It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A Revolution in Astronomy.

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 




You will notice, I am on a conspiracy website. That's because I never accept what people tell me without looking deeper for myself...

You sound much like myself CLPrime! I have always been like that, right through school, and college! My electrical engineering teacher couldn't answer some of my questions, he just had to say in the end, "that's the way it is". Those questions still can not be answered, without looking into Teslas work, and Eric Dollard has some interesting information on the 'Net. I digress...

I'm looking for a starting point with distances. How far can Hubble see 'clearly' to something I will accept as having an established distance.
Ceres, Main asteroid belt. 600 Miles Diameter. Distance: approx 240 million miles. Looking at this image, it seems they are pushing the CCD limits, as it appears very blocky, like a camera in digital zoom mode. So we can not 'see' very far before we are relying more on electronics than direct observation.
www.space.com..." target='_blank' class='tabOff'/>
I'm not saying that some of the new technologies are not very clever, but they are subject to the interpretations of the data they collect, by humans and mathematics.


Knowing what I do, Katirai does have a point, but he's ultimately wrong, because his point has already been disproven by more reliable observations (like those I've been referring to... spectral-line classification and whatnot).

The problem here is that it is known from experiment that plasma can distort, stretch, offset, do all kinds of things to the 'light' on its travels. This has come up in discussion on redshift distances. We know there is lots of plasma in space, especially around stars, but also around planets. When plasma interacts with a planets magnetic field, assuming it has one, then we can get all kinds of emissions at many wavelengths. I just can't see how all the uncertainties of the interstellar medium can be taken into account and be able to guarantee that the answers are reliable.
Anyway, being snowed in for a few days over here on Vancouver Island has allowed me to research this quite a bit, but a long way to go before I am convinced of anything.



edit on 27-2-2011 by GaryN because: typo




posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


Fair enough. Redshifting has always been a problem. However, it's very simple to detect a redshift in emission lines. Each element has several locations on the EM spectrum in which it emits light. So, an element doesn't have just one emission line...it has many. And, the arrangement of these lines relative to eachother are unique for each element. Therefore, regardless of how much the emission lines have been shifted, the locations of the lines relative to each other are always the same, and, from this, we can tell what element is being observed without having to account for any red/blueshift beforehand. Then, when we know by the spectral arrangement what element we're seeing, we can say where the lines should be and, from that, calculate how much the lines have been shifted.

Emission lines are really extremely useful in analyzing what we see through our telescopes. It really is an exact science.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


You can see the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2.5 million light years away, with the naked eye (or at least small binoculars if you're in a light-polluted area). It's not the distance that's the factor, but the angular resolution. Big things far away can be seen just as easily as small things nearby. In fact, galaxies that are millions of light years away are so enormous that they appear bigger than, say, the Apollo descent stages on the Moon.



posted on Feb, 27 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by GaryN
 


You can see the Andromeda galaxy, which is 2.5 million light years away, with the naked eye (or at least small binoculars if you're in a light-polluted area). It's not the distance that's the factor, but the angular resolution. Big things far away can be seen just as easily as small things nearby. In fact, galaxies that are millions of light years away are so enormous that they appear bigger than, say, the Apollo descent stages on the Moon.


We DO NOT know it is 2.5 million lightyears away, IMO. The only reason you can see ANY objects in space, from Earth, is because the atmosphere is spreading the light. There are no images taken from space which do not use a diffraction grating to spread the light, otherwise they would see nothing, not even the biggest galaxies.
Even with the equipment they had on the moon, it was only with the high sensitivity UV film and long exposures that they managed to capture any images of 'stars'. You need the depth of our atmosphere to spread the light enough to make the stars visible. And most of the UV images they took from the moon are not available, and no trace of the coronagraph images of our Sun. Here is a coronagraph image of the Earth, and that is Hydrogen glowing, so just because you see a hydrogen signature on a 'star', does not mean it is a star.

www.johnwyoung.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


You post some of the strangest statements I ever seen on the Internet. The atmosphere making the stars more visible by spreading their light? *scratches head* Astronauts in space see stars very well, in fact much better than on earth.

Diffraction grating is used to split light into its spectrum, not to take ordinary photos.

As for calculating distances, I don't see any reason to distrust the good old tried parallax method, or cepheids and supernovae. en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


There are no images of the stars from any of the Apollo missions,or from the ISS. Listen to Armstrong answering Patrick Moore:
video.google.com...#
Doesn't it at least make you wonder? If you read what Katirai says, and he is not alone, then all our distance measurements are based on early parallax measurements which even the mainstream astronomers could not agree on. Since then they have compounded the errors to such a point that we really have no idea what is true. If Katirai is wrong, it should not take more than a couple of statements to disprove him, but you can not rely on the self- referential math that Cosmologists use, to prove your point.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


I'm still amazed that people don't understand why there were no stars in the Apollo mission photos. Here's a site that explains it well: Why The Apollo Moon Pictures Have No Stars.

And anyway, I fail to understand the significance of the absence of stars on the Moon to the reliability of stellar measurements. Why does the absence of stars seen from the Moon indicate that we're wrong about their nature and distance?

Also, I've given you "a couple statements to disprove him." You just seem to be overlooking them - including my answer to your objection to spectral-line classification due to redshifting. If you want me to restate my objections and exactly why they disprove Katirai, I will (afterall, I am, obviously, a rather patient person), but my previous posts should really be able to speak for themselves.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by GaryN
 


I'm still amazed that people don't understand why there were no stars in the Apollo mission photos. Here's a site that explains it well: Why The Apollo Moon Pictures Have No Stars.

And anyway, I fail to understand the significance of the absence of stars on the Moon to the reliability of stellar measurements. Why does the absence of stars seen from the Moon indicate that we're wrong about their nature and distance?

Also, I've given you "a couple statements to disprove him." You just seem to be overlooking them - including my answer to your objection to spectral-line classification due to redshifting. If you want me to restate my objections and exactly why they disprove Katirai, I will (afterall, I am, obviously, a rather patient person), but my previous posts should really be able to speak for themselves.


Well, thanks for your patience CLPrime, and you will need it if I am to answer on your spectral-line points, that is new to me and would take me a while to get up to speed. And yes, this is getting away from addressing Katirai's
contentions. The no stars issue should probably be moved to an existing thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I am also collecting all the info I can about the space mission photography, the history, equipment, film, and exposure settings. I'm not convinced, yet, about the inability to image the stars because of the bright foreground, there are images from Gemini EVAs with very little illumination of the forground, and still no stars in the deep black of space. Plus, all they would have to do is move into the shadow of the capsule and look into space. That has never been done, on and mission, even though they have had some pretty fast film with them.
I'll persue that on the other thread if you like, and get back to distances, just give me some time to catch up on what you are already obviously familiar with.

Oh, and I am NOT a moon landing hoax proponent, BTW. That IS nonsense.



posted on Feb, 28 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by GaryN
 


I'm still amazed that people don't understand why there were no stars in the Apollo mission photos. Here's a site that explains it well: Why The Apollo Moon Pictures Have No Stars.

And anyway, I fail to understand the significance of the absence of stars on the Moon to the reliability of stellar measurements. Why does the absence of stars seen from the Moon indicate that we're wrong about their nature and distance?

Also, I've given you "a couple statements to disprove him." You just seem to be overlooking them - including my answer to your objection to spectral-line classification due to redshifting. If you want me to restate my objections and exactly why they disprove Katirai, I will (afterall, I am, obviously, a rather patient person), but my previous posts should really be able to speak for themselves.


Well, thanks for your patience CLPrime, and you will need it if I am to answer on your spectral-line points, that is new to me and would take me a while to get up to speed. And yes, this is getting away from addressing Katirai's
contentions. The no stars issue should probably be moved to an existing thread.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I am also collecting all the info I can about the space mission photography, the history, equipment, film, and exposure settings. I'm not convinced, yet, about the inability to image the stars because of the bright foreground, there are images from Gemini EVAs with very little illumination of the forground, and still no stars in the deep black of space. Plus, all they would have to do is move into the shadow of the capsule and look into space. That has never been done, on and mission, even though they have had some pretty fast film with them.
I'll persue that on the other thread if you like, and get back to distances, just give me some time to catch up on what you are already obviously familiar with.

Oh, and I am NOT a moon landing hoax proponent, BTW. That IS nonsense.


I will add that, the problem is not with there being a bright foreground. The problem is with the fact that the camera is set to film with a bright foreground. So, whether the foreground is in the shot or not, the camera setting is the same and the stars are not visible.
And I'm very happy to hear that you're not a moon-hoax proponent
I wish I could say the same for my father, but ever since that show on Fox....

And, I will wait for you to get up-to-speed on the spectral-line issue. I'm sure I can find something else to do in the meantime.
edit on 28-2-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace
 


There are no images of the stars from any of the Apollo missions,or from the ISS. Doesn't it at least make you wonder?

No, because I know that stars are very dim and require a long exposure (or specialized light-sensitive camera) to capture. On the Moon, ISS or the Shuttle, surfaces are brightly lit by the Sun, and the camera has to use a short exposure. I imagine that the Apollo guys were never in complete darkness, there must have been some lights illuminating the capsule!

Next time you're out at night and the sky is clear, stand next to a street light and try to spot any stars.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 1-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by wildespace
 


There are no images of the stars from any of the Apollo missions,or from the ISS. Doesn't it at least make you wonder?

No, because I know that stars are very dim and require a long exposure (or specialized light-sensitive camera) to capture. On the Moon, ISS or the Shuttle, surfaces are brightly lit by the Sun, and the camera has to use a short exposure. I imagine that the Apollo guys were never in complete darkness, there must have been some lights illuminating the capsule!

Next time you're out at night and the sky is clear, stand next to a street light and try to spot any stars.
en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 1-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)


Hi Wildespace,



You post some of the strangest statements I ever seen on the Internet.

Why, thank you! I try.



No, because I know that stars are very dim and require a long exposure (or specialized light-sensitive camera) to capture.

So you are saying you can not see stars by eye? That's what I've been saying!



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
So you are saying you can not see stars by eye? That's what I've been saying!

You cannot see stars by eye if your eye is adjusted to brighter light. You can see stars by eye very well when your eyes are fully adjusted to darkness.

What I said about stars requiring a long exposure, I mean photography.
edit on 1-3-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

Just wondering if you had read through all of Bahram Katirais online book? Maybe we could discuss each of his proposals in order, see how our views compare? I'm nowhere near finishing it yet, but so far it seems to make sense, though proof is another matter.
For anyone who hasn't read it, it is available again at
astronomyinformation.org...



posted on Mar, 1 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by CLPrime
 

Just wondering if you had read through all of Bahram Katirais online book? Maybe we could discuss each of his proposals in order, see how our views compare? I'm nowhere near finishing it yet, but so far it seems to make sense, though proof is another matter.
For anyone who hasn't read it, it is available again at
astronomyinformation.org...


I've been busy working on, of all things, a sermon, so I actually only skimmed the first couple pages. I will attempt to read it, though, for the sake of going over it point-by-point, if you want.



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
Okay, here's one objection. Planets and other "rocky" objects do not emit light in specific parts of the spectrum. We can tell what stars are made of by their spectral lines...each gas gives off light in specific parts of the EM spectrum, and this is how we know what stars and other gaseous regions are made up of. Planets, asteroids, and comets emit light in noticeably different regions. Most notably, they have no hydrogen signatures, which are dominant among stars. This means, we always know what we're looking at. There is no possible way to confuse a star with a planet or other rocky object, or vice versa.
edit on 25-2-2011 by CLPrime because: (no reason given)



oook ok and you know this cuz you been to space right?? (:
dude the truth and reallity is that we as normal people dont have a single clue what our solar styem even looks like now even less everything outside of it BECAUSE what we DO know and what we are being taught is being provided by scientific institutions and that are founded BY the GOVERNMENT and as we all agree and know they are not very honest with us.

PLUS 95% of major scientific technology (example: NASA) that leads us to big discoveries about our universe is once again provided by the government and therefore they have the control of what can be revealed to public. OF COURSE theres the 5% minority that has independent tools to make observations and discoveries but they are often ignored BECAUSE we already have an implanted idea of our knowledge about space and such that we attain from "education" that the government provides us. haaa


so unless u've chilled with NASA poeple in a space shuttle in the orbit of space or have one of those billion dollar telescopes then nothin WE or YOU say is credible



posted on Mar, 2 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by notfromthisworld
 


In other words, the government are the baddies and we can't trust them with sience. Right?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 01:03 PM
link   
reply to post by CLPrime
 

@CLPrime



I've been busy working on, of all things, a sermon, so I actually only skimmed the first couple pages. I will attempt to read it, though, for the sake of going over it point-by-point, if you want.


Could you write a Requiem too, for NASA, ESO, all the other false Gods of astronomy?
From Katirais book. Looks like the truth was hijacked quite a while ago.

The Detection of the Rotation of the Galaxies



If galaxies are actually planetary systems, then some of the visible galaxies must be very close to the Earth and have relatively small dimensions. In this case, we should be able to detect the orbital motion of the planets in these galaxies. In other words, the galaxies as a whole must be rotating, and the rotation must be detectable. Was such rotation ever discovered? The answer is yes. In 1899, a Welsh astronomer, Isaac Roberts, discovered that the Andromeda galaxy was rotating.1 The detection of the rotation of the galaxy within a relatively short period of time proves that the galaxy is relatively small. If the galaxy were as huge as some have claimed, it would take hundreds of millions of years to make one rotation and it would be impossible for the photographs to show its rotation in such a relatively short period of time. Later, the reputable astronomer, Adrian van Maanen also announced that he detected the rotation of several galaxies2 and confirmed Roberts’ findings3. Enter Joel Stebbins, who had studied the spectroscopic data on several spirals (including Andromeda), and came to the same conclusion that they were indeed rotating.4 In 1909, an English astronomer, William Huggins, announced that his studies showed that the Andromeda nebula was a planetary system5, similar to our solar system.6 Unfortunately, some prominent astronomers brushed aside these findings, because it did not fit their notion of the sizes and distances of the galaxies. They claimed that the detection of the rotation was impossible, because the detection of the rotation of such large bodies would require rotational velocities far in excess of the speed of light. Since the prominent astronomers could not tolerate a conflict with their ideas about the distances and sizes of the galaxies, one by one they rejected various findings by Roberts, Maanen and others.



edit on 3-3-2011 by GaryN because: Sp.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GaryN
 


I've looked over his claims and I agree with a few others who have commented that his ideas on galaxies being stars are wrong.

HOWEVER - I am digging what he's saying about how far we should be able to realistically see into space.

I'm not seeing anything that can clearly refute his assertions about how far a telescope should be able to see and about why parallax calculation assumptions could be wrong.

Of course, in an electric universe, his assertions fit quite well. The extremely high red shift quasars we see are not really far away from us at all, they are fairly near by in relative terms. As are the stars that surround us.

So while I agree he's wrong about galactic distances and about galaxies being stars, his point that everything we see in space is far closer than is currently assumed is spot on.



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Would it scare you too much if, after careful consideration, I told you that, for the most part, I agree with you?



posted on Mar, 3 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Would it scare you too much if, after careful consideration, I told you that, for the most part, I agree with you?

Not at all! I just want to get to the truth, as many on ATS do. We have been sold so much bunkum by those who control so much of the Sciences (and the Media), and there has been no way to disprove them. The Internet now allows us to collaborate, trade ideas, information and sources. I'm not looking for fame or fortune in anything I do, just don't like thinking I've had the wool pulled over my eyes.
Where Katirai does fall down is his lack of knowledge of the Electrical/Plasma nature of things, but I am working on an extension of his work that just plugs right in, it explains the formation of what must be billions of objects in the Oort sphere, and is based on plasma experiments and electric and magnetic fields. It makes for the full picture.
Also, I am looking for technical advice on setting up an experiment to test if Sirius A is a star or planet, as if it is a planet we should be able to use solar disturbances, flares, xray bursts, etc, to see that variability on Sirius. If it is a star, then the light reaching it will be obliterated, and there will be no reflection. Of course, we might have to wait 16 years for the round trip, so I might have pegged out by then!



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join