Stars are Not Suns!

by **Admin** Fri Jan 01, 2016 3:29 pm

NASA and modern astronomy claim that stars are actually distant suns trillions of miles away, complete with their own solar systems, planets and moons. In the following video I zoom in on several stars using a Nikon Coolpix P900, the world's longest optical/digital zoom camera to find out for myself.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:57 pm

Posted by hiilikeourbeard on 03/10/2015
This has been on my mind a lot lately... not only do I wonder what a normal star is, but what is a shooting star? Do they ever shoot upward, or just downward? Could they be souls? We know they're not suns now, so what could they be?

Posted by Admin on 03/10/2015
The Sun, Moon and stars are described as "luminaries" in the Bible, created to light the Earth, light/divide the day from night, and for signs and seasons. They are like nature's clock and calendar giving us days, months, years, and precessional "great years." Astrotheologically and Hermetically speaking "as above so below" the stars have been said for millennia in cultures all over the world to hold human fate/consciousness in their motions, the wandering stars considered "gods," and fixed star constellations personified and considered to describe in the heavens the heroes journey through an epic Earthly life. Whatever the stars are, they sure seem to think we're pretty important/special because they spend all their time circling around us:

As for shooting/falling stars, so called comets, asteroids or meteors, I'm not sure what they are, and after watching the following video I have more questions than answers:

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:58 pm

Posted by Admin on 03/10/2015
Twinkle, twinkle, little star,
How I wonder what you are!
Up above the world so high,
Like a diamond in the sky.

When the blazing sun is gone,
When he nothing shines upon,
Then you show your little light,
Twinkle, twinkle, all the night.

Then the traveller in the dark
Thanks you for your tiny spark;
He could not see which way to go,
If you did not twinkle so.

In the dark blue sky you keep,
And often through my curtains peep,
For you never shut your eye
'Till the sun is in the sky.

As your bright and tiny spark
Lights the traveller in the dark,
Though I know not what you are,
Twinkle, twinkle, little star.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:59 pm

Posted by eldask on 06/26/2015
I do know that in science they do tell us "We are apart of the stars" and go on with this whole, we're made of stardust explanation because we share some sort of property that they claim comes from stars, case in point. I think it might just be their 'empirical' way of expressing "as above, so below".

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:59 pm

Posted by geekozoid on 06/27/2015
What if there's an ocean up there, above the dome, and the stars are the product of sonoluminescence?

See this article, regarding the creation of light by passing ultrasonic waves through water:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

I don't necessarily agree with what this guy says regarding the earth being concave, but for this point in particular, I think he might be onto something:

Other video source:

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:59 pm

Posted by Observicus on 06/27/2015

Jun 26, 2015 15:04:15 GMT geekozoid said:

I don't necessarily agree with what this guy says regarding the earth being concave, but for this point in particular, I think he might be onto something

There's a tiny bubble at 3:33 imploding.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:01 pm

Posted by csp on 06/27/2015
I believe you are onto something here, I've been studying all things water and light and there are some very interesting rabbit holes - feel free to take a read of my "Heavy Water" thread.

My current theory is relating to all the stars being Sonoluminescence in the "primordial waters" - taking concepts from all of the creation myths and especially the Vedas I'm speculating the description of "Indra's Net" is pretty accurate to the "reality":

Stars are Not Suns! Dewy_spider_web

"Imagine a multidimensional spider's web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image."

–Alan Watts[1]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indra's_net

Far away in the heavenly abode of the great god Indra, there is a wonderful net which has been hung by some cunning artificer in such a manner that it stretches out infinitely in all directions. In accordance with the extravagant tastes of deities, the artificer has hung a single glittering jewel in each "eye" of the net, and since the net itself is infinite in dimension, the jewels are infinite in number. There hang the jewels, glittering "like" stars in the first magnitude, a wonderful sight to behold. If we now arbitrarily select one of these jewels for inspection and look closely at it, we will discover that in its polished surface there are reflected all the other jewels in the net, infinite in number. Not only that, but each of the jewels reflected in this one jewel is also reflecting all the other jewels, so that there is an infinite reflecting process occurring.

