The Solar System is not a typical stellar system.

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

The Solar System is not a typical stellar system.

Unread postby moses » Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:39 pm

The Solar System is not a typical stellar system.
The EU has it that planet sized bodies can get into glow mode outside the Solar System. Thus nearby stars could in fact be fired-up planets that are much closer to the Solar System. I read somewhere that if a star the same brightness as the Sun was 10 light years away then the distance squared drop off of intensity would mean that that star would be of minimal brightness.

So it makes a lot more sense that the 'stars' are much much closer to us than we think and we are not measuring the planets in 20+ year orbits around bigger stars. It only takes the light from these objects to be bent towards the Sun a tiny amount for this to be so.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Solar System is not a typical stellar system.

Unread postby GaryN » Mon Jul 16, 2018 1:41 pm

Mo,
I think it probably is a fairly typical solar system, but agree that many of what we are told are stars are planetary objects with glowing atmospheres. The Hubble images of α Cen A for example do not impress me one bit, we do not see flares or CMEs, yet they tell me they can tell a whole lot about stars that are many, many times further away. The Hubble image of Betelgeus shows this supposed red supergiant, but what they have coloured red is actually UV.
Image
http://hubblesite.org/image/394/news_release/1996-04
Of course I can not prove anything, but at the moment I am thinking that the fixed stars we see by eye from Earth are rather glowing planetary objects located in the Oort cloud, and that all those supposed galaxies we are told exist are really just other solar systems, as Katirai claimed.
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller
User avatar
GaryN
 
Posts: 2588
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: The Solar System is not a typical stellar system.

Unread postby moses » Mon Jul 16, 2018 7:41 pm

Hi Gary,
What we know of other stars the Solar System is not typical:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2011JRASC.105..232B

So perhaps a typical stellar system would be a Neptune-size body with a few moons or moon-size planets. So it might be difficult to distinguish such a Neptune-size body that is nearby from a Sun-sized body that is orders of magnitude in distance away from us. Although if light bends about the same amount from a fairly distant star as a nearby star then we should have a measure of the relative distances between these two bodies if they are within the parallax useful distance. That is the light only bends as it gets close to the Solar System.

Another factor is the possibility that material gathers at the double layer around a body. So the actual body could be Neptune-sized but the double layer around this body might be an AU from it, and has material which is glowing. The Sun may be like this also. Thus Betelgeus might be like this.

But I cannot see galaxies as Stellar Systems. But I do feel that there is no Sun-like star within the paralax useful distance. But if the relative distances between nearby stellar bodies is correct then that is quite a puzzle.

Cheers
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: The Solar System is not a typical stellar system.

Unread postby moses » Fri Jul 20, 2018 10:25 pm

Do astronomers assume that distant stars are at the same angle in June as December ? Do they point their telescopes in a precisely calculated direction referring only to the position the telescope was pointing 6 months prior ? Or do they use certain stars as fixed reference points ? Because if light from distant 'fixed' stars was bent towards the Sun near to the Solar System then there would be an error in the calculated position of such a distant 'fixed' star 6 month later.

Even though that calculated position may be only slightly out it would be enough for the parallax measured distance of near stars to be greatly overestimated. When astronomers take pictures of a section of stars and then again 6 months later they assume that a certain distant 'fixed' star is in a certain direction but, because the light from this star bends in the opposite direction 6 months later, this assumption is effectively incorrect.

It would appear that a near star would not move very far through the distant 'fixed' stars but actually if one follows the bent light backwards and extends that line into the distant stars then there would be a much greater movement through the fixed stars. This means that that near star is a lot closer to us than currently calculated.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1055
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron