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:

LeBon

Post by bperet » Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:42 pm

I'm working my way thru LeBon's book - very interesting
There is also another book, The Evolution of Forces. It has a lot of the same stuff as The Evolution of Matter, but does make some interesting points:

"Ponderable matter" are the material atoms; "imponderable matter" are the cosmic atoms; the physical is the material sector and aether is the cosmic sector.

p. 17: talks about the "irreducible magnitudes," which Larson says as "primary magnitudes are absolute."

p. 19: "This fundamental concept of movement will be found at the base of all phenomena." It's his way of saying, "Nothing But Motion."

And I like the way he disposes of the concept of mass, saying that it introduces all sorts of computational errors because it is actually weight divided by speed, so if you have zero speed, you end up with infinite mass, even though the weight remains constant. It is the weight (what Larson would call the magnetic rotation) that has the irreducible magnitude.

As I've mentioned, LeBon is basically the "Flintstones version" of the Reciprocal System!
it seems that plants are also using free energy machines
I've not had the opportunity to examine photosynthesis in detail, but "life units" are the RS way to say "quantum entanglement" on an aggregate level.
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:

Kuipner Belt visualization

Post by bperet » Mon Jan 13, 2014 12:17 pm

I was trying to create an image of what our solar system would look like from deep space, but found this on http://msnlv.com/kuiper-belt.html, which is a very close depiction to what I was trying to render:
kuiper-belt.jpg
kuiper-belt.jpg (25.36 KiB) Viewed 6774 times
I guess there is no similarity at all to this actual photo of the Sombrero Galaxy, is there?
SombreroSystem.png
SombreroSystem.png (114.8 KiB) Viewed 6774 times
The ratios and proprotions of the rings and sun are nearly identical!
Every dogma has its day...

wsitze
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Kuiper Belt visualization

Post by wsitze » Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:48 pm

The entire mass of the asteroid belt is insufficient to make up one planet. Therefore, the belt might be seen, if at all, as a nebulous haze from the distance depicted. Clyde Tombaugh's plates across most of the ecliptic show no such haze. The Kuiper Belt is even more rareified, and probably won't even be noticed at the depicted distance. Take a look at the night sky. Jupiter has no occultation from the asteroid belt.
Graybeard

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

Milky Way

Post by bperet » Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:19 pm

The entire mass of the asteroid belt is insufficient to make up one planet.
But it does make up a dwarf planet, namely Ceres.
Therefore, the belt might be seen, if at all, as a nebulous haze from the distance depicted. Clyde Tombaugh's plates across most of the ecliptic show no such haze. The Kuiper Belt is even more rareified, and probably won't even be noticed at the depicted distance. Take a look at the night sky. Jupiter has no occultation from the asteroid belt.
Not familiar with Tombaugh's plates and could not find them on the net. Got a link?

Indications are that we are "older" than the Milky Way, being a 3rd generation star (at least). The Milky Way would be 2nd generation (see below), so it would have a lot more debris than our system would, most of which having been consumed by the sun, as Larson describes in UOM.

We do have a toroidal "blind spot" surrounding our solar system, as you can see in the CGI in an earlier comment (#13). And don't forget that the Milky Way "galaxy" also gets resized in this piece of research, down to solar system dimensions. Based on the geometry, the Milky Way looks like this Artist's conception (NASA):

Image

Look familiar? It should, because it shows the SAME structure as the other galactic "solar systems," but with a binary core (now being called "peanut shaped").

Now when you resize the Milky Way to the same parameters, it appears to be a bit bigger than our 50,000 AU system, about twice the size, and our solar system is actually passing INSIDE this "Milky solar system" at a 60-degree angle--a kind of "galactic collision" that is frequently seen, as in NGC 2207:

Image

This is probably the SAME situation going on with our solar system (right) and the Milky Way "solar system" on the left. The "Great Rift" is just the equivalent of the Kuipner belt of the Milky Way solar system, and we're entering on the inside, so it surrounds us. The "spiral arms" are just the matter streaming towards the sun, as indicated in all the other galactic photos--but when the scale is reduced, it's just supernova debris spiraling back in, as we find in our own solar system.

