A Revolution in Astronomy.

Anyone who questions the current state of Astronomy should read
this free document from Bahram Katirai. He shows how Astronomers
have created a view of our place in the Universe by a series of
measurement of distance errors, estimates and assumptions, to create
a totally false picture of the size and content of our surroundings.
Many objects we are told are stars, are actually planets, and they
are much closer than we think. Download the rar file and take a
good look.
I challenge anyone to read this and disprove his theory. He may not
be correct on everything, but I believe that the errors of measurement
of stellar distances has created a monster that needs slaying.
astronomyinformation.org...
Get the rar file fomthis link:
astronomyinformation.org...

Interesting idea. Way over my head, but worth consideration.
Let's see what other people (more knowledgeable than me in this area) have to say.

I imagine this is just a typo but he repeatedly states the luminosity of the sun is equal to 3.83 * 1026 Watts, which is ridiculously off, the correct statement is 3.83 * 10^26 W

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.

reply to post by CLPrime


I'd like to start with our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, as an example. Hubble can not even get an image good enough to convince me it is a star. Can we see any surface detail? Does it have a particular hydrogen signature?
It is identified by a color profile, but planets have colors too.
I'm still going over the document myself, so it was the distance calculations I started off questioning. It all seems to have started off with parallax measurements, which are so questionable that even many early astronomers didn't accept them, or came up with wildly differing distances. If everything since then is based on faulty first measurements, then nothing can be trusted. Miles Mathis has estimated that based on the compounding of numerous errors, the size of the Universe could be out by 180,000%
I suppose really, I'm trying to disprove him, which should be easy shouldn't it? I'd appreciate hearing why he is wrong, so I can discuss this with others, as I am not an astronomer. I'll start with the hydrogen signature.
Thanks.

How ironic!

Bandwidth Limit Exceeded

The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

Every so often someone comes around trying to disprove accepted scientific data analyses with some idea of a vision that millions have supposedly overlooked throughout history. I immediately tend to side with peer review, and tend to point out the lone dissenter as a cry for attention, or delusional dream state one needs to wake up from. "It's all wrong people I tell you! science is just a theory!"

When people tell me that science is just a theory I tell them the bomb works.

With not being able to view your links I have found some info.
To be honest it sounds more like woo-woo than anything else.

> Galaxies are not systems made up of billions of stars, but rather
> planetary systems with only one star at their center. The Milky Way is
> also a planetary system with its center being the sun. Although dozens of
> studies in the 19th and early 20th century have consistently indicated
> that the sun is located at the center of the Milky Way, it appears that no
> one has suspected the sun to be the center of the Milky Way, with all
> objects in the Milky Way reflecting the light of the sun.
> Astronomers not being able to find a bright center for the Milky Way had
> no choice but to accept H. Shapley’s idea that the center of the Milky
> Way, somehow, must be completely hidden behind clouds of dust and gas,
> located tens of thousands of light years from the sun

tech.groups.yahoo.com...

This one is rich;

Contrary to the general belief that a large telescope enables us to see stars millions of times farther than the naked eye can see, a large telescope such as the Hubble that collects 127,000 times more light than the naked eye, enables us to see only 357 times farther than the naked eye.

Where does he come up with 357 from?!??!!

Originally posted by GaryN
reply to post by CLPrime

 

I'd like to start with our nearest star, Proxima Centauri, as an example. Hubble can not even get an image good enough to convince me it is a star. Can we see any surface detail? Does it have a particular hydrogen signature?
It is identified by a color profile, but planets have colors too.
I'm still going over the document myself, so it was the distance calculations I started off questioning. It all seems to have started off with parallax measurements, which are so questionable that even many early astronomers didn't accept them, or came up with wildly differing distances. If everything since then is based on faulty first measurements, then nothing can be trusted. Miles Mathis has estimated that based on the compounding of numerous errors, the size of the Universe could be out by 180,000%
I suppose really, I'm trying to disprove him, which should be easy shouldn't it? I'd appreciate hearing why he is wrong, so I can discuss this with others, as I am not an astronomer. I'll start with the hydrogen signature.
Thanks.

Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf star. From it, we can detect unique emission-lines with hydrogen and, especially, helium signatures. The low levels of helium indicate that nuclear fusion is slow, which identifies it as a dwarf star. The range of its visible light, then, classifies it as a red dwarf, as it lies at the red end of the spectrum, optically, and has very low luminosity (in fact, it's too faint to be seen without a telescope). All of this helps identify it as a red dwarf, but that's not all. There's also the fact that it flares every once in a while, temporarily increasing its luminosity. And ignore Hubble... Proxima Centauri is very visible in X-ray telescopes, because that's where it's most active.
All of this is indicative of a star. In fact, a red dwarf star. And none of those would be applicable to a planet. No planet has hydrogen and helium emission spectra. No planet gives visible flaring in the X-ray range. Proxima Centauri is not a planet. It's a red dwarf star.

