## Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
duane
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### for us math (among other things) challenged

hi Bruce

for these "planets" zipping around the "star" kepler 101

what would be speed needed to revolve at these: 101 b: 3.49 days

101 c: 6.03 days orbits?

if they were actually the case, would these speeds exceed escape velosity?

bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Escape velocity

what would be speed needed to revolve at these: 101 b: 3.49 days

101 c: 6.03 days orbits?

if they were actually the case, would these speeds exceed escape velosity?
101-b would be going 313,785 mph around the star; 101-c would be going at 261,519 mph. By comparison, the Earth moves at 67,108 mph.

The estimated escape velocity of the star would be around 1,381,755 mph, so no, they wouldn't. (The astronomers probably thought of that!)

But based on the small mass of these "planets," you'd better land on the sun-side, or you're likely to get thrown off into space going around the orbital curve at that velocity.
Every dogma has its day...

sjw40364
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 8:23 pm

### Or perhaps gravitational

Or perhaps gravitational behavior does not apply to a galaxy 99% plasma, but instead plasma physics does..... Gravitational theory - Newtons, GR, Kepler's - only applies to the behavior of solids, liquids and gasses - planetary systems - neutral matter - and is inapplicable in 99% of the universe. This is why the calculations come up incorrect. That and stellar distances are greatly overegaterated based upon incorect assumptions about redshift.

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

Until we accept that "the presence of a non-negligible number of charge carriers makes plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields," and stop treating it like solids, liquids and gasses, our calculations will never come out correct - because gravity is simply too weak to apply across vast distances, being 10^32 times weaker.

And the other problem with distance is that with acceleration (energy) rulers shrink. If A and B are one light year apart to a stationary frame - then the moving frame does not see them as one light-year apart, but a greater distance. Not accounted for in any Gedankenexperiment. In which A and B are magically one light-year apart to both the stationary and moving observer.

bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Plasma Aether

I've noticed the recent upsurge in interest in "plasma," which has basically become the 21st century version of the 19th century "aether." I think these plasma theories come from their similarity to Larson's "equivalent space" concept that exists beyond the gravitational limit, in what he calls the "scalar zone." Science has now run across the same thing that Larson did, back in the 1950s--that at some point, "space" doesn't behave like regular space--and hence the plasma form. Plasma behavior is very similar to equivalent space behavior (not a 4th state of matter, but an ionized state--or as Larson would say, a "rotational vibration" state of matter. Plasma is what shows up when thermal motion moves outside of one natural unit of heat (a linear vibration) and becomes a rotational vibration in equivalent space (plasma).

Regarding gravity as not being the basis for astronomical phenomena... I agree. The research I've done on the gravitational limit, as a consequence of atomic structure, indicates that gravity does not reach very far, at all. Larson pulled a fast one here... he uses the gravitational limit to determine inter-atomic distances and thermal effects for the various states of matter, then skips up to stars and galaxies and back-calculates the astronomic gravitational limit there, using different equations. Astronomic equations don't work for atomic calculations, nor atomic equations for astronomic ones. To me, that indicates a problem with the concept. Because of this bottom-up, top-down approach, I believe that Larson also missed a bit "in the middle"--the gas giant "planet" range, which may not be planets, at all, but something like a cross between a star and a planet.

What I'm seeing now is basically three limits. The closest being the gravitational limit, followed by a "magnetic limit" then at the extreme end "electric limit," to account for 3D, 2D and 1D scalar motion. That would indicate that most of the astronomical interactions are electric (such as Miles Mathis' charge field and the "Electric Universe" stuff), but closer associations would be magnetic (such as the Earth-Sun interaction). Only the closest, such as planets and moons, would actually be gravitational.

Just some thoughts at this point; still thinking it through.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### hi bruce

hi bruce

"What I'm seeing now is basically three limits. The closest being the gravitational limit, followed by a "magnetic limit" then at the extreme end "electric limit," to account for 3D, 2D and 1D scalar motion. That would indicate that most of the astronomical interactions are electric (such as Miles Mathis' charge field and the "Electric Universe" stuff), but closer associations would be magnetic (such as the Earth-Sun interaction). Only the closest, such as planets and moons, would actually be gravitational."

