RS2--daniel

From the thread on the page where the other Q&A was.. I would like to continue it here if that's ok.

November 19, 2012 at 12:26 am
Shade

One thing I noticed was about the theory that the sun, in transition, goes dark for a few days. I would say that this poses a problem. We are observing stars at present – millions of them in order to find exoplanets. One method used is by measuring the brightness of a star, and in a planet’s orbit around that star, as it crosses inbetween the star and the observational equipment, a dimming is observed. Therefore we can say if a particular star has an exoplanet.
Also, and just as relevantly, people observe the sky with their bare eyes, or telescopes at home, all the time, have done for a long time, and this includes people who you cannot say are ‘suppressing evidence’, because it includes everyone. What I am getting at is that if stars dim in their transitioning, and they transition say… 5 or 6 times[?] in their evolution and there are ~300,000,000,000 stars in our galaxy alone, this means that if stars do infact ‘go out’ during transition, then stars would be going out for dinner and wine all over the place because of the sheer numbers of stars multiplied by the number of transitioning points. And we are not observing this. No one is observing this. And so, this must be accounted for in the theories here because they specifically predict that we should be able to observe stars going out in transition elsewhere in the universe and we simply do not and have not observed this. How do you account for this Daniel?
Reply

November 19, 2012 at 1:34 pm
daniel

Did you read Prof. KVK Nehru’s paper on the Solar Core and the Sunspots? It is the same phenomenon as the sunspot umbrae. The sun doesn’t stop working, so “dark,” in this case, is super-hot region, not a cold spot. Over distance, things cool down and drop back into the visible light range. Not to mention the ejecta coming out from the sun will also emit EM radiation, in the uV at first, then as it cools, back to the visible range. The sun will only be “dark” for a limited distance; my guess would be the gravitational limit of about 2.2 light years.

The other problem, as you mention, is 300,000,000,000 stars, of which we can only see about 3,000 of the brightest stars with the naked eye. The red giants take a long time to transition; the blue giants transition fast, but since only a single element is involved and they are already extremely energetic, probably goes unnoticed. My estimate on the last solar transition was about 5000 years ago for our sun, so it is not frequent.

I would suggest keeping an eye on the red, globular clusters entering the disk of the galaxy, where there is abundant fuel. Particularly the K and M stellar class stars. If they are going to be detected, that is probably where they will be seen.
Reply
-------------------------------------------------

OK. As far as I am aware cold or hot spot was not what I was getting at - it is about visible light. It is the visible light that is measured in dimming, not hot or cold spots or infra red. Therefore if the sun in our solar system goes out in such a way that it is visibly dark, then the same is predicted to occur to other stars. If this is the case then this is observable and should be observable.
And yes if it is every 5000 years that is not frequent but as I said, there are what... 5 or 6 [?] transitions in a star's lifetime and there are thousands of stars visible to the naked eye and many more than that with telescopes. This makes it so that still, stars going 'out' should be observed frequently because of the sheer number of stars we can observe and the transition points, and we don't observe this.

So, your rebuttal is that the hot spots are dark in a certain range but go into the visible range over a distance of 2.2 light years. If this were the case, why is it that we can measure a sun's infra red AS infra red. As in that is how it was emitted and that is how we measure it. If it changed over its journey we would be measuring its infra red as microwaves and we don't. Can you please clarify how it is that energy emitted as infra red or UV is turned into visible light over distances greater than 2.2 light years?
The planets can also be detected using infra red:
"A variation of this is to measure the light output of the system in infrared light. Planetary temperatures are such that they radiate energy mostly in the infrared part of the spectrum. Stars around which planets are being looked for radiate most of their energy in the visible part of the spectrum. Thus, stars are much dimmer and planets are much brighter when one uses infrared light (though the star still far outshines the planet). So, when the opposite eclipse happens - when the planet passes behind the star - the total amount of infrared light that is received from the system can dim by about one part in 500. With new instruments, this dimming is measurable."

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/stu/advanced/esol_find.html

And saying that electromagnetic waves cool down over distance... sorry but that doesn't work... electromagnetic waves travel the speed of light and as it propagates through space it is independent of it's source - as in if it dimmed it is propagated as such even if the SOURCE cools down or drops in frequency over time. I am not saying that the speed of light is a constant [as such]. What I am saying is that if the stars went out VISIBLY we would have observed it HERE AS SUCH, and your explanation as to why we have not, is not satisfactory in my opinion. The EM would not 'cool down and drop back into visible wavelengths'. Sorry but that just DOES NOT make sense. As it was emitted, so we should observe it. At it propagates it is independent of the state of the source of it. The change in temperature [or EM frequency emitted] is observed in sequence, as it occurred, as the EM gets to the observer.

I liked your papers very much. However, this kind of thing - arguing and analysis is what science is about. not just mainstream science. all of it. I am a scientist, and an esoteric practitioner. Things should be looked at and anaylsed indepth, especially if there is something that just does not sit right. This, Daniel, just does not sit right with me. I think that I would not be the only one to question this, in the long run. A more indepth explaining of exactly WHY we have not observed the visible dimming of stars in their transitioning is required, I think, because I do not think your explanation is adequate. What is emitted should stay the same, pretty much, over distance. Cooling down of the EM does not occur over distance. Cooling down of the source of the radiation does not effect the EM already in transit. So therefore if transitioning stars visibly 'go out' and we have not observed any of this is it a refutation of your theory. If you have a proper explanation that is right to explain this then fair enough but if you do not you have really look at that and why.

What is needed here is an explanation as to why as in EXACTLY why visible dimming of stars has not been observed from Earth. Not just in surface terms but in exact terms so that people with expertise can read it an understand exactly how and why we have not observed this. I don't just want some stuff on it that doesn't make sense - which is how your explanation sounds to me - and I cannot just attribute that to my ignorance or inability to learn because I'm capable, and well trained in mainstream science and non [in fringe science and esoterica] and I want to KNOW WHY the observations are not made when plainly they totally SHOULD BE, or I cannot support your conjectures. If you can do that, cool. If not it just means that there is a problem with the theory. No big deal, you are bound to find them and answers may be found. Yes it might admit to some kind of weakness in the theory or even that the entire thing has deep flaws or even that it means that it's back to the drawing board about some things but so what... ????? Getting to the way things actually work is what we are after, not holding on to shit just because we 'like it that way'. right? I dig as deep as I can, and the more researchers you get into this the more this is going to get tricky and yet - hopefully great things can be found. There are new ways of looking at things, yes. And then there are ways that we know things work that .. well.. that just cannot be ignored. You have to explain this mate, or I'm not entertaining the theory. And it's not just me for sure, I wouldn't be the only one questioning this, in process.
And thanks for the co creation, and opportunity for some peer review eh? It's great that we can do this. Let's make it as professional as we can I say. We make the rules out here... lol. Academia should not have all the fun or the professionalism I think. There is a deep hole; a need, for peer review of fringe science. It is sorely missing.

If you want to understand the conclusions I have reached, then you must understand the premises from which they came, which are primarily Dewey Larson's Reciprocal System of physical theory and Prof. KVK Nehru's research into the solar core and the sunspots.

Nothing But Motion outlines the atomic theory of the Reciprocal System, which describes the atom building process. Basic Properties of Matter define the nature of isotopic mass and magnetic ionization concepts that are needed to understand the basics of Larson's stellar combustion process, which drives the direction of stellar evolution. Universe of Motion describes how the conventional interpretation of stellar evolution is backwards, and as such, many of the conclusions are backwards. See Larson's paper The Mythical Universe of Modern Astronomy that documents those issues. Prof. Nehru extended Larson's work into the magnetic and "co-magnetic" domains and came up with a new explanation of sunspots that closely matches observation. Larson's paper on Astronomical X-Ray sources defines what happens when matter crosses the unit boundary (speed of light) with the observed radio and x-ray effects.

I think it would be fantastic to get a real astronomer to take a look at this work. I have no vested interest in astronomy; just a hobby I picked up from my mom. But unlike atomic physics, it's cool to be able to take a telescope and see things for yourself. I'll never forget the first time I saw the rings of Saturn through my mom's little 3" telescope when I was a kid. It leaves an impression. You obviously know a lot more about astronomy than I do, so I would be greatly interested in seeing the conclusions you reach, if you have start from the same set of premises that I did.

And I'd bet you could figure out exactly what to look for in stars to find these occurrences--maybe discover something the astronomers have missed! Since I don't have the detail of knowledge you do, I can just make educated guesses, based on atomic properties, which are centered around the concept of magnetic ionization. See Basic Properties of Matter, page 264, for the equation to calculate the isotopic mass limit. As a 2nd power relation, the biggest jumps are the lowest levels, which would be found in the young, red giant stars. You can plug it in to a spreadsheet, and by the time you're at 20, the effect is almost negligible, so that would indicate that once the star reaches a certain point, the darkening effect would not be detectable.

And there are a lot of variables to consider; a star could stay at the same ionization level for many thousands of years if there was not enough fuel in the vicinity to generate enough energy to go up a level. Or if it was in a dust cloud, may jump in hundreds of years. I think everyone here would love to see what you can figure out, coming from Larson's premises.

(I hyperlinked all the references to the actual books and articles, for your convenience.)

Ok .. I'm not an astronomer. I know basic things about it. I could ask an astrophysicist about it, but I'm not sure they would be 'into it'. I'm not entirely sure that me going at this from you giving me everything you have read on it is exactly what I was asking for. In order to do what you have asked here, it involves me taking on your theory and searching for adhoc alterations to it in order to show how you are correct. And that's not really good methodology. You should know exactly why YOU believe suns to go dark inbetween transitions and why that is NOT observed, enough to explain it YOURSELF. If you don't have an understanding as to why this is so, then there is something amiss with your theory. I have asked you to explain to us why you say EM changes or drops from a higher energy to a lower energy after it has already left its source. Not to say go look at my library find my premises and arguments for yourself.

I would like you to explain your arguments for yourself. exactly. If I go to explain them I am not explaining YOUR theories I would just be trying to explain a theory which I can see does not match observations and that just isn't kosher. If you do not know how to explain your theories exactly then you do not even understand your theories yourself.. if that is the case then wtf?
What I have done here is to take it to the most basic things I can see which shows that your theory does not match observations. Your claim that EM radiation cools over time and that is why dimming appears as visible light over distance, violates basic physics, as far as I can tell. It is in other words a refutation of your theories that we do not observe it - we do not observe what your theories predict. As EM has left a source, it stays that way until it reaches the observer unless something stops it on its journey in which case it doesn't get there at all. But one thing it does not do is change from one thing to another after it has left.

Just say, for instance, that a sun transitions every 5000 years.
If we are observing 5000 stars then one a year should be observed to go out.
If we are observing 60,000 stars then we should observe one a month, go out.
If we observe 1,825,000 stars then we should observe one a day go out, with 3 a day at any time being out, if the 'out' is three days in length.
If we are observing 43,800,000 stars then we should observe one going out every hour with 72 being out at any one hour.
If we are observing 2,628,000,000 stars then we should observe one going out every minute with 4320 being out at any one minute.
If we are observing 157,700,000,000 stars then we should observe one going out every second with 259,200 being out at any one second.
And that last one is only half the amount of stars in our galaxy alone.
So you see, if this was observable it would be observed. Therefore because we have not observed it, it is either not occurring or is not observable for another reason. If it is not observable for another reason I want to know exactly why YOU say this is so - these are YOUR theories Daniel and I will only support them and get into further research of them if I feel that they are good, well explained and of substance.. and match observations (and if not that it has a VERY good explanation as to why). And you may think well so what your only one person. but I'm not the only one who this argument will need to be clarified for - it will be the same for many scientists. And I'm not going to read a heap of papers on it until I know it's worth the investment.....

As EM is emitted we observe it. Visible light, if it stops being produced by the star, will show up - if it is still hot, we will receive higher infra red or UV radiation or whatever but we will receive exactly the levels of visible light or lack of it that is emitted BY that star. Therefore we should observe it go out. What happens to it before or after any point is irrelevant to the EM received in sequence at any point. You said that it cools down and drops over its journey.

