mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Modern astronomers claim that the only forces capable of forming and driving 
the galaxies that make up the universe are gravitational and magnetic 
fields. In order to judge whether this or any alternative explanations are 
reasonable, we have to be able to visualize the relative sizes of stars and 
the distances between them. 
In order to do this, we need a scale model that humans can relate to. It is 
very difficult, if not impossible, for us to relate conceptually to how far 
something is from us when we are told its distance is, say 14 light years. 
We know that is a long way - but HOW long? 
Burnham's Model 
In his "Celestial Handbook", Robert Burnham, Jr. presents a model that 
offers us a way to get an intuitive feel for some of these tremendous 
distances. The distance from the Sun to Earth is called an Astronomical Unit 
(AU); it is approximately 93 million miles. The model is based on the 
coincidental fact that the number of inches in a statute mile is 
approximately equal to the number of astronomical units in one light year. 
So, in our model, we sketch the orbit of the Earth around the Sun as a 
circle, one inch in diameter. That sets the scale of the model. One light 
year is one mile in the model. 
The Sun is approximately 880,000 miles in diameter. In the model that scales 
to 880,000 / 93,000,000 = 0.009 inches; (Approximately 1/100 of an inch in 
diameter), a very fine pencil point is needed to place it at the center of 
the circle. 
In our model, Pluto is an invisibly small speck approximately three and a 
half feet from the Sun. All the other planets follow almost circular paths 
inside of this 3.5 foot orbit. If a person is quite tall, he or she may just 
be able to spread their hands far enough apart to encompass the orbit of 
this outer planet. That is the size of our model of our solar system. We can 
just about hold it in our extended arms. 
The nearest star to us is (in our model) four and a half MILES away. So we 
must visualize two specks of dust, each 1/100 inch in diameter, four and a 
half miles apart from one another. And this is in a moderately densly packed 
arm of our galaxy. 
To quote Burnham, "All the stars are, on the average, as far from each other 
as the nearest ones are from us. Imagine, then, several hundred billion 
stars scattered throughout space, each one another Sun, each one separated 
by a distance of several light years (several miles in our model) from its 
nearest neighbor. Comprehend, if you can, the almost terrifying isolation of 
any one star in space" because each star is the size of a speck of dust, 
about 1/100 inch in diameter - and miles from its nearest neighbor. 
When viewing a photographic image of a galaxy or globular star cluster, we 
must remember that the stars that make up those objects are not as close 
together as they appear. A bright star will "bloom" on a photographic plate 
or CCD chip. Remember the two specks of dust, miles apart. 
Even in our model, the collection of stars that makes up our Milky Way 
galaxy is about one hundred thousand miles in diameter. This is surrounded 
by many hundreds of thousand of miles of empty space, before we get to the 
next galaxy. And on a larger scale, we find that galaxies seem to be found 
in groups - galaxy clusters. 
Because the stars are so small relative to their separation, they have only 
a relatively very small gavitational pull on each other. However, it is now 
well known that the entire volume of our galaxy is permeated by plasma - 
huge diffuse clouds of ionized particles. These electrically charged 
particles are not so relatively very far from each other. They respond to 
the extremely strong Maxwell / Lorentz electromagnetic forces (36 powers of 
10 stronger than gravity). It is becoming clear that galaxies are not held 
together by gravity, but, rather, by dynamic electromagnetic forces. 
Gravitational Lensing 
As an application of the insight afforded by Burnham's model let us 
consider the oft proclaimed phenomenon known as gravitational lensing.  If a 
far distant object lines up precisely with Earth and an intermediate object 
that has enough mass, Einstein's theory of relativity suggests that the 
light from the farther object will be bent - producing multiple images of 
the distant object when it is observed from Earth.  Gravitational lensing is 
now a standard explanation used by mainstream astronomy to discredit any 
observations of quasar pairs situated very near their parent galaxies.  We 
are told that any images of this sort are "mirages" due to gravitational 
lensing.  Once this explanation is accepted by a gullible public, the way is 
cleared for its continued use, no matter how improbable its repeated 
occurrence is. 
On the left, below, is the original image of the The "Einstein Cross" 
as released by NASA. They claim that the four small quasar objects flanking 
the central bright core of the galaxy represent only a single quasar located 
in the far distance directly behind the center of the galaxy - they tell us 
that we are not seeing four separate quasars - this is only a "mirage".  
However, the image on the right is the same image - slightly enlarged and 
contrast boosted via Adobe's PhotoDeluxe software.  Nothing has been added 
or subtracted. 

Spectral analysis of the region between the quasars indicates they are 
connected to the galaxy by streams of Hydrogen (Lyman alpha) gas. This gas 
(plasma) has the same extremely high redshift value as do the quasars.  So, 
what we have are four newly formed quasars being symmetrically ejected from 
the active nucleus of a barred spiral galaxy.  There is no mirage.  No 
relativistic magic is needed to explain what we see happening in front of 
our eyes. 
But what is most important is the statistical improbability of this 
line-up happening in the first place, let alone over and over again. 
For example, astronomers recently announced they were going to look for 
gravitational lensing effects that might be occurring in the closely packed 
globular cluster, M 22.  For such a gravitational lensing effect to be 
visible on Earth, two stars in the cluster and the Earth must line up - all 
three objects - on the same straight line.  Let us calculate the probability 
of that happening with any two stars in M 22. 
M 22 contains on the order of 500,000 stars and is approximately 50 
light-years in diameter.  Therefore, stars in the center of M22 are 
separated by distances in the order of 0.5 light year.  (1/2 mile in our 
model.)   Assume that stars in the M 22 cluster are of the same general size 
as our Sun, a medium sized star, 880,000 miles in diameter (1/100 inch in 
our model).  Put such a star at the center of one face of a cube that is 0.5 
LY along each edge.  Assume that Earth lies an infinite distance away on a 
line which is perpendicular to that face of the cube and which passes 
through the centered star. 
First, ask the question, what is the probability that another star lies 
directly on that line, at the center of the opposite face of the cube?  
There are    approximately 10^13 non-overlapping possible star positions on 
that opposite face.  So the answer to our question is: "One out of 10^13 = 
10^ -13." 
But, we have to remember that the center of the cluster is 50 LY (100 
such cubes) deep.  The probability that we will NOT get a match with a star 
in any of those deeper cubes is (1-p)^100.  The first two terms of the 
expansion of this expression are 1 - 100p.  So, (as an approximation) the 
probability that we WILL get a match is approximately the first probability 
multiplied by 100 = 10^-11. 
But there are 100x100 = 10^4 other lines of cubes that make up the 
visible face of M 22.  So, multiply by 10^4.  This yields an overall 
approximate probability of p = 10^ -11 x 10^4 = 10^ -7 which is one in ten 
million.  This answer is, of course, only an approximation.  But it does 
indicate the futility of looking for gravitational lensing in M 22. 
This means that if astronomers see anything "mysterious" in M 22, they 
cannot, with any credibility, point to "gravitational lensing" as being the 
cause.  And, if this is so in a dense cluster like M22, it is even less 
likely when discussing galaxies and supposedly far distant quasars - like 
the Einstein Cross. 

Next Page ----> 
Return to the Main Page