Stars, Galaxies, Planets: how do we know what they are?

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
5,122
Reactions
21,471
@Dielectric posted this answer to an unrelated thread, and I figured to ask a few question I always wanted to ask.
  • How do we know what we are looking at?
  • How do we know that those are what we are told they are?
  • Do galaxies, stars and planets even exist? (...the words and images sure do...)
Here we have two allegedly legit images of some far away galaxies. NASA, Hubble and the hole nine yards of credentials.
  • 2018: NASA has released an absolutely beautiful photo taken by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope of PLCK G004.5-19.5, a massive cluster of galaxies in the constellation Sagittarius.
This Hubble image shows the galaxy cluster PLCK G004.5-19.5.
Image credit: NASA / ESA / Hubble / RELICS / D. Coe et al.

hubble_1.jpg

Source

  • 2018: The Hubble Telescope Has Found a Smile in Space to Warm Your Heart
A trio of galaxies form what appears to be a wry smile in deep space in this view from the Hubble
Space Telescope. This close-up image shows galaxies from the SDSS J0952+3434 cluster.

hubble_2.jpg

Source

  • 1993: Hubble Reveals Observable Universe Contains 10 Times More Galaxies Than Previously Thought
This image covers a portion of a large galaxy census called
the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey (GOODS).

Plum_not_Space_1.jpg

Source
Note: Just kidding, the last image is a plum.

kd_separator.jpg

KD: I simply do not trust TPTB to tell us the truth in reference to what these objects actually are. I am not going to question that the objects can be observed, but I do not trust unverifiable theories. For all we know, these could be misrepresented Christmas lights, plums or whatever. By repeating that those are planets, stars and galaxies they will never obtain the characteristics assigned to them by the narrative.
  • Is there a way to verify that we are not being played for a fool? I do not think so. None of the scientists has ever been there, from what we know. It also looks like none of us will ever be allowed to go and verify.
  • CGI is our destiny.
 

rengel

Member
Messages
45
Reactions
62
KD: I simply do not trust TPTB to tell us the truth in reference to what these objects actually are. I am not going to question that the objects can be observed, but I do not trust unverifiable theories. For all we know, these could be misrepresented Christmas lights, plums or whatever. By repeating that those are planets, stars and galaxies they will never obtain the characteristics assigned to them by the narrative.
  • Is there a way to verify that we are not being played for a fool? I do not think so. None of the scientists has ever been there, from what we know. It also looks like none of us will ever be allowed to go and verify.
  • CGI is our destiny.
Back to square one?
Coming out of a cave, looking up at the sky and seeing some lights there?
Asking yourself, what these might be?
How do you verify anything at all?
How can you know you are not being played for a fool?

Look for yourself. Buy a telescope. Repeat all the obersations.
See if you can distinguish different objects in the sky.
Call them 'planet', 'sun', 'galaxy', 'comet' or whatever.
Record their movements, measure their spectra or redshift or whatever characteristics you are interested in.
Compare what you see with what you are told.
Go as far as your money, time, and motivation takes you.
That's the way of all natural sciences.
In astronomy, you verify by observation.
Do you see, what others see and describe?
In physics and chemistry, you verify by repeating experiments.
Do you get the same results?
 
Last edited:
OP
KorbenDallas

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
5,122
Reactions
21,471

Feralimal

Well-known member
Messages
188
Reactions
424
  • How do we know what we are looking at?
  • How do we know that those are what we are told they are?
  • Do galaxies, stars and planets even exist? (...the words and images sure do...)
For me, all those questions ultimately come back to how much trust we are prepared to extend to external sources of data. In my education and in general life, I think I massively overextended my trust (along with everyone else, it seems). The effect is that I had accumulated a lot of negative knowledge - stuff that I need to unlearn in order to be standing on more solid ground. So nowadays I really only extend trust to personally verified data, and even then I acknowledge I may be making errors.

My rule of thumb is that I try to only accept what my fairly hardcore empirical, skeptical filter allows - I need to personally verify what I know. In fact this means I am mostly proceeding 'at risk', and making a whole bunch of assumptions. Nowadays I try to express these assumptions so that they can be corrected. When I get corrected I can add to my experience aka my empirical data and improve my personal model.

On this particular issue, all I can commit to is to say that I agree that there are lights in the sky. Not sure I can say anything meaningful on planets, space or the rest. Are they planets? Are they projections on a screen (as in the Truman show)? Who knows? I don't know and I don't know how to confirm either. (And life is short...)

I can say I have personally jettisoned ideas from the common narrative, especially where I am confident that tricks have been played. So, while I can't definitively say that space isn't as it is portrayed, the level of trickery suggests to me that it is unlikely that there are planets or even space. I'm fine with those lights being modelled as spheres in space though - the model seems useful when making predictions such as eclipses etc. I can also say there have been few if any negative impacts to me as a result of ditching common narrative ideas and going my own way - in fact there have been some genuine benefits.
 

rengel

Member
Messages
45
Reactions
62
See: https://www.stolenhistory.org/threads/hubble-telescope-and-the-olbers-paradox-where-is-the-space-dust.106/post-27721

So, what distance would you suggest? And how could that be tested? I have a hard time to imagine that the people i.e. at NASA do all this just to fool people like you and me or to divert us from more important issues. After all, even if this were some kind of hoax, somebody would have to spend a lot of money to set and keep it up. Cui bono?

Were they on the moon? What would you accept for a proof? Being able to land on the moon yourself? Compare this to the situation two or three hundred years ago: Why should people believe that there were distant continents like Africa or Australia? For most of them it was just hearsay. Artefacts from these continents could as well have been manufactured in some local workshop. Nowadays we can fly there and look for ourselves. Most of the people discussing the veracity of the moon landings were in kindergarden or not even born, when it happened. Claims that the records and moon rocks have been lost or destroyed are cheap and just as unprovable as the opposite. The Cold War was at its height, and surely Russia wouldn't have missed the opportunity to prove the USA a liar.

That said, I don't want to defend contemporary astronomy or cosmolgy with its fictional 'black holes', 'dark matter', or 'dark energy'. I rather side with the Electric Universe hypotheses. But on the other hand, I'm not willing to dismiss otherwise great technological achievements like space probes landing on asteroids or photographing the surface of pluto as hoaxes. The Americans, the Europeans, the Indians, the Chinese all plotting together to tell us some fake stories about the moon?
 

Raviolli

Active member
Messages
42
Reactions
112
I am not 100% sure as I haven't been keeping a record but
When I get the chance to look at the stars at night why do I see the same configuration of stars all year round?
Shouldn't the stars (where I live) at least change positions because the Earth is supposedly is going on a spinny one and then supposedly a good portion of stars / planets are orbiting.

From what I've seen those stars don't move at all.
 

zxcv0

Active member
Messages
83
Reactions
246
There is far too much credence given to the planets in ancient scripture for them not to be important in some way. I would imagine that they play an important role in the 'cosmic' order, alongside the far more prominent sun and moon. What this role is we can only guess. But astrology and the zodiac imply that that there a cyclical mechanism to our world. Of course, these cycles among the celestial bodies may in fact be responsible for cataclysms and 'resets'.

As for the stars, the idea that they are other suns is only useful in that it fits and promotes the narrative that we live in some infinite universe. On the contrary, you only need to observe the sun and moon to realise how preposterous this idea is. Stars, for all we know, may be relatively small lights in the sky.

To illustrate how this could work, here's an example of sonoluminescence:

I am not 100% sure as I haven't been keeping a record but
When I get the chance to look at the stars at night why do I see the same configuration of stars all year round?
Shouldn't the stars (where I live) at least change positions because the Earth is supposedly is going on a spinny one and then supposedly a good portion of stars / planets are orbiting.

From what I've seen those stars don't move at all.
The rotation of the stars (diurnal motion) hasn't changed for thousands of years.

Don't bother bringing up the fact that earth is spinning around a molten lava ball at zillions of miles an hour hurtling through space in an outward direction while the diurnal motion remains perfectly unchanged for millennia to anyone though, they'll probably send you to Wikipedia.
 

codis

Well-known member
Messages
309
Reactions
704
To cite from memory, precession would be about 1 angular deg. per 150 years, barely noticeable with the naked eye.
Further citing from memory, earth's precession cycle of about 26.000 years is the time it takes for the solar system to take one full turn on its spiral motion on the way around the galaxy center. The latter takes about 250 million years as I remember.
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
669
Reactions
2,247
I have viewed the planets and stars at great Length via my own 5 inch scope, and made photographs. These observations have only added to my growing belief that our reality is one of simulation.

planets.jpg

Planets can often appear larger in the sky than 'stars', which would logically have you believe they are either larger, or much closer.
However when viewed through the telescope, the stars are never any larger than they appear to the naked eye... but planets are, make of that what you will. Optical illusions? Possibly. Distance, size? Possibly!

To answer the Op question, we cannot know for sure KD, but I do believe that we cannot accept the ridiculous mainstream narratives. They make no sense to any of our observations.

I do know from a photography and experience stand point, optical illusions are all around us. In a simulated world, what we see could be just what we are programmed to see. For example, you look at the image below, before I tell you that I love you, can't see it, but now you know I love you, you will see it. and now, you can't un see it.

I believe that is how we are programmed to except mainstream narratives, through persistent dogma, only the lucky few of us are breaking out of that.


can-you-spot-these-hidden-images-in-magic-eye-illusions-136410799329803901-161025125024.jpg

I ❤ you​
 

AnthroposRex

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reactions
311
I have viewed the planets and stars at great Length via my own 5 inch scope, and made photographs. These observations have only added to my growing belief that our reality is one of simulation.


Planets can often appear larger in the sky than 'stars', which would logically have you believe they are either larger, or much closer.
However when viewed through the telescope, the stars are never any larger than they appear to the naked eye... but planets are, make of that what you will. Optical illusions? Possibly. Distance, size? Possibly!

