textfiles/ufo/photbelt.txt

From: dmc@otto.uchicago.edu (Dave Cole)
Subject: The infamous photon belt
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 1995 02:59:33 GMT


All right, I'm sick of this.  Unlike everyone else I've seen post, I
*am* an astronomer; I am with the University of Chicago and do studies
of star formation using measurements made in the far-infrared (60-200
micro-meters) part of the spectrum.

Mr Nanomius writes:
>
> 1. The photon belt is a huge torroid shaped object composed of photon
> light particles, first discovered by scientists in 1961 near the
> Pleiades via satellite instrumentation (p.27). This star system
> includes the nearby stars Atlas, Pleione, Asterope, Maia, Taygeta,
> Celaeno, Electra, Merope (diagram, p.29). The Pleiadian stars orbit
> around the central sun Alcyone. (From the diagram it appears that
> stars Pleione, Atlas, Merope, Taygeta, and Maia are inside the belt,
> although this may not be intended to be taken literally.) The
> Pleiades orbit around Alcyone 5.5 seconds of an arc per century
> (diagram, p.29). The earth/solar system and the photon belt are
> "moving toward each other" (p.28).
>
The Pleiades is at a distance of 410 light-years.  Its motion with
respect to us can be broken into two components: along the line of
sight and transverse to the line of sight.  The former is called
"radial velocity", the latter "proper motion".  The radial velocity of
the Pleiades with respect to us is 4.5 miles/second in recession--that
is, the Sun and the Pleiades are moving *away* from each other.  The
proper motion of the Pleiades is 5.5 arcseconds/century, roughly
south-east as seen on the sky.  This is towards Orion and is consistent
with both ourselves and the Pleiades being in orbit around the center
of the galaxy.

The 8 star names devolve from antiquity, specifically from a the
Greeks; c.f the 3rd century BC poem by Aratus.

All of the Pleiadean stars share the same motion; they are thus not
orbiting Alcyone, but rather moving together as a group.  The Pleiades
is an "open cluster", which means that it is not gravitationally
bound.  Thus, over a timescale of a few million years, the cluster will
evaporate into individual stars all orbiting the galaxy.  The
second-to-last sentence in the above paragraph is simply wrong, and the
writer of that sentence (presumably the book's author, not Mr Nanomius)
is either ignorant or a liar.

(My sources for this information are the Bright Star Catalogue and
Burnham's Celestial Handbook.  Also, torriod is not a word; toroid,
torus, and toroidal are, but of these only toroidal is an adjective, as
is needed above.)

> Questions:
>
> - do these star names exist in conventional astronomy? what did 1961
> satellite instruments detect in the Pleiadian areas? [...]
>
The names exist, although astronomers tend to refer to stars by their
BS (Bright Star) or HD (Henry Draper) catalog numbers instead, since so
few stars have names.

On May 5, 1961, Alan Shepard became the first American to reach space,
on the first (sub-orbital) Mercury mission.  Thus there weren't exactly
a lot of things in orbit then; it ought to be easy to use a book on the
history of space flight to pick out which satellite it is to which your
channelers refer, particularly since those early satellites couldn't
have been doing a lot of science.  If you truly care, Mr Nanomius, you
should be able to find out and enlighten us all.  Speaking as an
astronomer, however, I wouldn't trust any measurements made in 1961--I
would demand they be redone, at least!

> - some people in challenging this theory say that the light year
> distance of the Pleiades from the earth is so great that it would
> take a super-luminal velocity of orbit for our solar system to circle
> it in the period claimed. is this indeed the case? (some channelings
> claim that measurements of astronomical light distances are skewed
> due to lack of proper accounting and that a new technique is going to
> be devised)
>
Let's do the math:  As I have said, the distance to the Pleiades is 410
LY.  Therefore, the length of a circular orbit around them at our
distance is 2*pi*410 LY = 2581 LY, or 2.4x10^19 meters.  The claimed
orbital period is 24000-26000 years; take 25,000 years, which is
7.9x10^11 seconds.  Our orbital velocity is then 2.4x10^19 m /
7.9x10^11 s = 3.0x10^7 m/s.  The speed of light is 3.0x10^8 m/s, so our
orbital velocity is one-tenth the speed of light, or 0.1c.

Possible, according to relativity, but I assure you, Mr Nanomius, we
would notice.  We do not see this.  If you have questions, please
contact me privately.

A larger question is *why* would we be orbiting the Pleiades; to do so
would require a large mass centered there.  We can derive what that
mass is from the fact that the velocity with which an object orbits
(assuming a circular orbit) another is also given by the equation v^2 =
GM/R.  We can rewrite that as M = R*v^2/G.  So doing, we can deduce
that for the Sun to orbit the Pleides at a distance of 410 LY at a
velocity of 0.1c would require a central mass of
    M = 410LY * (3x10^7m/s)^2 / 6.668x10-11 m^3/kg*s^2
      = 3.88x10^18 m * 9x10^14 m^2/s^2 / 6.668x10-11 m^3/kg*s^2
      = 5.24x10^43 kg

The mass of the Sun is 2x10^30 kg, so this is 2.6x10^13 Suns.  The mass
of the galaxy, including dark matter (see below), is estimated to be
between 10^9 and 10^10 Suns, so in order for us to orbit the Pleiades,
there would have to be a mass of around 10000 galaxies there.  That
would definitely be something we'd notice--if only by the gravitational
lensing!

I should point out that these are not difficult calculations, Mr
Nanomius.  The fact that they give such ridiculous results is a major
blow to your theory.

> 2. The photon belt is comprised of photon light particles emitted by
> the collision of matter and antimatter (electrons and positrons). The
> resulting mass of the collision is converted to photon light
> particles. (Positrons and other particles have been proven to exist
> by scientists. They were conjectured to exist by 'Derac' and verified
> by Anderson in 1932. The anti-proton and anti-neutrons were
> discovered by the 1950s.)
>
As others have said, that is P.A.M. Dirac.

> Questions:
>
> - have scientists discovered or observed  the collision of
> matter/antimatter in space anywhere? what are the observable effects?
>
You needn't go into space; they happen all the time in first-year
physics and chemistry labs all around the world.  The cardinal sign is
a gamma ray--photon--which has 511 keV of energy.  Such photons have
been observed coming from space.

> - I know that Steven Hawking proved that black holes can emit or
> radiate antiparticles. are there sources that emit electron streams,
> such that the photon belt is a region in space of the confluence of
> two opposing sources?
>
Well, the simplest source of an electron stream of which I can think is
the device upon which you're currently reading this, your monitor/CRT =
Cathode Ray Tube.  A Cathode Ray is a free electron.  You could of
course build a CRT using positrons, but since they have an annoying
tendency to explode whenever they're around matter, no one's yet been
able to do it.

This brings up a separate point, though.  Our universe has an extreme
matter/anti-matter imbalance; that is, there is very little anti-matter
out there.  We do not believe, for instance, that galaxies made of
anti-matter exist.  Explaining why that is the case is a problem for a
cosmologist!  Now, we see jets from a variety of sources--young stars,
active galactic nuclei, quasars--but all of those jets are consistent
with electrons & protons being accelerated by a magnetic field and
flung out in a stream.  So while a positron stream might exist, we
certainly haven't seen one.

> 3. The photon belt was initially discovered when a series of studies
> on the Pleiades was begun in the earth 18th century by the British
> astronomer Edmund Halley (discoverer of the comet named after him).
> Halley discovered that at least three of the stars in the Pleiadean
> star  group are not in the same positions observed by Greek
> astronomers in classical times. The difference had become very great
> and suggested that either a gross error had been made by either the
> Greeks or Halley. Since Halley was confident in the accuracy of both
> his own measurements  and the Greeks', he concluded the Pleiades were
> in motion.  (p.29)
>
> - what books by Halley refer to this observation? has it been
> recorded? what does it say?
>
> - are mainstream astronomers familiar with his observations?
>
> 4. The observation of Pleiadian motion was later proved by  Frederick
> Wilhelm Bessel. He discovered the motion of 5.5 seconds of an arc per
> century by all stars in the Pleiadian cluster. (p.30)
>
> Questions:
>
> - is this recorded in his research? what does it say?
>
> - what do mainstream astronomers think?
>
I'm sorry to have to say this, but this is almost insulting.  Halley
discovered proper motion, Bessel made later observations, absolutely.
No *reputable* astronomer would ever contend that proper motion doesn't
exist.  So, is it recorded?  Of course.  What do we think?  We believe
it.  What does this have to do with Mr Nanomious's claims?  Not a whit.

