0x2d31…d1f1 on-chain memos

0x62448568…9229sent to0x2d316a3c…d1f12026-02-15·#24,463,056·0x702176ae…168888

Space is nothing, or space is something? The dominant model in astronomy is that space is nothing, and therefore, it does not bend light. Dominant models spread by genetic imperatives such as food, sex and territorial dominance, where intellect is one imperative but it is not the dominant one. Science was a method of selection of ideas where it should select only by intellect, but, in reality this is not what ideas select by, so a group claiming to be operating by scientific method for selecting belief, is in fact operating by the human condition, and this is why you get "scientism" and the craziness of people who fanatically claim to "be science", a delusion really. In this "scientism" (i.e., people believing they can actually be "rational" just by wanting to really badly, even though their instincts do not care about that), anything that could not be easily explained has typically been replaced by "nothing". God was replaced by nothing. From "God created the universe" to "nothing created the universe". Etc. "Nothing", which cannot actually exist, does exist in "scientism". The idea that space was something, and that this provides a medium for waves (waves being by definition perturburations in a medium, i.e., something) was replaced by "nothing" by "scientism". Believers in scientism who decided space is nothing (which is, well, a ridiculous belief) had to believe that what they saw in the sky was light that had not been affected in any way, such as bent or such (they made the occassional exception where they really really had to, such as the effect near stars... i.e., they introduce contradictions in their model and underlying premises as there were some things they could not manage to ignore). Thus, parallax, was simple straight line geometry, and from that the stars had to be really far away. If, instead, you consider the model where space is something, and not nothing, it bends light. A solar system, behaves like a spherical gradient-index (GRIN) lens is made of concentric shells with gradually varying refractive index. The index is lowest at the center and increases toward the outer edge, following a logarithmic profile. Objects seen through the lens appear compressed toward the center and smaller than they really are. This applies whether the observer is outside looking in, or inside looking out. If the sun had a binary companion star, any planet within that binary system would be compressed towards the center, and any parallax between the binary star and background stars would be reduced even more than what parallax normally is by our solar system: our companion star would appear further away, even compared to other stars, than it is. If our binary star had a barycenter around one of its larger planets, a gas giant, this barycenter would not be compressed, since it is the system as a whole moving. The gas giant would appear close to the star. It would orbit the star with the period of the barycenter. We would be able to see our own orbit around the binary star in ways similar to our orbit around our sun, but slower. Each "month" in the binary orbit, the sun would rise in a new constellation at a certain time of the year, just as it rises in a new constellation every month of the year. The spectrum from our binary star, would be that of a nearby star, i.e., it would have strong enough signal that it could be contrasted to the background radiation of the interstellar space medium, and would lack hydrogen wavelengths.

0x62448568…9229sent to0x2d316a3c…d1f12026-02-15·#24,462,575·0x7f549ac4…8720f1

# Spherical Gradient-Index Lens ## The Lens A spherical gradient-index (GRIN) lens is made of concentric shells, each with a slightly different refractive index. The refractive index is lowest at the center and increases toward the outer edge, following a logarithmic profile. The total variation is very small on the order of the difference between air and vacuum. Because light bends toward regions of higher refractive index, this gradient causes rays to curve outward as they travel away from the center. ## How It Looks from Outside When an observer outside the lens looks at an object inside it, the light from that object has traveled outward through increasing refractive index. The rays curve outward away from the center so they arrive at the observer from a direction that points back toward a position closer to the center than the object actually is. The lens compresses everything inside it toward the center. Objects appear both closer to the center and smaller than they really are. The effect is strongest near the center, where the refractive index gradient is steepest, and weakest near the edge. ## How It Looks from Inside An observer sitting at the center of the lens sees the opposite effect. Incoming light travels inward through decreasing refractive index, and the gradient bends the rays inward concentrating them toward the observer. The lens acts as a converging lens for incoming light, making the outside world appear magnified and spread out. Because this magnification applies uniformly to everything the observer sees, it is difficult to detect from the inside. There is no internal reference frame to compare against. ## The Asymmetry The same lens has two different faces. It diverges outgoing light (shrinking the interior when viewed from outside) and converges incoming light (magnifying the exterior when viewed from inside). This asymmetry is central to how two lenses interact. ## Parallax from Inside the Lens An observer inside the lens, orbiting its center, can make parallax measurements of outside objects. As the observer moves along the orbit, the apparent angular shift of an external object gives its parallax distance. However, the lens compresses all positions toward the center including the observer's. An orbit with true radius *R* corresponds to a compressed effective radius *R'* as seen from outside. The parallax angles the observer measures correspond to this smaller baseline *R'*, not the true *R*. The observer believes they are moving a distance *R*, but the effective baseline that determines parallax is shorter. The result is that all parallax distances are systematically overestimated everything outside appears more distant than it really is. This effect is uniform and cannot be distinguished from the objects actually being farther away, unless the observer has an independent distance measurement that does not rely on light passing through the lens. ## Two Lenses Place two identical lenses, A and B, some distance apart. An observer sits inside Lens A, near its center, and looks toward Lens B. ### Objects inside Lens B Light from an object inside Lens B first exits Lens B. During this exit, Lens B compresses the object's apparent position toward B's center the object looks closer to B's center and smaller than it is. This light then crosses the gap and enters Lens A. Lens A bends the incoming light inward, but it does this to all incoming light equally both the light from Lens B's center and the light from the object. The relative separation between them is unchanged. Lens A's effect is a uniform magnification that does not undo Lens B's compression. The observer inside A sees the object compressed toward B's center, just as any external observer would. ### Background objects behind Lens B Light from distant objects behind Lens B passes through all of Lens B before reaching the observer. Lens B refracts this background light, compressing it toward B's center. When the observer shifts position, Lens B and the background both appear to move, but the background's apparent motion partially tracks Lens B because the light has been refracted through it. The parallax between Lens B and the background is reduced. ### Why the observer cannot detect Lens A The observer is inside Lens A but outside Lens B. Lens B's full compression effect is visible because the observer sees light that has traversed the entire lens. Lens A's effect, on the other hand, is applied uniformly to the observer's entire field of view every direction is magnified by the same amount. With no unaffected reference to compare against, the observer has no straightforward way to notice Lens A's influence.