## Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
Horace
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

### Wouldn't the gravitational

Wouldn't the gravitational limits of different star systems appear as such bubbles?

bperet
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Glim bubbles

Wouldn't the gravitational limits of different star systems appear as such bubbles?
As a mathematical model, yes, but as a visual one, no. All we would perceive would be the intersections between the bubble we are in and the adjacent ones as a contour map.
Every dogma has its day...

duane
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### http://phys.org/news/2015-11

http://phys.org/news/2015-11-universe-r ... stant.html

The universe's resolution limit—why we may never have a perfect view of distant galaxies

November 20, 2015 by James Geach, The Conversation

Can you make out the dot at the bottom of this question mark? What if you stand a few metres away? The finest detail the average human eye can distinguish is about the size of a full stop seen at a distance of a metre. This is called "resolution". The best resolution for an optical system – like the eye – is roughly given by the ratio of the wavelength of the light you're viewing in and the size of the aperture that light is passing through.

In astronomy, resolution works just the same. This explains why we build increasingly large telescopes: not only can big telescopes collect more light and therefore see further, the bigger the aperture of the telescope, in principle the better the image.

But now a new study has suggested that the universe actually has a fundamental resolution limit, meaning no matter how big we build our telescopes we won't see the most distant galaxies as clearly as we would like.

The trouble with telescopes

The largest visible-light telescopes on Earth, such as the Very Large Telescopes and the Keck telescopes, have mirrors about ten metres in diameter, and there are now plans to build telescopes with diameters of 30m to 40m (so-called Extremely Large Telescopes). But there's a problem: if light from an object (be it a candle, streetlight or star) is perturbed on its journey from source to detection, then we will never be able to produce an image as sharp as the theoretical maximum, no matter how big we make the aperture.

maximus0961
Posts: 1
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:45 am

### Bruce

Bruce

I am in a process of building SEG. I have met John Searl personaly and I think the knowledge you have in that area in combination with what I now know will be able to speed up the recreation of SEG. Whould you be interested to participate?

Regards

Maximus

mist.world@yahoo.co.uk

bperet
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### SEG generator

I am in a process of building SEG. I have met John Searl personaly and I think the knowledge you have in that area in combination with what I now know will be able to speed up the recreation of SEG. Whould you be interested to participate?
I did a detailed Reciprocal System analysis of the SEG back in 2011, which is here: Searl Effect Generator (SEG) Magnetic structure

I'm always interested in developing new technologies, so if I can provide any further theoretical background, please let me know.
Every dogma has its day...

SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/12/18/cos ... predicted/

Does this tell us anything about the conventional or RS2 accuracy regarding the actual size of the alleged galaxy cluster?

It seems to me that if the observation itself is correct, then in order for the light to be delayed so long, the size of the intervening astronomical body must actually be near conventional estimates to create the slowing/warping observed.

bperet
Posts: 1480
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

### Magnification

Does this tell us anything about the conventional or RS2 accuracy regarding the actual size of the alleged galaxy cluster?
No, not really. If you watch a sports game through binoculars instead of your unaided eyes, does it change the way the players move on the field?
Every dogma has its day...

SoverT
Posts: 85
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 7:27 pm

### I understand the refraction

I understand the refraction concept quite well, but that wasn't exactly the point I'm seeing.

In that analogy, it appears that the astronomers looked through the telescope backwards, and observed a player running across the field for over a year. Given that most playing fields take a few seconds to run across, the playfield must be either far larger, the player far smaller, or something else entirely is going on.

Or to put it another way, if the observed bodies are actually extremely close, as RS2 indicates, how can we explain the large amount of time the light took to travel around the various edges of the intervening bodies?

Gopi
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:58 am

### Time trouble

Hi SoverT

Nice to see that you have put in a good amount of research and are asking the questions...
Given that most playing fields take a few seconds to run across, the playfield must be either far larger, the player far smaller, or something else entirely is going on... Or to put it another way, if the observed bodies are actually extremely close, as RS2 indicates, how can we explain the large amount of time the light took to travel around the various edges of the intervening bodies?
Actually, I suspect that they are looking at the wrong clock. As LoneBear noticed, a lot of the problems are scaling problems. Now in the Reciprocal System, either space OR time can be scaled, which means there are automatically two different interpretations: either things aren't "far" as we think they are or that things do not take as "long" to reach as we think they do. There is a good chance that with the spatial bias of the material sector we can predict only spatial scale changes, but there could actually be temporal shifts as well.

For example, as we go up from 1-x, to 2-x and 3-x, the dimensionality of time entering the linear motion changes. So a t3 will still be measured as a t, giving a high resultant time. Scaling that with unit speed gives "light year" distances. What if time gets warped as we go out farther? It could explain such things as expansion of the Universe and the weird few-hours-time-period of several double planets much better.

Gives a whole new angle of attack to this problem, through time instead of through space.

duane
Posts: 143
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:46 pm

### and now for something completely different

http://thunder-energies.com/

http://thunder-energies.com/index.php/c ... -article-8

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE USE OF

SANTILLI TELESCOPES WITH CONCAVE LENSES

FOR THE DETECTION OF ANTIMATTER GALAXIES,

ANTIMATTER COSMIC RAYS AND ANTIMATTER ASTEROIDS

1. Foreword

Dr. R. M. Santilli, Chief Scientist of Thunder Energies Corporation (see his Curriculum , Prices and Nominations , Publications in antimatter , and the General Archives ) has conducted three decades of mathematical, theoretical and experimental studies on antimatter initiated in the early1980s when he was at at Harvard University under DOE support.

This extended research has produced basically new telescopes, today known as Santilli telescopes, which have been conceived, designed, constructed, tested and produced to detect antimatter galaxies, antimatter cosmic rays and antimatter asteroids (international patent pending irrevocably owned by TEC without royalty payments).

Since matter and antimatter annihilate at contact into light, as a condition for its existence at the classical macroscopic level, antimatter must have all characteristics opposite to those of matter. For instance, matter-light has a positive index of refraction while, as a condition for its existence, antimatter-light must have a negative index of refraction (Figure 1).

Consequently, the focusing of images of matter-light require convex lenses as occurring in the Galileo telescopes, while the focusing of images of antimatter-light requires concave lenses, as occurring in Santilli telescopes (Figure 2).

The above features imply that none of the refractive Galileo-type telescopes existing on Earth or in space can detect antimatter-light because they are all based on convex lenses.

Similarly, we will never see images of antimatter-light with our naked eyes because our cornea is convex, and as such, it disperses images of antimatter-light all over our retina. The sole possibility to detect images of antimatter-light is via images on a digital or film camera.