Mr Nanomius also seems laboring under a false assumption of how work in
astronomy (at least) is done.  I can't tell you where Halley or Bessel
might have written any of this down; to find it, you would have to
consult the rare books section of a good library.  I've never read an
original text from the 18th or 19th centuries, it would be pointless.
When astronomical discoveries pass into the accepted body of thought,
they appear first in reviews and then in textbooks and catalogs.  In a
very real sense, I do not care what either Halley or Bessel measured
the proper motion of the Pleiades to be; it has been done many times
since, with ever better equipment, and I want to use the most certain
value!

> 5. Paul Otto Hesse also studied the Pleiades and discovered that at a
> right angle (90 degrees) to the movement of the stars in the
> Pleiades, there was a photon belt shaped like a torroid with a
> thickness of approximately 2,000 solar years or 759,864 billion
> miles. Since both Hesse and Bessel are correct, earth is now
> completing a 24,000 year cycle within the  photon belt. (p.30)
>
> Questions:
>
> - who is Paul Otto Hesse? what are his books? what do they say?
>
> - what did he observe? what did he call the photon belt?
>
> - is he recognized by mainstream astronomers?
>
> Note: I have found the following reference on a "Paul Otto Hesse". I
> would greatly appreciate if anyone can research it and give any
> information on its contents.
>
>         AUTHOR: Hesse, Paul Otto.
>          TITLE: Der Jungste Tag : e. Buch an d. Menschheit, d. von kommenden
>                   Dingen spricht.
>      PUB. INFO: Bietigheim/Wurtt. : Turm-Verl., 1986.
>    DESCRIPTION: 135 p.
>           ISBN: 3799900683
>
>
I've never heard of this man.  That doesn't mean he is not an
astronomer, but it doesn't bode well, either.  And since the only
reference given is for a book in German, a language I only nominally
speak, neither can I offer any help on that front.  What I would like
to point out is that an *astronomical* discovery would have to have be
reported in a peer-reviewed journal, not in a book, to have credibility.

I would also like to say that quite frankly you, Mr Nanomius, are not
pulling your own weight in this matter.  If you want to have an honest
discussion of your unorthodox ideas, the burden is on you to do the
research, not us.  I can sympathize with posting something in which one
says "I tried to find X, but didn't get very far, any ideas?" but that
is not what you have done.  It is very clear that you have not bothered
to read even an introductory astronomy text, for had you done so you
would not have made the errors you did which struck me as just plain
stupid.  Perhaps the most grevious example is that you don't know what
"dark matter" is.

"Dark matter" is defined as matter we sense only through its
gravitational effects, rather than by emitted or reflected radiation.
I quote a later posting of yours:
>
> are you talking to me?? I'd say the theory is not
> really much more bizarre than the idea that there is "dark matter"
> all over the universe that we can't find anywhere.
>
Dark matter is not matter we cannot find, it is matter we cannot SEE.
The difference is crucial.  Mr Nanomius, if you want to know more about
dark matter, I would be happy to email you privately, or you could go
read a textbook; in the meantime, you should desist commenting upon a
subject about which you are ignorant.

> 6. The photon belt energies are located at an angle where they are
> very difficult to be seen except by very powerful astronomical
> instruments. The governments of the planet have largely prevented
> those who have access to such instruments from sharing their findings
> in the public light. This suppression has led to a great deal of
> confusion among those who have been given information about its true
> cause and nature. (p.45)
>
> - is there any evidence of suppression? has anyone experienced it? how
> is this "suppression"  supposedly carried out?
>
> - if this suppression is in place, it would restrict e.g. NASA
> photographs or Hubble investigations into this area. is this
> happening in any cases?
>
This essentially says that I am required by someone else not to tell
the truth in this matter--a very handy way of discounting anything I
have to say: "it's all lies from the NSA."  This is a beautiful example
of the classic logical fallacy 'argumentum ad hominem', or 'arguing
against the man'.  Since you can't oppose my arguments, you attempt to
construct a straw man--"all astronomers are suppressed, and thus if
they claim not to be, they are liars paid by the NSA"--so you can use
it to discredit me.  Well, discredit all you wish, Mr Nanomius; I have
never had any association with the NSA--unless you count visiting their
museum!

Now, in direct contradiction to this claim about the Hubble Space
Telescope, it is a fact that all its images are in the public domain,
because it is a public venture.  Space Telescope Science Institute will
send you any images you want--and you can acquire them even more easily
through a little net-surfing.  The only restriction on data is that the
investigators who take the observations are entitled to sole access to
the data for a short while so that they get first crack at reducing it.

As far as some other kind of suppression occuring, I should point out
that many of the largest telescopes in the world are not government but
privately owned.  The University of Chicago, for instance, has two
1-meter telescopes at Yerkes Observatory in Wisconsin and a 3.5-meter
one at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico, to name just the ones at
least 1 meter in diameter.  Persons at the University of Chicago could
not be prevented from publishing whatever they wanted concerning images
from these telescopes.

For perhaps one final piece of evidence, I'd like to point out that
many astronomers I know went into this field in order to have as little
to do with the government as possible--not wanting to build bombs or
drive nuclear submarines--thus their tolerance for anything reeking of
censorship from the government is exceedingly low.

> 7. over the past few decades, the magnetic field of the earth has been
> decreasing gradually to almost zero because of photon belt effects
> that nullify magnetic fields. however, a pole shift will not occur.
> (p.33)
>
> - has this decrease been measured? to what is it attributed to?
>
I don't believe this, and here's why:  my compass works just fine.  And
as far as I know, my dad's compass, which he got as a Boy Scout in the
40's, works fine as well.  Had there been a noticeable change over the
last few decades, don't you think that the manufacturers of magnetic
compasses, at least, would have noticed?  Wouldn't they have said
*something*?

> 8. an article called "Age of Light" by Barbara Hand Clow gives
> further information (publication unknown), stating
> physicist Brian Swimme triggered some of her research.
> supposedly Swimme is quoted as saying the "central scientific
> discovery of the 20th century- is the discovery of  background radiation or
> photons in the microwave spectrum of the electromagnetic spectrum". Swimme
> commented that since 1961 and radical increase in photon has been evident
> and that the photon arrived here " soaked in news".
>
> - who is Swimme? are the quotes accurate? what articles has he
> published on this subject?
>
> - what experiments or papers refer to an increase in background
> radiation over the last few decades?
>
I have never heard of Swimme.  However, Mr Nanomius, the quote does not
say what you think it does.  It isn't talking about, nor does it say
there was, an "increase in background radiation" over the last few
decades.  Rather, it refers to the fact that it has become possible,
due to advances in solid state physics and the creation of the space
program, to sense the photons which comprise the Cosmic Microwave
Background Radiation (CMBR).  The existence of these photons was
discovered by Penzias and Wilson in the early 60's--you shouldn't have
any trouble finding them, they won the Nobel Prize for it--and their
characteristics investigated in detail by the COBE (COsmic Background
Explorer) satellite, launched in 1989.  The reason this discovery is so
important is that CMBR photons are an essential prediction of the Big
Bang theory, and that because those photons are as old as anything
gets, they give us valuable information on the state of the very, very
early Universe.

> 9. more from Clow:
>
> ``In 1991, Robert Stanley reported a discovery of satellite instruments in
> Unicus magazine in an ariticle called ' The photon Zone- Earth's Future
> Brightens'.  According to Staneley, these excess photons are  beiong
> emitted from the center of our galaxy.   Our solar system enters this area
> of the galaxy every 11,000 years and stays in this band of space for 2000
> years.  This band is described by Stanley as a "cloud of photons that
> rotate at a 90 degree right angle to our (solar system)  horizontal orbit.
>  Stanley, and other writers including astronomer Otto Hesse, Sir Edmund
> Halley,  and Shirley Kemp, link the entry into the photon belt with an age
> old speculation that we are the eighth star in the Pleiadian sytem of
> stars.''
>
> - are Stanley or Kemp known in the physics field? what are some of their
> writings? what is the exact reference for the Unicus magazine?
>
> - again, is the supposed orbit of our solar system around a Pleiadian
> system physically possible? if not, why?
>
Never heard of them, don't know, you'd know better than I, no, and see
above.

>
> Miscellaneous Notes:
>
> Many of the channelings claim that the photon belt effects are being
> interpreted by scientists as changes in observed cosmic and/or solar
> radiation patterns. A recent article in OMNI documented the discovery
> of a very highly energetic proton detected by an observatory in Utah.
> The proton, caused by cosmic radiation, had an energy of a 100 MPH
> tennis ball.  Mainstream scientists have concluded the cosmic ray was
> due to an extragalactic source because it had such an enormous
> velocity. I believe the "Galactic Human" book also has a reference to
> gamma radiation being observed as an effect emitted from the "null
> zone" of the photon belt. Another final and persistent claim is that
> human DNA will be mutated to uncover lost psychic capabilites.
>
> - have there been changes in solar radiation patterns in recent years?
>
The Sun does have an 11 year sunspot cycle, peaking again in ~1998, but
somehow I doubt that's what you mean.

> - has a suitable explanation for the energetic proton yet been  given
> by mainstream scientists? could such a phenomenon be related  to the
> "photon belt"?
>
The explanation is "it's extragalactic".  Whether or not such a
phenomenon could be related to the photon belt would depend on an
actual, physical, definition of the same; lacking such, this is a
meaningless question.

> - is the conclusion about the extragalactic origin accurate? what is
> the evidence that nothing in our galaxy has the required energy? are
> the Pleiades/photon belt, according to the above information, in our
> galaxy?
>
Accurate?  What does that mean?  It's the accepted explanation.  No new
evidence has been acquired to cast doubt upon it.

We only know of a few mechanisms of producing extremely high-energy
cosmic rays--a cosmic ray being defined as a high-energy charged
particle, i.e. the proton so described.  None of those mechanisms,
acting in the conditions of our galaxy, could give a cosmic ray that
much energy; here, the most energetic sources are supernovae, which
can't produce enough energy.  If the cosmic ray came from outside our
galaxy, however, it could come from, for instance, an active galactic
nucleus, which could give it much more energy.

Although this is a bit more esoteric a subject than dark matter, a good
astronomy textbook should be able to tell you more about cosmic rays.

> - what has been observed about gamma radiation in the area supposedly
> occupied by the photon belt?
>
There are two problems with this question: first, how are we to observe
gamma radiation "in the area"?  We can only see what *comes from* the
area; even if we had a probe which could nearly attain the speed of
light, we wouldn't get any results back for at least 820 years.
Second, "area supposedly occupied"?  While you have told us some things
about where it is, you have not told us enough to actually locate it
specifically.  So where would we look?

> - regarding DNA mutation, an article in Nature some months ago
> documented an unknown mutation in DNA noticed by researchers. have
> researchers noticed any other widespread DNA mutations?
>
I can't speak to that, of course.

This debate has gone on far too long for what it has become, a forum in
which Mr Nanomius can demonstrate both his lack of knowledge on the
subject and his willingness to shout others down rather than learn.
You came to this newsgroup, Mr Nanomius, pretending to be interested in
what astronomers or at least astronomically-knowledgable people had to
say in reaction to the astronomical claims of these authors' theory.
The fact is, however, that a couple of hours work at the public
library, less work than you put into your WWW page and certainly less
work than I have put in responding to this drivel, could have
enormously enhanced both your argument and your apparant understanding
of it, let alone any replies.  It's not that you have put up some
claims that turn out not to work, Mr Nanomius, that is objectionable;
it is that you use all tools you can find--including your ignorance--to
denigrate anyone who tries to show you you're wrong.  Even, or perhaps
most certainly, when it's clear to anyone with actual knowledge--the
very people you claim to be trying to ask--that your questions are too
silly to consider seriously.

You don't know what dark matter is, Mr Nanomius, you don't know what
cosmic microwave background radiation is, you don't recognize classical
logical fallacies when you see them--or if you do, you purposely
traffic in them--and to be honest you seem most interested not in
learning but in just being sarcastic.  That, and making a fool out of
yourself.  Please tell us, Mr Nanomius, what are your credentials--8th
grade?  High school?  College?  It would help everyone greatly to know
at what level arguments need be pitched--if not assist in the
deaccreditation process.  For that matter, tell us, why should we
believe you are interested in anything but virtual masochism?  What
reasons can you give us for not believing that, in accordance with what
I've concluded from your postings to date, were we discussing the time
of day, you would tell me I was wrong even had I the only timepiece?


David M. Cole
Dept of Astronomy & Astrophysics
University of Chicago
dmc@oddjob.uchicago.edu

================================================================
END OF TEXT