It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Proving that CW Leonis is moving toward to our solar system over 30 years

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:19 PM
link   
IRC +10216
en.wikipedia.org...

First, we need to know that it is moving:
arxiv.org...

2nd we need it's distance from us when it was first found:
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

Here it is stated as 290 parsecs at 3.26 light years per parsec is 945 light years away.

This figure was used in many research papers during the 70's and early 80's
adsabs.harvard.edu...
From 1982: ntrs.nasa.gov...

Then in the late 80's to mid 90's the figure for the distance came down to an average of 200 pc
1994 using 200 pc - articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...

By the late 90's, it had been revised to estimated 120-150 pc (e.g. Groenewegen et al. 1998) (391 light years)
uhra.herts.ac.uk...
arxiv.org...

Some current estimates were as low as 100 pc. Search out the term 'distance to IRC +10216'

Do your own research. You will see how the numbers have gradually been coming down over the last 30 years. Unless someone has a better explanation as to why we are using smaller and smaller parsecs for distance when researching CW Leonis, I would have to say it is moving closer to our solar system by as much as 190 parsecs between 1968 and today. Unless it has stopped, it could be even closer.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
And what exactly are you going to do about this?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
And what exactly are you going to do about this?

Amen, for me nothing. We'll have last martinis and sandwiches.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 





I would have to say it is moving closer to our solar system by as much as 190 parsecs between 1968 and today



Maybe because the original distance they measured was wrong?

It says right in the paper it was revised i doubt in 30-40 years the star moved 190 par secs.(619Ly's)

If that were true it would mean the star if headed directly toward us

would be going faster than the speed of light...

** You Know recently 2 years ago they revised the Size of the Milky-way Galaxy from 50,000 LY's to 100,000 Ly's Across***

Still Goes to show we don't Know Jack...


Ok hypothetical Situation

So lets give the Star a perfect Situation its moving Directly toward the Solar System in a straight Line

we are also moving directly toward it at .99c while the Carbon star is doing the same speed

It would take hundreds of light years to reach each other in these conditions...
edit on 30-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by cluckerspud
And what exactly are you going to do about this?


Not only that but who was claiming it wasn't and why do I care?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 


As discussed on another thread, the earlier estimates have been revised. It would need to be travelling thirty times the speed of light to actually be covering that sort of distance. If it were, it would be massively blue shifted and followed by a trail of Cherenkov radiation. Use your head.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Yes exactly as i thought it would take 100's of ly's for the stars to make the distance to be in close proximity of our solar system...

They would have to go many 10x of times the speed of light

Absolutely 100% correct even when we factor in the Stars relativity to each other. (Say if they were both heading directly toward each other at .99c)

So in Reality the relative speed of these stars toward each other is most likely not .99c for each stars relative closing distance toward each other.

So in reality were talking distance closing times in proximity to the solar system(ours) in thousands to tens of thousands.... maybe hundreds of thousands of years.
edit on 30-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:41 PM
link   
Even if the first figure was off by 90 parsec, and the 2nd estimate of 200 was correct (I think I saw no less than 6 people come up with this figure), that would still be 80-100 parsecs since 1985

and it would be halved if we were also moving toward it
edit on 30-7-2011 by KSprepared because: Clarity



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by KSprepared
 


As discussed on another thread, the earlier estimates have been revised. It would need to be travelling thirty times the speed of light to actually be covering that sort of distance. If it were, it would be massively blue shifted and followed by a trail of Cherenkov radiation. Use your head.


No one actually knows. I think that is what we can all agree with. If they keep changing the distances and even the size of galaxies, we can safely assume they still have some tweaking to do. As far as "Using your head", no reason to be condescending. I am sure if I were to look through your posts I would catch errors, just like you would in mine. Tsk tsk.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 





Even if the first figure was off by 90 parsec, and the 2nd estimate of 200 was correct (I think I saw no less than 6 people come up with this figure), that would still be 80-100 parsecs since 1985


Because the Recent Estimate compared to the supposed distance in 1985 has been revised.

So in reality the star didn't exactly move 90 parsecs( Almost 300 Ly's) From 1985 to 2011 Which is no more than 26-27 years

So are you surmising that the stars travelled toward each other at 150 light years distance achieved each toward each other in only 26-27 years?

Again How does a Star move at 26x6= 156ly's

So you're suggesting the Stars are travelling at 6 times the speed of light... Toward Each other. Both travelling 6 times the speed of light correct.?

How would we even be able to observe the Stars if they were travelling faster than the speed of light..
edit on 30-7-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Don't know how it is getting closer, I am just reporting that the data they have used shows they are using smaller and smaller numbers as the decades go. I'm sure there is a much more plausible explanation such as bad math or whatever, I was just posting this to find out more about what my observational data is showing.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
If its past Pluto somewhere,does it matter at all?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


Dont forget that we recently learned that our Solar System is not an origional inhabitant of the Milky way galaxy. The Milky way, which we call home, absorbed our origional galaxy, and is still chomping away at it, slowy integerating it into the milky way galaxy.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
Ok, bear with me here, I am thinking out loud

This video is a puzzle peice to the picture I am trying to build:




If the comet elenin coming in from that direction, as it was, were a bridge to the energy between CW Leonis and earth, it could have changed our perception of the distance using only light based measurements. So the energy had a stronger footprint, making it look like it was closer.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   
Im 56 so I figure By the Time it gets to us,Im dust in the wind dude



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
A comet doesn't bridge any energy between two celestial bodies, it gets shot around by celestial bodies like a tiny pinball. Now you want to tell me it also has a huge magnetic field? Is this why you started a thread about something you don't understand?

I have to applaud a new approach at fear mongering about a tiny insignificant comet.

How in the hell does Universe come up with 6 light years speed?!!??



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:47 PM
link   
reply to post by KSprepared
 



If the comet elenin coming in from that direction, as it was, were a bridge to the energy between CW Leonis and earth, it could have changed our perception of the distance using only light based measurements. So the energy had a stronger footprint, making it look like it was closer.


What does any of this have to do with Comet Elenin? What kind of energy are you talking about? Scientists revise their conclusions all the time. It is obviously much more logical that the earlier estimates put CW Leonis further away because they did not realize just how dim it really is than to think the first estimate was correct and that the star is traveling thirty times the speed of light!



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
You don't understand my posit because you did not watch the video. That's all I can say about that.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:54 PM
link   
When people put up hour long videos to speak for them without a synopsis, why on earth would I waste my time watching a flawed logic? It's not like I come here to watch hours of Youtube to communicate. I don't have that kind of time or interest, you have to do better than that, maybe point out a two minute segment in the video that gets to the core of your argument, if you can't do that, you have no debate.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
9:30 to about 12:00 get's to the meat of what I'm speaking about

This video talks about the electromagnetic attributes to light waves and our perception of their movement through time.
edit on 30-7-2011 by KSprepared because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join