How does light travel between stars?

As near as I can tell, your proposal would prevent me from seeing any stars in the night sky. But I can see stars in the night sky. I think it is incumbent upon you - the critic of the existing state of the art - to describe what it is that I am seeing. Please enlighten us.

You may consider yourself so intellectually superior to the science community that you choose not to submit your idea for peer review. Unlike folks like Einstein, Sagan, Feynman, Bronowski, Bohr, etc - you may not see the need for any scientific approval. Perhaps you have not yet experienced the academic environment that is the basis for such review. Or perhaps that represents too much work. I don't know what your motives are, but you will have to do a lot more than write some self-contradictory statements on Y/A ("quanta are far too low?" - What does that mean?) in order to gain the respect of anyone but yourself.

ADDED: I am not sure what you are referring to concerning the resolution of individual stars in distant galaxies. I have certainly never had any experience like that, and I use an 11 inch scope. Please clarify what you are talking about, since I perhaps am missing something that you have seen personally? Are you referring to a star or a supernova? Or maybe you haven't exactly seen it personally...

ADDED (2): And your sound and structured model is...? Your documentation shows no mathematics, just words. I do not understand what you are referring to at all. You are arguing with folks who do use mathematics, and there is nothing wrong with their mathematics that I can understand. You are not helping your own case. All you are saying is that it does not work. Sunlight does not work? I have no clue why it does not work quantitatively. You say the power is insufficient. Show us the math. Prove it. Prove that the Sun does not provide light to the Earth. If it does, then what's different about our Sun vs other stars? If you cannot prove it, then I must take the position that it is wrong. You cannot expect to have such revolutionary ideas accepted based only on your words, right? Your statements are outrageous, but that's all they are. They make no technical sense, and your derision of others ("Get out of the Dark Ages," etc) just reinforces the notion that you are just another crackpot. What is your model?

Oh - and an 8 inch telescope is also woefully inadequate to resolve stars in distant galaxies. You have perhaps not spent much time with a real telescope?

ADDED (3): Your tacit admission that you were wrong about a 3 inch telescope, followed by an attempt to cover it up with a similarly ridiculous statement about an 8 inch telescope, casts such doubt on your technical integrity that the rest of your assertions can be treated in a similar fashion. In other words, if you were making up stuff about a 3 inch telescope - and an 8 inch telescope - (which is obvious to anyone who has ever used either one), then you are probably making all this other stuff up, too. It is clear that you are reluctant to admit that you could be mistaken, and that is a fatal character flaw in anyone who considers himself a scientist in even the most shallow interpretation of the term.

ADDED (4):

1. What is the model? You say you have one; what is it?

2. Where is the math?

3. Where is the logic and evidence? All I see are big words that you do not appear to understand and that make no sense to me.

4. If the math was pushed aside before I obtained my education (1972), then how and where did you learn it?

5. This math was purportedly completed a century ago - let's see, that was after Maxwell and after Boltzmann, but before Heisenberg and DeBroglie and certainly before Schrodinger. Who did this math, and how does it negate the Inverse Square Law?

6. Why can I see stars at night?

You may impress children with your pretentious baloney, but I am not impressed. This is classic science by intimidation. You just keep blurting words like "quanta" and "electromagnetic spectrum math" until everyone walks away. Most walk away shaking their heads. A few - kids I guess - think "wow." What I think is that you do not know what you are talking about, as evidenced by your statements regarding telescopes. My clear skies happen to be in northern Michigan, with an 11 inch scope - twice the light gathering capability of an 8 inch scope. I cannot see individual stars in distant galaxies, and neither can you. Just because you say you can does not mean you can. Just because you pretend to understand quantum mechanics does not mean that you do.

Have a nice day.

If as you say there is no light travelling through space, what are we seeing when we look at the sky after dark on a clear night?... The human eye is not the most sensitive light detection system, but it is capable under ideal conditions of perceiving a single photon event. And as for claiming that we can easily resolve individual stars in distant galaxies with a 3" telescope, I have never found an astronomer who would claim that was possible (what are they doing building 8 metre 'scopes with active optics for?)

I suggest that you publish your theory in a reputable astronomy/astrophysics journal and then we'll see if there's anything to it....

There simply isn’t enough power generated at the source to reach us in the electromagnetic spectrum.

Why would you think this?

‘Cosmic Lens’ is codswallop: Magic suspends physics so electromagnetics are transmitted without loss or expanding waves - silly.

There is loss of intensity with distance, but it started out so intense that it still reaches us. By your logic we shouldn't be able to detect photons from the Sun.

Please see that your astrophysics is a failed and easily defeated model. The first part of Chapter Six

http://www.joebrownscience.net/millennia%E2%80%A6

is different proof.

Is this guy you? I can't imagine that there exist two people that are as deluded.

I'm trying to understand how your post can seem so well researched and yet be so wrong in its basic assertions.

Here is a quote from your source:

"Consider the Sun as I have discussed it in Part II. It has antimatter at its center. Remember that antimatter is any stuff that does not share harmonics with the vibrations of our universe, but is in a separate harmonics universe of its own. The Sun’s center does not operate in real time, but in imaginary time, controlled by activist librarians. It is separated from our universe by its event horizon, which is resonating with the material in the Sun’s surface, and as a direct function of the level of activity of the center’s antimatter. "

Much of the article reads like this. Just because someone strung a bunch of scientific or philosophical words together doesn't make it right. Actual science must stand up to the rigours of observation, statistics, and peer review. I suggest you study the basic principals of light and gravity from a legitimate sources instead of filling your head with this manufactured and unsupported tripe.

You really don't have anything better to do with your life than post so much of this here? If you are right, why not actually publish somewhere sensible rather than writing here just to attack all who disagree with you?

[Edited to add]

>>The model is as described in the chapters of Millennial Physics<<

OK, so it's described in a website. Is it actually published and peer reviewed in reputable scientific journals? Does it in fact have any peer reviewed experimental data to back it up? What I read of that sounds like a load of pseudoscientific waffle.

You do recognize that coherent gentle is when all the frequencies are in segment with each other comparable to in a laser beam. The light from stars are usually not coherent to start with. We do not certainly see extrasolar planets, we see the stars the orbit dim relatively when the planet passes in entrance or we see the megastar wobble if the planet goes across the superstar from our viewpoint. The doppler frequency shifts of the megastar additionally indicate the wobble if we are within the equal plane as the planets orbits and are not able to see the wobble straight. It could appear that you've been missing a few normal courses in tuition.

You are mistaken.)

We CAN see stars with our unaided eyes. (only 1cm aperture)

How much more light does a telescope with perhaps a 3 meter wide aperture gather?

By the way, we can not resolve individual stars in distant galaxies with a 3" telescope. It takes more light gathering than that to resolve single stars at those distances.

Occam's razor tells us that the simplest explanation may be the correct one.

In this case we see stars because of light that they emit.

Have you got some other explanation?

Jimmy E? Is that you?

So you know who I'm talking about? That's good, but unfortunately, it's clear that you've thus invented a third self that also trolls Y!A. That's such a shame, you were doing so well, Jimmy! What did your new co-worker do to you?

Nice trolling.

Now leave, please.

EDIT

>>Red Rose: Please move on to easier prey.<< you first, buddy.

>>There simply isn’t enough power generated at the source to reach us in the electromagnetic spectrum.<<

Please provide your evidence for this - I would like to see calculations of power at source, power reaching our eyes and the minimum energy needed to get a response from human photoreceptors.

I would also like to know your qualifications in electromagnetic physics.

Buh-bye!

It gets on a bus. An interstellar bus.