Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
User avatar
Djchrismac
Posts: 131
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Bahram Katirai - Revolution in Astronomy

Post by Djchrismac » Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:51 am

I was doing a bit of hunting and found that the article duane linked to above (http://aetherforce.com/how-far-can-the-hubble-see/) was taken from Bahram Kairai's book - Revolution in Astronomy - check out the contents:

Introduction

Chapter 1: The Viewing Range of a Large Telescope

Chapter 2: The Parallaxes of Stars

Chapter 3: Planetoids and Planets Mistaken for Stars

Chapter 4: Planet Clusters Mistaken for Star Clusters

Chapter 5: Variable Stars or Spinning Planets

Chapter 6: Binaries

Chapter 7: Multiple Stars

Chapter 8: The Size of Stars

Chapter 9: Novas are Planets, Not Stars

Chapter 10: Quasars

Chapter 11: Galaxies Are Planetary Systems

Chapter 12: The Birth of Planetary System

Chapter 13: The Milky Way is a Planetary System

Chapter 14: The Distance at Which the Sun Would Become Invisible

Chapter 15: The Big Bang Theory

You can download it here:
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... ects=0&d=1

Should make for an interesting read and provide more food for thought...

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

Blazing Units

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:32 am

So that would mean that we are not seeing any galaxies through the Hubble and they are either misidentified or CGI ?
Correct, though I had not considered the possibility of "forgery." Living in the boondocks of Wyoming, you can SEE the Andromeda galaxy with your unaided eye on a clear night (no light pollution and almost no humidity), so I know that these "galaxy" structures do exist, first hand.
Also, where is the most up to date list of dimensions/units, such as:
I have a list here: Space-Time Units, but it is broken up by discipline, as I was curious about the dimensional relations between electric units, magnetic units and kinetic ones. If you would like to start a topic on space-time units, in the Blaze Labs fashion, please do.
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?
The only error Larson made was with the units for the Farad, because he made the assumption that the charge 'q' could be either a "quantity" of space, s, or a "charge" of space, t/s. This resulted in the wrong units for the Farad (should have been s3/t). See page 169 of Basic Properties of Matter.

The Blaze table appears to be the same as Larson's.
Also, where can I find your and Gopi's email addresses?
I will email them to you.
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:

Parallax

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:49 am

Bahram Katirai - Revolution in Astronomy
I skimmed through this book when it was first mentioned by duane. And I did double-check his work on distance calculations. But the problem with Katirai is that he is still basing everything on "extension space" (conventional astronomical perspective) and would never have considered "gravitational lensing" at the gravitational limit, where 3D extension space becomes 2D equivalent space.

I took that "measurement" research a bit further and determined that there are only three bits of actual data from astronomy: right ascension, declination and apparent magnitude. Everything else is calculated through parallax measurements, which only works within the gravitational limit of extension space.

An analogy would be looking through binoculars, backwards, so that everything appears much further away than it actually is. It's still a clear picture, and you can still measure your parallax angle to a millionth of an arcsecond through those binoculars, and get a VERY accurate, but totally wrong, measurement of distance. So that's the problem: the gravitational limit, because of the reduction in dimension, gives the appearance of looking through binoculars backwards. And I have not yet been able to come up with any other process to get an accurate measurement of "stellar" distances.
Every dogma has its day...

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

As demonstrated in NBM with

Post by Horace » Sun Nov 17, 2013 5:47 pm

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.
When reading this, a basic question has occured to me:

Is the "unit boundary" a subjective artifact of the gravitating Cartesian reference system or can it be objectively identified before that reference system is established by some gravitating observer?

In the beginning I thought that motion was quantized but space and time was just anyting to make up the motional s/t ratio such as: 2, 1, 1/2, etc... even if space (or time) progressed an irrational distance, e.g. 20.5s / 20.5t still equals 1.

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

Unit boundaries

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:39 pm

When reading this, a basic question has occured to me:

Is the "unit boundary" a subjective artifact of the gravitating Cartesian reference system or can it be objectively identified before that reference system is established by some gravitating observer?
As Larson explains it, scalar motion will always have one aspect at unity, either time region (with unit space) or space region (with unit time), due to the pattern of direction reversals. But while working on a computer simulation of atomic systems, I find that the mathematics will often create a non-unity "boundary," which has to be normalized back to unity, by adjusting the motion on the other side. It's just a ratio, so it's just a matter of scaling. (This occurs frequently with homogeneous coordinates.)

I've concluded that the unit space boundary of the time region is actually "clock space," and the process of normalization is adjusting the temporal displacements of the time region to match unit clock space. Same with the space region and unit clock time. Of course, the consequence of that is that there must always exist the "normal" values of these unit boundaries, a ratio of 1 unit of clock space to 1 unit of clock time--this is the "progression of the natural reference system." That's why the progression has a "step" to it--it IS the "step" function of the clock for both space and time. As such, this natural datum of a "speed clock" becomes the point of reference for all spatial and temporal displacements and can be nothing BUT unity, because it becomes the basis of measurement of all other motion in the system.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 148
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

largest structure in the universe

Post by duane » Mon Nov 18, 2013 1:57 pm

more grist for the mill

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/20 ... featu.html

The Largest Discovered Structure in the Universe Contradicts Big-Bang Theory Cosmology (Weekend Feature)

also, even though everything is a lot closer, would it be possible to travel in the" nether space" between "galaxies" ?

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

Large Quasar Galaxies

Post by bperet » Mon Nov 18, 2013 2:40 pm

The Largest Discovered Structure in the Universe Contradicts Big-Bang Theory Cosmology (Weekend Feature)
LQG.png
LQG.png (174.21 KiB) Viewed 6517 times
Now THAT's a GALAXY! As I mentioned, it would have to be super-large and be composed of FTL structures in order to cross the outward motion of the progression. A galaxy of Quasars fits that description. Though they have the size wrong--it is probably only the size of the Milky Way, by my estimate.
Every dogma has its day...

Ardavarz
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 1:59 pm

Gravitational limit or limits?

Post by Ardavarz » Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:17 pm

I have wondered what would be if a smaller object is within the gravitational limit of a bigger one, but the latter is outside of that of the smaller one. I imagine that it would appear as if the bigger one attracts the smaller one while it repulses itself from the bigger one. Then at some distance it would exist equilibrium (something like the "neutral zones" of James Churchward's fictional science of Mu). But wouldn't this mean that there isn't one fixed gravitational limit for one object (taken in isolation), but many such limits for every couple of objects (depending on their respective masses)? If so, then it wouldn't exist some fixed distance at which all masses stop to be attracted (or move toward) a given massive object, but it would be one distance for one mass, then another for an object with another mass etc. Wouldn't this eliminate that problem?

Or maybe I still don't get the concept right...

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

Interstellar Distances and Equilibrium

Post by bperet » Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:49 am

I have wondered what would be if a smaller object is within the gravitational limit of a bigger one, but the latter is outside of that of the smaller one. I imagine that it would appear as if the bigger one attracts the smaller one while it repulses itself from the bigger one. Then at some distance it would exist equilibrium
That is correct, given one assumption--that astronomical relations work the same as molecular ones. Conventional astronomy does not do this--it has its own "physics," which is why we end up with gravitational constants and such, but it IS the assumption I am now working from, regarding this research.

At the molecular level, "bonding" is controlled by the unit space boundary that separates the time-space region (conventional space/time) from the time region (atomic configuration "space"). The unit space boundary is where space = 1 and time = 1, so it is technically the unit speed boundary (1/1). The time region only differs from the cosmic sector because the aspect of space remains fixed at unity, and only time progresses: 1/2, 1/3, 1/4... there is no spatial displacement within the time region, since 1-1=0. There CAN be spatial displacement in the macro-cosmic sector.

Consider the gravitational limit, which is where the net, inward motion in extension space, due to temporal displacement, drops to less than 1 unit. Since the system is discrete, less than one = zero, so there is no spatial effect--in other words, from that point on, the spatial displacement is zero, there is no temporal displacement present, so the only effective motion is the outward progression at unit speed (1-0) / (1-0) = 1/1.

For all practical purposes, the gravitational limit IS the "unit boundary" for an aggregate, so aggregates should work exactly the same way as atoms in molecules.

Four conditions are then possible, given any two aggregates:
  1. The aggregates are outside the gravitational limits of each other. The outward progression is the only net motion, so the aggregates repel each other.
  2. The gravitational limits are just touching each other, so there is no intervening "expansion zone." The net motion is zero, so the two aggregates remain at the same, relative positions to each other. This, however, is a very unstable condition because the slightest change (as in influx from CMBR) would alter that equilibrium, causing them to progress apart (loss of some mass) or begin gravitation (addition of some mass).
  3. The gravitational limits are within each other, but the center of mass is still outside the other's limit. Think of his as a contour map of speeds, where the overlap is an increased "inward" speed of gravitation. This will cause the aggregates to attract each other.
  4. One center of mass moves inside the gravitational limit of the other (the case you describe). As discussed in molecular bonding in Nothing But Motion, gravitation is always TOWARDS the unit boundary, in this case, the gravitational limit. When the smaller object moves inside the larger one, then the direction of gravitation changes--it attempts to pull the object towards the limit, rather than the center of mass. If it overshoots, then the direction flips again, causing the aggregates to approach. This is a point of strong stability--any net change will result in a new equilibrium, and is the origin of chemical bonds in atoms.
I believe #4 is what is actually going on in "galaxies" and clusters and they are NOT outside the gravitational limits of each other--but just within them. Of course, this changes the astronomical picture a bit, as a new galaxy can only form OUTSIDE the gravitational limit of another, which means it should be unobservable as "normal" light, since light is carried by the progression and could not cross the gap.

However, I don't think the equilibrium is as simple as that, as observations of our own sun indicate that you have processes generating motion in all the speed ranges, so not only does material gravity have to be considered, but also cosmic gravity (temporal locations) due to the FTL motion in the core, as well as the net motions of magnetic and electric fields. As to what effect this will have on stellar distances, I do not yet know--but because the "inter-atomic distance" formula used to find the point of equilibrium of atoms is based on the natural log, interstellar distances will not be a linear relation (parallax), but a logarithmic one, making the actual distances MUCH smaller than we've measured.
Every dogma has its day...

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

Eric Dollard's view...

Post by Djchrismac » Sat Dec 14, 2013 6:20 pm

You have to watch this video if you haven't already!

The Sun is Not What we We Have Been Told.... Eric Dollard reveals 3 secrets about the Sun
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asesblfb4zI

He talks about the planetary alignments affecting the Sun and it's solar cycle along with the Sun definitely being hollow (and possibly the other planets)...
"There's no inside structure."

"Is it hollow?"

"Yeah there's only the surface, there's nothing inside."

"Is the Sun actually, do you believe, combusting in on itself?"

"It's not burning anything, there's no fusion in the Sun that's well understood."

"Prove it!"

"There's not a way to prove there is any, it's only in the flares that you get fusion, that's where all the x-rays, flares, arcs and microwaves result in fusion in the arcs, there's no fusion in the Sun, they don't know how the Sun works."

"How does the Sun make light?"

"It's a transformer, it transforms from some other dimension. It's not burning anything it doesn't have to, it's a convertor."

"Of what?"

"I don't know, nobody knows but that's what it does, it's the only thing it can do, 'cause that's how everything works!"

"It's a transformer from another dimension?"

"Yeah you could say it's taking energy from another dimension, counterspace... there is no energy actually, most of it you can't even measure in outer space or see."

"You can't see?"

"No you can't see the Sun... in free space..."

"So the Sun is not visible in outer space?"

"It only becomes visible visible when gross matter becomes involved like the Earths atmosphere and envelope and the surface of the Moon and whatever, that makes the light. Otherwise there is no light. You can see the Moon, you can see the Earth but you can't see the Sun or the Stars."

"But you can see the planets and the satellites?"

"Right, you can see material objects but you cannot see the sources of light there is no until there is material objects..."

"For the light to reflect off?"

"So that means there's no time delay, the the whole time the light thing is meaningless. It doesn't take light years, there are no light years 'cause there's no light. So that means the light you see from distant stars isn't 4 million years old... it could be only minutes old. It could be instantaneous. All the theories collapse... when you can't see the stars in outer space."
Image

That's the first I have heard about the sun not being visible in space unless you are in an atmosphere but on checking it does seem to be the case and also the topic of much debate in some places:

http://www.universetoday.com/75893/why-is-space-black/

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0529c.html

http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum ... 753567/pg1

Getting back to RS2, so the unit space boundary is like the edge of the coin of space/time?

Post Reply