Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside.

page: 16
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
According to the scientist interviewed that I gave last page or so, we've entered into that magnetic field.
Actually NO. If one had read the file before posting,one would see the date given for the magnetic field to get to Earth is september 27th 2011 (possibly up to 12 days earlier) So end of september. And don't expect anything radical by then either.it is positioned on the opposite side of the Sun right now from Earth.So it'll take a few months before we even start to feel the strong effects of it. Early 2012 most likely.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



What are you?

Elenin has traveling companions. These companions are visible following Elenin and are a million or so miles behind. One is moving faster than the other indicating they may be orbitals. I'm not going to show you. Its all over the web and its hard to believe with all the research you claim to do and admonish others for not doing, that you do not know this.


You're not going to show them because you know that they are either misinterpretations of stacked images or deliberate hoaxes. Not one person who has actually observed the comet has seen any "companion bodies," although the Sydney Stargazers "pushed" (meaning enhanced) an image that provides evidence that the comet has broken up into three pieces.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Valeri
 

So things inside a vacuum chamber are weightless? That's pretty neat.

I didn't know air was affected by magnetism. Since Earth's magnetic field is strongest at the poles does that mean that the atmosphere is pushing down harder on things there? Are things heavier at the poles?

What about the South Atlantic Anomaly? Are things really light there?
www.ngdc.noaa.gov...



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valeri
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 
obviously you did not read the explanations at all if u ask why stuff doesnt float.

Here "On Earth, much of the so-called gravity is simply atmospheric pressure that gives weight to small (relative to the planet) objects and alongside its magnetic field keeps them on its surface - much like underwater pressure in the ocean depth, which is the force of the sheer weight of the sea exerted on deep underwater objects such as submarines, atmospheric pressure is the weight of the volume of air above exerted on us here on the surface of the planet. As for the atmosphere itself, it is 'weighed down' and kept in place by the Earth's far more expansive and all-encompassing magnetosphere''



This is total nonsense. Atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with weight or mass or gravity. If a 100 pound piece of steel is put on a scale in a decompression chamber, the scale will read the same weight regardless of pressure. That is a fact.

Humans do not yet understand gravity, although, humans can use formulas to predict the affects of gravity.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



You are making the assumption that the distance stars are stationary. Tell me how did you determine this? Did you use the flawed redshift method to determine they are far away? Probably. Everything in our universe is moving relative to other objects down to the quantum level. Since everything is moving, it is not stationary.

So what part of my calculations did you not understand? So where can I help you out since you seem to be completely lost.


You assume it is stationary for the purpose of the parallax calculation. Maybe the assumption is correct in some cases and incorrect in others because you can't use the same reference star each time. Just because a star appears to be in the same location in the sky over a six month period, does not mean it is stationary. The star can be matching our speed and direction giving the appearance as stationary.

I think you seem to understand at least some of the issues at hand. A star can be considered stationary if its movement is not measureable for an elapsed time period.


Recently reported speed of the solar system = 568.000 mph

Relative to what? All movement is relative to another object. How do you know this movement occurs? Are you accepting some measurements and not others? According to you all astronomical measurements are suspect.


So if the angle an object's movement makes against a background star is for example, 10 arcminutes. And according to the parallax method, the distance to the star = 2AUs x sin 10 arcminutes (I chose a large object to reduce math).

= 2AU x sin 0.1666 = 0.005845 AU
.005845 x 93,000,000 = 543,585 miles = the calculated distance to this object using parallax method without considering solar system motion.

Some flaws in this math.

10 arcminutes = 10/60 = 1/6 degree That's correct.
distance = 1AU / sin(angle) You made 2 mistakes in the formula.

distance to star = 344AU

That is very different from your calculations.


Now what is the actual distance to the object taking into account the movement of the solar system?

(2AU + 26.75 AU) x sin 0.1666 = 0.08359 AU = 7,773,870 miles.

7.7 million isn't 543,000.

Now down to this issue. Let's go over some of the flaws here.
1. Your formula for parallax is still wrong.
2. The motion you referred to is relative to what? That would explain why number 3 is not detected.
3. Six months later the star does not return to its position as seen in the first measurement. Thus it becomes certain that there is a large relative movement between the Sun and the object in question such as seen in Barnard's star.


Since its recent news that the solar system is traveling at 568,000 mph, doesn't it make logical sense that all the parallax calculations not based on the solar systems movement are substantially flawed?

No. Please learn how the movement of Barnard's star was determined. That shoudl fill you in on many of your mistakes.


Redshift calculations are just as flawed if not worse.

Are the issues you have with the method also due to errors such as you have made with parallax?



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Valeri
 


I can only suppose that you were posting a joke, because you had me laughing the whole time I read about air and magnetics and whatever.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



This is total nonsense. Atmospheric pressure has nothing to do with weight or mass or gravity. If a 100 pound piece of steel is put on a scale in a decompression chamber, the scale will read the same weight regardless of pressure. That is a fact.

The mass doesn't change, but the weight does. Ever notice how a stone is lighter in water than in air? The change in weight would be very slight, but it would be there.

Buoyancy



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



Have you ever performed a parallax calculation? Parallax uses the angle the object appears to make while moving across the sky. It's movement is compared to very distant background stars which are considered stationary. The measurements are taken 6 months apart so that the maximum distance between points (earths location) is used. The problem is solved using right triangle trig. The distance on the short side is 2 AUs or 2 x earth's orbital radius. This gives a measurement that is off by a factor of nearly 50,000; and here is why.

The earth travels at a speed of 568,000 mph around the milkyway. So, in FACT, the earth travels a distance of 47,600 AUs plus or minus 2 AUs depending on which direction of motion is used. Either the earth moves in the direction of solar system orbit around the milkyway or the earth moves opposite the solar system.

The FACT that the solar system is moving at great speed puts the parallax method off by 45,600 to 49,600 TIMES. Astronomers are better off pulling a number from a hat for the parallax calculated distance than using a flawed calculation that considers the solar system as stationary. Since the distance was calculated using the parallax method that can be off by nearly 50,000 times, it is possible that CW Leonis is now closer than any other star. (600LY/50,000 = 338 AUs). And this can only be valid if we ASSUME background stars are actually stationary; which they are not. Nothing is stationary.

So all this astronomy mumbo jumbo is just that, mumbo jumbo.. A bunch of guess work that is turning out to be wrong.


The Sun's orbital speed around the center of the galaxy is included in the "local standard of rest," which is shared with the nearest stars, so it does not affect parallax measurement. Its motion toward the solar apex is around 16.5 k/second, or 259,459,000 kilometers over the course of six months, the period over which a parallax is measured. Since one AU equals 149,298,000 kilometers, the Sun travels about 1.734 AU during this time. Let's call it 2. Since parallax is basically a triangulation problem, let's look at what sort of error this actually introduces. One light year is about 63,240 AU, so a star five light years away would be 316,200 AU away. Now, imagine an isosceles triangle with a base of 1 and a height of 316,200. Now imagine an isosceles triangle with a base of 2 and a height of 316,200. These figures are very close indeed. Astronomers make very precise measurements, but they are only relatively accurate. At worst, they are off by a factor of 2, not 50,000!

All of this is beside the point because CW Leonis' distance was calculated by its estimated luminosity, not its parallax. It is highly unlikely to be "closer than any other star. I'm sorry my mumbo jumbo wasn't more rigorous, but I don't know how to insert mathematical formulae into BBS code.
edit on 7-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 08:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valeri

Originally posted by Unity_99
According to the scientist interviewed that I gave last page or so, we've entered into that magnetic field.
Actually NO. If one had read the file before posting,one would see the date given for the magnetic field to get to Earth is september 27th 2011 (possibly up to 12 days earlier) So end of september. And don't expect anything radical by then either.it is positioned on the opposite side of the Sun right now from Earth.So it'll take a few months before we even start to feel the strong effects of it. Early 2012 most likely.


That makes sense with the thread you just linked me. And that's 9/11 again.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by consciousgod
 



You are making the assumption that the distance stars are stationary. Tell me how did you determine this? Did you use the flawed redshift method to determine they are far away? Probably. Everything in our universe is moving relative to other objects down to the quantum level. Since everything is moving, it is not stationary.

So what part of my calculations did you not understand? So where can I help you out since you seem to be completely lost.

You are right about the parallax formula.



You assume it is stationary for the purpose of the parallax calculation. Maybe the assumption is correct in some cases and incorrect in others because you can't use the same reference star each time. Just because a star appears to be in the same location in the sky over a six month period, does not mean it is stationary. The star can be matching our speed and direction giving the appearance as stationary.

I think you seem to understand at least some of the issues at hand. A star can be considered stationary if its movement is not measureable for an elapsed time period.

Movement compared to what? Other stars. Ok, here is where I think there is a flaw in the current logic. Stars in the milkyway orbit the milkyway. These stars have an angular velocity with respect to the center of rotation. When the stars are observed, if the star is moving as we are moving around the milkyway at 568,000 mph, the distance traveled by our solar system must be taken into account or the data gives an erroneous result.


Recently reported speed of the solar system = 568.000 mph

Relative to what? All movement is relative to another object. How do you know this movement occurs? Are you accepting some measurements and not others? According to you all astronomical measurements are suspect.

Yes, all are suspect. It's all based on assumptions that may or may not be correct.


So if the angle an object's movement makes against a background star is for example, 10 arcminutes. And according to the parallax method, the distance to the star = 2AUs x sin 10 arcminutes (I chose a large object to reduce math).

= 2AU x sin 0.1666 = 0.005845 AU
.005845 x 93,000,000 = 543,585 miles = the calculated distance to this object using parallax method without considering solar system motion.

Some flaws in this math.

10 arcminutes = 10/60 = 1/6 degree That's correct.
distance = 1AU / sin(angle) You made 2 mistakes in the formula.

distance to star = 344AU

That is very different from your calculations.


Now what is the actual distance to the object taking into account the movement of the solar system?

(2AU + 26.75 AU) x sin 0.1666 = 0.08359 AU = 7,773,870 miles.

7.7 million isn't 543,000.

Now down to this issue. Let's go over some of the flaws here.
1. Your formula for parallax is still wrong.
2. The motion you referred to is relative to what? That would explain why number 3 is not detected.
3. Six months later the star does not return to its position as seen in the first measurement. Thus it becomes certain that there is a large relative movement between the Sun and the object in question such as seen in Barnard's star.

1. agreed.
2. relative to the center of the milkyway.
3. If the solar system travels 26 AUs during the six month period as calculated at 568,000 mph, then how can your calculations be correct using one AU as the difference in the position of earth? The result is only off by a factor of 26; which means your 344 AUs is only 13 AUs. This is the point I was trying to make. The angular velocity of the solar system around the Milkyway must be taken into account. If not all parallax calculations are off by a factor of 26.


Since its recent news that the solar system is traveling at 568,000 mph, doesn't it make logical sense that all the parallax calculations not based on the solar systems movement are substantially flawed?

No. Please learn how the movement of Barnard's star was determined. That shoudl fill you in on many of your mistakes.

www.worldculturepictorial.com...

I reviewed a paper on Barnards Star. Nothing special about that and its the same as I figured and the issue stands. The paper said that Barnard star is moving at about 140km/s. This is slower than our sun is traveling around the milkyway yet the paper states that Barnards star is the fasted moving star. Wikis says so too.


Redshift calculations are just as flawed if not worse.

Are the issues you have with the method also due to errors such as you have made with parallax

no, concerns quasars and time dilation.



posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by consciousgod
 



Have you ever performed a parallax calculation? Parallax uses the angle the object appears to make while moving across the sky. It's movement is compared to very distant background stars which are considered stationary. The measurements are taken 6 months apart so that the maximum distance between points (earths location) is used. The problem is solved using right triangle trig. The distance on the short side is 2 AUs or 2 x earth's orbital radius. This gives a measurement that is off by a factor of nearly 50,000; and here is why.

The earth travels at a speed of 568,000 mph around the milkyway. So, in FACT, the earth travels a distance of 47,600 AUs plus or minus 2 AUs depending on which direction of motion is used. Either the earth moves in the direction of solar system orbit around the milkyway or the earth moves opposite the solar system.

The FACT that the solar system is moving at great speed puts the parallax method off by 45,600 to 49,600 TIMES. Astronomers are better off pulling a number from a hat for the parallax calculated distance than using a flawed calculation that considers the solar system as stationary. Since the distance was calculated using the parallax method that can be off by nearly 50,000 times, it is possible that CW Leonis is now closer than any other star. (600LY/50,000 = 338 AUs). And this can only be valid if we ASSUME background stars are actually stationary; which they are not. Nothing is stationary.

So all this astronomy mumbo jumbo is just that, mumbo jumbo.. A bunch of guess work that is turning out to be wrong.


The Sun's orbital speed around the center of the galaxy is included in the "local standard of rest," which is shared with the nearest stars, so it does not affect parallax measurement. Its motion toward the solar apex is around 16.5 k/second, or 259,459,000 kilometers over the course of six months, the period over which a parallax is measured. Since one AU equals 149,298,000 kilometers, the Sun travels about 1.734 AU during this time. Let's call it 2. Since parallax is basically a triangulation problem, let's look at what sort of error this actually introduces. One light year is about 63,240 AU, so a star five light years away would be 316,200 AU away. Now, imagine an isosceles triangle with a base of 1 and a height of 316,200. Now imagine an isosceles triangle with a base of 2 and a height of 316,200. These figures are very close indeed. Astronomers make very precise measurements, but they are only relatively accurate. At worst, they are off by a factor of 2, not 50,000!

All of this is beside the point because CW Leonis' distance was calculated by its estimated luminosity, not its parallax. It is highly unlikely to be "closer than any other star. I'm sorry my mumbo jumbo wasn't more rigorous, but I don't know how to insert mathematical formulae into BBS code.
edit on 7-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




It is good to see that you removed those sunglasses.




posted on Sep, 7 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

from wiki
In astronomy, the local standard of rest or LSR follows the mean motion of material in the Milky Way in the neighborhood of the Sun.[1] The path of this material is not precisely circular.[2] The Sun follows the solar circle (eccentricity e < 0.1 ) at a speed of about 220 km/s in a clockwise direction when viewed from the galactic north pole at a radius of ≈ 8 kpc about the center of the galaxy near Sgr A*, and has only a slight motion, towards the Solar apex, relative to the LSR.[3][4] The LSR velocity is anywhere from 202–241 km/s.[5]

241km/s x 3600s/h x1.625 mi/km =1,409,516 mph for the LSR velocity

That seems a bit fast since the B..star is the fastest and its fastest reported speed is 140km/s.

So what's up here?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:12 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



So what's up here?


You do not understand the problem! Why are you multiplying unrelated quantities together? All the bodies close enough to have a measurable parallax are all presumed to be moving in the same general direction and same speed as the Sun. Just ignore that motion.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Not sure if anyone has posted this link.

endgametime.wordpress.com...

It is worth a read, it is regarding CW Leonis.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


I don't even know where to begin critiquing the site you linked to. Out of nowhere it claims that distances could be off by a factor of 1,000, and therefore CW Leonis might be comet Elenin! Really? If distances could be off by a factor of 1,000 maybe I'm really in Paris. They also seem to be unaware that the comet is breaking up. Not only fantastical, but singularly ill informed.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Funny.

Its a conversion. That's all it is. (km/s to mph).

Explain how our local group can be traveling 240 km/s when the Barnards star is only moving 140 km/s.

Could you address how this can be. Which is it?

Assuming all stars are moving at the same speed in the same direction is flawed. This will produce errors in distance if they are not, and since the stars in the Milkyway all move around the Milkyway, then most stars are moving in different directions and different speeds than we are.

How can you ignore this movement?



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:46 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Not sure about CW Leonis, but you state that the distance to CW Leonis was determined by luminosity. It's the brightest star is the sky in the infrared, so how can CW Leonis' distance be determined by luminosity? I thought CW Leonis distance was determined by parallax. But its not in the local group so parallax won't work, right? Please explain.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 



Read the whole article including the links.

It looks like you may need to get a stronger set of glasses.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:07 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 


I asked this in the other thread where this was posted but I'll ask it here as well. If EU theory holds true why did Comet West do nothing except pass through the solar system. It traveled 70,000 AU in the course of a million years to reach the inner solar system. One would think it would have built up quite a charge in that time. Instead we had a single 8.0 earthquake in 1976 when it passed. Coincidentally enough it broke up as it was approaching the Sun.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



Funny.

Its a conversion. That's all it is. (km/s to mph).

Explain how our local group can be traveling 240 km/s when the Barnards star is only moving 140 km/s.

Could you address how this can be. Which is it?

Assuming all stars are moving at the same speed in the same direction is flawed. This will produce errors in distance if they are not, and since the stars in the Milkyway all move around the Milkyway, then most stars are moving in different directions and different speeds than we are.

How can you ignore this movement?


Sorry, you caught me not paying attention! I skimmed through your post at 5AM and thought you were multiplying the Sun's speed towards the solar apex by the local standard of rest. My bad. Every star in the local group is assumed to be orbiting the galactic barycenter under roughly the same conditions. Astronomers measure what is called the "secular parallax," the over-all motion of the nearer stars relative to much, much more distant star fields over a long period of time. Although each star is traveling in a different direction, it is assumed that, over all, these differences will cancel themselves out. When averaged together, they yield a velocity of 220 km/sec in a clockwise direction as seen from above the galactic north pole. This clockwise rotation at 220 km/sec is the "local standard of rest." When an astronomer states that Barnard's Star is traveling at a speed of 140 km/sec, it is assumed that this is relative to the local standard of rest.





new topics
top topics
 
19
<< 13  14  15    17  18 >>

log in

join