So Mr Newton sent us offtrack all these years ago with those "apple and orbits"

on your other post about imaginary numbers, might these indicate a bleedover from one realm to another,

the closest , such as planets and moons, may have electric, magnetic and gravitional interactions but with gravity dominating

our math being gravity based needed help to account for affects of those unseen other realms

just some thoughts

always interesting but sometimes beyond this old brain

duane
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### Gigapixels of Andromeda

Super-high resolution image of Andromeda from Hubble (NASA/ESA): http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/...

bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Hubble HiRes of Andromeda

Super-high resolution image of Andromeda from Hubble (NASA/ESA):
Took me over a day to download that image... it's BIG. But quite fascinating. Been running some analysis on it. Most of the bright "stars" are in the foreground, not part of the nebula. You can identify these because the adjacent dusty areas are not illuminated as they should be. Actually, there are very few self-luminous objects in the cloudy regions.

If you zoom in too much, the picture becomes a maze of colored blobs. Understand that these are not actual objects, but an artifact of image processing--a digital representation of the dusty regions that cannot be isolated into a pixel set, so you get a color splattering (zoom in ANY high-res image of a dusty pattern, and you will see the same thing).

I was able to isolate the core, which for a 40,000 pixel wide file, is very small--only about 112 pixels across. If that is a star approximately the same size as our sun, then this image is showing a solar system with the outer blue band of gas/dust being about 3.2 AU (yep, Astronomical Units) in radius--about the same distance to our asteroid belt. Which means the Andromeda nebula, itself, is a whopping 38 light days away. That puts it well within the gravitational limit, as well as optical range.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### http://news.discovery.com

The Milky Way May Be 50 Percent Bigger Than Thought
A ring-like filament of stars wrapping around the Milky Way may actually belong to the galaxy itself, rippling above and below the relatively flat galactic plane. If so, that would expand the size of the known galaxy by 50 percent and raise intriguing questions about what caused the waves of stars.

i don't know why the print is so large (i wasn't trying to shout)

bperet
Posts: 1175
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### More and more like a solar system

A ring-like filament of stars wrapping around the Milky Way may actually belong to the galaxy itself, rippling above and below the relatively flat galactic plane. If so, that would expand the size of the known galaxy by 50 percent and raise intriguing questions about what caused the waves of stars.
So, it's now a circular cloud of debris with an inner plane--just like our own solar system looks, and even Jupiter and its moons within our solar system.

Have they got around to admitting that globular clusters are the most populus aggregate in space yet, as Larson predicted over 50 years ago, when only a few clusters were known?
i don't know why the print is so large (i wasn't trying to shout)
I fixed it. When you do a straight "paste" into the editor window, it keeps the styling of the original, in this case it had a size:40pt in it. You can use the icon buttons at the top of the window to paste as plain text, which removes all embedded formatting.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 110
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### http://www.newscientist.com

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... SXDMpOYRVc

Is this ET? Mystery of strange radio bursts from space

"

BURSTS of radio waves flashing across the sky seem to follow a mathematical pattern. If the pattern is real, either some strange celestial physics is going on, or the bursts are artificial, produced by human – or alien – technology.

Telescopes have been picking up so-called fast radio bursts (FRBs) since 2001. They last just a few milliseconds and erupt with about as much energy as the sun releases in a month. Ten have been detected so far, most recently in 2014, when the Parkes Telescope in New South Wales, Australia, caught a burst in action for the first time. The others were found by sifting through data after the bursts had arrived at Earth. No one knows what causes them, but the brevity of the bursts means their source has to be small – hundreds of kilometres across at most – so they can't be from ordinary stars. And they seem to come from far outside the galaxy."

......

"

Michael Hippke of the Institute for Data Analysis in Neukirchen-Vluyn, Germany, and John Learned at the University of Hawaii in Manoa found that all 10 bursts' dispersion measures are multiples of a single number: 187.5 (see chart). This neat line-up, if taken at face value, would imply five sources for the bursts all at regularly spaced distances from Earth, billions of light-years away. A more likely explanation, Hippke and Lerned say, is that the FRBs all come from somewhere much closer to home, from a group of objects within the Milky Way that naturally emit shorter-frequency radio waves after higher-frequency ones, with a delay that is a multiple of 187.5 (arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245).

They claim there is a 5 in 10,000 probability that the line-up is coincidence. "If the pattern is real," says Learned, "it is very, very hard to explain."

I always thought the universe's number was 42

If ET was calling from outside solar system and/or outside the galaxy

I wonder how much the message would be garbled by those transitions?

### Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest