beginner question - from EU Perspective

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.
Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:19 am

working out what basic assumptions and calculations, that I take for granted as confirmed from mainstream upbringing, but am now realizing might be a mainstream error.

1. red shift error means distances to other stars are wrong. I've heard that closer to us stars are possible to calculate, but the farther ones we can't. What is EU reality there? How is it that closer stars we CAN measure?

2. If gravity is not what is holding all the planets in their magically perfect orbits in perpetuity, then how do we know how to calculate their mass?

3. If we can sense a planets gravity from a probe, than I'm assuming we can extrapolate what the gravity is on that planet, and based on the measured size of the planet, can we deduce confidently what that planets mass is?

4. Can we use the same above on the sun, or are there electrical factors that make our sensor data on the graivity 'influenced' and therefore not an accurate means to determine the Suns mass?

As a start. But if you know of any other ones that should be part of the beginners guide, throw them in. I'm interested.

jackokie
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:10 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by jackokie » Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:28 am

@Open Mind The interstellar plasma has for some time been suggested as at least a partial cause of redshift. Here are a few of the links that came up just searching on "plasma redshift". I believe the subject was also discussed in either this version of the forum or the previous version. I don't know if there is an "official" EU position on plasma redshift yet.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Redshift/

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-redshift/

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ired_Light
Time is what prevents everything from happening all at once.

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:28 am

Why are mass and gravity so pointed to in your questions?
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:19 pm

Cargo Wrote: "Why are mass and gravity so pointed to in your questions?"

Don't understand.

I"ve assumed that we estimate mass of a planet based on its gravity, because I assume we have some known relationship between how much mass generates how much gravity, and that that relationship affects all things equally in the universe. I assume we take something of a known mass and somehow know how to calculate how much gravity it can generate and then just scale up from that and calculate mass based on the gravity which is the only thing we can confidently measure. But if there are electrical roots to gravity, then I'm assuming gravity might not be an actual direct 1:1 relationship between gravity and mass as per EU, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

I"m also assuming we can measure a gravitational pull of an object in space, and we can calculate the rotational momentum of an orbit to gravity influence, and from that it would point to what the mass of that object is 'supposed' to be based on the assumption that everything is being held in its perfect equilibrium based solely on gravity. So for those bodies we haven't gotten actual probe readings on their gravity, we extraploate their mass based on their movement. But if electrical forces are involved in keeping things in orbit, and we can't rely on these things pointing to a mass relationship necessarily, then how do we know all we feel we know.

I"m painting a picture of a confused person trying to parse the poor mainstream ideas and the new EU idea's.
Last edited by Open Mind on Mon Jan 16, 2023 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:33 pm

jackokie wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:28 am @Open Mind The interstellar plasma has for some time been suggested as at least a partial cause of redshift. Here are a few of the links that came up just searching on "plasma redshift". I believe the subject was also discussed in either this version of the forum or the previous version. I don't know if there is an "official" EU position on plasma redshift yet.

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Redshift/

https://www.plasma-universe.com/Plasma-redshift/

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ired_Light
I've been assuming that red shift has been considered a means of measuring distance because they are interepreted as a dopler effect, which I assume means more dopler effect means farther away by mainstream. And then I read that Walt is suggesting that effect might only be measuring the age of a star and not the distance, so I assume then that we don't have a means of measuring distance if dopler is a poor interpretation. But then I have a faint memory about watching something about how we're more confident about closer measurements, but farther ones are a more exagerated error in dopler interpretation, but I might be misremembering that part.

Cargo
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 2:02 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Cargo » Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:36 am

mass of a planet based on its gravity
Well, I'm trying to help at a basic thinking level. So consider what is the 'mass' of planet? What are well really gaining by using this term in our mindframe. I get particularly pickled when I study gravitational maps. Hilarious.

So, better yet, try thinking about things without the silly notion of gravity keeps the planets in place because the sun's gravity it so huge, therefore the mass is blah blah. Any tripe which mentions 'solar masses', in regards to some fantasy measurement which fails every solar and galactic observation, is a crime on the senses. How bad is this crime, they invented magical black holes with the power of "millions to billions of solar masses".

I say, forget Mass, and forget Gravity. Because that's less then 1% of the Universe.
interstellar filaments conducted electricity having currents as high as 10 thousand billion amperes
"You know not what. .. Perhaps you no longer trust your feelings,." Michael Clarage
"Charge separation prevents the collapse of stars." Wal Thornhill

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Tue Jan 17, 2023 3:57 pm

Cargo Wrote: " I say, forget Mass, and forget Gravity. Because that's less then 1% of the Universe."

I see. That was a possible answer I was prepared for, considering the mass calculations seemed so steeped in mainstream gravity based inferences. So the answer is in fact, that we actually can't know the mass of a planet, (yet), but also, the pursuit of that variable is only useful from a mainstream model perspective. Ok. Thanks very much. You're making a small point, but to me its a huge part of how not to get distracted by old sources.

Should I assume the same for my other question about distance between stars, as measured by the faulty doppler association in red shift? Meaning, if Red Shift is not a valid means of distance measurement, then at present, we actually don't have a method of measuring distance, (yet), so 'forget distance'? And if so, do we have anything yet as a means of at least ranking relative distance between stars? Brightness? Does brightness depend on size of star? Can we presume a range of scale to determine a reasonable relative rank of distance? Hoping this second question isn't word salad from a blind rookie.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by nick c » Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:44 pm

Open Mind wrote:1. red shift error means distances to other stars are wrong. I've heard that closer to us stars are possible to calculate, but the farther ones we can't. What is EU reality there? How is it that closer stars we CAN measure?
In terms of red shift and the Doppler Effect, there is a difference between individual stars in our own galaxy and distant galaxies beyond our Local Group. Distances to stars within our own galaxy are not measured by calculating the red shift. If they are in our neighborhood within the Milky Way, the distance can be measured by parallax observations made at two different points in the Earth's orbit. If the star shifts its position relative to farther "fixed" background stars, its distance from Earth can, using trigonometry, be calculated.

Stars that do not shift their positions are too far away for that method. Their distance can be estimated by comparing their apparent brightness with their star type. For example, Cepheid variables are a type of star for which their brightness can be determined by the pulsations of the star. Nearby Cepheids' distances can be measured by parallax, and then the brightness of a distant Cepheid can be determined by comparison to Cepheids with a known parallax determined distance. Also, If a distant star is observed to have a spectrum almost identical to Sirius, which has been measured by parallax, the astronomer can compare that star's apparent brightness to Sirius' apparent brightness and come up with an estimate of its distance. Obviously, beyond parallax, distances can only be approximations.

Halton Arp demonstrated (in his book SEEING RED) that there are numerous cases of high red shift quasars with physical connections to lower red shift galaxies. And in at least one case, a high red shift quasar is observed to be IN FRONT of a lower red shfit galaxy. If his work is true, it is an immediate falsification of the "expanding universe" and big bang theories.
It also attacks the premise that red shift can be used as a measure of distance, and quasars are not tremendously bright objects at great cosmic distances, but are rather objects that are associated with much closer galaxies, and may even be objects that are ejected from the cores of those galaxies.

That being said, the Doppler Effect probably does shift the spectrum of a local object moving away from the observer (red shfit) or moving toward an observer (blue shift). For example, a star within our galaxy may be blue shifted, and therefore it may be concluded that it is moving toward us. But Arp is disputing the cosmic redshift which results in the conclusion that galaxies (beyond our Local Group) are all moving away from each other and therefore, the universe (space) is expanding. It seems that, if Arp is correct and on that scale, the amount of redshift is mostly attributed to the age of the object, ex. galaxy or quasar.
Note that if redshift is attributed to dusty plasma in the intervening space, then there should be no difference between a quasar's red shift and the galaxy to which there is a physical connection, that is if Arp is correct.

If true than all cosmic measures of distance are probably wrong. Of course, that does not mean that these galaxies are necessarily nearby. It can be determined for example, that a certain galaxy is similar to the Milky Way, so how far away would the Milky Way have to be in order to appear that dim?
It is nice to have a yard stick or a tape measure to get a precise determination of distance, but with respect to galaxies and quasars the redshift does not fill that need. So we are left (for now) with methods that have less prescision.
Last edited by nick c on Wed Jan 18, 2023 5:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: originally written as "geometry", changed to "trigonometry"

crawler
Posts: 823
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 5:33 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by crawler » Tue Jan 17, 2023 6:31 pm

Cargo wrote: Tue Jan 17, 2023 4:36 am
mass of a planet based on its gravity
Well, I'm trying to help at a basic thinking level. So consider what is the 'mass' of planet? What are well really gaining by using this term in our mindframe. I get particularly pickled when I study gravitational maps. Hilarious.

So, better yet, try thinking about things without the silly notion of gravity keeps the planets in place because the sun's gravity it so huge, therefore the mass is blah blah. Any tripe which mentions 'solar masses', in regards to some fantasy measurement which fails every solar and galactic observation, is a crime on the senses. How bad is this crime, they invented magical black holes with the power of "millions to billions of solar masses".

I say, forget Mass, and forget Gravity. Because that's less then 1% of the Universe.
My hero Conrad Ranzan says that Cosmic Redshift is due to mass, all mass, including any plasma (but in a gravitational way)(i dont think that he has an electrical redshift in his writings)(i bort one of his books but i havent redd it yet).
STR is krapp -- & GTR is mostly krapp.
The present Einsteinian Dark Age of science will soon end – for the times they are a-changin'.
The aether will return – it never left.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by nick c » Wed Jan 18, 2023 1:07 am

Open Mind wrote:2. If gravity is not what is holding all the planets in their magically perfect orbits in perpetuity, then how do we know how to calculate their mass?
The Electric Universe does not deny the existence of gravity. Thornhill subscribes to the theory of Ralph Sansbury and takes it from there.
Wal Thornhill wrote:The ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® takes a simplifying leap by unifying the nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity as manifestations of a near instantaneous electrostatic force. Instead of being “spooked” by the concept of action-at-a-distance, like most physicists this century, the ELECTRIC UNIVERSE® accepts it as an observational fact. Anyone who has tried to force two like poles of magnets together has demonstrated action-at-a-distance. “Electromagnetic” radiation is then simply the result of an oscillating electrostatic force.
Sub atomic particles (Matter)- protons and electrons are inviolable. Matter and Mass are not the same thing. In Thornhill's framework, Mass is not a constant, Mass is variable.
Wal Thornhill wrote: Einstein’s famous mathematical expression E=mc2, equating energy and mass is known by almost everyone. However, most textbooks go on to use the word “matter” in place of “mass.” But nowhere has it been shown that mass and matter are interchangeable. In fact, we are entirely ignorant of what constitutes the mass of an object. So it is inadmissible to imply that energy and matter are interchangeable. The ultimate expression of this idea led to the nonsense of the big bang. It seems simpler and more sensible to suggest that both nuclear and chemical energy is released or absorbed by the rearrangement of the resonant orbits of charged particles. It is then common sense to suggest that mass is the measured response of a system of charged particles to an external electrostatic force. The more massive an object, the more the electrostatic force contributes to the elastic deformation of its protons, neutrons and electrons, rather than their acceleration. This is the phenomenon seen in particle accelerators and conventionally attributed to relativistic effects. But relativity reduces to classical physics in a universe where the electrostatic force has near-infinite speed. The first question to be asked is – if it is that simple, why hasn’t it been thought of long ago? The answer seems to lie in the propensity for mathematical theory to supersede common sense and observation. There is also a problem of language when mathematicians attempt to provide real meaning for their symbols.


from:
https://www.holoscience.com/wp/synopsis ... me-basics/

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:46 am

Nick C Wrote: " the distance can be measured by parallax"

Oh man, how easy. I'm one of the few who still hangs on to SOH CAH TOA and law of signs for building calculaitons, so I'm dumbfounded that I never knew paralax. Thank you for that one.

Ok, so some different types of stars have 'tells' that correlate to closer paralax confirmed measured points and contribute to 'better guesses. And Sirius is one of those 'paralax'able' stars at a whopping 8 light years away. That's far. Just out of curiosity, what's the farthest convincing 'paralax'able' distance we've confirmed?

I'm guessing Halton Arps 'connected stars' have something to do with the recognition of some star systems appearing to be on a 'string'? I"ve read about that and recall it was a fundamental challenge to red shift dopler effect.

Nick C Wrote: "That being said, the Doppler Effect probably does shift the spectrum of a local object moving away from the observer"

Ok, so there is some correlation of spectrum shift and distance locally, but attempts to conflate that metric to cosmic distances has had enough confirmed challenges to its consistency, that its no longer reasonably trustworthy anymore, but mainstream is suffering from 'change agility' on that point so far, likely enabled by the avoidance of that pesky implication of it knocking out one of the pillars under big bang. I can see how that would happen.

Thank you guys for these anchors. You know how difficult it is to vet these subjects as a novice, when we're surrounded by the confident authority of mainstream gaslighting. Personally, I don't have as much of a hate on for that though, like in the tone of some of the Miles Mathis papers I'm skimming. I honestly think if my paycheck and future was attached to mainstream stuff, I'd totally toe the line and have quiet real discussions in private. Sort of 'don't hate the playa, hate the game' kind of concession.

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:56 am

Open Mind wrote: Wed Jan 18, 2023 3:46 am Nick C Wrote: " the distance can be measured by parallax"

Oh man, how easy. I'm one of the few who still hangs on to SOH CAH TOA and law of signs for building calculaitons, so I'm dumbfounded that I never knew paralax. Thank you for that one.

Ok, so some different types of stars have 'tells' that correlate to closer paralax confirmed measured points and contribute to 'better guesses. And Sirius is one of those 'paralax'able' stars at a whopping 8 light years away. That's far. Just out of curiosity, what's the farthest convincing 'paralax'able' distance we've confirmed?

I'm guessing Halton Arps 'connected stars' have something to do with the recognition of some star systems appearing to be on a 'string'? I"ve read about that string, which is recognized by EU'ers as a prime example of a Birkland Current, but for purposes of mainstream discussions a 'string' was good enough to make the pertinent point to them. So even without getting into the Birkland current model component with mainstream, they at least recognized that the connection was in fact accepted as a local association? Maybe some did and some didn't, but its acceptance does demand the end of the dopler effect idea, so that point might have been the line between those who did and those who couldn't.

Nick C Wrote: "That being said, the Doppler Effect probably does shift the spectrum of a local object moving away from the observer"

Ok, so there is some correlation of spectrum shift and distance locally, but attempts to conflate that metric to cosmic distances has had enough confirmed challenges to its consistency, that its no longer reasonably trustworthy anymore, but mainstream is suffering from 'change agility' on that point so far, likely enabled by the avoidance of that pesky implication of it knocking out one of the pillars under big bang. I can see how that would happen.

Thank you guys for these anchors. You know how difficult it is to vet these subjects as a novice, when we're surrounded by the confident authority of mainstream gaslighting. Personally, I don't have as much of a hate on for that though, like in the tone of some of the Miles Mathis papers I'm skimming. I honestly think if my paycheck and future was attached to mainstream stuff, I'd totally toe the line and have quiet real discussions in private. Sort of 'don't hate the playa, hate the game' kind of concession.

User avatar
nick c
Posts: 2879
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 3:12 am

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by nick c » Wed Jan 18, 2023 4:47 pm

Open Mind wrote:That's far. Just out of curiosity, what's the farthest convincing 'paralax'able' distance we've confirmed?
Just from my memory, I believe the furthest range for parallax is about 300 light years give or take. Maybe by this time with improvements in techniques and instrumentation that range might have been extended. I think that it is not simply a case of maximum range but rather how much of a margin of error is tolerable.

As far as confirmation goes, parallax is probably the most accurate way to measure distances of nearby stars. Keep in mind that a star's proper motion with respect to the Sun (which is also in motion) has to be taken into consideration.

Here is an interesting answer on Quora concerning parallax measurement from an amateur astronomer who has actually measured the distance to Wolf 359:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-farth ... -far-is-it

User avatar
paladin17
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 2:47 pm
Contact:

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by paladin17 » Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:33 pm

Open Mind wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:19 am 2. If gravity is not what is holding all the planets in their magically perfect orbits in perpetuity, then how do we know how to calculate their mass?
Technically, what we measure (and use in all the astrodynamical calculations) is the product GM, where G is the "gravitational constant", and M is the mass.
Practice shows that G is almost impossible to measure (even with modern instruments the error is of the order of 0.5% - i.e. it is absolutely horrible), and there are indications that it even periodically changes with time. (See here for more details). While the product GM mysteriously remains constant (otherwise the planetary orbits and everything on Earth that relies on gravity would oscillate accordingly).
Open Mind wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:19 am 3. If we can sense a planets gravity from a probe, than I'm assuming we can extrapolate what the gravity is on that planet, and based on the measured size of the planet, can we deduce confidently what that planets mass is?
Only if we know the "gravitational constant". And we don't.
For practical uses the mass is not needed though, as in every calculation the mass of the planet is multiplied by "gravitational constant", and their product is known with very good precision for the abolute majority of large bodies.
Open Mind wrote: Mon Jan 16, 2023 2:19 am 4. Can we use the same above on the sun, or are there electrical factors that make our sensor data on the graivity 'influenced' and therefore not an accurate means to determine the Suns mass?
Yes, you can calculate the mass of the Sun. You only need to know the "gravitational constant" and, for example, the orbital period of just one planet (e.g. Earth), along with its distance from the Sun. Any of my 9th graders can solve this problem. ;)

Open Mind
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 2:47 pm

Re: beginner question - from EU Perspective

Unread post by Open Mind » Fri Jan 20, 2023 10:58 pm

Paladin, thanks. I'm googling to catch up. I never distinguished between small g and big G. Slowly getting this.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest