Saturn rocking back and forth?? What if CW Leonis were really Nibiru? Link inside., page 18

Pages: << 15 16 17 18 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 19 times

reply posted on 9-9-2011 @ 09:03 PM by stereologist

reply to post by consciousgod

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.

The issue is once again - the speeds are relative to what? You have added in 94.6km/s, some value which you made up, for no apparent reason other than to illustrate that you do not understand what you are talking about.

Your inability to understand the issues is so great that once again I have to recommend that you visit someone in person and allow them to show you why your thinking is so muddled.

You don't seem to understand how parallax is performed and its limitations. No star on the other side of the galaxy is going to show a measurable displacement. As I showed with a calculation earlier, even stars 1000 light years away have a small displacement, one smaller than measurement uncertainty.

In the previous post I was laughing about how you posted a non-problem. Did you figure out the issue or not? My bet is that you did not.

The material you continue to babble about concerning red shifts is not related to parallax. You seem to be desperately trying to latch onto something for reasons that are not apparent.

reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 08:04 AM by consciousgod

reply to post by stereologist

I already gave you the link to the article that shows the speed of the earth at 568,000 mph. That's the 94.6 km/s. How come you say its made up? I even showed you the conversion and you still say it is made up. LOONEY!!

We have two issues, parallax and redshift. You have done nothing to resolve these issues, yet you claim you know.

I don't think you can answer my questions because you don't know the answer or are incapable of comprehending the problem. I'm not making this up. Anyone reading this post can see you continually bring nothing to the discussion.

You keep saying its a non-issue, but you can't provide anything to support it.

And you keep writing smack.

This indicates to me that you are a young child who just took his first class that discusses parallax and can't figure out the rest.

You include a statement that says its all factored in, but you fail to show where. I made it clear that I am referring to stars outside the local group. It appears you do not understand the problem because you FAIL to provide the solution.

I think I am trying to discuss this issue with someone who is a poser. You probably went to wiki and copied the parallax formula and thats all you know. It is obvious now.

I guess I need to find someone who can grasp what I am writing and who can discuss this intelligently without so much avoidance of the issues.

How many times have we gone down the same road with you NOT addressing the issues? Too many. We go no where. You keep us going in circles like a child who doesn't understand.

If you want to prove me wrong, then deal with the issues and keep the personal attacks out of it. It just makes you look stupid.

edit on 10-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 08:22 AM by DJW001

reply to post by consciousgod

Please calm down and go back and read this post:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 10-9-2011 @ 08:35 AM by stereologist

reply to post by consciousgod

I already gave you the link to the article that shows the speed of the earth at 568,000 mph. That's the 94.6 km/s. How come you say its made up? I even showed you the conversion and you still say it is made up. LOONEY!!

In the future consider labeling the numbers so that it is clear where you got them. You apparently haven't the experience to understand the importance of that.

Here are different values that you want to combine. You realize that you need to combine velocities and not speeds and that after you are done you have a velocity relative to a reference frame. None of this is germain to parallax as explained numerous times.

I don't think you can answer my questions because you don't know the answer or are incapable of comprehending the problem. I'm not making this up. Anyone reading this post can see you continually bring nothing to the discussion.

The problem is the receiver of the information. The issue is that the stars to which parallax is applied return to their origin position after 1 year. Thus your claims are false. Been trying to tell you that. But you keep making the looney claim that the stars do not. They do. Thus the relative motions is so small that it falls below the measurement uncertainty.

This indicates to me that you are a young child who just took his first class that discusses parallax and can't figure out the rest.

That is you. You are the one that couldn't get the formula right. You are the one that seems unwilling to hear that after 1 year the stars return to their original position.

You include a statement that says its all factored in, but you fail to show where. I made it clear that I am referring to stars outside the local group. It appears you do not understand the problem because you FAIL to provide the solution.

And we continue to tell you that stars that are that far away show no measurable parallax angle.

I guess I need to find someone who can grasp what I am writing and who can discuss this intelligently without so much avoidance of the issues.

Maybe you should go somewhere else where people are more willing to listen to someone that pretends they are smarter than everyone else and yet is unwilling to learn.

How many times have we gone down the same road with you NOT addressing the issues? Too many. We go no where. You keep us going in circles like a child who doesn't understand.

If you want to prove me wrong, then deal with the issues and keep the personal attacks out of it. It just makes you look stupid.

Here you go pretending to be smarter than everyone else.

Take a deep breath, count to ten, and then:
1. Understand that parallax only works on nearby stars
2. Nearby stars return to their "starting position" when checked a year later

reply posted on 11-9-2011 @ 07:30 AM by consciousgod

reply to post by stereologist

If I thought I was smarter than everyone else, I wouldn't be on here discussing this with you now, would I?

Your last post makes more sense to me than all the rest.

The part that is confusing is: I read a speed of CW Leonis of 91km/s through the interstellar medium. I also read that its distance is determined by parallax. Seems that this would make the interstellar medium the stationary reference frame since CW is moving through it at this speed.

Since the small parallax of CW is used to calculate its distance and speed, and since you claim our speed is matched and not factored in, the suns speed should be the same, but our local stars are reported to be moving 220km/s around the galactic center. Is this speed 220km/s through the interstellar medium? If so, this indicates that the interstellar medium is moving at a speed of 220 - 91 km/s around the galaxy. This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain without insulting?

DJW,
I think this is relevant to the title of this post. I reread the post. Can you show me where I am going wrong above. There are all these speeds relative to different reference frames and I am just trying to reconcile them so they make sense to me.

edit on 11-9-2011 by consciousgod because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 11-9-2011 @ 10:18 AM by DJW001

reply to post by consciousgod

The part that is confusing is: I read a speed of CW Leonis of 91km/s through the interstellar medium. I also read that its distance is determined by parallax. Seems that this would make the interstellar medium the stationary reference frame since CW is moving through it at this speed.

Since the small parallax of CW is used to calculate its distance and speed, and since you claim our speed is matched and not factored in, the suns speed should be the same, but our local stars are reported to be moving 220km/s around the galactic center. Is this speed 220km/s through the interstellar medium? If so, this indicates that the interstellar medium is moving at a speed of 220 - 91 km/s around the galaxy. This doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain without insulting?

The distance to CW Leonis was measured by its luminosity, not its parallax. Since its luminosity is not known for certain, this provides a range for its distance. All velocities are relative in space. There is no such things as an absolute speed. For convenience, astronomers have averaged together the motions of all the stars close enough to the Sun to have a parallax, averaged them together, and determined that most of the matter in this part of the galaxy is traveling around the galactic center at around 220 km/sec. This is called the "local standard of rest," and gives astronomers something they can measure the motions of individual stars against. Each star has its own motion; some even travel in the opposite direction. Velocity is a vector quantity, it consists of both speed and direction. Rather than explain how velocities are added and subtracted myself, I will let wikipedia do it for me:

en.wikipedia.org...

This is not relevant to this thread because the OP is about a paper containing "facts" about Nibiru that the author simply made up. It is not about CW Leonis.

Edit to add: If CW Leonis were Nibiru, it would be close enough to have an easily measured parallax!

edit on 11-9-2011 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Pages: << 15 16 17 18 >> ^^TOP^^