Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 17
19
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
reply to post by XplanetX
 



Read the whole article including the links.

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


I don't need a stronger set of glasses, I can read the rubbish perfectly well. It says things like:


Consider the distance reported for CW Leonis (600 LY) could be off by a factor up to a 1,000+. Remember CW Leonis is thought to be a red giant that is the brightest object in the sky in infrared. The infrared image may be caused by the same type of EM that may cause redshift errors with quasars. A factor of six orders of magnitude would put CW Leonis about 0.0006 LY or 367 AUs or 3.9E9 miles away when the photo was taken. A factor of 6E6 places CW Leonis about where Nasa says Elenin is when the infrared photo was taken.


endgametime.wordpress.com...

How can the distance be off by a factor of 1,000+? The red shift seen in the anomalous quasar was probably caused by a gravitational lensing effect, it has nothing to do with the distance to CW Leonis, which was estimated based on its luminosity, not its redshift! It is a carbon star, not a red giant. There is no reason to think that the infra-red image is caused by the same effect that causes the redshift in quasars. If CW Leonis were only 367 AU away, it would be well within the Oort Cloud! Conflating CW Leonis with comet Elenin just doesn't make any sense!


CW Leonis is reported to be moving directly toward us at high speed.


No, it's not. He saw that on a YouTube video.


In an expanding universe, I would expect a red giant to be moving away from us like everything else and not directly at us.


He does not understand the concept of an expanding universe. Space itself is expanding, which causes more distant objects to recede faster, hence the redshift. Within a galaxy, stars follow in their orbits and approach or recede from each other more or less at random.


They are pushing their blunder under the rug and ignoring it so that they can all continue to get a paycheck; and not have to admit to themselves the embarrassing mistake, thereby, preserving their ego and avoiding ridicule, and most importantly, to hide the truth and consequences.


What blunder? Science constantly re-evaluates what it knows based on new information. Astrophysicists are changing their views on what quasars are. (In fact, I haven't heard a deep space object referred to as a Quasar in over twenty years!) Why does the author project fragile egos, fear of ridicule and hiding truth onto people he has never met? It says more about the author than about scientists.

edit on 8-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 




That's a little better.

I can see that you have now finished reading the article, although I disagree with your explanations.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:33 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



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.

Wrong. If the stars near us are moving with us, then the relative movement is 0.

Where do you think this 568,000 mph number comes from? It comes in part from knowing how far away we are. You trust this number and yet it involves a value you do not trust.


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

At least you seem to think that there is a possibility that this number has some sort of uncertainty. Notice that the number has 3 digits of precision. That's a pretty good number.


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.

This is your critical mistake. If the other stars are also moving relative to the center of the galaxy, then they too are in motion and the relative motion is 0, or a close approximation to that value.


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.

Here is another mistake. You seem to think that there is one frame of reference. Not true. The speed of Barnard's star is taken relative to us, not the galaxy.


no, concerns quasars and time dilation.

I strongly suspect that the large and numerous errors you have made in understanding parallax apply to other areas as well.

You might consider taking a basic astronomy course or at least visit a local amateur astronomy club so that you can ask questions. I'm not quite sure why you think that you are the first person to consider some of these issues. These ideas have been considered by astronomers for thousands of years. You are definitely not the first one to consider these problems.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


So the angular velocity of the sun around the galaxy = 220km/s + 94.6km/s = 1.89 million mph

94.6km/s = 568,000 mph reported in the link I provided above. The 220km/s number was provided by you. I assume these vectors are in the same direction.

But orbiting objects have higher angular velocities with tighter orbits, so the speed of other groups of stars should be different than ours. Where is this addressed in the parallax method?

Please comment on your statement that CW Leonis distance is determined by luminosity. Do you have a reference? I am curious to see how this is done because its brightness in infrared puts its distance closer than any other star besides the sun.





edit on 8-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by consciousgod
 



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.

Wrong. If the stars near us are moving with us, then the relative movement is 0.

Where do you think this 568,000 mph number comes from? It comes in part from knowing how far away we are. You trust this number and yet it involves a value you do not trust.

CORRECT. I don't trust it but its all thats there. If 568,000 is independent from the 220 km/s speed of the local group, you are wrong.


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

At least you seem to think that there is a possibility that this number has some sort of uncertainty. Notice that the number has 3 digits of precision. That's a pretty good number.


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.

This is your critical mistake. If the other stars are also moving relative to the center of the galaxy, then they too are in motion and the relative motion is 0, or a close approximation to that value.


