Astronomy v2

Discussion of the astronomical and cosmological aspects of a universe of motion.
Post Reply
User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Astronomy v2

Post by bperet » Tue Apr 24, 2018 12:04 pm

The more I compare the structure and motion of planetary bodies to that of atoms and molecules, I find that there may be some serious problems with the way we conventionally look at astronomy.

The conventions are:
  1. Space is the same "out there" as it is, here on the surface of the planet.
  2. All of space is in the low, 1-x speed range of 3D space and clock time.
  3. Everything moves by vectors.
  4. Orbits are dumb luck, with a planet's orbital velocity exactly cancelling the pull of gravity. (One would think the impact of a big meteor would be enough to knock a planet out of orbit.)
One of the big discoveries of the RS is that of motion... space can move through time, and time through space, but not space through space, nor time through time. Astronomy, in its current form, violates these principles.

If we start with what we know, the environment surrounding us, we find we exist in a 3D spatial, coordinate reference system, scaled by clock time. This is Larson's "low speed" (1-x) speed range. We also know that the "pull of gravity" (actually push of scalar expansion) has a discrete limit to its action--the gravitational limit. For Earth, it is located just outside the orbit of the Moon. Going beyond the gravitational limit takes us out of 3D space and into what Larson calls the "scalar zone" of 2D, equivalent space.

Consider what that means... equivalent space is energy, not speed, and is expressing how time effects space. That infers that the region past the gravitational limit is TIME, not space, which makes perfect sense if you consider it in RS terms... Earth is 3D space, beyond Earth is 3D time. The relation of space to time constitutes motion, so the Earth can move freely in orbit. If "space" was space, and Earth was space, we would be locked into position.

From this, we can deduce that the sun is actually cosmic in nature--not material--with a 3D temporal coordinate system extending out to its gravitational limit. The hard, inner planets are 3D spatial coordinate systems moving in this 3D, temporal field of the sun. Essentially, the inner planets are the inverse of the sun... analogous to "white dwarf" fragments. Houston, we have motion.

There is a distinct difference between the hard, inner planets and the soft, gaseous outer ones. Why?

Let us continue the analogy and make the assumption that the gravitational limit is NOT at the 2.2 light year value that Larson calculated (based on relations to the Centauri group), but is at the asteroid belt. This means that the "inverse low speed range" of the sun will flip to equivalent time--how space affects time--past the asteroid belt, causing an inversion of structure. If that is the situation, we would expect to see the outer planets as the inverse of the inner ones, with a similar character to the sun. And that is exactly the situation. The primary elements we see on the sun are hydrogen and helium. Same for the outer planets. The sun is basically gaseous, same for the outer planets. The sun is a polar X-ray emitter, same as the outer planets. The structure of Jupiter's moons and rings exactly mimics the structure of the solar system, with equatorial moons, a ring (asteroid belt) and spherically-distributed smaller moons, way out (Oort cloud). Same structure, different scale.

This infers that the outer, "gaseous" planets are not planets, at all, but mini-stars, with the "hard planets" around these mini-stars being the moons.

If one examines the exoplanet database, it contains some ridiculous orbital data... planets, purportedly being in orbits at the distance of Venus and Earth, swinging around these stars in a few days. The orbital velocities are ludicrous--one would think the planet would rip itself apart at those speeds.

BUT... if we take Jupiter as a "mini solar system" we find it is roughly 10% of the actual solar system. When you take these exoplanets and scale the "stars" down by a factor of 10 to Jupiter-sized mini-stars, and the "planets" to moons... well, virtually every one matches an existing orbit of a moon around a gas giant in our solar system. Surprise. Exoplanets are exomoons around "gas giant" planets--not stars.

Since a mini-star should behave exactly as a regular star, Larson's stellar evolutionary sequence (the reverse of conventional astronomy) should also apply, where evolution proceeds from red supergiants, to orange, yellow, white, blue-white, blue, then a supernova. The older the star, the more towards blue it is.

In the RS, the solar system was formed as a byproduct of a supernova explosion, where the "B substance" failed to form a binary pair and instead formed a number of planets. The material furthest out from the center of mass would condense the fastest, because it is "coldest" -- heat tends to prevent things from coming together. That would mean that Neptune is the "oldest" of the planets in the system, forming first. And curiously enough--it happens to be blue. Uranus would be next, a lighter blue. Saturn appears yellow in the sky, much like our own sun. And then Jupiter, with its orange-reddish tint. The SAME evolutionary sequence as stellar evolution in the Reciprocal System.

This analysis has a number of mind-blowing "natural consequences," particularly if you are an astronomer... such as the starfield, when scaled down appropriately, IS the "Oort cloud" and not very far away. And as discussed in other topics, what we call "galaxies" are newly-forming solar systems, rather close to our own. Quasars, scaled down, become the actual "stars" and "quasar galaxies" become the regular galaxies.

The Reciprocal System is based on "scalar" motion--same rules, different scales. This infers that molecules will have similar properties to the solar system, and the "stellar neighborhood" may actually behave just like a complex molecule.

Gopi and I are now working on factoring the system to find a set of equations that are "scale invariant" -- the same equation will work to bond hydrogen to oxygen, or the Moon to the Earth. It is proving to be quite interesting... thoughts and contributions welcome, as this is thinking that is WAY "outside the box" and I find myself constantly having to challenge predetermined notions that I have been taught were true--and probably are not.
Every dogma has its day...

Djchrismac
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:14 pm

Re: Astronomy v2

Post by Djchrismac » Fri Apr 27, 2018 6:29 am

Fascinating, thanks for the detailed update!

It certainly does seem like absolutely everything is scalar and fractal in nature so once we can match what is happening in one scale (micro/ atoms or macro/astronomy) it should be easy enough (famous last words) to apply this and cascade up or down the way.

Looking at mainstream solutions such as Electronegativity doesn't provide any clues as all mainstream info is based on the current, incorrect models. Is it something to do with rotation that is creating a positive/nagative charge to then create bonds and orbits? How does magnetism factor in to the model, is it the rotation one way or another that creates this or is it a result of space and time interacting and a sheer between outward in space and inward in time? Maybe your lightning and weather research will provide clues?

Thinking of space outwith the gravitational limit as "time" certainly is a big game changer, is there a way you can create a model or simulation and build this up from the basics, based on what we currently know? You had an RS2 space simulation built ages ago if I recall correctly, could it be used and expanded upon based on this new information? Playing around with a simulation before equations might help you see what is missing, find possible solutions then apply the mathematics to see if it is true or not.

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Solar System

Post by bperet » Fri Apr 27, 2018 1:26 pm

Here is what the "solar system" looks like, by distribution of bodies.

Note that it is identical to the Jupiter and Saturn systems, where the "Oort Cloud" are the small moons that spherically surround the planets.
.
images_articles_oort-cloud.jpg
images_articles_oort-cloud.jpg (46.21 KiB) Viewed 697 times
Every dogma has its day...

User avatar
bperet
Posts: 1407
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2004 1:43 am
Location: 7.5.3.84.70.24.606
Contact:

Assumptions

Post by bperet » Sat Apr 28, 2018 10:08 am

What I am finding with astronomy is basically a self-reinforced delusion... everything is built from a few, simple assumptions that were taken as fact.

These days, the moon is considered less dense than Earth:
https://www.universetoday.com/20601/density-of-the-moon/ wrote:The low density of the Moon [ 3.346 g/cm3] means that it has less mass, and less gravity. If you ever get a chance to stand on the Moon, you’ll see that its gravity is only 16.5% the gravity of Earth. In other words, if you weight 100 kg on Earth, you would only weigh 16.5 kg on the Moon.
BUT, if you go back a few centuries...
http://www.dioi.org/kn/halleyhollow.htm wrote:Whiston’s Astronomical lectures of 1715 endorsed Newton’s ultra-dense Moon, citing its mean density as 1.8 times that of the Earth.
--W. Whiston’s Astronomical lectures (London, 1715, 1728) gave the relative densities as: Sun 1.00, Earth 3.87, Moon 7.00 (Frontispiece). This Frontispiece did not appear in the original Latin edition of this work, Praelectiones astronomicae (Cambridge, 1707).
Now how is this derived?
https://www.quora.com/How-does-one-calculate-a-planets-density wrote:The volume of the planet is measured from the diameter with powerful telescopes.
The mass of the planet can be determined from the orbital period of its moons.
The diameter is calculated by the distance to the planet and the size of the arc the planet fills. Distance assumes the entire solar system is just empty, 3D coordinate space--no gravitational limit. An error in distance changes ALL the resulting planetary data, mass, density, orbital velocity... then they go back and create "universal constants" as fudge factors to make the equations work between planets, which eventually falls back to the sun--used as a counterweight to balance the system. All observations made on planetary bodies that do not fit the resulting model (and there are a LOT of them) are discarded.

This is quite different from Larson's approach of "postulate" with "natural consequence" to match observation.

When you dig deep enough, there is actually very little we actually know about the things in the sky...
  1. The solid angle of the body being observed through a telescope--NOT its diameter. Diameter is calculated by assumed distance, as the solid angle is a cone that gets larger with distance.
  2. The location of the body (right ascension, declination), as viewed from Earth.
  3. The path of the body in the sky, as viewed from Earth.
I am not using satellite data, simply because I know how much "science" is actually political and agencies like NASA have been caught too many times with their "mouse in the Photoshop bucket."

The ancient Greeks came up with a clever way to measure the distance to the moon, based on observation... take a ball, like a soccer ball or basketball, put it on a pole and then cast its shadow on a board. Step back until the shadow disappears (the vertex of the cone of the shadow), where the sun will be exactly blocked out if you place your eye at that point. One will find that the shadow is consistently 108 "balls" long, regardless of the size of the ball (a popular religious number, particularly in Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism, also 2233). During a lunar eclipse, the moon moves into the shadow of the Earth, meaning it has to be within "108 Earths" away--but one it could still be something small and close, or large and further out. To solve that, they added in solar eclipse, where the shadow of the moon passed over the Earth. Timing each event from edge-to-edge gave them a distance and diameter for the moon, based on the diameter of the Earth. Pretty clever stuff. (I would like to see how Gopi's eclipse research would validate or invalidate this.)

The Earth's diameter was originally calculated by the shadows cast down town wells, one directly north of the other at a known distance. The sun's rays were assumed to be parallel, so the difference in shadow angles would give a tiny arc of a sphere, which was then extrapolated to a circumference and a diameter derived.

This comes back to making local measurements from astronomical data--not accounting for the "changes in space" from objects outside the gravitational limit of Earth. And our entire system of measurement is based on that... so "units of distance" are not absolutes, but ratios of these values that have been standardized (just like the speed of light is now a fixed value, because it kept changing on them over the centuries). The problem with standardization is that we live in a universe of motion, where things keep changing.

Now, if you are an "uncommitted investigator" not out for research grants, then the first thing you should do is ask yourself, "what might be wrong with this picture?" All the difficulty I initially had in understanding Larson's work was that it violated many of the assumptions I held true--taught by the experts that write schoolbooks. I had to break those assumptions and think for myself. So, what assumptions have gone into these things that may not be true, based on what you know about the RS universe? The big one, mentioned earlier, is that conventional science has no concept of a gravitational limit and hence "space" is always 3-dimensional and homogeneous. Another, which I started this post with, is that the density of the moon went from "more than Earth" to "less than Earth" in less than a century (thanks to Newton, to support the 2nd edition of his Principia). The reason a shadow is conical, rather than cylindrical (if the sun were a point source, casting parallel rays) is that light bends near to its surface--the amount of bending depending on the density of the object. This means the solar eclipse data could be very wrong.

There are lots of assumptions in conventional science that are never revealed... discovering what is assumed to be true is always a good place to start, in an investigation.
Every dogma has its day...

Post Reply