Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear

[Nitai]

by Nitai

In the Bhagavat Purana, the cosmology is geocentric, and also lists the heights of the planets above and below the plane of the ecliptic.

Thanks for that info Nitai, I'll have a look into that. The ancients seem to have known much more than
we give them credit for.

Here is some extra info to aid you in your search. This is not my website but a link with a good portion of this book by Richard L Thompson. He covers many topics I think you would get enjoyment from, and from a very interesting perspective.

http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By ... ronomy.htm

Richard L Thompson was a vedic scholar and wrote many books on cosmology of the vedas. They consulted with him also when creating the Temple of the Vedic Planetarium in India which is set to depict the vedic cosmology.

http://tovp.org/

This thread peaks my curiosity since the vedic cosmology agrees that the universe is smaller, geocentric, and that the stars we see are not like the sun, but like the moon, I.E. reflecting some light (whatever way the moon does it, I do not believe the moon is getting ALL its luminescence from just reflecting light from the sun).. So it is worth taking a look. There are very exacting distances for everything, but its presented in a fashion confusing to normal scientists..

Light the height of the planets. Richard L Thompson explains that nicely.

[GaryN]

There is a lot of reading in the first link Nitai, but it seems very
interesting with a first read. I will go through in detail when I get
chance.
The first thing I noticed was the large difference with the size of the
Sun. How could they have been so close to modern figures in many respects
and so different with the Sun? The Sun has changed! Ancient Sun symbols
show a much different appearence, but we do not know the size. I believe
these ancient figures may have been correct.

Q: The scientists say that spectroscopic studies show that the stars are incandescent bodies and not mere reflectors of light. They also say that the stars are typically as powerful or more powerful than the sun, and they have worked out in detail the thermonuclear reactions that sustain stellar radiation. How can this be reconciled with the Vedic version?

A: This is discussed in Section 6.e.Briefly, we suggest that stars may well give off their own light. However, the Vedic literature indicates that they cannot be independent suns.The highly detailed scientific theories about stars may well be wrong in many respects. After all, these theories are based entirely on the interpretation of starlight. Their underlying logic is: This model seems to fit the data, and therefore it should be accepted and taught to students. Chapter 7 shows some of the pitfalls of this approach.

That would fit in with the idea that the stars are really charged planets, that
the emissions are from the ionisation of the elements found in the charged shells
around the planets. Those emissions are normally invisible to us though, as it is
only the actions of our atmosphere that converts the light to a visible form. In
space you need to use a spectrograph or the modern equivalent that the space
'telescopes' use.
And yes, I believe that they create the data to fit their models, it all seems to rely
on circular logic.

I'd love to visit the Temple one day, or maybe I'll volunteer to go help with it.
I do believe our 'modern' view of reality is missing much that the ancients
were well aware of.

[Lloyd]

Gary said: The first thing I noticed was the large difference with the size of the Sun. How could they have been so close to modern figures in many respects and so different with the Sun? The Sun has changed! Ancient Sun symbols show a much different appearence, but we do not know the size.

* The Sun wasn't visible until about 4,500 years ago. What the ancients called the Sun was actually Saturn.

Those emissions are normally invisible to us though, as it is only the actions of our atmosphere that converts the light to a visible form. In space you need to use a spectrograph or the modern equivalent that the space 'telescopes' use.

* I'm not yet convinced of that. I believe Hubble sometimes gets visible light images of distant objects and some people say stars are visible above our atmosphere.

[GaryN]

The Sun wasn't visible until about 4,500 years ago. What the ancients called the Sun was actually Saturn.

I'm not yet convinced of that.

... and some people say stars are visible above our atmosphere.

It is puzzling indeed that some of the astronauts swear that no stars
can be seen, and others swear they can. Until I get a chance to go
check for myself, I have to go with the lack of photographic evidence
of their visibility, which NASA should be able to provide with a 30 second
exposure, facing deep space from the shadow of the ISS.
On the other hand, perhaps all our versions of reality are what we create,
and there really is no simple, single answer?
I just requested "Fire Within The Eye", A Historical Essay On The Nature
And Meaning Of Light, by David Park, from my library. Maybe that will enlighten me?

[kalensar]

I just got done researching a bit more about Katirai. His first book was called Revolution in Physics. Its basically a big Einstein bash and the big war of Etherists ( original plasma field thinkers before Plasma Science) and Relativists.
Its definitely going to be on my reading list now. Looks like this dude was onto the Electric Universe all along.

[GaryN]

Hi Nitai,
I have read more on the Vedic astronomy, and the more I see, the more I believe that modern
science has gone totally off the rails somewhere along the way. I'm also willing to believe
that our consciousness is not attuned to the bigger picture due to our 'programming', that
perhaps we are steered away from the Cosmic truth in order that we are not distracted from
our mundane role as servants to those 'in the know'.
These fit in with what Katirai is saying:

In modern astronomy stars are regarded as suns that are so far away from us that they appear as the minute points of light we see at night. Some stars are regarded as being as large and bright as our sun, and some are regarded as being much brighter or much dimmer. Modern astronomers have worked out an elaborate theory of the inner workings of stars, and they claim to be able to explain in detail their origin, life history, and final demise.

In contrast, Shrila Prabhupada has repeatedly compared the stars to reflecting planets or moons. His reasoning is presented in the purport to the verse in Bhagavad-gita, where Krishëa states, "Among the stars I am the moon" (BG 10.21). There Shrila Prabhupada says, "It appears from this verse that the moon is one of the stars; therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature. The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. Since the Bhagavad-gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to the moon."

In BG 15.12 it is directly said that the sun illuminates the entire universe, and Shrila Prabhupada comments, "From this verse we can understand that the sun is illuminating the whole solar system. There are different universes and solar systems, and there are different suns, moons, and planets also, but in each universe there is only one sun."

The way the planets shine, IMO, is not from the reflection of visible light from the Sun, but by the generation of UV and X-rays from ionisation of the elements surrounding the planets. It is only our atmosphere, or portions of it, that allow us to see the stars, and that is why they must use instruments and not just ordinary telescopes to view the stars from off-world.
I have had no answers at all to the many E-Mails I have sent to the Big Boys about the visibility of stars in space, but I have found an astronomer who is willing to do some checking into it. The plot thickens...

[Nitai]

Hi Nitai,
I have read more on the Vedic astronomy, and the more I see, the more I believe that modern
science has gone totally off the rails somewhere along the way. I'm also willing to believe
that our consciousness is not attuned to the bigger picture due to our 'programming', that
perhaps we are steered away from the Cosmic truth in order that we are not distracted from
our mundane role as servants to those 'in the know'.
These fit in with what Katirai is saying:

In modern astronomy stars are regarded as suns that are so far away from us that they appear as the minute points of light we see at night. Some stars are regarded as being as large and bright as our sun, and some are regarded as being much brighter or much dimmer. Modern astronomers have worked out an elaborate theory of the inner workings of stars, and they claim to be able to explain in detail their origin, life history, and final demise.

In contrast, Shrila Prabhupada has repeatedly compared the stars to reflecting planets or moons. His reasoning is presented in the purport to the verse in Bhagavad-gita, where Krishna states, "Among the stars I am the moon" (BG 10.21). There Shrila Prabhupada says, "It appears from this verse that the moon is one of the stars; therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature. The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. Since the Bhagavad-gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to the moon."

In BG 15.12 it is directly said that the sun illuminates the entire universe, and Shrila Prabhupada comments, "From this verse we can understand that the sun is illuminating the whole solar system. There are different universes and solar systems, and there are different suns, moons, and planets also, but in each universe there is only one sun."

The way the planets shine, IMO, is not from the reflection of visible light from the Sun, but by the generation of UV and X-rays from ionisation of the elements surrounding the planets. It is only our atmosphere, or portions of it, that allow us to see the stars, and that is why they must use instruments and not just ordinary telescopes to view the stars from off-world.
I have had no answers at all to the many E-Mails I have sent to the Big Boys about the visibility of stars in space, but I have found an astronomer who is willing to do some checking into it. The plot thickens...

Hi Gary.

I have highlighted the a fixed word because the web pages in-ability do display sanskrit diacritic marks. In the Bhagavad-gita it is Krishna speaking.

It is a mystery on how an ancient literature can seemingly become more modern once we gain a better grasp of it. When I saw this thread, I was immediately blown away because for the longest time Srila Prabhupada has been saying the sun is one, and you can see even amongst his "college educated" disciples, they all had a very hard time believing that stars could be closer, and not sunlike. It was until I discovered The Electric Universe theory and this forum that I really started understanding the Fifth Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, otherwise known as the Bhagavata Purana.

http://vedabase.net/sb/5/en1

That is the beginning, but the most interesting parts are starting around 16th chapter, or 5.16 A Description of Jambudvipa. I believe that they are describing the cosmology of the universe in a simpler fashion for a simpler people. I'm trying to figure out why they insist on a geocentric model, even though the orbital motions of the planets around the sun ARE acknowledged in the vedic model.

[Lloyd]

Gary said: The way the planets shine, IMO, is not from the reflection of visible light from the Sun, but by the generation of UV and X-rays from ionisation of the elements surrounding the planets. It is only our atmosphere, or portions of it, that allow us to see the stars, and that is why they must use instruments and not just ordinary telescopes to view the stars from off-world.

* I'm pretty sure your theory is wrong. The moon is rather gray and white both to the naked eye from Earth and from spacecraft photos. Mars is reddish both to the naked eye on Earth and from spacecraft photos. The Sun also seems to look the same color, whether from Earth or near-Earth satellites.
* Satellites orbiting Earth take pictures of Earth, which we can see on internet as satellite maps, like Google, Yahoo etc. The satellites are about 100 miles high, above most of the atmosphere, so planetary light obviously gets through the atmosphere. We have pictures of Earth from the Moon etc.
* When light goes through an atmosphere, the frequency doesn't change. All that happens is that some of the light is absorbed. Most x-rays and gamma rays are absorbed. We can see forests from many miles away that look green. Light goes through water and glass without changing frequencies, though some of the light is absorbed. In the oceans light only penetrates some tens of meters, but blue penetrates the deepest.

[nick c]

GaryN,

I posted this earlier in the thread but never received an answer, or if so, I missed it. The question is:
If stars are nearby objects, why are bright stars such as Sirius, Vega, ACentauri, etc. not resolvable as disks by telescopes? (afaik the only stars that has been resolved as a disk are a couple of red giants such as Betelgeuse and Antares.)
It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that they are extremely bright objects, ie suns, at great distances. If they (Sirius, Vega, etc) were a part of the solar system, being so bright, we would see them as extended objects and not as a point light source.

As far as seeing stars from space...of course you can! Taking photos of stars is no easy matter whether on Earth or in space. For instance, if you took a picture of the Earth from the Moon, in order to have the Earth properly exposed, you would not record the image of any stars, they are too dim. If you were to record star images then you would have to greatly overexpose the Earth.
This is shown in the photo taken from Mercury Messenger of the Earth/Moon (overexposed) amid a stellar background. You can plainly see the stars from space, ie where the spacecraft was located.
http://messenger.jhuapl.edu/gallery/sci ... tretch.png

Earth/Moon and star background as seen from Mercury Messenger

My understanding is that it was taken using the wide angle CCD camera that covers the
visual light range, with no filters. Nasa has officially stated, in an email response to my query, that it is a star background.

5.Can You See Stars in Space?
Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth?
No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

Dr. Eric Christian
(July 2001)


http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html

I for one, have no reason not to believe them.

Nick

[StevenJay]

5.Can You See Stars in Space?
Is it true that in space a person is not able to see stars all around them like we do here on Earth?
No, I hear that in space the stars look wonderful, bright (although not twinkling) and very clear. What has probably caused some of this confusion is that in the typical photo or video image from space, there aren't any stars. This is because the stars are much dimmer than the astronaut, Moon, space station, or whatever the image is been taken of. It is extremely hard to get the exposure correct to show the stars. Luckily, the human eye handles the different light levels much better than a camera does.

Dr. Eric Christian
(July 2001)


http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html

I for one, have no reason not to believe them.

I agree, Nick, and for the same reasons.

[starbiter]

The article below has an image of the Aurora Australis with stars, shot from space.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/astron ... 5882755386

michael

[starbiter]

The reason the stars are visible in the preceding post is because the camera exposure is set for Earth without sunlight. If the exposure was set for daytime conditions, the stars would be invisible, IMHO as a photographer. I think the exposure was during nighttime conditions. The light of the aurora is probably adding light to the Earth in the background of the photograph.


michael

[Lloyd]

Stars from Space
* It's good to see the images of stars from space at last, Nick and Michael. It's hard to find such images via net searches. I tried "stars from space" and mostly get a few of the same images over and over and most are still not images taken from space. Net searches for space images, even within the immediate solar system, tend to bring up only a few of the same images repeated. There seems to be a shortage of such images. For example, why can't we get good Moon images from all over the Moon at various magnifications. There's a Google Moon site that does the near side of the Moon pretty good, but that doesn't show overhead shots, just shots from Earth. I suppose there may be a lot of images that net searches tend to overlook.
Stellar Distances
* Now here's the crux of this thread.

Nick said: If stars are nearby objects, why are bright stars such as Sirius, Vega, A Centauri, etc. not resolvable as disks by telescopes? (afaik the only stars that has been resolved as a disk are a couple of red giants such as Betelgeuse and Antares.) It seems to me that the simplest explanation is that they are extremely bright objects, ie suns, at great distances. If they (Sirius, Vega, etc) were a part of the solar system, being so bright, we would see them as extended objects and not as a point light source.

* So far, we don't seem to have come up with definitive proof yet that the stars are at the distances conventionally claimed. I posted much of Bahram's evidence that the stars are within 30 lightdays distance, which I think is about half a trillion miles. One of his claims was that the central stars of galaxies are single yellow stars like the Sun and the other stars are blue and white, because they give off mostly ultraviolet light, I think. And he claimed that these stars are actually planets. So the reason Sirius etc are not imaged as disks could be that they're planets, between the sizes of Uranus and Jupiter.
* When you look at other galaxies, I think you do see single yellow stars at the centers, as he claimed. So his reasoning seems reasonable so far. It may be that conventional astronomy has used reliable ways to determine the actual distances to stars, but I haven't seen evidence here yet of what those reliable ways actually are. Bahram suggested that Cepheid Variables are not reliable, because they seem to be planets, like Uranus, or Venus, instead of large stars, like the Sun.
* I'm very open to hearing of solid evidence that the stars are actually at the distances conventionally claimed. So, if anyone knows of such solid evidence that hasn't already been disproved by Bahram, please post it, or a link to it.

[GaryN]

Hi Nick,
I did kind of answer to your post, by showing what I thought must have been a long
exposure shot of Earth and Jupiter from Mars. I omitted to say that I thought your
image had been taken with the spectrometer and not the WAC, and was showing the
hydrogen glow and not reflected light. I have had no response to a lot of questions
I have asked the various agencies about how the images are taken, so I can not
calculate what should be visible. It is not like taking pictures with a regular
camera, which is what I was trying to get NASA to do, as what I am saying is that
the stars will not be visible by eye, or with a regular camera.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... 345#p49345

The article below has an image of the Aurora Australis with stars, shot from space.

Judging by the Earth radius, the angle the shot is taken from means they are looking
through part of the Earths charge field, or dielectric layers, and whatever mechanism it
is that makes the stars visible on Earth is allowing some stars to be seen. Thats my
(present) opinion.
A 30 second exposure(I asked him) with an ordinary digital camera shows a sky full of
stars. I just want to see an equivalent image taken from space with the same
camera and exposure. Why is that so tough? He darkened the sky some, as he was using
ASA 1600 setting, and the sky was very light.
http://www.spaceweather.com/submissions ... 034248.jpg
This is obviously a longer exposure as there are short star trails, but the
foreground light hasn't washed out the stars, even the Milky Way structure
is visible. Why didn't they show anything like this from the Moon to impress
us all? They had high speed film with them, and that they couldn't spare the time
or were not interested, doesn't wash with me.
http://www.twanight.org/newtwan/photos/3001257.jpg
A shorter exposure, no trails, lots of stars.
The summer Milky Way on the prairie; 45 seconds, ISO 800

This discussion could be endless. I am not convinced stars can be seen in space,
firstly because some of the astronauts have said so. Others have said they can.
Who is lying, and why? I can't figure it, so just have to go with my gut feeling,
and some rough calculations, which will get better, I hope, with practice!

[nick c]

hi Lloyd,

So the reason Sirius etc are not imaged as disks could be that they're planets, between the sizes of Uranus and Jupiter.

This underscores the point I was trying to make. If Sirius were a planet the size of Uranus, where in the solar system is it located? Uranus is not generally visible to the naked eye (it is on the borderline) so how could Sirius be so bright? In order to be so bright it must be close, if it were close we could resolve it into a disk. But this is clearly not the case. Using the best telescope available to humans, it can only show Sirius as a point of light, a very very bright light, but nothing more than a point. What kind of object can produce that brightness yet be so small that it can be seen as nothing more than a point of light? Answer: a sun at a large distance. Same for Vega, ACentauri, Arcturus, Rigel, and so on, and so on....
Yet they must be distant objects since they show very little proper motion.
So they are bright, show little proper motion, and are point light sources....they have to be suns at distance.