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:
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...