Soooo NASA WAS/IS/WILL LYING/LIE US?
damm , I knew it...

reply to post by Illustronic

The mathematics for such calculations is beyond me. I am hoping that Miles Mathis will have time to look into this, he is the only one I could think of who might figure it out. It would be interesting to come up with an experiment to 'replicate' the accepted size, luminosity, color, whatever, of a given star, and why not start with the closest, and calculate how far it could be seen from. This observation would have to be made from space though, or the moon or planet with no atmosphere, as on earth the atmosphere spreads the stars radiation.
The only astronomy done from the moon, that I could find, is in the UV. They needed ASA 16,000 film, a filter or two, and long time exposures.
www3.telus.net...
In Search of Ancient Astronomy Images
www3.telus.net...
And Hubble isn't so much a telescope anymore, as a tricked-out photomultiplier. Once you start using any instrumentation that could introduce 'noise', and have to start tweaking dials to produce what you believe is out there, my suspicions are raised.
I am not saying his theories are correct, but neither am I convinced that what we are being told by NASA is correct, so I'm trying to collect the appropriate evidence to determine who is the closest.

Originally posted by Illustronic
This one is rich;

Contrary to the general belief that a large telescope enables us to see stars millions of times farther than the naked eye can see, a large telescope such as the Hubble that collects 127,000 times more light than the naked eye, enables us to see only 357 times farther than the naked eye.

Where does he come up with 357 from?!??!!

357 (well...356.37) is the square-root of 127,000. He gets this by using the inverse-square law, which says, in this case, that luminosity decreases with the square of distance. So, if something collects 127,000 times as much light as the naked eye, then it should be able to see things 1/127,000 as luminous. This means, using the inverse-square law, that the difference in distance should be the square-root of the increase in luminosity. This gives a distance of 357 times further than the naked eye can see.

This? www.physics.smu.edu...

He believes in ether. Quote: "The bright tail of a comet moving in ether is a phenomenon similar to
the tail-wave of a fast-moving motorboat in water." - except the fact that the tail always points away from the Sun, which sometimes means pointing in the direction the comet travels in!

Woo-woo.

P.S. for your reading pleasure: home.ipoline.com...

Originally posted by wildespace
This? www.physics.smu.edu...

He believes in ether. Quote: "The bright tail of a comet moving in ether is a phenomenon similar to
the tail-wave of a fast-moving motorboat in water." - except the fact that the tail always points away from the Sun, which sometimes means pointing in the direction the comet travels in!

Woo-woo.

P.S. for your reading pleasure: home.ipoline.com...

edit on 26-2-2011 by wildespace because: (no reason given)

Thanks for those links wildespace, I have not looked at his earlier work, but because he
believes in an ether does not mean other of his ideas are crazy by default. That's like
saying that a guy is crazy because he believes United and not City will win the cup!
There are many scientists who have been correct with one idea, and dead wrong on
another.
The ether is kind of off-topic, but seeing as you brought it up, this might be worth your
reading, have to keep those brain cells busy or they go stale.
Tesla and Einstein Were Both Right
milesmathis.com...

reply to post by GaryN


I'm glad you found the time to reply to the person who agrees with you and Katirai's conclusions, but I would also appreciate a reply to my objection. If you don't mind.

To the person who said we havent even seen a picture of proxima centauri that even identifies it as a star, proxima centauri has been identified as star through the methods CLprime stated earlier. But this is in response to the picture part, although we dont have a discernible enough picture of proxima centauri, we do have one of alpha centauri A, and sirius

Here is sirius



Here is alpha centauri A



just for kicks here is alpha centauri A and B

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by GaryN

 

I'm glad you found the time to reply to the person who agrees with you and Katirai's conclusions, but I would also appreciate a reply to my objection. If you don't mind.

Appologies CLPrime, but I am still trying to figure it out myself! I was not satisfied with Bahram Katirai's experiment setup, so I asked on some other boards if someone could devise such an experiment, but no answers as yet. As I said previously, I am not an astronomer, I am a electrical/electronics technician, with an interest in learning more about the Cosmos. Resolving power, angular resolution, aberration, diffusion, wavelengths, there is a lot to learn, and up to now I have just believed what I was told by the Astronomers. When I read something that disputes the accepted figures, I like to try and see where the discrepancy comes in, but I fear this may take me a lifetime! I was hoping someone could design the experiment, I would trust an experiment more that reams of equations, or maybe it's because I am algebraically challenged? So, can't give you a quick reply, but always willing to look at all opinions.

Originally posted by TheDebunkMachine
To the person who said we havent even seen a picture of proxima centauri that even identifies it as a star, proxima centauri has been identified as star through the methods CLprime stated earlier. But this is in response to the picture part, although we dont have a discernible enough picture of proxima centauri, we do have one of alpha centauri A, and sirius

Here is sirius



Here is alpha centauri A



just for kicks here is alpha centauri A and B

Are you serious with sirius? If I point my digital camera at Venus I can get the same thing.
Centauri A is pretty, but how was it imaged? It seems that it could be an overexposed image of a planet, and the colored rings around it might equate to seeing a charge field density in UV around a charged
sphere. The third one. Again, they could be digital enhancements, and as the background and light points are so bright, this is a very long exposure. The colors are not real, they are digitally processed representations of whatever data they could retrieve. What I am getting at is that we can not see a corona, solar flares, or anything that tells me these are stars, at such relatively close distance. So how can you tell me waht those things are that are supposedly millions of light years away?
Is there any way we can detect magnetic fields at those distances? If they are stars they should have them, and we can see the fields around quasars at supposedly far further distances.
Interesting stuff, I'm not convinced of anything yet though.

Here is Earth, from the moon, showing the charged layers produced by the Sun. We are not seeing it head-on, otherwise it would have been all one color with a halo around it. The red, higher charged side is towards our Sun.

Nice photo of Proxima: apod.nasa.gov...
I don't think a planet could be so red and yet so luminous.

Originally posted by GaryN

Originally posted by CLPrime
reply to post by GaryN

 

I'm glad you found the time to reply to the person who agrees with you and Katirai's conclusions, but I would also appreciate a reply to my objection. If you don't mind.

Appologies CLPrime, but I am still trying to figure it out myself! I was not satisfied with Bahram Katirai's experiment setup, so I asked on some other boards if someone could devise such an experiment, but no answers as yet. As I said previously, I am not an astronomer, I am a electrical/electronics technician, with an interest in learning more about the Cosmos. Resolving power, angular resolution, aberration, diffusion, wavelengths, there is a lot to learn, and up to now I have just believed what I was told by the Astronomers. When I read something that disputes the accepted figures, I like to try and see where the discrepancy comes in, but I fear this may take me a lifetime! I was hoping someone could design the experiment, I would trust an experiment more that reams of equations, or maybe it's because I am algebraically challenged?

So, can't give you a quick reply, but always willing to look at all opinions.

That's fine...I understand. Just making sure you're being fair.

If it helps, I am well-versed in astrophysics and cosmology, and I know the evidence to the best of my ability. Based on the evidence I have, I agree, for the most part, with the conclusions of the professional astronomers and astrophysicists. You will notice, I am on a conspiracy website. That's because I never accept what people tell me without looking deeper for myself... I never have, and I never will. When my fiancée's father would tell her not to sit on the cold ground because she might get some illness from it, I wasn't believing it until I looked up the facts myself. Needless to say, he's wrong, but I would never believe one way or the other without knowing enough to form an opinion of my own. I research everything. That goes for all things from politics to the sciences. As far as politics is concerned, I'm not involved in the political scene, so I speculate like everyone else, using the evidence I have as a member of the public. But, as an aspiring physicist, I do have more of a working knowledge of the behind-the-scenes of astrophysics and the observations they have made, and I am able to form a sufficiently educated opinion based on that. In this case, and in an usual instance, Katirai does have a valid point. However, it is not a point that astronomers have not already dealt with and moved on from. For the reasons I stated, and for other reasons as well, we know what stars are, we know what planets are... when we look at anything out in space, we know what we're looking at. There's no guesswork involved. The guesswork comes in when we start trying to tell how far away those things are, but, even then, there are limits. For example, one you know that Proxima Centauri is a red dwarf star, you know what its range of absolute magnitude should be. From that, you know how far away it would have to be to give the observed apparent magnitude. This puts a lower limit on how near Proxima Centauri can be. We can then use that to determine how accurate our measures of parallax are. It turns out, parallax is a very accurate measure of distance. So are the standard-candle methods, which rely on observed patterns and their relation to absolute magnitude and, from that, apparent magnitude and distance.

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).

I'm all for refuting the status quo, when there's just cause, but, in this case, I believe the astronomers are right. If that matters, coming from someone you don't even know