Stars Are At Different Places For New Horizons From Where We See Them On Earth

Hello Ats,

I hope I worded the title correctly. I found a Youtube video which supports a long held idea of mine that the Universe is not as we see it here on the ground of Earth. As many if not all of you know, light bends as it makes contact with the Atmosphere altering our view of the Heavens. Even more so, some light takes so long to reach us here on Earth that what we see might not even be there anymore by the time we see it. However, I am only talking about the positions of stars relative to us for now, not their continued existence or not. So, anyway check out the video. In it they claim to show the first images from New Horizons at the Edge of our Solar System



I'm not sure this is legit to be honest but I'll give the benefit of the doubt. What say you, ATS?

I'm not scientist enough to understand how they figure star distances etc

interesting subject

I think there's a reference in the Bible to stars falling from their places

a reply to: lostbook

Well, it stands to reason that as you move your perspective of the things around you will change. And, in the case of New Horizons, it may well be 'somewhat' true, but those differences in perspective will be almost microscopic due to the distances involved. The 'edge' of the solar system may seem far to us earthlings, but in the scale of the universe it is essentially the same location as Earth.

You also have to remember our earthbound perspective of the stars has a lot to do with how the Earth rotates on its axis, the inclination of this axis and the Earth's rotation around the Sun. Those are just localized differences, but they're pretty significant to people who live in a different hemisphere. So, for example, on Earth in the northern hemisphere, the North Star lies generally north of everyone's perspective, but isn't even visible to a person in the southern hemisphere. Similar holds true for the Southern Cross in the southern hemisphere. In space, however, both of these systems would be visible, and because you're no longer on a planet the meaning of things like "north" and "south" no longer have any real relevance. There really isn't any north, or south, or east or west in space, only a direction.

Along the same lines of your OP...

Despite all the science fiction books and movies which have starships zipping through interstellar space, this might not be as easy as it's made out to be. Sure, we know how to travel amongst the planets in our solar system, but only because we have a pretty reliable way to know how far these objects are away from us and their orientation with a great deal of accuracy at any given time.

Once we get beyond our solar system navigation would be based on the scientific assumptions of how we measure distances in space. If there was even the slightest error in these calculations, which are imprecise by almost any standard, these could result in significant navigation errors in interstellar space. Say, for example, like doppler shifting works slightly differently, mathematically, outside our solar system than within it. This could mean our current estimates of star locations is way off. Gravitational forces also play a large role here as well.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: lostbook
because you're no longer on a planet the meaning of things like "north" and "south" no longer have any real relevance. There really isn't any north, or south, or east or west in space, only a direction.

fwiw I have a vague memory of a Doctor Who episode which gives coordinates referring to 'galactic north'

would potential space travelers refer to Earth / Sol for their directions?

a reply to: ElGoobero

No, they would still use celestial navigation much as we do now. It's just that the further away we get from Earth (like outside our solar system) the less reliable some of those navigational points become. Could adjustments be made later? Sure they could, but it still doesn't change the fact that adjustments would more than likely be required, and any traveler would need to have the instruments to make those measurements and adjust the calculations / maps.

ETA - As I'm sure you are aware, mankind has been using celestial navigation for centuries before space flight. But to the OP's point, these perspectives will likely change the further we get from Earth and/or our solar system.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Navigator:

"The good news: we successfully dropped out of warp. No damage."

"The bad news: our estimation of the target star's true location was in error. There are no local gravitational fields significant enough for our warp drive to re-engage."

Cheers

a reply to: lostbook

At these distances from the earth there should be absolutely NO discernible parallax star field displacement displacement from the observers point of view as relatively speaking over that distance they are almost in the same spot exactly, even if we were to go to our nearest neighbour Proxima Centauri about 4.35 Light Years or so away the difference in nearby stars would be the only observable difference and much further away stars would still be recognizable in there patterns and positions though not exactly alike.

However that is observation of the light coming from distant objects.

Gravity warp's space and the light that travel's through it, we are very close to our own star as far as it's gravitational influence is concerned and this may bend some of the light of distant objects SOME of the time, note when from our perspective the sun is in opposition though and even then the space time curve would be so subtle as to be virtually undetectable since our star is only a G2 yellow dwarf star, if it was a supermassive star however that may be a very different story.

If the parallax displacement on foreground (Closer) stars relative to background (More distant) stars is noticeable then I am sure NASA must have a rational and scientific explanation for it.

Still an intriguing and interesting observation.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

You make some good points. Thanks!

Another issue I have with this video is that if the stars shift once at the edge of the solar system then why does the video show only one star shifting...? Wouldn't all of them shift? Maybe it's not a star......?

Given that we measure the distance to stars using parallax from our own opposing positions in solar orbit, 186 million miles apart from each other:

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

then I don't see why it can't be observed from observations taken 4 billion miles apart?

Here's where the video got the story:

www.nasa.gov...

I would think that the heliosphere would also distort the stars positions somewhat like the atmosphere of the earth does. I wonder if the voyager is able to return pictures since it is outside of the heliosphere now. How much longer before voyager runs out of energy do we have?

This is just an extreme example of parallax. It could be used to get better measurements of star distances.

Astronomers use the technique to look at pictures taken from different points on earth's orbit.

The further apart the viewpoints the better the measurement of distance will be.

a reply to: rickymouse

I would think that the heliosphere would also distort the stars positions somewhat like the atmosphere of the earth does.

Not really. Refraction in Earth's atmosphere is due to temperature variations in the atmosphere when objects are close to the horizon. When you view an object near the horizon you are viewing it horizontally through different density layers of the atmosphere. This bends the light from the object making it appear to be in a slightly different location. These layers are of more or less consistent density. The lower the layer, the higher the density. The further from the horizon, the less the distortion because it tends to be cancelled out. Thus the Moon can appear to be more oval shaped near the horizon but circular when it is higher in the sky.

This does not apply to viewing objects through the heliosphere mostly because of a matter of scale. When viewing stars, our direction of view does not change the "layers" of density through which the light passes in any appreciable manner. We're always looking straight up, for all intents and purposes.

Also, the density of the heliosphere is less than the best vacuum which can be made in a lab, so...no.

At first glance I think you might be talking about "parallax", or possibly "gravitational lensing".

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
Given that we measure the distance to stars using parallax from our own opposing positions in solar orbit, 186 million miles apart from each other:

www2.jpl.nasa.gov...

then I don't see why it can't be observed from observations taken 4 billion miles apart?

Here's where the video got the story:

www.nasa.gov...

Exactly. The video title in the OP is a "click-baity" name for longer baseline parallax but we've made parallax measurements using the 186 million miles baseline you mention for a very long time. I guess "alien sky" makes better click-bait than "Long-baseline parallax"?

The title of the NASA article is "NASA’s New Horizons Conducts the First Interstellar Parallax Experiment" which is a far more accurate title, but maybe not as good for "click-bait".

The views of the inner planets, which WERE made, are of course absolutely unique to that distance.

what are the benefits or dividends we get from that new horizons tele-photo spacecraft & instrument package

parallax observatory ... very expensive, but as a outpost to 'see' a space invasion underway ~ Priceless ~

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If I were an ancient astronomer, the idea of finding the distance to the stars using parallax might be a good joint mission with finding true north with a near stationary pole star.

Lots of rough measurements at the solstices first to get 53.5 and 6.5 using a reflection pool at Giza?
Observer angle would have to be controlled within very tight limits.
Eyeletted needles in the corners might be accurate enough if there was room for a pair in each radius.



Once I knew the equinox dates maybe I'd try to determine any difference due to east/west parallax.
You would have to see a shadow move through your target zone over just a couple seconds though.

The Earth, sun, and the rest of the Solar system are moving through the galaxy at about 500,000 mph (800,000 kph). New Horizons at top speed was moving at 52,000 mph (83,000 kph) but has since slowed from that speed due to the sun trying to pull it back over the years.

For argument's sake (and for round numbers sake), let's say say New Horizons average speed since launch is 50,000 mph. That's still 10 times slower that the Earth/solar system is moving relative to galaxy.

So the normal motion of the solar system will have more of an effect on the positions of stars than the motion of New Horizons over the years. However, even then the apparent star positions only change negligibly -- and in general imperceptibly without the use of measurement instruments -- over the span of a human lifetime.

*grabs popcorn* I just love seeing the biggest ATS minds chip in on this. So much to discuss and consider!