Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
bperet
Posts: 1501
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Visibility of Stars and Galaxies (Problem)

I have done a simulation of astronomical scalar motion, as it is the easiest to observe and comprehend. It consisted of our solar system and the stars within 50 light years, based on positional data from Celestia (astronomical viewing program). I can control the rate at which time flows (per frame), so I expected to see some stellar drift across the sky running at 10,000 years per second. But ran into a problem...

The only things visible from Earth was the sun, planets, asteroids and comets--NO stars (nebula, galaxies or anything else, if I had included them). I was rather puzzled by this, and took a look at what the program code was doing, to see why.

What happens is that the gravitational limit of the sun is about 2.1 light years, based on Larson's calculations. The nearest stars are the Centauri system, with Proximia Centauri being 4.3 light years away, with a gravitational limit of about 0.27 light years, so it is well outside the gravitational limit of our sun. Alpha Centauri, being another G2 star, has about the same gravitational limit of 2.1 light years, but is 4.4 light years away--again, right at or just outside the gravitational limit of our sun (hard to get exact numbers, as actual mass is unknown--only estimated by astronomers).

The gravitational limit defines where the 3D, inward motion of gravitation STOPS (discrete unit postulate), and the outward progression takes over. Objects outside the gravitational limits can therefore have NO INTERACTION with each other, because they are being carried away from each other by the progression (like one raisin in a cake cannot interact with another, as the cake expands while baking). Also, the magnetism carried by the IMF (Interplanetary Magnetic Field) would stop at the gravitational limit, as there would be no particles to interact with past that point to maintain it.

Photons remain fixed at an absolute location in the natural reference system and likewise do not interact with each other, since they do not move scalarly inward or outward. Photons emitted by a star can be carried outward to the gravitational limit, because it is in a 3D, gravitational reference frame. But once they reach the gravitational limit, only the progression of the natural reference system exists, so the photons cannot "hop" between locations to cross that "outward" gap, to reach another star--and because of that, light from other stars cannot reach our solar system or our planet, based on Larson's description.

And with this situation, the nearby stars SHOULD be flying away from us, at the speed of light (the speed of the progression), which they are apparently not doing. Larson attempts to solve this problem in Universe of Motion by coming up with the idea that the mass of the aggregate creates an outer gravitational limit that binds the stars together, using the force of gravitational attraction, where you multiply the masses together to get the net force. I have diagrammed this situation:
GravitationalLimitProblem.png (40.95 KiB) Viewed 12224 times
This solution, though "mathematically correct," is NOT conceptually correct. Any structures outside the gravitational limits CANNOT INTERACT, as they are being carried apart. Therefore, there cannot be any "mass multiplication" to produce a secondary gravitational limit, which in essence, converts the outward progression between stars into an inward, equivalent space motion. To me, that seems like "cheating."

In the diagram, "absolute locations" between stars are indicated by a, b and c. If something that gravitated existed at any of those locations, it would not interact with stars A or B, but start to build a star on its own. Nehru describes this situation in his paper on globular clusters. A gravitating mass AT the gravitational limit, would still be pulled into the star, as there would be a net, inward motion between that mass and the star. If I were to place a photon at "b", it would just sit there, and never get any closer to A or B because it stays at the same, absolute location in the natural reference system...

So why can we see stars in the night sky?

What I have come up with is two possibilities:
1. Light actually moves faster-than-light, so it can overcome the progression and move across the gaps between gravitational limits (seems unlikely).
2. Larson's calculation of the gravitational limit is wrong and it is about twice his calculated value. With that situation, Alpha Centuri and Sol would be sitting right at the gravitational limit of each other, and would achieve a condition of stability for the same reasons that two atoms maintain a stable, chemical relationship, such as Na and Cl in salt. The difficulty here is that you would need to have "positive" and "negative" stars to maintain that chemical equilibrium, which may certainly be the case with A component (red giant) and B component (white dwarf) stars, which act like a positive and negative charge. But the problem with that is when those stellar components rejoin the main sequence and there is no longer an obvious difference between them--then the larger star should consume the smaller, which again, does not appear to be observed, as multiple star systems are common.
I'm looking for some ideas and/or explanations on how to correct this situation. Thanks.
Every dogma has its day...

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

I don't know but I thought

I don't know but I thought about it too.

Miles Mathis came to a conclusion that stars should be invisible too. See here.

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

Twinkle, twinkle, little star

I had not thought about the twinkling of stars, as Mathis describes in his article. It doesn't fix my problem with stars not being seen, but using the RS model (and assuming that photons somehow CAN traverse the outward progression between stars, through equivalent space or something else), the twinkling effect can be easily explained in the Reciprocal System.

As Mathis states, photons are emitted spherically by stars. For practical purposes of viewing here on Earth, you can view them as a plane of photons, setting out across space--photons in a series of parallel "plates." These photon planes pass the gravitational limit and are no longer in 3D extension space--using Larson's model, they are now in 2D equivalent space between the stars. In other words, the 1D linear vibration of the photon has now become a 2D rotational vibration, a "charge" when moving between stars, since equivalent space is a 2nd power relation (rotational) to linear extension space (this give rise to theories like the Electric Universe).

Now what happens when this plane of photons grazes the gravitational limit of another star? It's going to act like a charge field hitting a spherical lens, the lens actually being the coordinate time of the gravitational field. As we observe with light traveling through a medium--it slows down. The light passing closer to the sun will have more "time" to traverse, than photons further out. The result is that this plane hitting the 3D extension space of another star will tend to serialize.

As an analogy, picture a typical racetrack with all the cars starting out in parallel. They all take off at the same velocity and enter the first turn. The car on the "inside track" will emerge first (effect of coordinate space, not time), followed by the next car out, then the next... parallel in, serial out. Now that they've been serialized, they try to pass each other, making them parallel again (localized changes in coordinate time) and enter the next turn and get re-serialized. The net result of this process is that you don't end up with a continuous stream of cars going around the racetrack, but a series of "clumps" of cars, competing for position, or what they call in physics, a wave "bundle" and in the RS, it would be "contiguous in space" and "discontiguous in time." (Same location, but chopped up into bundles.)

So when light arrives on Earth, after it has passed in and out of a number of these gravity bubbles, it is not a continuous stream of photons but a series of wave bundles, bursts of light from the same direction--twinkling. Planets, and anything contained within the gravitational limit of Sol, would not experience this effect and therefore would not twinkle.

If twinkling could be recorded, one could assume from this model that each star would have a unique twinkling pattern, because it's path would be through a distinct series of these gravitational bubbles (given how slow things change, astronomically). Guess I'll have to sit outside on one of these chilly nights and see if I can spot a pattern in the twinlking of a star.
Every dogma has its day...

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

Light speed may differ outside gravitational limit

Actually, it might fix my problem, now that I've been thinking about "twinkling" a bit... at least it offers another option.

We have only observed and measured the properties of photons in a 3D extension space reference frame. We have NOT observed or measured the properties of a photon outside the gravitational limit, which is a single, scalar dimension, a 1D zone (akin to Nehru's nuclear zone, versus the 3D atomic zone inside atoms).

In a 3D environment, the photon can have its vibration in one (or two, in the case of birotation) dimensions and there is still a "free dimension" to carry it at the speed of light on the progression. But that is not the situation outside the gravitational limit, where there is only a single, scalar dimension to express extension space.

What that would infer is that the dimension of vibration must be coincident with the dimension of progression, since there are no free dimensions to split them up. That means the vibration of the photon will add/subtract to the speed of the progression, and between the gravitational limit of stars, the photon does not move at the speed of light!

A HF photon has a net displacement in space, so the photon vibration would add to the progression and HF photons (x, gamma and cosmic rays) will move faster-than-light. LF photons, as in visible light and radio, has its displacement in time, so "same distance, more time" means those photons move slower-than-light. In both situations, the photons DO jump absolute locations in the natural reference system, therefore allowing gravitating objects to run into them, get stuck inside their gravitational limit and begin a normal, photon progression at the speed of light--starlight.

Just an idea at this point, but the consequences are rather interesting--namely, the distance between stars and galaxies may be very, very wrong, since the speed of light is assumed constant. It may be that x-rays are arriving far in advance of visible light and RF signals, which of course, may explain "black holes" -- x-ray emitters that have just "started up" and the x-rays got here long before the visible light is due to arrive.

Particles carried by the progression would do the same thing, for the same reason. Atoms, however, would not as they have no free dimensions and would begin a process of gravitation and accumulation, as Nehru describes in his globular cluster article. (Of course, that really throws a wrench in interstellar travel by spaceship, as you would have to follow the gradient of overlapping gravitational limits. If the ship ended up out where space was progressing outwardly, it would freeze there and become the core of a future star.)
Every dogma has its day...

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

(Of course, that really

(Of course, that really throws a wrench in interstellar travel by spaceship, as you would have to follow the gradient of overlapping gravitational limits. If the ship ended up out where space was progressing outwardly, it would freeze there and become the core of a future star.)

sort of a intersellar "bermuda triangle" , eh

here's a monkey wrench for you

In outer space the Sun is invisible in the visible spectrum (Peter Lindem

Horace
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:40 pm

Far out!  Warp-speed built

Far out! Warp-speed built into the universe at the edge of every gravity bubble.

That twinkling pattern related to constant path through bubbles is worth investigating. I don't even know the frequency components present in the twinkling pattern. Closer stars should have shorter twinkling sequences.

...but how is it that we can see other galaxies?

So how would the solar system look to an unfortunate astronaut that ventured too far away from the sun? e.g. orbits of planets...

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

Twinkling Stars

Time for a reality check. We obviously see something we deem stars and galaxies out to the limits of progression. Has anyone checked with the people who have been outside the atmosphere? My understanding is that stars observably pulse from orbit, but solar wind, normal gas flows in space, etc., all likely have some effect. I have no data If stars pulse at different rates.
Graybeard

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

Warp speed

Far out! Warp-speed built into the universe at the edge of every gravity bubble.
And warp speed (FTL travel in space) is about what you'd need to cross the progression between stars--anything at light speed or under will end up forming the core of a new star!
That twinkling pattern related to constant path through bubbles is worth investigating.
I was watching a few stars the other night and noticed that not all the stars twinkle. The ones that seem to twinkle the most are the A, B and O type stars--the white/blue giants at the end of their life cycle, so there may be some component to the FTL motion in the core generating a more polarized light pattern. The pattern appears irregular, but then it occurred to me that we are also moving through space at 67,000 mph and changing our perspective on the starlight constantly, so there may be all sorts of coordinate time influences from the 2.2 light year trip to Earth from the gravitational limit.
So how would the solar system look to an unfortunate astronaut that ventured too far away from the sun?
I don't think he'd notice much, until he started to near the gravitational limit. Then, I have no idea... probably like flying into the Monolith around Jupiter.
Every dogma has its day...

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

Star Bright; solid stars tonight

We obviously see something we deem stars and galaxies out to the limits of progression.
Well then, there is obviously something wrong with Larson's logic, because light is carried by the progression, and if progression exists between galaxies, light cannot cross it unless something else is going on, as hypothesized above.
Has anyone checked with the people who have been outside the atmosphere?
The first astronauts said that you can see the sun, a couple planets (I believe Mercury and Venus were mentioned), and a few of the nearby, giant stars--but the rest was a black void. Recently, most are saying that no stars are visible without a telescope to zoom in on them, or some kind of special glass on the spacecraft that makes starlight visible. Some even claim the sun is not visible (Eric Dollard), but I don't seem much credence in that argument, as the solar gasses alone would generate a sufficient dispersion effect to make an "area light."
My understanding is that stars observably pulse from orbit, but solar wind, normal gas flows in space, etc., all likely have some effect. I have no data If stars pulse at different rates.
Twinkling stars pulse differently and I've noticed that sometimes they pulse bright and other times, go dark, over some nominal intensity value. I would think that turbulence, either in the atmosphere or in space dust, would cause nearby stars to twinkle the same, but visually that does not appear to be the case.

Out of curiosity, I applied the inter-atomic distance formula to stars, basically treating stars as big atoms. Interesting result--the stars became MUCH closer together, as the formula is logarithmic, not linear. If one were treating the early part of the curve as a straight line and extrapolated using that line, the distances would be considerably larger than what the log would indicate.

A consequence of this approach is that stellar aggregates become bound like heated atoms in a metal--not independent entities and not in a liquid or gaseous state--it's a solid structure with only a minor degree of freedom imposed by the thermal motion. (Nehru had theorized this also, in a dialog with Larson.) Some consequences of this is that it is nigh impossible for stars to collide with each other, as the same forces that keep the atoms in a metal in position will hold the stars in position.

These metallic galaxies then float around in a sea of space, literally, as the inter-galactic relations are more indicative of a liquid state. Extrapolating, I would suspect that the regions between cosmic bubbles is analogous to the vapor or gaseous state. With this approach, there is no "progression" gaps in the system, just various degrees of freedom, based on aggregate thermal motion--so everything is visible.
Every dogma has its day...

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

twinkle, twinkle little planets, asteroid, comets, etc

hi bruce

what to you think of this guy, Bahram Katirai

http://aetherforce.com/how-far-can-the-hubble-see/

the question is "how far can the Hubble see?"

he argues that everything is a lot closer,

galaxies are actually single stars with associated planets, meteors, comets, asteroids, dust clouds, "oort" clouds all appearing to be stars

the Sun is the center of the milky way galaxy and everything we think of as stars, aren't