I would also like to point out that when you treat galaxies as solar systems, the "missing mass" problem of the Universe disappears, just like the dark matter it is supposed to be made of. Gravity is more than sufficient to hold things together and make them work "as is," without having to add additional mass or energy in the form of "dark matter" or "dark energy."

Also, the need for a "supermassive black hole" disappears as well (black holes do not exist in the RS). It just becomes a simple, "center of gravity" issue.

Consider it before you dismiss it. After all, our current theory about galaxies was created in the mid-1700s, and hasn't changed since then. It is well locked into the collective unconscious these days.
Attachments
MilkyWay (Artist).jpg
MilkyWay (Artist).jpg (48.4 KiB) Viewed 5654 times
NGC-2207 collision.jpg
NGC-2207 collision.jpg (55.06 KiB) Viewed 5654 times
Every dogma has its day...

jdalton4
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Bruce Post#29

Post by jdalton4 » Mon Jan 13, 2014 9:54 pm

"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."

This sentence in post#29 is incomprehensible to me. Why cant photons be carried by the progression across these gaps? Isn't the progression the fundamental motion from which all displacements and "gaps" are defined?

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

Progressive Gaps

Post by bperet » Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:24 am

"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."
Why cant photons be carried by the progression across these gaps? Isn't the progression the fundamental motion from which all displacements and "gaps" are defined?
Yes, the progression is the "natural datum" of measurement, from which displacements are measured. But there are no physical "gaps" in the RS, as everything is motion and if you are not uniform motion (the speed of light or progression of the natural reference system), then there must be some displacement, in either space or time. Poor choice of words, on my part.

The "gap" I am referring to is a region that lacks ANY displacement, where space is uniformly progressing at the speed of light. Larson, in Universe of Motion, says that once you go past the gravitational limit, a discrete boundary, all gravitational influence stops and all that exists is the progression, until you encounter another structure that has a gravitational limit. This "progressive zone" is the "gap" (lack of any displacement).

Because the progression is an outward, scalar motion, it is expansive--in other words, that region between gravitational limits--like between galaxies--would be expanding AT the speed of light. The photon does not move relative to an "absolute location" on the progression, so from the photon's perspective, the entire universe is receding from it, in all directions. From our conventional reference system, it could be interpreted that the photon moves at the speed of light, in a gap that is expanding at the speed of light, so the only way that photon could get to another gravitational limit would be to exceed the speed of light, which it can't do. So photons cannot cross over the region where there is only progression.

For an analogy, blow up a balloon and draw a grid on it. Mark one of the intersections "A" and on the other side, mark another "B." Stick a piece of tape on an intersection that is adjacent to "A"--that will be the photon leaving "A", heading to "B." The zone between A and B is the progression, which is scalar, so the only way you can create movement is to inflate the balloon (outward motion). No matter how large you inflate the balloon, that piece of tape will never reach "B," even though it will continually get further away fro "A" as the balloon expands. (It will also get further from "B"--not closer!)
Every dogma has its day...

jdalton4
Posts: 35
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2013 4:46 am

Progressive Gaps

Post by jdalton4 » Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:06 am

I feel very stupid now that you have explained it. it seems to me that the gravitational limit must be constantly expanding slightly faster than the progression because of the constant influx of motion from the cosmic sector. The two sectors overlap at the boundary creating this effect. I dont know how to express this mathematically but there must be some way to do it.

wsitze
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 4:04 pm
Location: Southern New Mexico
Contact:

Solar System pictorial

Post by wsitze » Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:49 am

"But it does make up a dwarf planet, namely Ceres."

According to the IAU, dwarf planets are not planets, which does sound like nonsense, but that's another whole argument, and has no place here. Nonetheleas, the asteroid belt, including Ceres, does not have enough mass to create an Earth-sized planet.

"Not familiar with Tombaugh's plates and could not find them on the net. Got a link?"

The whole set is most likely at Lowell Observatory. I am not aware of any of those plates being posted on the internet. I personally have access to one copy of one of the Pluto discovery plates. I most likely would violate someone's copyright if I were to post a copy of that plate. I have seen slides of some of the other plates.

"The gravitational limit defines where the inward motion of gravity balances the outward progression. The discrete unit hypothesis does not enter into this because we are only talking about a net of 'forces' if I may use that term rather loosely."

I agree! But that locus of balance is dependent on the position of the observer. If you were to instantly move the Hubble telescope over one galaxy in position, a whole new set of photos would be possible at the changed observational limit.
Graybeard

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

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my

Post by duane » Fri Jan 24, 2014 9:23 am

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

"Mystery of 'Missing Physics' in the Universe" --Solved by CalTech Astrophysicists

problem solved

i guess we can all go back to watching tv :)

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

Gravitational index of refraction

Post by bperet » Sun Mar 23, 2014 6:46 pm

Larson refers to gravitationally-bound astronomical systems as behaving like a "viscous liquid." Nehru further commented that it may actually be more like a "hot solid." When studying Larson's Liquid State papers, I noticed that they are basically referring to the same condition, since our definition of the melting point is based on a percentage of an aggregate entering the liquid state--not based on atomic properties. In both cases, the astronomical situation within the gravitational limit is the same--that of a high-viscosity liquid (which is what a heated solid also is).

However, the situation is radically different beyond the gravitational limit, where NO dimensions are being gravitationally bound. This is analogous to a gaseous state. This got me thinking about "gravitational lensing" and more appropriately, the index of refraction when light (photons) bends crossing from a viscous liquid to a gas. I used to scuba dive and one of the first things you notice is that if you reach for something at an angle above the surface--it isn't where you grabbed. It is down lower, due to the index of refraction. The same reason why it is difficult to catch a fish with your hands, standing in the water.

This also gave me a clue as to how photons could traverse the gap between gravitational limits--circular polarization. The light we normally see is plane polarized, because it's been bouncing off stuff (very pronounced when diving). Out where there is nothing to bounce off of, light will take its "natural" state, which I believe to be circularly polarized. This comes from my use of quaternions to model birotation--by default, both aspects of birotation move in the same, scalar direction. It takes an influence from an oppositely-directed motion, like the time of the atom, to flip one aspect and create opposite rotations and linear polarization. Circularly polarized photons ARE NOT CARRIED by the progression, because they have a 1-unit inward motion, due to the rotation (aka, same reason that the rotational base does--like a ball rolling forward on a belt, rather than being carried by it). These circularly polarized photons will traverse the gap between gravitational limits, existing in a state analogous to a gas.

Photons then encounter the gravitational limit, and just like shining a flashlight on a pond, take on linear polarization and refract--distorting the original angle that they approached from. Applying this to the astronomical scale, the "stars" aren't where we see them.

The way we measure stellar distances is through triangulation, using the position of the Earth on opposite sides of the sun to make the base of the triangle:
GravitationalLensing.png
GravitationalLensing.png (99.49 KiB) Viewed 6774 times
Conventional astronomy assumes that "space" is the same, 3D gravitationally-bound system we find within our solar system, so they, like a scuba diver reaching for an object that he sees but isn't actualy there, are not accounting for the refractive index at the gravitational limit--assuming a straight line and as a result, placing the star MUCH further away than it actually is. To account for "why" they can see it, they make the star larger than it is, and the errors just compound from that point.

At this time, I have no idea as to how to calculate the gravitational "index of refraction" because I have no idea of what density matter is, out at the gravitational limit. Because it is a natural boundary, stuff may accumulate there (like the Oort cloud, which may actually be the G limit), making the density high, with a correspondingly high IOR. That means that what we see, isn't where it is, as far as we think it is, and even not as bright as we may label it.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply