if our atmospheric screen expands in volume, a year will thus appear to take longer, because the stars common optical orbit around us, are now a little wider, or, all equally appear a little further, higher, thus taking a little longer, to complete their optical orbits. this also explains why we see no parallax, as we all see a different image to our eyes yet formed close to them as a reflex on the edge of our atmosphere. the entire universe will also appear to expand, without the objects in it, equally expanding with the relative space increase between them. their real 3D distances all remain the relative same, and unchanged, while our atmospheric screen expands, making them "appear" further (apart relative to each other on our screen), without the planets actually changing their location, and thus apparent size, in relation to us. this explanation explains the absence of dark matter, and "why" we will actually never find it, because dark matter is not even needed to explain the galactic rotational curve paradox when we do not observe matter directly in space but indirectly as a projection through space, seen on our atmospheric edge. also, a dome like lens function, would indeed make ellipses with epicycles, less funny once more, as the light falling in from space would be broken and refracted by a elliptical shaped lens, warping light relatively to observer, into the atmosphere, indeed creating 2d! elliptical observations, warped from perfect 3D circle orbits in deep space because of relative distances, in relation to us. if we observe (compressed in time) perpendicular images of light, on a thin layer of our atmosphere, this would optically create the entire spectacle for each individual observer personally, matching his location, at any time. we would then be observing happenings in 3D depth from space, presented to us in a 2D flattened manner. we must think 3D from 2D images we observe. we can not regain the original absolute 3D shape, from a 2D (light) shadow, seen on a 2D flat surface.
the sun grows, jupiter's big red spot grows, widening orbits in our solar system? galaxies move apart, the universe expands... seems to grow bigger, in relation to us, and our scale of how we build. we compare increasing sizes from space to our fixed scale here on earth on the surface, no one thinks what binds this growth or expansion, or that space,(the volume) inside our own atmospheric screen grows.... from global warming or industrial revolutions, because everything expands, away from us.... to all sides, equally... like a balloon with stars and galaxies on its edge, stretching out the heavens.... which are said to be like molten looking glass...
if refraction increases with distance.... further galaxies, move away faster... while normally the rules of perspective say further, equals less optical movement. the further, thus smaller the object, compared to the background, the less movement (and thus appear slower over greater distance, like air planes) we should observe. this is actually counter intuitive, as objects on great distances in the universe should appear to decelerate really. 2D space-time does not curve, light is reflected individually, refracting relatively, between source, object and observer, located inside our atmospheric lens, with a refractive edge (border between 2 mediums, one of which supports visible light) that is projected upon. light moves so fast compared to objects in space, it appears to move in straight lines, (projected or imaginary lines) which are not actually ever found in nature. only matter acts on light, thus atmospheric lensing is a much better term for what is now still deemed gravitational lensing. gravity can not act on light, only static matter can. light is individually reflected and refracted. i present you the "Holocentric Atmospheric Lensing" principle. 3D spatial depth, 3D objects, 2D light, thin atmospheric layer, 2D visible refraction. 3D space divided over 1D time equals 2D space-time.
kleintjuhD
2 uur geleden
The image below of Saturn, is only made, of statically captured light from far. we did not look at it directly in space, we captured the light, here, over time. we do not see towards, we see from a location in space. if one would overbright this image, one would never observe any "information" in the shadow behind the planet. there is no information, because what we observe is the absence of light. this image is only made of light, either on, or off. off is nothing, a empty photoshop layer, absence, nothing, translucent. there is no information because, in deep space, the planet blocks the light behind it, coming directly from the source, and not us, and is therefore lost, to us, (from our perspective) because shadows can not reflect light and then also come back to this direction of earth in space. what we observe under an angle of (3 body) perspective in space is a light silhouette, imprint, compressed bounced through space light, flattened, like a bounced hologram, created on the edge of our atmosphere. therefore the shadow behind the planet on the rings of Saturn hold no "density information" to us, whatsoever. the light that does bounce to us and our perspective, IS all of the information. shadows or phases do not reflect back to earth, they remain on the object where they are created in space. this is why objects in space all seem "frontlit", all the time,under any angle we capture light from it. real images show little or no phases at all, as only light reaches us here, to give us information from location, in a 2D flattened way. there is a difference between direct light, straight from the source, and light bouncing via a planet or or other heavenly object. objects observed indirectly, also explains why the moon does not lack any density at all for it's " apparent" size, but why the relationship between size, movement (velocity) and time is off. (not seen directly thus non existent).
this easily (even self) reproducible test, (with any "real" non shaded, non artistic, amateur image, taken from earth's surface of Saturn's apparent location) like stars appearing through the dark part of the moon, because there is no light and also no density, actually there, exactly where we observe, and not expect the light from, proves we do not see 3D objects in 6D space directly, but 2D luminaries on the edge of our thin atmosphere lens, screen, able to bend light's path, by individual reflection off of atmospheric particles, before being translated into pixels. maybe aristotle, did not draw all the stars in a circle, thus all the same equal distance to earth, after all. like stereo audio, is actually two times a mono signal combined, giving us an indication of location and depth, or a wider "stereo" effect, so are our eyes, not truly stereoscopic, (we receive light from, close one eye and you have mono vision, less depth perception, less information from the sides of an object) but actually two times a mono signal that our brain combines. our eyes see a flat image, two times, projected on its lenses, then if we move around, our mind starts to form a 3 dimensional mental object, from information of multiple 2D images. we can only maximally see the object, from one side at a time thus we perceive a "relative" depth not only from "known", experienced size and distance, but also from moving around a object, and perceiving it from multiple angles, experiencing it's depth through comparing relative distances of the edges, (+ geometric landmarks on the object) some thing we can not do to verify, from earth with the moon, ourselves. when a object is at a distance, we can not circle the object to form a complete 3D mental image of "it", we are dependent on if the object turns itself, to form a 3D mental image of the far 3D object with. only one side of the moon is ever observed by us from the surface, and there is only that little bit of extra information we get at it's sides as well, as if it actually matters which eye one sees "it" with, from.
i think Newton drew what he thought to be, (3D depth) but not what he actually saw (3D, compressed into 2D information, made of light alone). for light to have come from anywhere, space must have already been present (to hold the source or reflecting object in).