Goldminer - an object has a certain brightness and this could be because it is a very big object producing heaps of light, or else it is a small object producing little light but is much much closer to us. And thus the associated planets with that object star are either big and far away, or else small and relatively nearby. Mo
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Mo said: Maybe more accurate data on the extra-Solar planets will give another way of determining star distances.
Looks like pulsars may make it possible to more accurately determine distances to the arms and center of our galaxy.
The pulsar distance scale http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2001-5&a~ From the sky distribution shown in Fig. 6 it is immediately apparent that pulsars are strongly concentrated along the Galactic plane. This indicates that pulsars populate the disk of our Galaxy. Unlike most other classes of astrophysical objects, quantitative estimates of the distances to each pulsar can be made from an effect known as pulse dispersion, the delay in pulse arrival times across a finite bandwidth. Dispersion occurs because the group velocity of the pulsed radiation through the ionised component of the interstellar medium is frequency dependent: pulses emitted at higher radio frequencies travel faster through the interstellar medium, arriving earlier than those emitted at lower frequencies.
I don't quite understand all that, but maybe someone else here will and will then explain it. A few pulsars are said to have planets too. I know that a year or more ago this site posted an article that pointed out that the margin of error is so great for objects beyond a few hundred lightyears distant, that the actual distances cannot be known by current methods of measurement. So that means the size of the Milky Way isn't even known. And that article was likely based on the assumption that so-called background stars are relatively fixed when measuring closer stars. I believe current determinations of distance are based on that assumption. That's how the outer planets were found, by comparing the positions of background stars with the planets. The planets were seen to move with respect to the background stars over periods of months or years. The same is done for many stars. If it turns out that the background stars are also moving significantly, as their normal revolution around the galaxy, then the actual distance is not known and won't be known until background objects are found to compare to. Other galaxies should be able to serve as such background objects, but I don't know if they are ever used for this purpose. Can someone ask Ralph Biggins if he knows about that? He's a satellite guy.
"Hence, given the DM, the distance can be estimated from a model of the Galactic distribution of free electrons." " "Independent distance estimates now exist for over 100 pulsars based on three basic techniques: neutral hydrogen absorption, trigonometric parallax (measured either with an interferometer or through pulse time-of-arrival techniques) and from associations with objects of known distance (i.e. supernova remnants, globular clusters and the Magellanic Clouds). Based on these data, Taylor & Cordes [235] have developed an electron density model which is free from large systematic trends and can be used to provide distance estimates with an uncertainty of 30%. "
So they are using standard estimates to give the Galactic distribution of free electrons. Same old ... Mo
sjw40364
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
So what you are all saying is that they want me to believe that the frequency which the light from pulsars arrive can tell me their distances? So if I flick a flashlight on slower or faster, you can tell what distance I am by comparing with other flickering flashlights? Wow, that is just, ummm, neat. Yah, neat, that's the word I am looking for
kalensar
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
There is one good counter to the Pulsar distance idea and Cepheid Variables.
1. Betelgeuse. After all this time of studying this giant body of an object, the parallax method still doesn't add up because of how much variability is in it's brightness. The + to - ratio on the measurement of 45 parsecs is huge unlike its blue brother Rigel. This one star practically puts Cepheid variables to shame too. 45*3.26 = 146.7 ly + or minus.
With that in mind just about this famous star, the distance of all the other variable stars will most likely follow the same pattern. With the Magellanic cloud being based off the cepheids; which ends up dealing with redshifts ;which can be accounted for by the Wolf Shift, the distances measured can be tossed in the trash simply because semi-new discoveries and old techniques just don't work for one naked-eye star.
It's truly too bad they never turned Hipparchos' eye onto the Andromeda galaxy to see if Adrian Van Maanen's parallax measurement was correct.
601L1n9FR09
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
About the only thing I see lacking from the work of Katirai is the prospect that the bodies seen so far away from the primaries have too little sunlight to reflect. In EU/PC they can be emitting light in plasma glow mode. Taking that into consideration I am on board. I am perfectly comfortable with the things we have been conditioned to call galaxies being much simpler, smaller and closer solar systems. I see no reason not to at least consider it. Being fundamentally disagreeable by nature, I especially like the fact that it flies in the face of consensus .
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
About the only thing I see lacking from the work of Katirai is the prospect that the bodies seen so far away from the primaries have too little sunlight to reflect.
I was just trying to figure out if we should be able to see Mars by eye, given its size and distance and albedo, and it seems like we should not be able to if the light we see is just from reflection of the Suns light. And we should definitely not be able to see Mercury at its furthest distance from Earth, it is smaller than Mars and has a low albedo. While doing some looking into the matter I came across this page by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. A creationist, geocentricist, conspiracist, but with lots of qualifications it seems. He also makes a case for a very much smaller universe. On the 'Resolution of the planet Mars' page he makes the claim that Mars should not be visible, but claims it is because the distance and size must be wrong. However, if the light is not from reflection, but from the x-ray planewaves from the Martian ionosphere creating the light by a process occurring in our atmosphere, then that would solve the problem, but also raise the question of what, and how far away, are many other of the naked eye visible objects that we observe. Resolution of the planet Mars http://www.realityreviewed.com/Mars.htm
I especially like the fact that it flies in the face of consensus
Nice find on the Mars article! I like it just because it does reside in the solar system, and this not the first time I've seen this idea fired off. Accordingly with Dr. Jones' paper, the diameter of mars should be somewhere at 10,000 to 11,000 miles at the stated distance of 1.5 AU; so twice the size at which NASA says it is.
Possibly using the space photo taken at the time of Mars close transit this may be verified because the Moon is also in that photo.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
In this case, I do believe scientists are correct in the distance and size of Mars, I mean if they can't get that right, then there is nothing we can believe. So if we should not be able to see Mars according to conventional science, what process makes it visible? Well, I think I have found some of the components for my model, and this would be perhaps the first part. VUV Lyman Alpha emissions of Hydrogen from the Mars ionosphere, which from Earth could be considered a disk, and that disk behaves as a point source array. The disk would have the required diameter to satisfy the visual resolution problem.
Mars Express Observations of the Hydrogen Corona of Mars
Then how does the light travel? Well here I am stumbling around, and from all I have read, it seems like it would be far easier to introduce an Aether, but perhaps sticking more with conventional science, perhaps the expansion of a planewave into Gaussian beams, and then the propagation of those beams. The divergence of the beams may could also perhaps provide the extra apparent diameter of Mars. Then those wavefronts need to be restored, and that is where the nature of our ionosphere comes in, but there are a number of possible processes there too which have to be worked through. Plasma lensing, Compton shifting, what else? Also it must be noted that there are coronas of other elements surrounding the planets, so it's not certain that hydrogen glow is the primary source, though I'd think it the most likely.
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Gary, what about spacecraft that are above the ionosphere? Do you know anything about them getting naked-eye shots of the planets? Should we be talking to any open-minded satellite scientists, like Ralph Biggins or maybe John Ackerman? Or maybe we should discuss this with a few other researchers, like Gary Gilligan. Do you think?
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Gary, what about spacecraft that are above the ionosphere? Do you know anything about them getting naked-eye shots of the planets?
Not even of the Moon, which would require no filters, no long exposures, not even a steady hand if the purpose were just to show the Moon, looking to deep space and not with a crescent Earth taking up most of the canvas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9FWmd6Pe9E Looks easy. The good news is that NASA will be installing 4 HD video cameras in 2013, the bad news is, they won't be able to look into deep space. High Definition Earth Viewing (HDEV)
The HDEV visible cameras are a fixed payload camera system that requires no zoom, no pan or tilt mechanisms. The four fixed cameras are targeted for imagery of the Earth's surface and its terminators as seen from the ISS
Should we be talking to any open-minded satellite scientists, like Ralph Biggins or maybe John Ackerman?
I'd be interested to hear what anyone with appropriate credentials thinks of my reasoning for NOTHING being visible when looking outwards, away from the earth. Bring 'em on.
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
Okay. I emailed them. Now I'll see if either of them replies.
Lloyd
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
EU Conference Well, Ralph replied already. His most relevant comment is that parallax is the basic method of measurement, but after that everything is based on magnitude and the conversion from magnitude to distance is very inaccurate.
He said he'll be speaking at the EU Conference and the speech may be available afterward. He's also writing a book, but doesn't know when it'll be finished.
So I think I should now ask him if he's entirely confident about parallax measurements, since the author of that book that inspired this thread seems to give good reasons not to be confident in it, namely esp. that parallax depends on the assumption that background stars are not moving significantly compared to foreground stars during the time intervals of photographic comparisons. I'll try to ask him if he thinks there's the least possibility that other stars in our galaxy could be as small as brown dwarfs, or even our gas giant planets. I suppose spectrographic analysis of stars may be able to strongly suggest whether other stars are as large as our Sun. Does that sound likely or not?
sjw40364
Re: Action at a Distance = Fiction
AAAD is kind of hard to discuss when those same distances are overestimated by millions of ly in most cases. I am still waiting for that photo of a galaxy that doesn't just show a single star or light sorce at its center that is providing all the light in a galaxy. After all, according to theory there are billions of stars in the arms, and only millions in the center, yet the only light illuminating a galaxy is the central portion. A mere few million outshine the combined light of billions? Billions of young hotter stars than any old ones in the center? 2+2 is equaling 5 again. http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang ... 4x1024.jpg
Funny how they all have only one source of light for a galaxy supposedly containing billions.
GaryN
Re: Distances in Astronomy?
With my calculations for Mars visibility, I have, as accurately as I can determine, reduced Mars to the size of a basketball at 2000 meters, at its closest approach. Now trying to figure out how bright or intense a light source would be needed to be to make a dull redish brown, .15 albedo 25 cm diameter sphere visible at 2000 meters, and then scale it back up to determine how intense the Sun would need to be to supply the minimum number of photons required for our eyes to percieve Mars from Earth, with colour. I can't make it work, anyone on TB got any ideas? I did E-Mail the people at IESNA, who have some excellent information available online BTW, but don't expect an answer until after the holidays. http://www.iesna.org/ 100 Significant Papers http://www.ies.org/edoppts/100papers.cfm
.
