[Home] [How to Measure Your Beliefs] [The Man-Made Church] [Miscellaneous]

[Home]>[Miscellaneous]>[8. Astronomy]>[2. Astronomical subjects]>[2.17 Orion as Pointer]

Previous webpage:           2.16 Brightness
To the end of this webpage: End
Next webpage:               2.18 Solar eclipse


2.17 Orion as Pointer


Frank L. Preuss



This is a diagram of a part of the night sky.

It shows the constellation of Orion and areas around it.

The constellation of Orion is relatively easy to identify in the night sky and can be used to find other constellations and stars. "Some of the most prominent constellations are excellent celestial signposts and invaluable for learning to find your way about the night sky." Stars are used as pointers.

The direction of the three stars of the Belt of Orion points in the direction towards Sirius. It is marked by a red arrow. Other red arrows point in other directions.

The following list gives stars that are shown in the above image and belong to the 14 brightest stars, but also other celestial bodies are given:


Celestial bodies compared to Sun
Rank of bri- ght- nessCeles- tial bodyCon- stell- ationGal- laxyBright- nessDia- meter in kmDia- meter com- pared to that of SunDis- tance from sun in light years, if not other- wise stated Remark
SunMilky Way-26.861 392 7001.00.0
EarthMilky Way12 7560.00928 light minu- tes
MoonMilky Way-123 4740.00258 light minu- tes1 light second distance from Earth
Half-moonMilky Way-103 4740.00258 light minu- tes1 light second distance from Earth
Proxima CentauriCen- taurusMilky Way0,144.2Star closest to the Sun
1SiriusCanis MajorMilky Way- brightest star
2CanopusCarinaMilky Way-0.8500The second brightest star
6CapellaAurigaMilky Way+0.216sixth brightest star; absolutely 150 times brighter than sun
7RigelOrionMilky Way+0.319650
8ProcyonCanis MinorMilky Way+
11Betel- geuseOrionMilky Way+0,7400270
14Alde- baranTaurusMilky Way+1,13553
AcruxCruxMilky Way
MimosaCruxMilky Way
GacruxCruxMilky Way
SaiphOrionMilky Way
AlnitakOrionMilky Way1140Belt of Orion
AlnilamOrionMilky Way1.7900Belt of Orion
MintakaOrionMilky Way2.4820Belt of Orion
BellatrixOrionMilky Way1.9270
DenebolaLeoMilky Way2.21642
RegulusLeoMilky Way+1.3485Diameter = 4 x 106 km
AlgiebaLeoMilky Way130The Sickle
AlphardHydraMilky Way
WezenCanis MajorMilky Way
AdharaCanis MajorMilky Way
MegrezThe PloughMilky Way
PhecdaThe PloughMilky Way
MerakThe PloughMilky Way
AlhenaGeminiMilky Way60
PolluxGeminiMilky Way32
CastorGeminiMilky Way1.544
ElnathTaurusMilky Way1.8134
PleiadesTaurusMilky WayStar cluster


This list shows that out of the 14 brightest stars 7 are within the diagram shown above.

The constellation of Orion and its surroundings has therefore an unusual high number of bright stars. Based on the number of bright stars and because of their easily remembered arrangement, Orion is an outstanding constellation. And sometimes the only constellation that can be recognized in the night sky, when one lives in a metropolis with many lights.

Now follows a diagram showing the absolute magnitude of some stars. The absolute brightness of a star is the brightness independent of the observers distance from the star:



The really brightest star in our sky is of course the Sun and second brightest celestial body the Moon, and that is also because of their distance from us.

Also these two celestial bodies show the importance of distance, because the Moon has actually no illuminating power, it just reflects the light of another celestial body, but because it is so close, it overpowers at night all stars and planets. Only during the day one can see that the Sun is stronger, despite the moon being closer.

There exist prophecies and Bible verses about Orion: http://www.countdown4us2.com/en022012/en022012280.htm.

The above list gives the information about Regulus in the constellation Leo being 85 light years away from the sun. In Regulus it is stated that Regulus is the primordial sun in this shell-globe and that it has an incalculable large distance from here. That would mean that Regulus is not a star in the galaxy Milky Way.

The statement, that Regulus has an incalculable large distance from here, and that the above table gives a distance of Regulus, gives us immediately the information that the distance measurements of our astronomers are an important part of that part of their science that is full of illusions.

I have a book about astronomy that gives information about distance measuring, but that is all about things in our solar system, and at the end it says, "more distant stars are measured by other methods." And then there is nothing about these other methods.

I want to give an example of the illusions of the astronomers. On page 37 of his book "dtv-Atlas zur Astronomie" writes the Astronomer Joachim Herrmann: "The electromagnetic spectrum. The light perceptible by the human eye is only a small part of the gigantic range of electromagnetic vibrations or wave radiations."

He therefore declares that light is visible to the human eye.

There is therefore a man, whose profession it is to look into the black sky, into a universe full of light, but which is black, which therefore proof to him, that light is not perceptible, and explains to the world the opposite.

And that applies to all astronomers. I have heard of no astronomer or astrophysicist who explains to people that light is not visible.

Electromagnetic waves do not smell, one cannot taste them or feel or hear or see them.

Light is not visible. Only when light interacts with matter the energy of light is concentrated in quanta called photons.

But Joachim Herrmann writes many pages about the complicated processes, which are of importance in astronomy, therefore also in distance measuring, and one of them is of course the atomic process, which passes off inside of the sun, or is supposed to pass of there according to his opinion.

I now bring a picture of it, from page 188 of his book, so that one can now also really imagine visually what is going on there:


"C Die atomaren »Brennzonen« im Inneren der Sterne"

"C The atomic »burning zones« in the interior of stars"

One has to see all the reports, which are constantly published in the media by these so-called scientists as something that comes from tellers of fairy stories.

Have a look at this, 273, there is another picture of his.

In connection with the atomic zones Weizsäcker is of course mentioned. Have a look at this personality

"Even in the largest telescopes the stars appear point-shaped. It is therefore not possible to determine, in connection with the distance, the true diameter in km from the size of the angle of the little star disc, as this is possible with sun, moon or planets."

In some cases one can determine the diameter through other methods, for example with the method of covering, for example through the covering through a moon.

"In all other cases the diameter of the stars can be derived from illumination power and temperatures. From these physics data it is calculated, how much radiation the star emits altogether and how many square centimeter its surface contains. Out of it the diameter is then to be calculated."

In now bring an example which shows, how their idea of the atomic process determines their theories:

"the absolute brightness depends on how much energy is produced in the star, this depends on the mass of the star (and what nuclear reactions go on inside it), the mass determines its volume, the volume determines its surface, and the surface, combined with the absolute brightness, determines the temperature. Hence for stars which have the same nuclear reactions in their core, absolute brightness determines surface temperature uniquely, and vice versa."

And now still annother quote:

What has all of this to do with determining distances? Simple: observe the stars in a stellar cluster (the stars in such clusters are all approximately at the same distance from us), measure their surface temperatures and brightnesses, and draw a Hertzsprung-Russell diagram with these measurements. You will get again a main sequence, some giants and some dwarfs - but this time, you don't have plotted their absolute brightnesses, but their apparent brightnesses. By comparing this new diagram to the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram for the nearby stars, you will see that the ratio of the observed apparent brightness to the absolute brightness is the same for every kind of star - and this ratio gives you then the distance to the cluster.

Essentially, the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram gives us the information we missed: the absolute brightnesses of the stars for which we can only observe their apparent brightnesses.

There are some assumptions we have to make - for example, that the elements have the same spectral lines "out there", that stellar development works as predicted by our theories, and so on, but in the end it is simply the same assumption used everywhere in science: that the laws of nature work in the same way everywhere in the universe. And the fact that every observation of a cluster so far yielded a main sequence, some giants and some dwarfs, in exactly the proportions which were predicted by the theory of stellar development, gives strong support that this assumption is valid.

They have to make some assumptions. It is not just one assumption, that of the atomic process, but also still the assumption about the spectral lines of the elements, and that stellar development works as predicted by their theories, and also the assumption that the laws of nature work in the same way everywhere in the universe.

And that it is exactly what spiritual writings declare that this is not the case; that the laws of nature, as they are valid on our earth, are not the same way valid everywhere, as with us.

And when it is about their atomic process, then it does not even count as assumption, but as certain law of nature. The measuring of distance is just one thing, which is affected by this, another one is the coming into being of celestial bodies, stellar development. And consequently it shows that almost the whole astronomy and astrophysics is based on assumptions.

The producer of the last two quotes has at least still so far some overall view that he recognizes these assumptions, or at least a part of them, as assumptions and also expresses that, only that he is the exception; the majority of his colleagues is not able to have such insight. The talk and the writing there is about all these things as if they are scientific facts.

What then has all this to do with that Orion can be used as pointer?

That all that, what science tells us about these things, to which Orion points, are based on assumptions and can just as good also be the very opposite.

We can consider all that as interesting ideas and also play around with it, and work out magnificent calculations and draw diagrams. But it will not be fulfilling. When we really want to know how that works, there is a quite simple method to establish that; to go to the planner and builder and preserver of the universe. And his explanations are available and are accessible, and are above all comprehensible.

Alone on this website are thousands of webpages, which have exclusively the explanations of the creator as content; explanations to many things of life, and also to scientific things, and that in a language, which is easily understood, and not as often, when it is about spiritual things, causes difficulties to grasp the right meaning.

The last two quotes come from an article which starts like this:

Originally this page was written for the archive of the newsgroup talk.origins as FAQ-("Frequently Asked Questions"), which deals with debates about "biological and physics origins". It primarily criticizes the "Creationism" movement, which is above all very active in the USA, which takes the six day creation history of the Bible literally and therefore also claims among other things, the world is only some thousand years (6 000 – 10 000) old. An often-used argument against this claim is the fact that we can see astronomical objects, which are billions of light years away (a light year is the distance which light travels in one year, approximately 9.5 * 1012 kilometers. Obviously the light needs billions of years to reach us, and therefore the universe has to be billions of years old.

He, the writer of the article, belongs to the religious movement of the materialists and atheists, and the Creationists belong to the religious movement, which is called Orthodoxy. And this Orthodoxy is that, what the first Christians have called the Imitation Church, and it is the invention of Antichrist. On this website we have a whole long book dedicated to this wrong church. In chapter 35 we have particularly investigated this thing with the six day creation history of the Bible and unmasked as a thing, which carnal Christians think up, and who, also out of the view of the Bible, is untenable.

It is only so that both, the materialist as also the Orthodox, are not aware that they belong to a religious group, and their group religion makes them to people, who cannot be spiritual, and who therefore also do not understand spiritual things, and material ones not at all. And that, because they do not know the whole background of the existence of the material world.

In the article the name of the writer is not given. But when one then goes to the English version, then one finds the name there: Björn Feuerbacher.

Exactly like Joachim Herrmann also he speaks of visible light, and that two times. And visible light is then also with them such a thing, which is not regarded as assumption, but as scientific fact. As Tom Lethbridge says, like parrots they repeat that, what they have been told.

What then is a shell-globe?

Here something from Cosmic man


03] Said the learned Pharisee: “Yes, Lord, when they hear and understand the parable from the lost son, they will not care about hell too much!”

04] Said I: “You should worry about something else! The time within which the pronounced hope is given to the lost son (this is the great world person in infinite creation space), is not that short as you imagine. I will show you the duration of the judged world, and thus listen!

05] The earth is surely not such a small world body, and the sun is about a thousand times thousand times larger then the whole earth; but already the next central sun is more than ten times hundred-thousand times bigger than this sun, which illuminates this earth and soon will rise, and has more body content then all the thousand times thousand times thousand planetary suns including all their earths and moons and comets, which all, in for you unthinkable wide stretched circles, move with their attachments with great speed around such a central sun, and still, especially the most distant, often require thousand times thousand earth years, to complete only one wide orbit and arrive back again at the old spot.

06] Now however, there exists a second kind of central sun, around which in even endless bigger orbits whole sun regions with their central suns move, of which the most distant regions require already one aeon earth years, to only once circle this second type of central sun. One such second central sun, around which whole sun regions with their central suns orbit, together with their thousand times thousand sun regions, we want to call a solar universe.

07] Now imagine for you again an equal number of such solar universes! They again have for no human mind measurable depth and distance, a common central sun, which in itself as a world body is ten times thousand times bigger than all the solar universes which in unmeasurable wide circles orbit it.

08] This solar universe group with one central sun, we want to call a solar super universe. There again exists for you an uncountable number of such super universes, and all have in an endless depth one most immense large primordial sun, around which they orbit without interference of their many separate movements like one body in only for an angel measurable wide circle, and such a sun- and world body system around one primordial sun, to make it a tangible concept, we want to call a sun- and world body shell-globe, because all these previously mentioned super universes which orbit the primordial central sun in all directions, present an immeasurable large ball and as a result of their necessary nearly thought quick movement and its effective centrifugal force to the outside in for you of course not measurable depth and distance, form a kind of shell, which density equals the atmospheric air of this earth and has a thickness from the inside to the outside, if measured as thousand times thousand aeons the wideness of this earth, would still be much too small.”

So we have our solar system with our sun in the centre.

Then we have a central sun, which is the centre of our galaxy, or of our sun region. And this our galaxy contains these planetary suns including all their earths and moons and comets, and all these move around this central sun.

The second kind of central sun is then the centre of our group of galaxies, called a solar universe. Around this second kind of sun the regions, the galaxies, move.

The third central sun is then the centre of solar universes. Around this third central sun groups of galaxies move. And these solar universes have a common central sun, this third central sun. And this is a solar universe group. And has one central sun. It is called a solar super universe.

The fourth central sun is the centre of solar super universes. And its centre is the primordial sun. And around this primordial sun these solar super universes orbit. And this system around one primordial sun is a sun- and world body shell-globe. It is a kind of shell.

And Regulus, the star in the constellation Leo, is such a fourth central sun.

A shell globe is therefore something like a galaxy of the fourth kind. The Milky Way is of the first kind. Our group of galaxies is of the second kind. And our group of galaxies belongs to another group, of the third kind. And then there is the fourth kind. And Regulus is the centre of that group of galaxies, called a shell globe.


Kinds of Galaxies
Num- ber of kind Systems, which orbit, within the kind, the central sun Central sun Kind
Name Example Name Example Name Example
ElectronsAtomic nucleusAtom
Planets, moons, cometsOur earth, our moon, our planetsPlanetary sunOur sunSolar systemOur solar system
1Solar systemsOur solar systemNext central sunCentre of the Milky WayGalaxy, galaxy first kindMilky Way
2Sun areas, galaxies first kindCentral sun second kindGalaxy second kind, sun world universe
3Sun world universes, galaxies second kindCommon central sunSun universe universe, sun world universe company, galaxy third kind
4Sun universe universes, sun world universe companies, galaxies third kindOriginal central sunRegulusShell globe, galaxy fourth kind, sun and world system, sun and world shell globe, sphere, a sort of shellOur shell globe
Shell globeThe great world man in the infinite space of creation, the Lost SonOur great world man
World manGod


Regulus and the system of the galaxies orbiting it, seems to be something extremely large, but out of the view of the whole universe it is something extremely small.

Of the values of columns 7 and 8 of our list of celestial bodies, which do not belong to our solar system, many can be considered as being part of these illusions of scientists.

My experience is that whenever there are contradictions between statements of spiritual writings and statements of scientists, then one can put aside the statements of scientists.

So when you look at Regulus, in the constellation of Leo, then be reminded of the extremely large size of the universe.

So use Orion as pointer and be reminded of God as creator, and that his creation if vast and that his ability to create comprises many things and that he is able to do everything, and can also solve any problem you might have and say with Job: "I know that thou canst do every thing." Job 42:2.

I repeat something from the quote from above:

There are some assumptions we have to make - for example, that the elements have the same spectral lines "out there", that stellar development works as predicted by our theories, and so on, but in the end it is simply the same assumption used everywhere in science: that the laws of nature work in the same way everywhere in the universe.

They use assumptions and these assumptions are assumptions, as they are used everywhere in science. And what he means with science is of course this so-called science of the so-called scientists, and that is the science of the materialists and of the atheists. And so they prove their science with their science and so they do the same, what they do, when they prove their evolution with their evolution. The prove one wrong thing with another wrong thing in their astronomy and they prove one wrong detail with another wrong detail in their evolution.

And just to remember: When he writes about stellar development, then it is there of course about atomic processes, about "The Sun's energy-producing fusion reactions" and about that http://www.countdown4us2.com/en022012/en022012080.htm.

Almost the whole of astrophysics is based on this "The Sun's energy-producing fusion reactions" and is therefore actually just quackery.

As already said, Björn Feuerbacher is now a man, who is able to also think outside of the box. He gets involved in discussions with the creationists and writes about their ideas that the universe is (in their opinion) only 6,000 years old, and that Adam and Eve were created "mature" and that therefore the universe also had to be created "mature", i.e. old-looking. And then he writes that he thinks this analogy makes no sense at all.

When someone would now tell him that he himself creates himself perhaps seventy times every second "mature", that the physical body is a projection of the inner self, and that that is an insight, which the "scientists" will probably soon gain in future, then that would make for him even less sense. But perhaps he would think about it that this could be so, with some scars from injuries which had never really happened.

See The physical body is a projection of the inner self .

For hundred years these scientists now know that consciousnes creates everything. They learn about quantum physiscs, they teach it, but they never grasp it what it is all about. It never becomes alive in them.


This is the end of "2.17 Orion as Pointer"
To the German version of this chapter: 2.17 Orion als Zeiger



Previous webpage:                 2.16 Brightness    
To the beginning of this webpage: Beginning
Next webpage:                     2.18 Solar eclipse

[Home]>[Miscellaneous]>[8. Astronomy]>[2. Astronomical subjects]>[2.17 Orion as Pointer]

[Home] [How to Measure Your Beliefs] [The Man-Made Church] [Miscellaneous]

The address of this webpage is: