of the star, would take up stationary positions in a sphere about the star. So it is conceptually feasible.

If you look at the Earth-Moon system from Mars, all you see are a "binary" pair of bright "stars" in the sky, much like we see Venus.

Considering how wrong conventional science got things like radioactive decay half lives (off by millions to one), I would not be surprised to find that distances to "stars" (if they are such) are also off by a corresponding amount. That would actually fix a lot of my computer simulation issues, as it would make galaxies into local solar systems and stars into planets (just scaling down--after all, it IS "scalar" motion), and put everything inside the gravitational limit. There would still BE actual galaxies, but they would be unobservable, as they would exist outside the gravitational limit--just as my model shows.

I'm going to try to pull the star database from Celestia and scale it down--just to see what happens.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Celestia Galaxy data

Post by bperet » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:13 pm

I grabbed the Galaxy data from Celestia and, working from the assumption that galaxies are actually solar systems, recalculated their sizes and locations based on an average gravitational limit of 2.55 light years to encompass the galactic disk. This is a plot of 10,937 galaxies, from a "god" perspective of being out in deep space, looking at our Sun in the center. The colors are: red=irregular, gray=elliptical, blue=barred spirals, green=spirals, magenta=lenticular. (I did not see any obvious patterns to the galactic shapes.)

I do not know if the ring structure of the "galaxies" about our Sun is an artifact of astronomical measuring, or is actually there. You can easily see why, if galaxies are solar systems, that it appears we are at the center, with "arms" extending out around us. The void (running diagonally through) is where we cannot see far outside our system, because there happens to be a dark, dust cloud surrounding us like a ring--and just like the other galaxies... gotta wonder.
galaxyassolar.gif
galaxyassolar.gif (30.32 KiB) Viewed 6311 times
This is ALL GALAXIES, NO stars. The corrected distance values puts Andromeda, the nearest system, at about 80 light years--relative to the star background. I have not yet corrected stellar distances for the gravitational limit, which will reduce this distance considerably.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

ExtraSolar System

Post by bperet » Tue Nov 05, 2013 3:30 pm

Take a look at this photo--slightly edited to remove the stars in the foreground. What does it look like to you?
SombreroSystem.jpg
SombreroSystem.jpg (7.92 KiB) Viewed 6311 times
To me, I see a big, dark ring of dirt and debris, circling and being slowly sucked in by the sun in the center--what appears to be a newly forming star and solar system--just like many of the depictions of other extra-solar planetary systems.

However, astronomers say that this is the billion-star Sombrero Galaxy... so why don't I see anything but dirt and a single star, lighting up the dirt? Where are those billion stars hiding?
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Galactic Center

Post by bperet » Wed Nov 06, 2013 10:44 am

I was able to zoom in on the center of my "galaxy as solar systems" plot, and those rings are actually concentric spheres, much like a 3D version of a splash in a pond. But it also appears that Sol, our sun, is NOT the center of this effect--it appears to center around a cluster of "galaxies" near the 1 o'clock position on this image The sun is the yellow sphere in the exact center. I believe it is the "Virgo cluster," though I am not sure as I don't have any way to go from image back to data, since I am using POVray to ray trace it. But it is fairly close to us, so that could be Virgo, Fornax or the Norma clusters. Again, all these dots are "galaxies," not stars.
Center.gif
Center.gif (14.2 KiB) Viewed 6311 times
Because the concentric effect is not centered around Sol, that means it is probably not an artifact from observation (like radar images of a big storm, that produces rings on the map).

Of course, this does not become noticeable until you reduce the galactic distances significantly.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Some Law of One links...

Post by Djchrismac » Fri Nov 08, 2013 9:17 pm

While reading this I kept thinking of "as above, so below" and while i'm an RS Theory novice I am sure the answer is right in front of us, we just need to look at the micro and apply the same rules to the macro. Up from atoms we have molecules so could there be galactic bonds between galaxies or something obvious we're missing?

My gut feeling tells me that the fluid like mass of matter holds the key here: :

"Larson also said that the center of the galaxies was a single object, like a giant, white dwarf--not a collection of stars, but a fluid-like mass of matter that is in the intermediate and ultra-high speed ranges. (Larson got his galaxy model from his bathroom sink--watching his beard stubble spin down the drain! That whirlpool is the same as galactic rotation, except it is dumping out into the cosmic sector.)"

Maybe beyond the gravitational limit matter becomes like a fluid and makes the light from the distant stars and galaxies twinkle and also appear closer than they are?

"I grabbed the Galaxy data from Celestia and, working from the assumption that galaxies are actually solar systems"

What also keeps springing to mind is the following from the Law of One, worth looking at again due to their Galaxy being a solar system in our frame of reference, maybe there's a clue in here for you Bruce:

Do you have any brief questions before we close this meeting?

Questioner: Only one, other than what we can do to make the instrument

more comfortable. I would like to have your definition of galaxy, the word

“galaxy” as you have used it.


Ra: I am Ra. We use the term known to your people by the sound vibration

“galaxy.” We accept that some galaxies contain one system of planetary and

solar groups. Others contain several. However, the importance of the locus

in infinite time/space dimensionality is so little that we accept the distortion

implicit in such an ambiguous term.


Questioner: Then the nine planets and sun which we have here in our

system, would you refer to that as a galaxy?


Ra: I am Ra. We would not.

Questioner: How many stars would be—approximately—in a galaxy?

Ra: I am Ra. It depends upon the galactic system. Your own, as you know,

contains many, many, millions of planetary entities and star bodies.


Questioner: I was just trying to get to the definition that you were using for

galaxy. You mentioned a couple of times the term galaxy in reference to

what we call a planetary system and it was causing some confusion.


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

Questioner: Then can you tell me how the galaxy and planetary systems

were formed?


Ra: I am Ra. You must imagine a great leap of thought in this query, for at

the last query the physical, as you call, it, universes were not yet born.


The energies moved in increasingly intelligent patterns until the

individualization of various energies emanating from the creative principle

of intelligent infinity became such as to be co-Creators. Thus the so-called

physical matter began. The concept of light is instrumental in grasping this

great leap of thought as this vibrational distortion of infinity is the building

block of that which is known as matter, the light being intelligent and full

of energy, thus being the first distortion of intelligent infinity which was

called by the creative principle.


This light of love was made to have in its occurrences of being certain

characteristics, among them the infinite whole paradoxically described by

the straight line, as you would call it. This paradox is responsible for the

shape of the various physical illusion entities you call solar systems, galaxies,

and planets of revolving and tending towards the lenticular.


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

Questioner: Was the galaxy that we are in created by the infinite

intelligence or was it created by a portion of the infinite intelligence?


Ra: I am Ra. The galaxy and all other things of material of which you are

aware are products of individualized portions of intelligent infinity. As each

exploration began, it, in turn, found its focus and became co-Creator. Using

intelligent infinity each portion created an universe and allowing the

rhythms of free choice to flow, playing with the infinite spectrum of

possibilities, each individualized portion channeled the love/light into what

you might call intelligent energy, thus creating the so-called Natural Laws

of any particular universe.


Each universe, in turn, individualized to a focus becoming, in turn, co-

Creator and allowing further diversity, thus creating further intelligent

energies regularizing or causing Natural Laws to appear in the vibrational

patterns of what you would call a solar system. Thus, each solar system has

its own, shall we say, local coordinate system of illusory Natural Laws. It

shall be understood that any portion, no matter how small, of any density

or illusory pattern contains, as in an holographic picture, the one Creator

which is infinity. Thus all begins and ends in mystery.


Questioner: Can you tell me how the individualized infinity created our

galaxy and if the same portion created our planetary system and, if so, how

this came about?


Ra: I am Ra. We may have misperceived your query. We were under the

distortion/impression that we had responded to this particular query.


Would you restate the query?

Questioner: I am wondering if the planetary system that we are in now was

all created at once or if our sun was created first and the planets later?


Ra: I am Ra. The process is from the larger, in your illusion, to the smaller.

Thus the co-Creator, individualizing the galaxy, created energy patterns

which then focused in multitudinous focuses of further conscious awareness

of intelligent infinity. Thus, the solar system of which you experience

inhabitation is of its own patterns, rhythms, and so-called natural laws

which are unique to itself. However, the progression is from the galaxy

spiraling energy to the solar spiraling energy, to the planetary spiraling

energy, to the experiential circumstances of spiraling energy which begin the

first density of awareness of consciousness of planetary entities.


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

Questioner: Would you define the word galaxy as you just used it?

Ra: I am Ra. We use that term in this sense as you would use star systems.

Questioner: I’m a little bit confused as to how many total planets the

Confederation that you are in serves?


Ra: I am Ra. I see the confusion. We have difficulty with your language.

The galaxy term must be split. We call galaxy that vibrational complex that

is local. Thus, your sun is what we would call the center of a galaxy. We see

you have another meaning for this term.


Questioner: Yes. In our science the term galaxy refers to the lenticular star

system that contains millions and millions of stars. There was a confusion

about this in one of our earlier communications, and I’m glad to get it

cleared up.


Using the term galaxy in the sense that I just stated, using the lenticular star

system that contains millions of stars, do you know of evolution in other

galaxies besides this one?


Ra: I am Ra. We are aware of life in infinite capacity. You are correct in this

assumption.


Sorry I can't add more here, I can certainily read and understand RS Theory, i'm just not any good at applying it to problem solving yet but that will come hopefully, which I guess is why i'm here...! Image

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Update on Astronomical problem

Post by bperet » Tue Nov 12, 2013 9:00 am

I had forgotten that Ra called solar systems, "galaxies." Thanks for reminding me. Been doing some more research...

Galaxies: In UOM, the only way an independent galaxy can form is that if it forms outside ALL gravitational limits of other structures. Just like putting a dot on an expanding balloon, that is not near any other dots. Each dot on an expanding balloon is a photon, and no matter how big you blow up the balloon, the dots will never touch. Galaxies operate in the same manner.

Because the areas between galaxies progresses, we can never observe another "real" galaxy by looking at photons (speed of light) or any material particles or atoms (slower than light), simply because they are not moving fast enough to overcome the progression to make the "jump" between galaxies. However, real galaxies WOULD be visible, if we could observe cosmic motion, since cosmic matter moves faster-than-light and could cross the void.

I had read an article many years ago, which I believe was in Astronomy magazine, that they had discovered enormous, extremely dim "galaxies." I did a writeup on it at one time, theorizing that these were "cosmic galaxies" spilling over into the infrared band. Those "galaxies" would be the real galaxies, with that spillover coming from the intermediate and ultra-high speed components of stars--but they would be hundreds or thousands of times larger than our current "galaxy" descriptions.

Having examined a good number of Hubble hi-resolution images of galaxies, it is becoming more and more apparent that they are NOT galaxies, but newly forming solar systems that are NEARBY. You can clearly see the core "sun" in many of them, almost as clearly as you can see our own solar disk. However, if you pull up the Hubble photos of Alpha Centauri, a mere 4 light years away, even at that magnification, it's still just a colored blob of light, without a defined disk.

Stars: If you eliminate all the assumptions and wild guesses that form conventional astronomy, they are still just "points of light" in the sky, with some of them moving around others. Distances, temperatures, etc., are all just a guess, based on observations of our own sun. What I suspect here is that the RANGE of sizes is much larger than assumed, even by Larson, and that "stars" can be any luminous or reflective body from chunks of rock, all the way on up to blue supergiants. IMHO, we have no accurate way to determine stellar distances.

Quasars: This is the interesting one. When Larson looked at quasars, astronomers had only found about 30 of them. When I pulled the NASA QSO database, there are now 129,140 of them! That's a LOT of quasars, considering we have positional data on only about 107,000 stars! Larson proved that conventional redshift distances were wrong, because quasars are receding--not gravitating. Larson also stated that quasars were the "B" component (FTL, white dwarf) product of an exploding galaxy, with the radio galaxy being the "A" component, and quasars tend to be paired up with galaxies, when you fix the distances.

So here's the "what if?" that I am at, now. What if... quasars and galaxies are just NEARBY supernova remnants, with the "galaxy" half being a newly forming solar system (the explosion in space, recondensing into a star) and the "quasar" the white dwarf half (the explosion in time)? That would make most of the stars just hot balls of gas and dirt, like Jupiters.

One of the other considerations is the crossing of boundaries, such as the gravitational limit. The boundary IS the reference point (datum) of measure. Progression, for example, is AWAY from the unit speed boundary, and gravitation is TOWARDS it. As demonstrated in NBM with chemical bonds, once you are INSIDE the limit, things are backwards--progression holds atoms together in a molecule, because it ACTS like gravity, since it is moving towards the center, away from the unit boundary.

Now, consider the same situation with the gravitational limit--which is another "unit boundary." We're on the inside, looking out, like a hydrogen atom in a water molecule. When we go to measure distance, we can only do it WITHIN the gravitational limit, where "the laws of physics" work consistently the same. Once we try to measure something OUTSIDE the gravitational limit, things flip around... so from our "insider" perspective, distance calculations past the gravitational limit will be INVERTED--the actual measure is 1/distance, so quasars, the "farthest things away" are most like the NEAREST things, followed by galaxies, then stars scattered through the mix. (The way they measure, you have to treat stars, galaxies, nebula and quasars as separate distance groupings).

I'm going to see if I can develop some imagery of this "scaled down" universe to see how well it matches observation. It will probably look the same, since we're basically dealing with similar triangles here--just scaled ratios. But the implications of having dozens of solar systems just "light days" away is a bit staggering.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Staggering indeed!

Post by Djchrismac » Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:20 pm

Wow! Mind boggling stuff Bruce and it seems to follow on as a nice sequel to 'At the Earth's Core'! Image

I'm looking forward to hearing what else you find out with the imagary to see if you can back up this theory, it seems it would make the LoO galaxy chat make a bit more sense.

Not only has history been hidden in the past but has space been hidden in the universe...? It too may well be much closer than we ever realized!!

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Wrong Scale for the Universe

Post by bperet » Fri Nov 15, 2013 3:50 pm

Staggering indeed!
The more I look at the astronomical details (with an open mind), I'm starting to convince myself that there was one big "boo boo" regarding SCALE... kind of reminds me of that old Douglas Adams Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy bit where an invading fleet of alien star destroyers sent to annihilate Earth, due to a slight scaling error, ended up being eaten by a small dog.
Wow! Mind boggling stuff Bruce and it seems to follow on as a nice sequel to 'At the Earth's Core'! Image
I guess I could title a paper, "At the Galactic Core--or Lack, Thereof!"
I'm looking forward to hearing what else you find out with the imagary to see if you can back up this theory, it seems it would make the LoO galaxy chat make a bit more sense.
I would love to find a way to prove it, one way or the other. Based on the info in Universe of Motion, you cannot measure distance accurately outside of the gravitational limit, because you are no longer in extension space, but are in equivalent space--different rules apply, so when you triangulate, your triangle legs are actually curves--not straight--so distances may be exponentially exaggerated.

I've also come to realize that Larson's gravitational limit calculation, which is based on the accepted value of stellar mass, may be way too large, as well--it is starting to look like the sun is a lot "lighter" than anyone suspected, as ALL ELEMENTS starting with the nickel-iron-cobalt level, are immediately destroyed in the core of the sun, so it CANNOT have a "massive" core! Because of the age-limit destruction process, the inner core of the sun may actually be NEGATIVE mass (cosmic), since 2 dimensions of motion are in the cosmic side (ultra-high speed range). That would give the sun very little net temporal displacement, which is how we measure the "mass" to calculate the gravitational limit. My rough estimate puts the actual gravitational limit around 10,000 AU -- not light years -- only about 58 light DAYS out.

That would also put Alpha Centauri (same kind of star as Sol) at about 1/2 light year away... 6 month journey at Impulse for any decent starship! (14 hours at Warp 6.) We're talking the ability to cross stellar "voids" in about the same amount of time it used to take to sail across the ocean.
Not only has history been hidden in the past but has space been hidden in the universe...? It too may well be much closer than we ever realized!!
I'm researching globular clusters at the moment and discovering that the "stars" in the globulars might actually be Jupiter-sized planets--NOT stars--but hot balls of gas, which is actually what one would expect, given Larson's description of cluster formation: lots of blobs of hot gas. Based on the evolutionary paths of the globulars (flattening, density, distribution of luminosity), I suspect that a single "globular" actually condenses into a SINGLE star, with a lot of hot debris around it--what we are now calling "galaxies."

Larson had it right; background radiation forms structures that heat up, making globular clusters--except they aren't star-sized structures--which merge to form "galaxies," but in this case, typically single stars with a ring of hot gas and debris. Eventually, those galaxies suck in all the matter and go supernova, forming an implosion product, not a "white dwarf" but a "quasar." It's the same process and pattern, just scaled down, where stars -> planets, galaxies -> solar systems, quasars -> stars.

And I tell you--it's a very difficult concept to accept, because you are programmed with all sorts of cool "astronomical" stuff from an early age, and everybody wants the Universe to be big and mysterious. Though what I'm finding is that it is STILL big and mysterious--just a lot more "accessible" than we ever thought possible.
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 273
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Unit list

Post by Horace » Sat Nov 16, 2013 7:50 pm

Bruce,

So that would mean that we are not seeing any galaxies through the Hubble and they are either misidentified or CGI ?

Also, where is the most up to date list of dimensions/units, such as:

speed = s/t

acceleration = s/t2

energy = t/s

etc...

Do you remember where Larson made errors in his list of units?

I vaguely remember some criticism of the Statcoulomb, or something like that ?

...doesn't this article have many errors in units/dimensions?

Also, where can I find your and Gopi's email addresses?

Post Reply