To answer the Op question, we cannot know for sure KD, but I do believe that we cannot accept the ridiculous mainstream narratives. They make no sense to any of our observations.

I do know from a photography and experience stand point, optical illusions are all around us. In a simulated world, what we see could be just what we are programmed to see. For example, you look at the image below, before I tell you that I love you, can't see it, but now you know I love you, you will see it. and now, you can't un see it.

I believe that is how we are programmed to except mainstream narratives, through persistent dogma, only the lucky few of us are breaking out of that.


What type of telescope are you using?
Some have digital planet pictures that get shown when you look at particular planets.
It may account for what you are seeing.
(I'm trying to find the video was where some guy proved it with two similar telescopes, one with the digital thing and one without but YouTube isn't behaving, so take it with a grain of salt, as I am not positive about all this)
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
669
Reactions
2,247
Not quite sure what you mean there. I can see the planet through the optical viewfinder and the camera when attached. It is not a preset image that is shown to you, if thats what you mean?

Here is the scope that I use:

050234110365_NexStar_5SE_11036_1_570x380@2x.jpg


Celestron
 

AnthroposRex

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reactions
311
Not quite sure what you mean there. I can see the planet through the optical viewfinder and the camera when attached. It is not a preset image that is shown to you, if thats what you mean?

Here is the scope that I use:



Celestron
Hmm. Digging in to the website I see a reference to a digitized object database. Although this dude was saying that the planets were digital stored images, he may have just misunderstood the functionality.
It's entirely possible it was two similar cameras but one was way better.
I'll keep looking and see if I can find it.
 

Timeshifter

Well-known member
Messages
669
Reactions
2,247
The scope has a database, which when programmed by the user can take you to the exact point in the sky (moon, star, planet) etc. the image you see however, is 'live' through the eyepiece, or camera whichever is attached.
 

AnthroposRex

Well-known member
Messages
136
Reactions
311
The scope has a database, which when programmed by the user can take you to the exact point in the sky (moon, star, planet) etc. the image you see however, is 'live' through the eyepiece, or camera whichever is attached.
Thats what I took from it as well.
I think his vids were removed off yt. Probably bs anyway, like most of yt. Anyway, cheers.
 

Casimir

Well-known member
Messages
91
Reactions
282
The most uncomfortable aspect of all we know about the cosmos is that we have relied on a single sense, sight, to measure everything. At the end of the day, we are simply measuring "light". The sheer amount of effort and processing that goes into finding how far away stuff is cosmological is insane.

For instance, a trigonometric parallax: we will measure how far away something seems on Jan 1 and 6 months later measure how far away it seems (technically we are on the other side of our orbit, on the other side of the sun at this point) and then do the geometry to find the actual distance. On top of all that there are things like redshift and blueshift in the wavelength of the light, everything is flying away from us (re: everything else) at different and increasing speeds (result of CMB measurement- the silliness of the logic proves there's more going on IMO).

It is crazy to me, fundamentally, all this data and work is still just answering the question: How long is it taking this light to hit me? I think the measurements are often done enough and compared against that I believe there is some structure to the measurement and the answer to the question of "How long's it take that light to hit me." The problem is all the assuming that comes along with it. Plato's cave comes to mind

platos_cave_large.jpg

Edit: Further, it would be interesting to have a discussion with someone blind who cannot see or really fathom the thought of seeing something- no shapes, gradients, nothing. Would the thought of a standard model universe with giant masses all swirling around even bigger masses and causing this "light" thing to fly at weird speeds even make sense at all? I wonder what, deep inside, despite the standard narrative, what a blind person might feel is true.
 
Last edited:

jd755

Well-known member
Messages
1,233
Reactions
3,163
Where does all we 'see' get processed?
In the brain apparently. Does the brain leave bits out and put bits on as it does with our cone shaped binocular vision overlap where two single eye images seamlessly, most of the time, become one. Question is where do they become one?
Answer is the brain. So it takes a pair of images aka visual information, and melds them together to project a single image that doesn't exist anywhere but in the brain, the processing unit.
Ergo our eyes and brain are cameras and projectors in the same instant. Spooky shit.
 

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
225
Reactions
720
Spectrographs.

Elements differentiate based on there frequencies. So they take spectrographs of elements known on Earth, find out its color or frequency, then point the thing at other planets and galaxies.

Telescopes.
Anyone can buy one and use it.

The physics of Earth convey the physics of the Universe, otherwise shit would be just running into each other and colliding all the time. But mankind has viewed constellations as far back as who knows, and The Big Dipper is still there.

just my 2 cents
 

rengel

Member
Messages
45
Reactions
62
...
Shouldn't the stars (where I live) at least change positions because the Earth is supposedly is going on a spinny one and then supposedly a good portion of stars / planets are orbiting.
...
Have you ever looked at the easily recognizable constellation Orion? Watching it over a couple of hours you can actually see, that the sky seems to move (that is, the Earth turns around). So the stars do change their positions (not relative to one another but relative to Earth).
 
Top