LM4. My New Astronomy


Saturday, 28th May, 2,011.








LM4(Last three paragraphs especially important!!)




Astronomical Distances,etc.


New Exposition.(This is an attempt to explain the old exposition better!)(Note, not a complete re-doing!)










Astronomical Distance,etc. bar those of Hubble’s Law(which are extremely accurate, almost as accurate as with my method), are wrong. In the case of The Quasars, they are 100 times over-stated!




Astronomers say that they would give their right arms to know the correct distances. Not just accurate, but CORRECT.


I have worked out how to get the correct distances(and masses,etc.). Over many gruelling years. Equivalent to a university course.


I began with the galaxies,etc. From The Hubble Diagram.


I later did The Nearest Stars.


I also used Eddington’s Diagram. Cross referencing.


Cosmological velocities versus distances, and magnitudes(apparent)(v) versus distances.


Cosmological velocities were per Hubble’s Law, and extremely accurate. Apparent magnitudes are not so simple. In fact, not simple at all!!


Were there no such thing as intervening dust and debris,and were space STRAIGHT,etc., and were all objects the same intrinsic brightness, then apparent magnitudes would of course be straightforward. But this is not the case.


To give you some idea of what we are up against, consider that you and I are looking at the headlights of an approaching car.(Let us be out in the countryside, alone, at night, in the pitch dark.)


It is the only car, bar ourselves. The question arises: How far away is the car? I ask you this. And you respond that it is almost impossible to say, given that there is a fog, we do not know if the road bends(I am asking for the ROAD distance, bends and all!), and we do not know what wattage the headlamps have, even if we had a table listing how bright headlights would appear per degrees of wattage.




It simply is not possible. Unless, and until we can determine what the complicating factors are, and how much they dim the approaching head lights, to our view.




Now there is such a thing as The Reddening. An astronomical object’s light gets reddened just as much as its light gets dimmed. So, if I draw up a scale of Reddening, and a corresponding scale for Dimming(I call it Obscuring Matter. The Orthodox call it “Extinction Effect”.), then I can adjust accordingly. With stars, especially the nearest stars, the reddening I am talking about is called Inter-stellar Reddening, ISR. Similarly, I imagine, with intergalactic reddening, and therefore dimming.




If can find out what the intrinsic brightness is, absolute magnitude, then we are on our way. Fortunately, orthodox astronomers have determined Mv(Absolute Magnitude) with some of the nearest stars.(Via The Cepheid Variables.) Galaxies are at once both harder and simpler.




I remove space bending by applying a worked out formula(take me word for it now, and its accuracy) for this. It is Pi/2. You simply multiply by Pi/2. For local warps you do likewise, repeatedly, until cast right down!






Now with the galaxies,etc.I reasoned that if both cosmological velocities and magnitudes(apparent, anyway)corresponded with distances, and therefore with each other!


Therefore cosmological velocities and apparent magnitudes were equal. Per RATIO value.(If we could somehow reduce CRS(Cosmological Red Shift)(Alleged cosmological velocities.) and Apparent magnitudes to the same terms, then halving the result might give a better distance correspondence.




To get distances I used the arithmetic mean. The addition of vels(CRS, understood) and mags(understood apparent magnitudes), divided by wo might yield a better distance!


I used geometric mean to get masses.




I worked from Astronomy Catalogue 2 by the way.






The result should not just be the AVERAGE, but the EXACT measure!!(Being as much above as below.)


Light Radiation etc. travels instantaneously. But is REGISTED at c.




The point is this: Telescopically we see ACROSS hyper space-time by straight chords. But AROUND the circumference of the field by Hubble’s Law! Thus we get TWO different sets of distances! So we need to equalize to one or the other, as per requirement. This is WHY we are getting two quite different sets of distances!!






The old exposition is so lengthy, convolute and badly expressed, that I am attempting this new one.






Apparent magnitude of course INCLUDES absolute magnitude. So to find out what the apparent magnitude is, we need to subtract the absolute. This has to be done.








Now,then! To get the main details, read my A1058 and A1059 articles(in this order is best!). Then go A1061 to A1067 INCLUSIVE. Next, go A1071 to A1073, inclusive. And then I advise BB15,16 and 17!!!


And there you have it!


Master that, and, if you can, teach the orthodox astronomers,etc!!






Not only is this task very difficult, but you need to consider that we live in a world that hates good and high things, and will with ease counter the least of them. How much more,then,this!


So that had to be overcome first., and all along.


Unfortunately, moving, I lost all my maps,charts, lists,etc. But I was able to remember the gist of what I had found. And did more maps.














Vic Conway.



















Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: