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:

A short time ago, in a galaxy, near, near to us...

Post by bperet » Mon Dec 30, 2013 9:35 am

I've seen Dollard's discussion of the sun before; I guess it comes down to how you define "hollow." It isn't "empty," because the core of the sun is responsible for generating sunspots. But it IS in the 3-x, ultra-high speed range, which means it is operating in equivalent space, NOT 3D space, so the lack of 2 spatial dimensions may give the illusion of being "hollow," even though there are still processes going on there--just going on in coordinate time, not coordinate space.
Getting back to RS2, so the unit space boundary is like the edge of the coin of space/time?
Since the universe is based on motion, not matter, you have to think of boundaries like lines on a contour map, where the boundary line equals a speed of 1. Einstein used a similar concept to describe the warping of space, where his boundary lines were analogous to elevation maps, and the intersecting plane at 1 unit high was our "reality." By thinking in terms of contours, you can see that anywhere you have a net speed that equals unity, you'll have a boundary. It doesn't make little spheres around atoms, unless the atom is by itself in a void. The unit space boundary around a molecule will flow around the molecule, just like a contour.

Back to the topic at hand... I've been trying to calculate astronomic distances without the use of mass or triangulation, which is rather difficult, to say the least! What I've come up with, thanks to Kepler, is a series of geometric relationships that I've applied on a larger scale. I'll admit that the results I'm getting (made three different approaches so far, and all are within the same "ball park") are unbelievable... it conflicts everything I've been taught about astronomy from youth, so it becomes a battle of "deprogramming" old ways of thought. (I've done a LOT of that, since getting involved with the Reciprocal System!)

I've worked out a location for the Andromeda "Galaxy," after studying the Hubble imagery and determining that the majority of "stars" that are visible, aren't in the galaxy but in the foreground, between us and Andromeda. They have only spotted 2 supernova in Andromeda, one in 1885 and the other in 2011, and from the 2011 event, it is impossible to determine if the supernova is actually IN Andromeda, or somewhere in the space between here and there. So when you factor out all the foreground objects, you have a yellowish, galactic core and a huge ring of dust and debris, and based on spectral data, a lot of which is still pretty hot. The core looks just like our sun.

So I made an assumption that Andromeda was about the same age as our solar system, and based on "core" size being stellar, it puts Andromeda at a distance of--get ready for this--approximately 2000 AU. Yes, Astronomical Units, which is only 0.03 light years away, out where the hypothesized Oort cloud is. And well within the gravitational limit of our sun. Checking a few other nearby "galaxies," when treated as solar systems, I found that we are in this cluster of gravitationally-bound solar systems of relatively the same age. At that distance, it certainly explains why Andromeda is visible to the naked eye--I've seen it many times, and it does not look like it is millions and millions of light years away.

The intervening "stars" became a bit of a mystery at such a small distance, until I started to calculate the age limit mass requirements for a supernova, from Nehru's papers. The amount of mass required to trigger such an event is NOT stellar... all it requires is a gas structure about 10% larger than Jupiter. I suspect that our own, outer gas giants, at one time went "supernova" and the ejecta of those supernova ended up as moons and rings. (daniel's paper on Geochronology discusses this, regarding ancient accounts of "lords" in the sky, where the planets have greatly increased in brightness in ancient times.)

These intervening "stars" don't have to be stars, at all--just reflective rocks or gas giants, since there are plenty of nearby stars providing light.

These results are mind-blowing, to say the least, and I don't know if they are right nor not, but it is certainly interesting to consider. It completely changes everything we know about astronomy... we aren't in this isolated chunk of space that requires warp drive to move between stars, but appear to be in a "globular cluster" of tightly-packed solar systems, with a lot of intervening debris. And it is a logical consequence of the RS... as a globular cluster ages, the stars will form binaries and solar systems with all sorts of ejecta, remaining gravitationally bound to each other and producing a cluster of solar systems of approximately the same age.

It also changes the ET and UFO picture considerably, as it does not require much technology to get between solar systems that are only a few thousand AU apart... so it makes it highly likely that we've been visited, and are being visited, by many other civilizations. How about that for a "disclosure project!"
Every dogma has its day...

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

So the interstellar travel is

Post by Horace » Mon Dec 30, 2013 8:45 pm

So the interstellar travel is not so far out because we are looking at the universe out of a "lens".

When did our goverments find out about this? After the Pioneer anomaly or earlier ?

Do you think that ETs influence and supress our science to keep us from wondering off ...or our own governments/ruling elites do that?

Detrix
Posts: 39
Joined: Sat May 04, 2013 4:48 am
Location: Holland, MI
Contact:

ETs influence

Post by Detrix » Tue Dec 31, 2013 2:19 am

Do you think that ETs influence and supress our science to keep us from wondering off ...or our own governments/ruling elites do that?
I personnally hope that to some degree they are holding us here, until we truely understand the universe better. Like, waiting for us to fully understand Larson's theory completely. But it is probably more about the government maintaining control over us.

I believe that with the efforts of the RS2 site, people will slowly start to see a different approach to science, using Larson's model. Change like this will take a lot of time.

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

ETs and Gravitational Limits

Post by bperet » Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:11 am

So the interstellar travel is not so far out because we are looking at the universe out of a "lens".
That's what I'm discovering; the same effect as looking through a pair of binoculars, backwards. The lenses in our telescopes are always pointing towards the unit boundary (the gravitational limit), and when we observe past that point, those lenses flip around and make thing further away, rather than closer. That "pointing at the unit boundary" happens everywhere in the RS, so this is not any exception to the rule.

I've also had to re-examine the gravitational limit distance, which Larson puts at 2.2 light years. I think that may be wrong, because it is calculated by the supposed mass of the sun. While working on a new paper for the "Hollow Earth," I had to account for the intermediate and ultra-high speed motion in the core, and found that you need to have an almost perfect balance between motion in space, and motion in time, for a planet to be stable. In other words, the ratio of space to time must be near unity, which is the basis of RS atom building (why you vibrate in space, to rotate in time, to charge in space, to rotational vibrate in time... it alternates for stability). So the sun and planets end up with near zero "net mass," so it isn't mass that is maintain orbits. Gravity doesn't actually pull on anything--it is just inward motion (see Beyond Newton). But to make a long analysis short, when I attempted to find the balance point with corrected astronomy, the gravitational limit for our sun appears to be just outside the Kuipner belt, only about 50,000 AU. Consider that in light of the Pioneer anomaly mentioned next.
When did our goverments find out about this? After the Pioneer anomaly or earlier ?
I tried to read the Pioneer anomaly analysis, but kept cracking up laughing... I mean, really. "thermal photon recoil?" from massless photons conveniently being shot in the direction exactly opposite to the sun? What do they do for an encore, make the Universe spontaneously appear out of nothing in a nanosecond?

I don't know if the government knows, because they tend to believe the "experts." Perhaps an examination of the trajectories of extra-solar spaceships would be revealing--if they realize how close these "galaxy" solar systems are, then I'd bet the Voyager probes are heading for a nearby one, not just wandering off into deep space.
Do you think that ETs influence and supress our science to keep us from wondering off ...or our own governments/ruling elites do that?
I would vote for the ruling elite (the "nobility"). They are the ones with the vested interest in keeping people distracted on every front, so they can stay in power.

Image
Attachments
Gravitational Limt Optics.png
Gravitational Limt Optics.png (181.21 KiB) Viewed 5214 times
Every dogma has its day...

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

hi Bruce and happy new year

Post by duane » Wed Jan 01, 2014 2:27 pm

hi Bruce and happy new year

if outside the gravitational limit makes thing smaller

is this being confused with "moving away" from us

and there is no expansion?

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

Expansion and dark matter

Post by bperet » Wed Jan 01, 2014 3:16 pm

Happy New Year!
if outside the gravitational limit makes thing smaller is this being confused with "moving away" from us and there is no expansion?
There must be an expansion in order to balance gravity to create things like orbits and clusters, but I don't think we would be able to actually view the "stretching" from our perspective, because the distances are just too small and the system is gravitationally locked, hence the necessity for things like "dark matter" to compensate.

However, that whole idea of "dark matter" takes on a different perspective, considering stellar distances to be smaller. They created it because gravity was not strong enough to account for the observed behaviors--at the gigantic distances they were using. With small distances, gravity would be much higher and I'd bet the need for dark matter to compensate would go away.

Now that I'm getting used to the idea of astronomic distances being small, it makes a lot more sense... just grab your binoculars and look through backwards... objects that are nearby appear very far off, which explains why we can see them so clearly--they are actually close, so the probability of photons getting from them to us is pretty high. When I've looked at Andromeda in the night sky of the wilderness, it is quite impressive--and never made any sense that something that big in the sky (if you've not seen it, it is enormous on a dark, moonless night) could be as far away as they claimed it to be. Light emission is basically spherical, so what are the chances that enough photons--to get that level of detail--could be coming directly at this tiny, little dot called "Earth," 2.5 million light years away, to give us that remarkable view?
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:

Stellar generations change star sizes

Post by bperet » Mon Jan 06, 2014 11:57 pm

I think I've figured it out... at least it produces a viable computer model, though still not in agreement with conventional astronomy. Larson's logic was fine when it comes to stellar evolution (which is backwards from conventional theory). The only problem was ignoring the "natural consequences" of stellar size in globular cluster formation, and believing the "red supergiant" theory of modern astronomy.

The solution is simple and based on Larson's "stellar generations." The stars in globular clusters form from cosmic microwave background radiation (see Nehru's paper on globular cluster sizes). That means all the stars in the cluster grow at approximately the same rate, and maintain a consistent spacing, much like atoms in a metal. It isn't until one reaches a thermal or age limit and explodes in a supernova, that the cluster equilibrium is disrupted--and when that happens, it destroys the globular cluster from the shock wave, upsetting the progression/gravitation balance. The cluster stars then start colliding with each other, forming larger stars that quickly reach the thermal limit and also go supernova. Basically, a chain reaction takes place, and the globular cluster degenerates into an open cluster, transforming from many mini-stars to a few, medium-size stars (still smaller than our sun), with a new equilibrium.