Even the chinese:

This metaphor plays an essential role in the Chinese Huayan school,[7] where it is used to describe the interpenetration of microcosmos and macrocosmos.[8] Fazang (643–712) used the golden statue of a lion to demonstrate the Huayan vision of interpenetration to empress Wu:[9]

In each of the lion's eyes, in its ears, limbs, and so forth, down to each and every single hair, there is a golden lion. All the lions embraced by each and every hair simultaneously and instantaneously enter into one single hair. Thus, in each and every hair there are an infinite number of lions... The progression is infinite, like the jewels of Celestial Lord Indra's Net: a realm-embracing-realm ad infinitum is thus established, and is called the realm of Indra's Net.[9]

Stars are Not Suns! 500a0b70b3f55.preview-620

Again, this all relates back to Pi and golden ratio being rooted in nature.

Now to end of a bit of a humourous, but semi-related note, check out the "Mantis Shrimp", when it swings its mace like arms, they move so fast and hit so hard, they create cavitation bubbles, and create light. This is a bit of a satirical video, but he is presenting facts mixed with great humor (his other videos are quite funny and informative too):

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:02 pm

Posted by eldask on 06/29/2015
My friend was joking around and he brought up

"Star = Strata = Stratosphere, plot twist stars are only as far away as the stratosphere,"

"Srata is the plural of Stratum, plot twist stars are actually just underground shiny rocks and we're upside down looking at them"

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:02 pm

Posted by susie on 06/29/2015

Jun 28, 2015 18:02:31 GMT eldask said:
My friend was joking around and he brought up

"Star = Strata = Stratosphere, plot twist stars are only as far away as the stratosphere,"

"Srata is the plural of Stratum, plot twist stars are actually just underground shiny rocks and we're upside down looking at them"

Im not this high...yet.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:03 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 06/29/2015

Jun 29, 2015 12:30:45 GMT geekozoid said:

Thanks for the input.

I'm 99% convinced that what they refer to as "primordial hydrogen" is actually water. There is a vast ocean far beneath the Earth, called "The Great Deep" (this is even below the fiery domains), as well as an Upper Ocean above the dome, where stars shine as a result of sound waves through bubbles. Above this Upper Ocean lies the Heavenly Realm. And no, I don't think we're upside down, either

On a side note, we don't need to dig underneath us to find the "Hollow Earth" that Richard Byrd alluded to in his diary. I don't think that's what Byrd actually meant.

Here it is:

It's actually "semi hollow", and Byrd insinuated this in a subtle way.

Peace.

I am certainly open to the idea that we may be under a dome/firmament, and that it may have water above it, and it does also seem likely that we have an ocean under the ocean, as the video that Eric posted recently seemed to suggest.

Still, it is worth pointing out that although what you said may well be true, it is all purely speculation at this point, until more research is done in future, so we should not state it as fact.

Let's get this thread back on track; the topic is 'What are stars'?

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:04 pm

Posted by katou on 07/15/2015
I want to offer up for consideration something that could explain the stars with something equally interesting and that is Plasma. When we think about our brain and how there are neurons firing between different nodes you can imagine the heavens and the stars as different nodes in the circuit. The other aspect is the way plasma forms and the shapes it takes along with magnetic lines.

Like most subjects use a little salt. Don't forget that for some they are stuck in the Matrix and just can't walk away after investing so much, and have much to lose.

Also I wanted to add this vid that looks at magnetic shapes and how they have a way of organizing themselves and maintaining it.

(video removed)

As you can see I am a fan of the electric universe as well as the flat earth so I become a double nut bar to main stream science ,and could be considered triplet if you include God in that as well.

Out of a curiosity of mine, I wonder if there are any FE maps showing the mid Atlantic Rift that seems to go around the globe map? I had a picture or a thought that it could also be a mirror image of the milky way rift. I wanted to try and embed the vids but dont quite have the hang of it yet. I will get there in time lol be patient.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 pm

Posted by questionauthority on 07/23/2015

Jun 26, 2015 15:04:15 GMT geekozoid said:
What if there's an ocean up there, above the dome, and the stars are the product of sonoluminescence?

See this article, regarding the creation of light by passing ultrasonic waves through water:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

Here is a nice rabbit hole for ya...

What if above the firmament there is water...as is stated clearly in sacred texts...then above this water you have the singing of the countless hosts of Angels that never ceases in Heaven which is clearly stated in sacred text.

Their singing causes the ultrasonic frequencies that are never ending pulses through the water generating these stars.

Great post! I like this concept.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:05 pm

Posted by ricaius on 07/24/2015

Olbers' Paradox

“Why is the sky dark at night, if there are so many stars (so called “suns”) in the sky?”

This is actually an explanation of why stars are not farfarfar-away suns, and yet they call it a paradox! (like with Airy’s “failure”) and also, if I did understand correctly, one of the reason that led to the developing of the "big bang theory", which introduced the fact that the universe is expanding.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
www.tutto-scienze.org/2013/01/paradosso-di-olbers-o-dark-night-sky.html

The following is from: www.mathpages.com/home/kmath141/kmath141.htm

Prior to the Copernican revolution, the stars were commonly supposed to be embedded in a sphere that rotated once each day, with the motionless Earth at its center. This conception of the heavens entailed a finite number of stars distributed more or less uniformly over the surface of the celestial sphere. However, from the Copernican point of view it’s much more natural to conceive of each star (like the Sun) occupying a place in a three-dimensional space. This shift in the conception of the heavens corresponds to the change in the analytical basis of most scientific thought from circular/angular to rectilinear, as in the evolving concepts of inertia and natural motion. This, in turn, leads to the idea of stars (perhaps of infinite age) being distributed more or less uniformly within an infinite three-dimensional space. The first to comment on this conception of the universe seems to have been Thomas Digges in 1576, who also noted an apparent paradox that arises from this conception.

The angular extent of any given star is inversely proportional to the square of the distance, but the number of stars at a distance between r and r + Dr is proportional to the square of the distance r. From this it seems to follow that each incremental distance Dr covers the same fraction of the sky with the surface of a star, and since there are infinitely many such increments (extending to infinite distances), the entire sky ought to be as bright as the Sun. Digges thought that perhaps some stars are simply too distant to see, whereas Kepler argued in 1610 for a spatially finite universe. Subsequent writers, such as Halley (1705), Cheseaux (1744), and Olber (1826) thought the paradox might be resolved by interstellar dust obscuring the most distant stars, but in 1831 Herschel pointed out that the dust would simply be heated until it glowed as brightly as the stars.
Oddly enough, it seems that no one carried Herschel’s thought process to its conclusion, which is that the sky should be infinitely bright. If we neglect the blocking or absorption of light by stars, then the intensity of light reaching us from each concentric shell of thickness Dr is the same, and there are infinitely many such shells, so the intensity of light impinging on each point in space would be infinite.[…]

Many different resolutions of Olber’s paradox have been proposed. Some have argued that that answer is the finite age (and/or size) of the universe. Others argued that it is the finite life spans of stars. Some claim the expansion of the universe is the answer, red-shifting the light from the most distant stars. Still others (e.g., Edgar Allan Poe***) have pointed to the hierarchical clustering of stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters, and so on, to resolve the paradox. (This suggestion has sometimes been erroneously attributed to Mandelbrot.) The night sky actually does glow from the direction of the Milky Way when viewed from our perspective out near the rim, and presumably the entire sky would be illuminated if the stars everywhere had the density of the center of a galaxy. Hence there is certainly some truth to this hierarchical explanation. It’s also worth remembering that the entire sky actually does radiate, in the microwave regime, so this too shows that Olber’s paradox is not entirely an idle fallacy. Oddly enough, the principle of conservation of mass-energy has rarely if ever been invoked in these discussions.[…]

Everything, except the easier one: they are not far away, they are not suns and their number is finite (as it was before Copernicus).

***quote from Edgar Allan Poe's "Eureka: a prose poem": "Were the succession of stars endless, then the background of the sky would present us a uniform luminosity, like that displayed by the Galaxy – since there could be absolutely no point, in all that background, at which would not exist a star. The only mode, therefore, in which, under such a state of affairs, we could comprehend the voids which our telescopes find in innumerable directions, would be by supposing the distance of the invisible background so immense that no ray from it has yet been able to reach us at all"

As for the "what are stars?" question, I think the speculation about the “sonoluminescence” is certainly valuable, it could really be some sort of music up there in the sky. I see it more like some vibrational waves of sound, that play always the same melody through a given star, and the rotation of the sky spreads all of those different kinds of waves/energies all over us and the earth. If this is true, astrology would be more credible than ever (if it is not already?!)

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:14 pm

Posted by Jimmy on 07/24/2015

Jul 24, 2015 0:01:27 GMT ricaius said:

As for the "what are stars?" question, I think the speculation about the “sonoluminescence” is certainly valuable, it could really be some sort of music up there in the sky. I see it more like some vibrational waves of sound, that play always the same melody through a given star, and the rotation of the sky spreads all of those different kinds of waves/energies all over us and the earth. If this is true, astrology would be more credible than ever (if it is not already?!)

Ricaius, I have this star application on my phone, and when you tap the star you are viewing, it plays a different musical note for each star.... Wild. I wonder if the creators on the inside know something.

I live bout 50-60 miles from a major city, so there is not much light pollution here. The stars are amazing out here on a clear night. It is quite breathtaking. I can see why the ancient civilizations were obsessed with star movements.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:15 pm

Posted by on 07/24/2015

Jun 26, 2015 15:04:15 GMT geekozoid said:
What if there's an ocean up there, above the dome, and the stars are the product of sonoluminescence?

A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM
ACT II SCENE I

OBERON

My gentle Puck, come hither. Thou rememberest

Since once I sat upon a promontory,

And heard a mermaid on a dolphin's back

Uttering such dulcet and harmonious breath

That the rude sea grew civil at her song

And certain stars shot madly from their spheres,

To hear the sea-maid's music.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:16 pm

Posted by vortexpuppy on 07/24/2015

Jul 24, 2015 0:01:27 GMT ricaius said:
Olbers' Paradox

“Why is the sky dark at night, if there are so many stars (so called “suns”) in the sky?”

Heh Ricaius. Snap. Looked at this last week and wanted to post, but forgot.

Came to the same conclusion when watching the physics teacher giving it his best shot in the video.
They ignore the obvious answer : Finite number, not far away at all - This answers Olbers paradox.

Without a telescope, Tacho Braye cataloged about 1000 and a special 777 subset

www.ianridpath.com/startales/tycho.htm

Regarding the water above and sonoluminescence, definitely worth further research.
Light and sound create geometric pattern, that are then made visible (form / shape) via the medium in which they "propagate".

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 pm

Posted by Bernard on 07/24/2015
Asan afterthought to my previous post:

In 1932, the press reported the announcement of Dr. George W. Crile, noted scientist of the
Cleveland laboratories, that he had discovered in the heart of every cell of protoplasm tiny
centers or foci of energy which he called "hot points" or "radiogens," with temperatures
estimated from 3,000 to 6,000 degrees of heat.

Protoplasm emitted radiations of various wave lengths, "some as powerful as those emitted by
the sun." "The sun ‘shines’ in the protoplasm of animals and plants, and therefore animals and
plants can confer on atoms chemical affinities such as are conferred by the sun."

"Who would think that there are ‘hot points’ in man and animals on the order of the temperature
of the surface of the sun? . . . If one could look into protoplasm with an eye capable of infinite
magnification, one might expect to see the radiogens spaced like stars as suns in infinite
miniature . . . Without exaggeration the concept may be taken to mean . . . that within the very flesh
of man burns the fierce fire of the sun, and that within man’s body glow infinitely small
counterparts of the stars."

What would be the amazement of Dr. Crile if it was shown to him that in an old book on the
Rosicrucians by Hargrave Jennings, published about 1872, the following brief sentence can be found:
"Every man has a little spark of the sun in his own bosom . . . A spark of the
original light is supposed to remain deep down in the interior of every atom."

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:17 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 07/24/2015

Jul 24, 2015 11:23:14 GMT Bernard said:
Asan afterthought to my previous post:

In 1932, the press reported the announcement of Dr. George W. Crile, noted scientist of the
Cleveland laboratories, that he had discovered in the heart of every cell of protoplasm tiny
centers or foci of energy which he called "hot points" or "radiogens," with temperatures
estimated from 3,000 to 6,000 degrees of heat.

