A Revolution in Astronomy.

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?

Here is a pdf version of the ebook, hosted from Google:

sites.google.com...

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?

Since when? Well, how about the destruction of the library at Alexandria? I have seen it estimated that we would have been 1000 years ahead of where we are now, if that information were available. And what is the Vatican hiding in its catacombs? Conspiracy theory yes, but it seems that the great powers have done their best to prevent the rest of us learning anything other than what we need to know to be good workers, slaves even.

Are Newton's laws, Relativity, quantum mechanics, all wrong?

That's what I'm hoping we can figure out!

reply to post by wildespace


haa exactly my friend we didnt need governments way of teaching to be really advanced in intelligence look at the mayans they were amazing astronomers and the egyptians outstanding mathematicians all using just natural knowledge ha

I read through the google book link provided by mnemeth1 on Bahram Katirai's theories, and I think he makes an amazing argument, but then again, I have never looked into the science behind determining the distance to the stars, or how stars are identified. After reading through the google book, I looked up this thread, and would like to discuss what he presents, because if there is any level of truth, then this completely changes our understanding of the universe.

The problems with the parallaxes technique of determining distances to the stars has already been covered.

It is the information on the brightness of many stars, and their complete lack of infrared illumination that gives Katirai's argument quite a bit of traction.

sites.google.com...

Starting on page 16

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
like stars.

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
light.

Now all this information that is presented is backed by sources. The question then becomes, it is reasonable to believe that the heat produced by blue stars, which are supposed to be hotter than our sun, and of course hotter then red stars, only is emitted in the Ultra violet spectrum?

Katirai then goes on to discuss several other methods for determining the difference between stars and planets, and in each case, huge numbers of supposed stars fail to demonstrate characteristic by which they could be identified as stars.

One method is Spectrum analysis.

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
unique.16

He also noted that the bodies of the milky way had considerable dark spots across their light spectrum and where mostly contained in clusters.

The milky way also fails the test of using radio waves to identify the bodies as stars.

Another reason many supposed stars could actually be planets much close to our Sun is that these bodies nearer to the sun move faster than bodies further away.

Then there is the situation of binary stars.

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
an hour.

How can these enormous stars be moving that fast?

This is just a small sample of the evidence that is presented.

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?

An interesting point is that even though these problems with current theory on of the numbers and distances of stars has been known for quite some time, no effort has been made to investigate these problems with current theories. Instead, the solution has been to add more and more exotic theories.

reply to post by poet1b

Hi poet1b,

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'm glad you had a good look at the book, and a second look too. Yes, what he is saying makes sense, so I have been fact checking, and so far I have seen nothing to disprove his ideas. He certainly is a good thinker, something that's missing with a lot of todays scientists, they parrot what they have been programmed to believe by Mainstream education. They are told what to think and not how to think.
The light we see from the 'stars' is not reflected light, IMO. What we are seeing is the far UV emissions of a charged hydrogen shell above the surface of the object. The UV emissions are thus traveling as a quasi-planewave until they reach the Earths atmosphere, at which time they are converted to the visible light we see.
Where Katirai falls short is in his lack of knowledge of the mainly electrical nature of what is going on out there. The planets have electrical charge shells around them, and as Hydrogen is the most abundant element out there, will have the strongest emissions. Scientists see Hydrogen emissions and think it must be a Sun, when that does not follow.
Presently I am trying to find out if we can see 'stars' from above the earths atmosphere, or from the surface of a body with no atmosphere, or even from above most of Earths atmosphere. This is important to me, as if all the action is taking place in the UV, far UV, X-ray ranges, and is traveling as a quasi-planewave, we will not be able to 'see' that energy without an atmosphere, or by the use of diffraction gratings and other tricks. This is how all space based telescopes work, they can not see very far at all in the visible spectrum, but use a lot of technology to allow us to see their digitally processed version of what they believe is out there.
I look forward to collaborating with anyone who is interested in showing just where todays scientists are mistaken about the nature of the Cosmos.

reply to post by GaryN


Thanks for the reply.

It seems that the only, possible validation that blue bodies are stars is their emission of UV radiation.

I have done a little research so far, but only came up with the basics. UV has a shorter wave length, so a higher frequency, than visible light.

Infrared, which is radiation put out by heat, has a longer wavelength than visible light, and so a lower frequency.

I associate wave length with force. The longer wave length translates to larger force pushing and pulling. The logic being that larger forces can not reverse direction as quickly and easily as with smaller forces. Bigger strings put out lower frequency. Smaller bodies higher frequency?

I still see nothing in the correlation of heat or temperature with UV. I see claims that UV is a higher energy form of radiation, but I suspect that this isn't exactly true. Clearly UV has a great deal more health concerns, but that mainly seems to be as a result of the chemical change the higher frequency produces. UV is much more easily blocked than visible light or infrared. Heat clearly has considerable penetration capability, so would it be fair to say that infrared has considerable penetration capability, so I would think that infrared translates to higher energy.

I think the answer would be in what produces UV emission. Could planets produce high UV emissions? Does UV travel better through space?

Then there is the bigger concept, how much UV could be produced by electrical energy?

As you point out, how much influence does difference in potential have across the vacuum of space.

Does the energy of space function like a gigantic cathode ray tube? Maybe the magnetic characteristics of our planet attracts the UV, causing the UV radiation levels to be over estimated?

Maybe all those blue bodies are much smaller, not planets, nor stars, but something different, which would prove Katirai's theory that we have greatly over estimated the distances we are seeing into space.

reply to post by poet1b

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.

This is an image of the Earth taken by the UV imaging device they used on the Apollo 16 mission.
It has been color enhanced to show the density of emissions. So, if there are UV emissions from
the Sun facing side of all the planets, then scientists may be not seeing Suns. Also, if a planet were
to be occluded by a moon or another planet, it could be mistakenly classed as a Variable, one of the
keystones that much of present astronomy is based on.
As far as how the light travels, it might be worth a look at this page:
www.blazelabs.com...