I was looking at Nehru's calculations and they assume stellar masses--which is a bad assumption. My estimates makes the globular cluster stars significantly smaller than conventional stars (after all, they are being formed from dust), and the thermal limit is a size just slightly larger than Jupiter. So there are millions and millions of mini-stars out there, which Katirai misidentified as planets.

This gave me the missing link--each stellar generation, as described by Larson, tends to have significantly more material available to it than the prior generation. It has the rocks and debris from the explosion, along with the constant microwave background radiation and rocks and debris coming in from other, nearby supernova debris. That means that 1st generation stars are tiny--gas planet sized, 2nd generation binaries are mid-sized, and the third generation stars, like our sun, tend to be the "main sequence" stars that astronomers are using for every star.

"Galaxies" then become mini-supernova remnants--small solar systems, full of debris (2-x speed range makes rings), and most likely contain the cores of binary stars from the explosion in space (A component) and implosion in time (B component). Quasars, being more energetic than our own star size, would probably be a result of 4th generation or more stars, becoming very hot and massive. That would also explain why quasars are found in clusters--something that is impossible from Larson's descriptions (quasars are at recession velocity--faster than light--so they are moving scalarly inward, away from all other quasars and objects).

With this increasing size per generation, all my simulation problems disappear and the stars reappear, because you're looking at a gravitational contour map where nothing is completely outside the gravitational limit. And I suspect that there is considerably more "gravitational lensing" than conventional astronomers realize, which explains the parallax errors. When you go past the gravitational limit of a star, the 3D space becomes 2D equivalent space, which has optical characteristics similar to light moving through a denser medium, so things like "index of refraction" change when viewing outside our solar system. That would account for the parallax errors.
Every dogma has its day...

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

"  What if... quasars and

Post by duane » Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:33 pm

" 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."

"I've seen Dollard's discussion of the sun before; I guess it comes down to how you define "hollow." It isn't "empty," because the core of the sun is responsible for generating sunspots. But it IS in the 3-x, ultra-high speed range, which means it is operating in equivalent space, NOT 3D space, so the lack of 2 spatial dimensions may give the illusion of being "hollow," even though there are still processes going on there--just going on in coordinate time, not coordinate space".

" The stars in globular clusters form from cosmic microwave background radiation"

"This gave me the missing link--each stellar generation, as described by Larson, tends to have significantly more material available to it than the prior generation. It has the rocks and debris from the explosion, along with the constant microwave background radiation and rocks and debris coming in from other, nearby supernova debris."

" While working on a new paper for the "Hollow Earth," I had to account for the intermediate and ultra-high speed motion in the core, and found that you need to have an almost perfect balance between motion in space, and motion in time, for a planet to be stable. In other words, the ratio of space to time must be near unity, which is the basis of RS atom building (why you vibrate in space, to rotate in time, to charge in space, to rotational vibrate in time... it alternates for stability). So the sun and planets end up with near zero "net mass," so it isn't mass that is maintain orbits. Gravity doesn't actually pull on anything--it is just inward motion (see Beyond Newton)"

"(quasars are at recession velocity--faster than light--so they are moving scalarly inward, away from all other quasars and objects)."

this is starting to sound a little like "zero point" theory where "stuff" (cosmic radiation) pops into space and creates things

(zero point = where we can no longer measure in our space)

only to destruct and return back where it came

cosmic "stuff" becomes radiation in our space

it condenses into matter and starts to collect due to the laws of space

at critical points, ie, size, this matter explodes/implodes with part returning to the cosmic

the rest continues to collect forming new structures

until another critical point where a balance is reached with enough recycling back to the cosmic to prevent another explosion

one big creation/destruction cycle

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

Recycled Energy is Free Energy

Post by bperet » Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:22 am

this is starting to sound a little like "zero point" theory where "stuff" (cosmic radiation) pops into space and creates things (zero point = where we can no longer measure in our space)

only to destruct and return back where it came, cosmic "stuff" becomes radiation in our space

it condenses into matter and starts to collect due to the laws of space

at critical points, ie, size, this matter explodes/implodes with part returning to the cosmic

the rest continues to collect forming new structures

until another critical point where a balance is reached with enough recycling back to the cosmic to prevent another explosion
Uh-oh, someone's been paying attention! Yes, you are correct. The origin of "free energy" is in the microwave background radiation, which isn't just way out in space, but permeates everywhere (non-local), right down to the subatomic level. Science misses it because physics and astronomy are, for the most part, independent studies (except for the stellar energy generation process, which they got backwards--it's fission, not fusion). It shows up in the Reciprocal System because atoms and stars work by the same rules.

I'll start a topic on the details, once I get a few diagrams made up. If you want a lot of good insight into the subject, I recommend Gustave LeBon's book, The Evolution of Matter. He actually came up with the idea, and it was this book that T. Henry Moray used to create is 50kw free energy machine, back in the 1930s.
Every dogma has its day...

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

plants getting into the act

Post by duane » Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:24 pm

hi Bruce,

I'm working my way thru LeBon's book - very interesting

it seems that plants are also using free energy machines

http://io9.com/new-evidence-that-plants ... 1498695627

Post Reply