Great post. This would certainly suggest that genuine Astrology is correct/partially correct, seeing as it would merely be the study of this phenomenon, whereby the Sun shines in the protoplasm of the animals and plants, affecting how they live.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:18 pm

Posted by Bernard on 07/25/2015
To thinkforyourself

Hi,

Regarding your message: I have decided to post my reply here so that any doubts are cleared up about how I use the term EVOLUTION

I agree with you: evolution in the sense of Darwinism is a hoax and I also point that out in some posts on my blog. I was using the word evolution in the sense of spiritual evolution. I didn't make that quite clear. Sorry about that.

In fact even in the sense of spiritual advancement it isn't quite correct. Because I firmly believe we are not evolving upwards so much as clawing our way out of the pit we fell in countless millennia ago! Perhaps the Creator is kicking our asses to get going and keep climbing up back to where we came from.

It's more an awakening and a return home rather than an evolution.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:18 pm

Posted by Thaneus on 08/25/2015
I now look up at the sky in amazement. Someone mentioned that stars may have different vibrations - this could account for how and if Astrology works. I recently had a birthday, and I thought to myself - What is it that makes today my birthday? Why it is that the celestial bodies are in the same position as when this body was born. (Feel free to correct me if this is mistaken). Perhaps the stars are energies that cause a specific influence depending where they are...

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:19 pm

Posted by csp on 08/25/2015

Aug 25, 2015 2:26:57 GMT Thaneus said:
I now look up at the sky in amazement. Someone mentioned that stars may have different vibrations - this could account for how and if Astrology works. I recently had a birthday, and I thought to myself - What is it that makes today my birthday? Why it is that the celestial bodies are in the same position as when this body was born. (Feel free to correct me if this is mistaken). Perhaps the stars are energies that cause a specific influence depending where they are...

I have a thread in the works that will be touching on exactly this subject soon.

It's a long work in progress, but yes I believe that when the primordial water from your birth mother is broken and you enter the world, the position of the "heavens" affects all attributes of your "soul" - I will essentially be attempting to unify astronomy and astrology based on evidence from ancient cultures and the ancient understanding of the heavens (e.g. arabic astrolabes, the book of enoch and some other resources).

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:19 pm

Posted by Thaneus on 09/01/2015
Has anyone noticed that in the high altitude flight videos you never notice the stars? Is it the camera quality? Check it:

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:20 pm

Posted by thinkforyourself on 09/01/2015

Sept 1, 2015 9:25:19 GMT Thaneus said:
Has anyone noticed that in the high altitude flight videos you never notice the stars? Is it the camera quality?

Yes, that has been discussed on the forum before. It does certainly seem to be true to say that in most of the footage I have seen, the Stars cannot be seen the higher we fly.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:20 pm

Posted by rare on 09/02/2015
It is not camera quality so much as ISO sensitivity amongst prevailing light. Do not worry about it. Any camera will draw from the greater light source unless corrected, in this case the earth. Think about when you walk through a street with lamplight and cannot see the stars but in a rural setting you can see them. In the street light the stars have not vanished only that there is a closer light source countering them. Try taking pictures of stars with the flash on your camera. Your bigger question should be on Olber's paradox and the theories of Edward Robert Harrison and others. Those are the cards you should put on the table. Look it up. If the stars are infinite the night sky should be lit up like the day.

by lizardking Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:21 pm

Posted by Thaneus on 09/06/2015

Sept 1, 2015 19:31:59 GMT rare said:
It is not camera quality so much as ISO sensitivity amongst prevailing light. Do not worry about it. Any camera will draw from the greater light source unless corrected, in this case the earth. Think about when you walk through a street with lamplight and cannot see the stars but in a rural setting you can see them. In the street light the stars have not vanished only that there is a closer light source countering them. Try taking pictures of stars with the flash on your camera. Your bigger question should be on Olber's paradox and the theories of Edward Robert Harrison and others. Those are the cards you should put on the table. Look it up. If the stars are infinite the night sky should be lit up like the day.

I did some reading on what you mentioned. What do you think about Olber´s paradox? The reason I brought up the observation that ´I can´t see the stars in high balloon flights´is because I now consider them not so far away, and that perhaps, due to the rise in height, for whatever reason renders them unseeable. But yeah, this can be explained with the proximity and brightness of the suns light cancelling out visibility of smaller lights...

Anyone else have any ideas around this?

by Sponsored content

Stars are Not Suns!

Stars are Not Suns!

What Are Stars?

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!

Re: Stars are Not Suns!