Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Ra: Sun is center of a galaxy

Post by bperet » Tue Mar 25, 2014 9:05 am

The Ra Material 16.35:

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.
Perhaps Ra knows a little more than he is saying... or that Carla was able to interpret. Knowing how channeled communicaiton works, and seeing how far off the world view of the instrument this concept would be, it makes me wonder.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 72
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Great work with this Bruce,

Post by Djchrismac » Thu Mar 27, 2014 2:46 pm

Great work with this Bruce, mind blowing from the conventional standpoint but taking RS into account and working it out just makes so much sense plus you have an example from nature to help illustrate it, always the perfect confirmation if you ask me.

Going back to the Ra quotes above and just before the one you quoted:
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?

I think you're right and the confusion Karla mentions, which is also something that stuck out for me when reading the Ra material, is because the concept is just so completely different to what we've all been brought up to believe that she struggled to understand Ra's referencing to what we term a Solar System as a Galaxy. I wondered about that for a while so it's been very enjoyable to watch you working this out along the way and hopefully I can apply similar RS reasoning to other problems once I grasp it a bit more, i'm getting there!

I also want to mention that I was kind of put off of the Ra material since just book one is the more reliable and on learning that all channelled material can't be trusted even though it's endorsement of RS had helped lead me to learn all about it. Now it's a case of RS validating Ra again for me after Ra had validated RS previously... a nice reciprocal relationship there! Image I'm tempted to read through it again to see if there may be other clues like this in what they say but I have a reading list that has spiralled out of control so it may have to wait!

So... what are you going to tackle next?! Image

oreneorg
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

Big not as big and small not so small?

Post by oreneorg » Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:50 am

Big not as big and small not so small?
Attachments
longitud limite sector cosmico.jpg
longitud limite sector cosmico.jpg (25.92 KiB) Viewed 2181 times

oreneorg
Posts: 175
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:58 pm

limit´s

Post by oreneorg » Sun Mar 30, 2014 3:58 am

limit´s
Attachments
limite2.JPG
limite2.JPG (49.79 KiB) Viewed 2181 times

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Gravational limits and Asteroid Belts

Post by bperet » Sun Mar 30, 2014 1:40 pm

Big not as big and small not so small?
That is VERY interesting. If you treat your astronomical distance (8.41 x 1011 m) as the diameter of the sphere of the gravitational limit, it places it at the center of the asteroid belt--2.8 AU. The asteroid belt runs from 2.2-3.2 AU. I had not considered that before. I did recognized that the asteroid belt was the center of the dwarf star explosion that formed the planetary system, imploding inward to form the rocky, inner planets and outward to form the soft, gaseous planets.

This structure is worth considering, as it mimics the behavior of the RS atom--the inner planets being within the time region, the gravitational limit as the unit space boundary, and the outer planets being the spatial rotation (electrons). Larson states that space becomes "equivalent space" beyond the gravitational limit, which it also does in the case of the atom's unit boundary. Let me think more on this idea, as it does make sense.

Regarding the microcosm--excellent observation. I agree with your diagram--basically an "inner gravitational limit."

But if this is the case... then "galaxies" are even closer than I was calculating, as I was using a 200,000 AU gravitational limit.
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Quantized gravitation

Post by bperet » Sun Mar 30, 2014 2:14 pm

Given the assumption that the asteroid belt IS at the gravitational limit, then all motion past it would technically be in the intermediate speed range of equivalent space. Larson, in Universe of Motion, points out that all motion in the intermediate speed range is quantized.

This is something that I noticed when I used POVray (computer ray tracing program) to plot out the locations of galaxies--and they were displayed in a series of concentric spheres (see This Reply). It also occurred to me that since speed is quantized, any spacecraft that went past the gravitational limit would also alter speed in discrete steps, not a "continuous motion" as would be the case moving through the inner solar system. I recall reading something of that effect, and as it turns out, this is being experienced by the Pioneer spacecraft and is known as "quantization of gravity."

The one factor that differs greatly in the macrocosm, is that space is not "empty" (as it is surrounding an atom). There are a large amount of atoms, dust and rock there, which could extend the 3D gravitational influences well past the gravitational limit of the sun. This may explain why a 3D coordinate system still exists in 2D space; I may try to do a computer simulation of the situation to test the viability of the concept. In essence, the unit boundary of an atom is very distinct, but at astronomical levels, the gravitational limit may be "fuzzy" with a lot of matter surrounding it.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 146
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

comets as gravity experiments

Post by duane » Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:08 am

hi Bruce

"I recall reading something of that effect, and as it turns out, this is being experienced by the Pioneer spacecraft and is known as "quantization of gravity."

The one factor that differs greatly in the macrocosm, is that space is not "empty" (as it is surrounding an atom). There are a large amount of atoms, dust and rock there, which could extend the 3D gravitational influences well past the gravitational limit of the sun. This may explain why a 3D coordinate system still exists in 2D space; I may try to do a computer simulation of the situation to test the viability of the concept. In essence, the unit boundary of an atom is very distinct, but at astronomical levels, the gravitational limit may be "fuzzy" with a lot of matter surrounding it."

might it be possible to "see" this quantization of gravity" on a comet coming in from the oort cloud?

http://www.businessinsider.com/mars-bou ... z2xMjE0xgP

A Giant Comet Headed Toward Mars Is Blasting Dust All Over Space

A comet poised to give Mars a close shave later this year is now blasting dust into space from at least two jets on its surface, photos from the Hubble Space Telescope reveal.

The latest Hubble photo of Comet Siding Spring, captured on March 11, shows what appear to be two jets of dust coming off the icy object's nucleus. The comet is making its way toward the inner solar system for an Oct. 19 rendezvous with Mars, during which it will miss the planet by just 84,000 miles (135,185 kilometers) — about one-third the distance between Earth and the moon.

The new Hubble observations, along with other recent images of Comet Siding Spring taken by the space telescope on Jan. 21 and Oct. 29, are helping scientists learn key details about the comet, such as the axis of rotation of its nucleus and the speed at which Siding Spring is ejecting dust. NASA released the new Hubble comet photos today (March 27). [See more Hubble photos of Comet Siding Spring]

User avatar
JoeyV
Posts: 9
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2014 6:52 pm
Contact:

Light traveling through a medium

Post by JoeyV » Wed Apr 02, 2014 7:04 pm

Reposting this as directed from Antiquaits fora,

Found this picture when google searching light passing through a drop of water, in order to get an idea of perhaps why we see the twinkling of stars, and this little gem came up.

Image

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badas ... zwX6VRdXZg

BecomingPhill
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 4:36 am

Mindblwoing!

Post by BecomingPhill » Sat Apr 12, 2014 8:54 am

How have I been missing this thread, this is collosal Bruce! Splendid!

Edit: "My God - It's full of stars!"

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1488
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Exoplanets

Post by bperet » Sun Apr 13, 2014 9:56 am

One of the things that has bothered me about exoplanets (planets around other "stars") was the orbital periods. When you look at the data, these planets are flying around these giant suns at very high velocities; most having periods of just a few days--hundreds of times faster than our own solar system.

Then it hit me about that comment that Katirai made concerning the "stars" being planets... my own research (published in the daniel papers) indicates that there is historical evidence of the outer planets of our own solar system have gone nova in the past, leaving behind moons and planetary rings, post-explosion. This behavior is analogous to a supernova, but on a smaller scale, with the same effects (supernova generate rings and debris fields). They behave very much like the "stars" we see in the sky.

Then it hit me--what if these "stars with planetary systems" are actually "planets with moons?" So I "did the math," as they say, and took a look at our own solar system, namely Jupiter, since the four, large moons are visible with binoculars on a clear night (well, back when we actually had chemtrail-free skies).

Jupiter's moons have these rotational periods:
  • Io: 1.77 days
  • Europa: 3.55 days
  • Ganymede: 7.15 days
  • Callisto: 16.7 days
Then I grabbed an exoplanetary system, Kepler 101 was the first in the table I pulled up:
  • 101 b: 3.49 days
  • 101 c: 6.03 days
Curious, almost an exact match to 2 of Jupiter's moon periods, Europa = 101b, Ganymede = 101c. I'll bet when they find 101a, it will have a period around that of Io, 1.7 days or so.

But wait... it gets better. What about Kepler's Law, relating orbital velocity and distance? Let's try that out, too, but remembering that we're looking at the system through the "fisheye lens" of the gravitational limit and it is being magnified. So we need to scale down a bit, first. Based on using Jupiter as a reference in our own solar system, our sun is 9.95x larger than Jupiter, so if Kepler-101 is actually a Jupiter-sized planet, the values will be approximately 10x too large.

Orbital radius, semi-major axis:
  • 101 b: 0.045 au / 10 = 0.0045 au
  • 101 c: 0.0648 au / 10 = 0.00648 au.
Now, see how they compare to Europa and Ganymede:
  • Europa: 671034km = 0.0045 au
  • Ganymede: 1070412km = 0.00716 au
Scaling down the sizes from a star to a Jupiter-size planet gives a nearly exact correspondence between Kepler-101/Jupiter, and 101b/Europa and 101c/Ganymede.

Now, what makes more sense... planets orbiting at Warp 4 around a giant sun, or moons orbiting a gas giant planet at the everyday, orbital velocities and distances that we see in our own solar system?

Seems these exoplanets are actually exomoons, with exactly the same orbital relationships we find in our own solar system.
"My God - It's full of stars!"
"My God - It's full of planets!"
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply