It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wildespace
Just a though: since when did science become to be controlled, as claimed by many people here? Does it mean we have to discard all the scientific knowledge we'e accumulated over the past decades or even hundreds of years? Are Newton's laws, Relativity, quantum mechanics, all wrong? Does science only belong to rogue scientists who can only spread their findings through books and websites and hope that people will agree?
Are Newton's laws, Relativity, quantum mechanics, all wrong?
Studying the history of astronomy, one finds that ancient
astronomers thought all luminous objects in the sky were stars,
except for the sun and the moon. Later, some were renamed planets,
meaning „wandering stars‟, after it was observed that they
demonstrated movement. Although today astronomers can easily
distinguish planets that are very close to us from stars, almost
nothing has changed for distant planets except that in 2006, a few
distant objects thought to be stars, were taken from the list of stars
and added to the list of planetoids or planets after noticing a change
in their position.
“Pluto doesn‟t stand out very well against the
background of stars. It is detectable as a planet only by
its very slow motion with respect to the stars.” 8
According to astronomers, the
colour of a star is an indication of its temperature:
Consider the claims that the colour blue indicates a
very hot star. We know that Uranus has a blue colour. It is therefore
certain that planets can be blue.
If we examine the light of all celestial objects having a blue
colour, we see that they are always dull, meaning they do not shine
If one looks at the objects in a star cluster (see figure 5), one
sees that blue objects in comparison to orange objects of the same
size are very faint. (Astronomers generally agree that the distances
of all objects in a star cluster are more or less the same.)
“Infrared radiation is emitted by any object that has a
temperature (ie radiates heat). So, basically all celestial
objects emit some infrared. The wavelength at which an
object radiates most intensely depends on its temperature.13
However, when astronomers mapped the sky and determined the
infrared radiation from the blue and allegedly hot stars in the
neighbourhood of the sun they were surprised and puzzled to learn that all these objects were not hot at all14.
Unfortunately, instead of examining the possibility that these
blue and cold objects could be planets instead of hot stars,
astronomers twisted the fundamental law of physics and invented a
new and imaginary idea. They speculated that the reason these
objects do not emit any heat radiation is because these objects are
extremely hot and therefore emit most of their energy in ultraviolet
Harvard Professor Edward C. Pickering, the leading
astronomer of his time, lettered the stars according to the strength of
their hydrogen spectral lines. It was he who realized that all objects
in the Milky Way had spectra very different from the sun.
He found that stars that resemble the sun in character are distributed with near uniformity over the surface of the sky.
In other words, his research showed that the
spectrum of the sun among all the objects in the Milky Way is
Some speculate that many binaries
are comprised of two stars circling one another. By studying the
period of orbit of many binaries, it was found that many of them are
very short. Some complete their orbit in a few hours, some less than
I haven't started any fact checking but I suspect I will found that all evidence presented is accurate. This seems to be some exceptionally well thought out reasoning. After the second time reading this information, the argument for Bahram Katirai's theories is even stronger. I would like to hear any reasons for not taking this evidence seriously as a strong challenge in our current model of the universe. My biggest question is to wonder how far away could a planet reflecting the light of the sun could be seen. If tiny Sedona can be seen as far away as it is, how much further could a planet the size of Jupiter be seen. How much luminosity would these clouds produce?
I think the answer would be in what produces UV emission. Could planets produce high UV emissions? Does UV travel better through space?
It seems that the only, possible validation that blue bodies are stars is their emission of UV radiation.