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.

Here is another mistake. You seem to think that there is one frame of reference. Not true. The speed of Barnard's star is taken relative to us, not the galaxy.

ARE you sure. So is it relative to us or the local group because the local group is moving more than twice as fast as the earth? Shed some light on this for me since you are so smart. Let me right on that brilliant coat tell of yours.


no, concerns quasars and time dilation.

I strongly suspect that the large and numerous errors you have made in understanding parallax apply to other areas as well.

You might consider taking a basic astronomy course or at least visit a local amateur astronomy club so that you can ask questions. I'm not quite sure why you think that you are the first person to consider some of these issues. These ideas have been considered by astronomers for thousands of years. You are definitely not the first one to consider these problems.


IF YOU are so smart, why don't you help me understand your brilliance instead of lecturing me on what I should do. This should give you the ego boost you seem to seek as evidences by your smack talking, and provide me with answers.

ASTronomy is not my field. My field is geophysics. These ideas have not been considered by astronomers for thousands of years. That's absurd. If astronomy is using the same method that was used thousands of years ago, we are in big trouble. Did they determine quasar redshift thousands of years ago? Quasars don't show time dilation because their redshift does not correlate to distance meaning quasars are really much closer to us by billions of LYs. This makes all redshift suspect and if all redshift is off, then all calculations based on redshift distances are WRONG.

www.physorg.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


Please properly close your quotes to make your posts readable. I apologize if I miss something in this cumbersome to read post.


CORRECT. I don't trust it but its all thats there. If 568,000 is independent from the 220 km/s speed of the local group, you are wrong.

You don't trust this value and yet you callously use it? Hmmm. You need to understand what numbers mean before frivolously using them incorrectly.

I believe that the main mistake you are missing is the idea of relative motion. You seem to think that the relative motion to the galaxy applies to all objects. It does not. If you are standing in a closed box tossing a ball back and forth the ball can be caught easily if the box is on the ground or on a plane going 600 mph. A player does not have to know that the box is moving in a plane to catch the ball. Your commentary here on parallax suggests otherwise. The speed of the solar system you keep mentioning has no effect on parallax since the stars being measured are not moving at that speed relative to us.


ARE you sure. So is it relative to us or the local group because the local group is moving more than twice as fast as the earth? Shed some light on this for me since you are so smart. Let me right on that brilliant coat tell of yours.

I really have no idea what you are referring to here. What objects are you referring to here that are moving so fast that would affect parallax calculations?


IF YOU are so smart, why don't you help me understand your brilliance instead of lecturing me on what I should do. This should give you the ego boost you seem to seek as evidences by your smack talking, and provide me with answers.

It's okay to not understand something. The problem is that your mistakes are so numerous that it is difficult to explain everything in this forum. You need to talk face to face to someone who can show you not just the formulas, but also the thinking that goes into the work.


ASTronomy is not my field. My field is geophysics. These ideas have not been considered by astronomers for thousands of years. That's absurd. If astronomy is using the same method that was used thousands of years ago, we are in big trouble.

That's not absurd. Even the Greeks had ideas on geometry that could be used to determine such things as the rates of precession and parallax and spherical calculations. They also had a good understanding of measurement and its limitations. You do not seem to be at the level of the Greeks. You showed that by using the wrong formulas and not understanding how to calculate errors.


If astronomy is using the same method that was used thousands of years ago, we are in big trouble.

The issue is understanding why stars appear to be stationary. The ancient Greeks knew why and you do not appear to. I base that on your posts. The ancient Greeks understood magnitudes such as relative speeds. Euclid recorded their discussions on the matter.This is something you do not appear to understand. They did. The ancient Greeks understood geometry and measurements in the heavens. You do not appear to. To say that the basic understandings of astronomy and measurements has not been known for thousands of years is evidence of your lack of understanding. For some inexplicable reason you are making absurd claims that about measurements and their limitations that have been addressed for thousands of years. To openly post otherwise simply shows your lack of understanding of these issues.


Did they determine quasar redshift thousands of years ago? Quasars don't show time dilation because their redshift does not correlate to distance meaning quasars are really much closer to us by billions of LYs. This makes all redshift suspect and if all redshift is off, then all calculations based on redshift distances are WRONG.

Due to your inability to understand the meaning of relative shifts and parallax calculations I simply don't find any of your claims about redshift to be correct.

PS I read your link a while back. You should read it again and this time actually try to learn where you are mistaken in your claims.
edit on 8-9-2011 by stereologist because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 08:59 PM
link   
BTW, if you don't think people bother to read links let me refresh your memory.


Or, quasars may not be located at the distances indicated by their redshifts, although this suggestion has previously been discredited.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:27 PM
link   

The Electric Universe debunking: nuke furnaces, big wanks, black holios, neutron stars, red shifts

Redshifts are a bit of a theory, now arent they? Various galaxies and objects with numerous redshifts that were connected to each other. Redshift does not equal distance. They've even falsified evidence, hiding the plasma connection for example between NGC 4319 and Markarian 205. So they go to falsifying to try and disprove connection, when the redshift of the smaller object is greater than of the larger galaxy. When their evidence doesnt add up, falsify!

www.thunderbolts.info...


On October 3, 2003, the Big Bang theory was falsified by direct observation. The galaxy NGC 7319 was measured to have a redshift of z = 0.0225. It is not uncommon for "nearby" galaxies to have redshifts below z = 1. However, a quasar was located in front of NGC 7319's opaque gas clouds with an observed redshift of z = 2.114.

The two principle tenets of the Big Bang theory are that redshift is proportional to distance and that it is an indicator of velocity. The larger an object's redshift the farther away it is and the faster it is moving away from the observer. Those two ideas provide the backdrop for the commonly held belief that the Universe is expanding.

According to the Big Bang, the NGC 7319 quasar "must be billions of light years farther away than the galaxy" because it has a higher redshift. Yet, since the galaxy is opaque, the quasar has to be in front of the galactic dust clouds and not shining through them.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:55 PM
link   
[

Originally posted by consciousgod
Please comment on your statement that CW Leonis distance is determined by luminosity. Do you have a reference? I am curious to see how this is done because its brightness in infrared puts its distance closer than any other star besides the sun.
Here are some journal articles to peruse...

This first article really going in depth on IRC+10216, The Unusual Infrared Object IRC+10216 (1969):



In 1970, the distance is determined using luminosity in Near-Infrared Spectra of NML Cygnt and IRC+10216:



And in 1989, we get in the range of the now most-accepted value in Dust-enshrouded asymptotic giant branch stars in the solar neighborhood:

edit on 8-9-2011 by nataylor because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:51 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 



You don't see a little problem with that? Namely, the speed of light is only ~661,000 mph.


Your're off by a magnitude of a hundred there. The speed of light is ~671 million miles per hour. I still don't think his claims are right, but he should at least be rebutted with accurate information. By the way, thanks for finding the Herbig and Zappala article from 1970. I was looking for it earlier, but I was only turning up references to it.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254

Your're off by a magnitude of a hundred there. The speed of light is ~671 million miles per hour. I still don't think his claims are right, but he should at least be rebutted with accurate information. By the way, thanks for finding the Herbig and Zappala article from 1970. I was looking for it earlier, but I was only turning up references to it.
edit on 8-9-2011 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)
Absolutely right, my mistake. Just another reason why I hate imperial measurements.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:27 AM
link   
after being afraid of many elenin theories, theres only 1 now that i am afraid of
i dont believe saturn tilted. its simply from our perspective that saturn looks like it has different tilts when it doesnt




however, im reading some of these theories that CW leonis is a brown dwarf star that orbits our sun.

the claims im reading say CW leonis is traveling fast towards our solar system... is this even true??


if CW leonis was nibiru and was moving in orbit around the sun, wouldnt astronomers be able to track and realize this given the fact that leonis is clearly EXTREMELY visible to us by now



CW leonis is a VERY VISIBLE object from earth. if leonis was indeed orbiting the sun as a binary partner, wouldnt amatuer astronomers be able to easily detect this due to the fact that it would be so close to us its orbital movement would be easy to see due to its high visibility?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


discredited? Yep, that's the way they do things. That's why science is now a religion. When astronomy ignores facts that disprove theories just like religion ignores facts that contradict religious beliefs, astronomy becomes pseudoscience.

So it appears you are a pseudoscientist because you ignore the evidence. If you are not a pseudoscientist, then let's hear your rebuttal to the information in the video in the previous post.

I never said people 1000 years ago didn't understand basic astronomy as you state. They did not ATTEMPT to calculate distance using redshift. So I guess they were smarter than our current genius pseudoscientist.

I know it is hard to have to change your religious beliefs. Most religious fanatics can't, so they drink the cool aid.

So keep on ignoring and believing. That is your right even if its wrong.

And if you don't believe science is now a religion, would you believe it if the courts declared it so.

www.guardian.co.uk...

If climate change is akin to a religious belief, then astronomy that ignores evidence becomes a belief that can also be considered religious belief.


edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by fibraz4jacked
CW leonis is a VERY VISIBLE object from earth. if leonis was indeed orbiting the sun as a binary partner, wouldnt amatuer astronomers be able to easily detect this due to the fact that it would be so close to us its orbital movement would be easy to see due to its high visibility?

It would show both orbital motion and a very high amount of parallax, and CW Leonis shows neither.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



discredited? Yep, that's the way they do things. That's why science is now a religion. When astronomy ignores facts that disprove theories just like religion ignores facts that contradict religious beliefs, astronomy becomes pseudoscience.

Latching onto a word used by an author in a non-scientific article shows how desperate your position is. The point is that you posted a link to an article and the article stated quite clearly that you are wrong.


So it appears you are a pseudoscientist because you ignore the evidence. If you are not a pseudoscientist, then let's hear your rebuttal to the information in the video in the previous post.

I showed you how you do not understand even the basics of parallax. You got the formula wrong. You got the relative motion wrong. I doubt your claims of studying geophysics. It was an attempt at an appeal to authority.


I never said people 1000 years ago didn't understand basic astronomy as you state. They did not ATTEMPT to calculate distance using redshift. So I guess they were smarter than our current genius pseudoscientist.

That is a straw man argument. I never made such a claim only you made such a claim. Again, this is desperation speaking.


I know it is hard to have to change your religious beliefs. Most religious fanatics can't, so they drink the cool aid.

Science, unlike religion, can change its position. You are the one with the mistaken beliefs. You are the one that has been shown to be very wrong, yet you can't change. Too bad. Learning is all about testing and changing.

The problem is that you do not understand the issues. You made a number of huge mistakes. You could have looked up the material on your own and fixed your mistakes. Instead you post here thinking that no one else over the last 2000+ years has considered these issues.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


hahahaha. I knew you would respond this way. You are as predictable as a sun rise. Shoot the messenger. I bet you vote like a looney liberal. Typical MO. You crack me up.

Yes, I calculated wrong. I can admit it. I can get over it. Can you?

So, you don't believe the photos in the video are real?

What do you expect when the fox watches the hen house? A Nasa link...

Guys like you seem to always require evidence from Nasa or a journal. There are many other credible sources than those in your narrow little tunnel. Nasa doesn't even publicly recognize their own work when the findings are not what they expected and when it doesn't fit their model. So, Nasa is no longer a credible source since they discredit themselves. It's a catch 22, no win, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The real science no longer gets published. The approval process prevents a lot of good work from getting recognized, but approved by who? Approved by the scientifically religious who are resistant to new facts that discredit their work. It's science censoring, plain and simple.

ieeexplore.ieee.org:80...

redshift caused by gases.
ieeexplore.ieee.org...

If you are going to discredit, you need to prove it, or its nothing but SLANDER.


You still haven't addressed the issues. But that's ok, you can bash me for my mistake some more if it makes you feel better. I don't mind. I deal with jerks all day long.

1. the speeds of 220 km/s of the local group and the 94.6km/s speed of the earth. Added together is a very large speed. These should be taken into account when measuring the parallax of stars that are not part of the local group. If you can show me that this is being done, this part of the discussion is over and I won't have to take a class. You do realize that this is what these forums are for, don't you. You get to show your ego and I get information.

2. quasars and redshift dilema. It's real. Don't be afraid of it. Deal with it. Discrediting unless you can prove it is not dealing with it. It's ignoring it.




edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 



Guys like you seem to always require evidence from Nasa or a journal. There are many other credible sources than those in your narrow little tunnel. Nasa doesn't even publicly recognize their own work when the findings are not what they expected and when it doesn't fit their model. So, Nasa is no longer a credible source since they discredit themselves. It's a catch 22, no win, damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The reason we want good sources is to avoid the blatant errors you have made. Had you tried to publish your claims that parallax does not work you'd have been shown in the peer review process where you made all of those glaring errors. Then you'd have the opportunity to correct those mistakes and resubmit.

So please tell me what credible sources you are referring to. Why leave it as nothing more than irrelevant fluff in your post?

You illogical claims about NASA are poorly thought out.


The real science no longer gets published. The approval process prevents a lot of good work from getting recognized, but approved by who? Approved by the scientifically religious who are resistant to new facts that discredit their work. It's science censoring, plain and simple.

Repeating this foolishness does not make it any better. It is not an approval process. It is peer review. If you ever go on to college you might want to learn what this is all about.


You still haven't addressed the issues. But that's ok, you can bash me for my mistake some more if it makes you feel better. I don't mind. I deal with jerks all day long.

You didn't understand parallax and you didn't understand relative motion yet you were so willing to shout out that tens of thousands of people that have used the method were all wrong. You don't deal with jerks all day long. You just think you are smarter than everyone else and can't be bothered to learn how things actually work. Don't worry you are not alone. There are all sorts of published articles that are pushed out by people that think they are smarter than everyone else and end up publishing baloney.

My favorite nut article is an article in which a person corrects for overprojection by adding a correction factor.


1. the speeds of 220 km/s of the local group and the 94.6km/s speed of the earth. Added together is a very large speed. These should be taken into account when measuring the parallax of stars that are not part of the local group. If you can show me that this is being done, this part of the discussion is over and I won't have to take a class. You do realize that this is what these forums are for, don't you. You get to show your ego and I get information.

I am laughing hysterically at this point because this is a non-problem. Please explain to all of us why this problem is not a properly posed problem.


quasars and redshift dilema. It's real. Don't be afraid of it. Deal with it. Discrediting unless you can prove it is not dealing with it. It's ignoring it.

That is a cosmological issue that is being studied now by some of the brightest people on the planet.

Your earlier statement that there was a problem with distance and redshift measurements was wrong. Not clear what you are saying here. Are you still standing by your mistake?



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Your arrogance is overshadowing your intelligence. I keep hearing that its a non issue, but you don't seem to know how to explain it. I hope you don't teach for living.

You added absolutely nothing to this discussion. I'll try again with another example.

If our local group is traveling around the milkyway at 220km/s and our star is traveling 94.6km/s. Then our sun's speed is 314.6km/s through space in a counter clockwise motion as views from the galactic north pole.

If star A is on the other side of the galaxy and is moving in its own ref. frame in the opposite direction in reference to our solar system (because its on the other side of the galaxy) is moving at half our speed, it is logical to assume the distance of 1 AU in the parallax equation will not work because the earth has moved at a speed of 1.5 million mph for 6 months and NOT just 2 AUs.

Here is ONE example of the redshift problem that you keep ignoring.

"In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen’s Quintet located about 360 million light years away. This presents a problem for standard theory, which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away. The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy indicates that the quasar’s redshift is not due to cosmological expansion as would be interpreted by Hubbles Law.

There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular galaxy. First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it. Second, a jet is observed to connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319.

“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” “If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them like bullets or cannon balls,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences."

There are many examples of this. Let me know if you need another. Can you add to the discussion please or just confess you do not have the answer.
edit on 9-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 


Let me put this very simply: stars on the other side of the galaxy are much, much to far away to show a measurable parallax. The stars that are close enough to show a parallax are mostly moving in the same direction as the Sun, hence the "local standard of rest." Yes, there is some error involved but it is not significant unless we were planning to send a spacecraft to a nearby star and need to know exactly how much fuel, etc, it would take.

I do not understand why you are so obsessed with the redshift issue. The redshift does not cause a star or galaxy to appear red. As a geophysicist you must understand the concept of absorption and emission spectra. The redshift is a shifting of these lines toward the red end of the spectrum. It has nothing to do with color. (Although redshifted bodies can grow dimmer if their peak luminosity is already in the red. That's simply because our human eyes can't see where it is now brightest!)

Both parallax and redshift are completely irrelevant to this thread. As I have stated earlier, the distance to CW Leonis was determined by its luminosity. It is extremely approximate, based on reasonable assumptions. Different researchers have made different "guesses" about its distance, hence the ill-founded rumors that it is moving.

If you want to discuss what you feel to be errors in the way astronomical distances are measured, I suggest you start a new thread in the "Space Exploration" forum.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by consciousgod
 




please i need some clarification here...



are you trying to say CW leonis might be a binary partner of the sun or not?

if CW leonis poses any danger to us, it would be because its orbiting our solar system. if its not doing that we have nothing to worry about from it rite?


that is my only fear. i cant quite understand your point to what your writing. are you talking about cw leonis or not?
edit on 9-9-2011 by fibraz4jacked because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 14  15  16    18 >>

log in

join