How, and I want this from you, does EM 'cool down' once it is in transit to the observer? How do forms of EM 'drop down to become visible EM over distance as it cools down'. I am not going to search through your library here to find how it is that a theory is not supported by observations. That is something that you should know yourself. If you do not then I need to know exactly which premises, in your own words, from your own logic, cause you to conclude that EM changes over distance, once it is emitted. Once that is on the table we can see where the logic is or is not flawed. Lay it out Daniel. You make an argument then reference it, not just reference the entire library as your whole argument. !!!!!!!

I am assuming that the simplest alteration to your theory is that stars do not dim during transition.
If this is unacceptable because the dimming is essential to your theories, then you must explain exactly why this violates observations, in a major way might I just add.
I would say the first is preferable.

Ok .. I'm not an astronomer. I know basic things about it. I could ask an astrophysicist about it, but I'm not sure they would be 'into it'. I'm not entirely sure that me going at this from you giving me everything you have read on it is exactly what I was asking for. In order to do what you have asked here, it involves me taking on your theory and searching for adhoc alterations to it in order to show how you are correct. And that's not really good methodology. You should know exactly why YOU believe suns to go dark inbetween transitions and why that is NOT observed, enough to explain it YOURSELF. If you don't have an understanding as to why this is so, then there is something amiss with your theory.

Hi,

I'm new here and I am trying to understand the reciprocal theory. I am no specialist, but I don't think Daniel's finding should be dismissed so easily. One cannot be an expect in everything. But one can understand things enough to make valid theories, especially considering that Larson's theory seems far simpler than anything else I could find (even if it's hard to wrap your mind around it, and I have still some difficulties in that regard).

Daniel explained that his findings are derived from the link "a new explanation of sunspots" and seem to find a formula that explain why this cannot be seen at great distances. Knowing the strange things that the reciprocal theory implies, such as coordinate time, I wouldn't be surprised at all.

If you want to understand in more details how it works, I suggest to become familiar with this material. Explaining it in the forum would be equivalent to explaining the complete theory here. You might want to go in more appropriate places for that such as http://forum.rs2theory.org/.I think you should first become familiar with the basic principles of this theory and then come right to the subject of interest (sunspots)

Mildred

Shade wrote:Ok .. I'm not an astronomer. I know basic things about it...

I'm also not an astronomer But all the genius must have a simple explanation.

As I understood the transition is the process of speeding up the rotation frequency of the matter vortexes?
With the consequent jumplike EM switching to speeds above the our speed of light?
Both of this should lead to the star must completely disappear from our time-space? Isn't it?

But we do not observe star disappearance in the outer space. So it means that stars do not transit.
Or it means that stars do transit but leave some part of its substance in the previous density with modified characteristics, as the star of new class.

In any case if we do not transit with our mother-star we should not observe darkness. If only...
If only we do the transit but with a little delay to the star's transition.

Is it the case? Can the transition delay and the our own senses alignment produce the subjective feeling of darkness???

Also if it is true it means that after the transition sky map should change to incognizance.

Shade wrote:In order to do what you have asked here, it involves me taking on your theory and searching for adhoc alterations to it in order to show how you are correct. And that's not really good methodology.

Thanks for the clear argument. Much of the fascinating material on this site is not obviously testable, so it's important to challenge the small subset that may be testable by public technology. Such clear discussion and feedback can only improve the quality of the papers and thus their dissemination and acceptance.

I finally got access to a decent star catalog and took at look to see if transitioning stars were being detected by astronomers.

As Larson puts it, astronomy is basically a "modern myth" so I took the approach of looking for an "astronomical god" that would identify these transitioning stars... the gods being "stellar classes."

The transitioning stars became fairly apparent after that... and I found over 28,000 of them that have been observed dimming, emitting radio bursts, then flaring up from a few hours to a couple months, while dumping X-rays and gamma rays before returning to "normal." This astronomical god is called the long-term variable star.

This behavior fits the profile described by Prof. Nehru on the larger scale, so transitioning stars ARE being observed, and fairly frequently. If you wish to followup on details, the red supergiant "variables" and orange giant star "variables" seem to provide the most obvious data, as they have a large emitting surfaces.