Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear

[michael.suede]

I stumbled across the e-book in my web surfing recently and was nearly knocked out of my chair with the arguments presented.

Seriously, the arguments are brilliant and simple.

http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm

The author takes a long hard look at just how far away we know we can see compared to how far away we are told we can see using telescopic enhancements and concludes that there is no possible way stars are as far from us as we are told by the mainstream establishment.

The author follows up with a look at how parallaxes are calculated and concludes they are also grossly in error.

Since we know red shift does not equate to distance, this is some major icing on the cake.

If a lot of you download the ebook, his site will run out of bandwidth for the day. So if you get a message saying the site is out of bandwidth come back and try it tomorrow.

If the authors calculations are correct, which they appear to be, then the stars are within light DAYS of us, not light years.

Of course the author is confused about what constitutes stars in the end because he is unfamiliar with EU theory, however his depictions of brightness and parallaxes seem spot on. There is just no way we should be able to see "billions of light years" into space.

Here is a pdf version of the ebook, hosted from Google:
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... ects=0&d=1

[ItJustMakesSense]

I agree the universe is much smaller that we are led to believe.

[ItJustMakesSense]

On feb 15 there was a major solar flare. It reached us in 48 hours I believe and correct me if I'm wrong If the sun was 6.09 light years away or further doesnt that mean that it would take 6 years for the energy from the solar flare to reach us if like the conventional model is correct and light speed is a constant.

[michael.suede]

The Sun is 499.0 light-seconds away

His theory about galaxies being star systems isn't right because we can measure the rotation rates, but I'm really digging his views about how far we should reasonably be able to see with our equipment.

"Billions of light years" is impossible.

[ItJustMakesSense]

The Sun is 499.0 light-seconds away

His theory about galaxies being star systems isn't right because we can measure the rotation rates, but I'm really digging his views about how far we should reasonably be able to see with our equipment.

"Billions of light years" is impossible.

where are you getting the 499.0 light seconds away? That isnt a conventional distance measurement correct? It sounds right to me though.

[solrey]

where are you getting the 499.0 light seconds away? That isnt a conventional distance measurement correct? It sounds right to me though.

I think it's pretty well established at this point that light takes a little over 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to Earth. Something like 8 minutes 19 seconds...

cheers

[Sparky]

I stumbled across the e-book in my web surfing recently and was nearly knocked out of my chair with the arguments presented.

Seriously, the arguments are brilliant and simple.

http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm

The author takes a long hard look at just how far away we know we can see compared to how far away we are told we can see using telescopic enhancements and concludes that there is no possible way stars are as far from us as we are told by the mainstream establishment.

The author follows up with a look at how parallaxes are calculated and concludes they are also grossly in error.

Since we know red shift does not equate to distance, this is some major icing on the cake.

If a lot of you download the ebook, his site will run out of bandwidth for the day. So if you get a message saying the site is out of bandwidth come back and try it tomorrow.

If the authors calculations are correct, which they appear to be, then the stars are within light DAYS of us, not light years.

Of course the author is confused about what constitutes stars in the end because he is unfamiliar with EU theory, however his depictions of brightness and parallaxes seem spot on. There is just no way we should be able to see "billions of light years" into space.

how parallaxes are calculated and concludes they are also grossly in error.

could you please summarize or paste what he says?

[tayga]

I suggest that anyone impatient to see this book, as I was, do what I did.

Paste the url above into a google search box and look at the cached content. There appear to be 13 pages and the cached copies miss all the figures but it's a start.

Maybe someone could copy the actual pages to another, more accessible location (with the author's permission, of course)?

[michael.suede]

If one of the mods could stick this in the first post of this thread that would be great.

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

https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... ects=0&d=1

[allynh]

That is the strangest structured website I have come across. The only way I was able to get a list of pages was google the whole site for the word "to"

http://astronomyinformation.org/

This is a list of the pages I found with no links into them. They are to buy his books, but I don't know if they are still available.

http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy.html

http://astronomyinformation.org/physics.html

This is the link that has a chain connecting 13 pages.

http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm

The link on the main page is to an archive file holding his book on astronomy. You have to "right-click" and download or save to disk. When you open the "AstronomyDec 28, 2008.rar" file it unarchs into a Word .doc. If you can open Word files the best thing you can do is save it as a pdf so you can read it clean.

I wish I had access to his book "Revolution in physics" the same way, since it is about the ether.

http://home.ipoline.com/~noor/index.htm

Update: As posted above michael.suede converted the book to pdf. Well done.

[Lloyd]

* 499 light seconds distance is 8 minutes and 19 seconds times the speed of light.
* I downloaded something from that last link. Looking forward to reading it.

[ItJustMakesSense]

What does this mean for all of us. How come we are taught everything is so far away? Well the reason that we are not taught about EU I believe is due to what it means for free energy. Now why would we be told stars and galaxies are so far away? Well it makes us seem insignificant. Alone in our little corner of the vast galaxy. It makes cosmology uninteresting to the normal person because the distances proposed in the conventional model are not comparable in proportion to distances we normally comprehend. It also makes life traveling to this planet from another star system seem impossible. Feel free to add to/critique what I'm saying here.

[Lloyd]

POSSIBLY A VERY MAJOR FINDING
* I read a few chapters so far and the theory is much more plausible than I expected. The author says Harlow Shapley is the one who first claimed in 1914 with very little evidence that the Sun is not near the center of the Milky Way. Before that several scientists, starting with William Herschel in the late 1700s and continuing up to the late 1800s, found much evidence that the Sun is near the Milky Way center. Another scientist in 1930 also found more evidence of the Sun's central position and that Shapley was wrong, but the mainstream ignored him.
* Sound familiar? The mainstream ignores the best studies? And guess what; Shapley is the same person who vociferously attacked Velikovsky in the 1950s and later I think, calling him anti-scientific in some way. Here are examples: http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=e ... 95c947f3f0 . I found recently that Margaret Mead was one of the original promoters of global warming in 1975 and she was the president of the AAAS in 1974, the year that Velikovsky was "tried for heresy" by the AAAS for his 1950s works, Worlds in Collision etc. So I speculated that the real reason for the hysterical reaction to him was the evidence he presented that Venus is a young planet and is hot for that reason, and not because of the supposed runaway greenhouse effect due to high levels of CO2 in its atmosphere. And Mead's circle apparently didn't want his theories to be studied seriously by mainstream scientists.
* I have quite a bit to read yet and I'd like to see some of the images in the online version later. I've read I guess most of the material about problems with parallax measurements and that material is very plausible so far. The author said it's very hard to measure actual parallax of "stars", so scientists turned to measuring relative parallax instead, which involves imaging stars and seeing if any of them have moved with respect to the others. They assume that most of the "stars" are relatively fixed and those that change position relative to the others are either planets or closer stars. The author points out that they overlooked the possibility that the ones considered "fixed" may actually have moved as well, but just not with respect to each other.
* The author contends that most of what are called stars are actually planets, though I imagine they may be more likely brown dwarf stars, which can be as small as our large planets. He also thinks the Sun is the center of the galaxy and that galaxies are large planetary systems, rather than star systems.
* What I'd like to see is actual estimates of how far away the nearest galaxies actually are, but I don't know if his book gives any estimates so far. I'm also curious what he says about stellar spectra. I read a little about that so far, and that was interesting too, but there's much more to read on that yet.

[Lloyd]

* I just heard that the author of the book, Revolution in Astronomy, is dead. The book is copyrighted 2007, so I guess he died recently.
* I read the whole book now and I took notes. Here are my notes on what he said about how stellar distances are measured. Actually, this just covers the most basic method of measurement, parallax. He also covered redshift and pointed out why it's an erroneous method, which is already known in EU. He didn't cover the other methods, like Cepheid variables etc, much but explained that those variables are likely to be planets rather than distant stars.
Measuring Stellar Distances
- The maximum distance an object can be seen through the Hubble telescope is 357.14 times the distance that the naked eye can see.
- Absolute Parallax is the angular difference in the position of an object when seen from two different places.
- However, in practice, astronomers do not look through a telescope to measure the angle for finding absolute parallax.
- Measuring that angle is too difficult and complicated, so astronomers have abandoned measuring absolute parallaxes.
- Instead, they have turned to measuring relative parallaxes.
- This is done by taking 2 or more photographs of stars six months apart and finding which ones have changed positions.
- It is assumed that the stars that don’t change position don‘t have significant parallaxes of their own.
- This assumption has apparently never been tested.
- The fact that over 25% of the parallaxes of the fixed stars are negative indicates that they are actually closer than the stars with changed positions.
- Measurements that are negative or greater than an arc-second are wrongly discarded as errors.
- A planet 500 AU from the Earth will have an absolute parallax smaller than 0.7 mm viewed at 34 cm.
- Bear in mind that this is the absolute parallax, which is never measured.
- In 2006 a few distant objects thought to be stars were moved to the list of planets after noticing a change in their position.
- Stars appear as points of light no matter how much magnification is used.

[fosborn]

The issue of blue stars vs planets is an issue with EU.
He goes off the tracks with that.
And the Oort cloud. Another issue with EU comet Theory.
That and JJohnson addressed asthe issue of reflected planet light albedo making it back to earth to be detected.
I don't think the mythical Oort cloud is what we take for the universe ?