I don't know. This whole "giant star" stuff strikes me as way off the path of natural philosophy.
I mean come on! The Sun is vast beyond comprehension, yet we are just supposed to roll over and play dead when these people feed this stuff to us?
Aldebaran is 1.7 times the "mass" of the Sun yet it is 45 times as wide. That doesn't sound right at all. I'm calling shenanigans. I don't accept their conclusions. If the dang object is around the same mass as the Sun, it is probably around the same diameter as the Sun. Does that make sense? Am I crazy for thinking like this?
Its a similar analogy to one of the EU speakers, the astronomers think they are looking at fleets of 747's on the horizon, but are actually looking at bees buzzing around them.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: I don't know. This whole "giant star" stuff strikes me as way off the path of natural philosophy.
I mean come on! The Sun is vast beyond comprehension, yet we are just supposed to roll over and play dead when these people feed this stuff to us?
Aldebaran is 1.7 times the "mass" of the Sun yet it is 45 times as wide. That doesn't sound right at all. I'm calling shenanigans. I don't accept their conclusions. If the dang object is around the same mass as the Sun, it is probably around the same diameter as the Sun. Does that make sense? Am I crazy for thinking like this?
Its a similar analogy to one of the EU speakers, the astronomers think they are looking at fleets of 747's on the horizon, but are actually looking at bees buzzing around them.
I think size estimations are at best ballpark estimates because I think that the farther out you observe the less likely the observations are correct. Telescopes may be looking out a vast cosmic "mirages" whereby time, scale, and distance become distorted.
However why keep a "Ptolemaic-esque" point of view about stellar sizes versus their masses? Why can't a star be as large as 50 suns? Why not? They're discovering giant linked super-structures out there alleged to be orders of billions of light years across. Why are you hung up on star diameters needing to be not much bigger than the Sun?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Why can't a star be as large as 50 suns? Why not? They're discovering giant linked super-structures out there alleged to be orders of billions of light years across. Why are you hung up on star diameters needing to be not much bigger than the Sun?
Because it sounds wrong to me. I don't think any human I know or myself can even REALLY comprehend the size of the Earth. Jupiter? You can forget about it. We see a tiny dot in outer space and say "hey look Jupiter", doesn't mean we can actually comprehend how massive it really is.
Reading off big numbers and doing scientific notation IS NOT comprehension.
I just don't see the point in proposing objects that are beyond the Sun in size, when we don't fully understand the Sun. I propose keeping objects inside of constructs that are not wild and out there. The "math proves it" mentality spawned these objects, imo.
Common sense should have dictated that they are brighter probably because they are closer, not because they are these super giant stars that defy explanation! Where are the astronomers that think like this? It appears astronomers have completely abandoned natural philosophy in favor of mathematical models which skew reality into absurdity.
More importantly, after the initial insight was made, I then thought well, if they got the basics wrong, what else is skewed? I'm finding out the astrophysical sciences are not as "settled" as they want the public to believe. It's all up for questioning now. AS a matter of fact, I am even now considering that the "Heliocentric" model of stellar mechanics is wrong. What if we are in a binary system and Betelgeuse is a red dwarf star that is skewing 1/5 of all the parallax measurements made by the Tycho satellite into the negative? Or the skewing is coming from us being in a system including Proxima Centauri (even though it is 4 light years away).
It's all up for review IMO. All of it. This type of way way way outside the box thinking is absolutely required now. We have to find where we made the mistakes.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote: Why can't a star be as large as 50 suns? Why not? They're discovering giant linked super-structures out there alleged to be orders of billions of light years across. Why are you hung up on star diameters needing to be not much bigger than the Sun?
Because it sounds wrong to me. I don't think any human I know or myself can even REALLY comprehend the size of the Earth. Jupiter? You can forget about it. We see a tiny dot in outer space and say "hey look Jupiter", doesn't mean we can actually comprehend how massive it really is.
Reading off big numbers and doing scientific notation IS NOT comprehension.
I just don't see the point in proposing objects that are beyond the Sun in size, when we don't fully understand the Sun. I propose keeping objects inside of constructs that are not wild and out there. The "math proves it" mentality spawned these objects, imo.
Because it merely sounds wrong to you--is scientific
They're using the same techniques of mariners using the sextant or astrolabe, ie, triangulation. Today the technology is just farther advanced. How is that wild and untrue? Is all math false when applied to cosmology?
JeffreyW wrote: Common sense should have dictated that they are brighter probably because they are closer, not because they are these super giant stars that defy explanation! Where are the astronomers that think like this? It appears astronomers have completely abandoned natural philosophy in favor of mathematical models which skew reality into absurdity.
How is triangulation and interferometry employing mathematics a falsehood? They're not even using redshift here. Yet what they do use is still a nonsense?
JeffreyW wrote: More importantly, after the initial insight was made, I then thought well, if they got the basics wrong, what else is skewed? I'm finding out the astrophysical sciences are not as "settled" as they want the public to believe. It's all up for questioning now. AS a matter of fact, I am even now considering that the "Heliocentric" model of stellar mechanics is wrong. What if we are in a binary system and Betelgeuse is a red dwarf star that is skewing 1/5 of all the parallax measurements made by the Tycho satellite into the negative? Or the skewing is coming from us being in a system including Proxima Centauri (even though it is 4 light years away).
It's all up for review IMO. All of it. This type of way way way outside the box thinking is absolutely required now. We have to find where we made the mistakes.
In my opinion, you're going overboard. You're now assuming, unscientifically against their science, that you are in the right. This is self-contradictory. Triangulation and motion parallax are not fake things. They are used to navigate craft.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
It's Baaack!!!
The Jeffrey, creating strawmen, jumping off tall buildings of nonsense and illogic, all the while proclaiming his superior hypothesis and disallowing anything that tends to falsify it, while nothing has been provided to support it. Maintaining his preeminence as The Most Highly Gifted Scientist of Absurdity.
Prepare to be mystified! Overwhelmed with revelation! Cast asunder with undeniable facts. (Well, to jeffrey, they are facts.)
Ignoring rational arguments in favor of his fallacious reasoning, he is off to save the world from those mean ole '"psudo-scientists.""
OH, check your brain at the door...!
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Betelgeuse and Antares are moving away from us like a tracer round as you fire a machine gun.
On any clear night you can look up at the sky and find several red giant stars. I used Betelgeuse and Antares only as examples. There is also Aldebaran, Arcturus, Mira, 4Cassiopaea and others...all visible to the naked eye.
So are we to believe that these stars are also red dwarfs close to the Sun? that just happen to all be moving directly away from the Sun in such a precise fashion so as to not display the proper motion that would betray them as near neighbors? What a remarkable coincidence!!!!!!
Jeffrey, give it up. These stars are not red dwarfs.
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:Common sense should have dictated
Without using a web search, define "common sense".
Ive asked before, but was ignored. ! why? too difficult to answer?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
nick c wrote:
JeffreyW wrote: Betelgeuse and Antares are moving away from us like a tracer round as you fire a machine gun.
On any clear night you can look up at the sky and find several red giant stars. I used Betelgeuse and Antares only as examples. There is also Aldebaran, Arcturus, Mira, 4Cassiopaea and others...all visible to the naked eye.
So are we to believe that these stars are also red dwarfs close to the Sun? that just happen to all be moving directly away from the Sun in such a precise fashion so as to not display the proper motion that would betray them as near neighbors? What a remarkable coincidence!!!!!!
Jeffrey, give it up. These stars are not red dwarfs.
Give up? hahahahhaha
The negative parallax thing is quite problematic (and still is not answered). I have just recently found that not only are the Tycho measurements of parallax only half positive, but that half of them are negative.
Negative parallax. Half of them are in negative parallax. Its all explained away as measurement error. Half the star are in error. So its like flipping a coin. Only regard the stars that have positive parallax, like only counting the coin tosses when they land on tails. lol That's some serious confirmation bias if you ask me. Yet when you search online for an explanation of why so many stars are in negative parallax, all you get is people trying to re-route you to geocentrism.
This leads me to the consideration of parallax being completely bogus as well as the estimation of "proper motion". There is no parallax and "proper motion" is completely misunderstood (as it doesn't even account for 3D movement, its 2D).
Essentially, its probably all wrong. What is more disappointing is that the attitude of telling people to "give up" is prevalent. Just bow down to the authority when there are clear and very dangerous data which contradict the status quo. Half the stars in the Tycho data which are non zero are in negative parallax. This is just brushed under the rug. Why?
Could it be possible that all parallax shows us is that the Earth is moving? If this is true, then who decided to make parallax the method of distance determination when half of the objects in question are in error? As well, if half the stars are in error and ignored, then what is the statistical significance of this? Would it be safe to say that all stars have no parallax, because they cancel each other out similar to a bell curve?
This is a very strange situation to be in, because it would appear that I am arguing for geocentrism, when in truth I am not, I am just wondering why so much is ignored when it doesn't fit the status quo?
Type in the search parameters of -1000 to -1 parallax.
The row T11 will show the parallax. 441,000+ stars in negative parallax.
The coin flipped and landed on heads (negative parallax), so we we can't determine how far it is. Only when the coin lands on tails we can get their distance.
Is this extreme confirmation bias or am I just imagining things? Only when the objects fit inside of our beliefs will we consider them.
nick c
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Again you did not address the issues that I raised. I did not even mention "parallax" in my posts, that is a diversion on your part.
You did not answer the issue of how all the nearby red dwarfs (bright enough to be visible to the naked eye with several of them being amongst the brightest stars in the sky) do not display the proper motion one would expect from a near neighbor. Common sense dictates that it is highly improbable that every "red dwarf" visible to the naked eye is moving directly away from us so as to conveniently (for your theory) not have a proper motion commensurate with that of nearby object.
Red Giants The diffuse group in the upper right hand corner of the HR diagram are stars which are cool (have low values of current density powering them) but are luminous and so are thought to be very large. They are highly luminous only because of their apparent size. And that size may well be due to having a huge corona rather than an inherently large diameter. At any rate, these are the 'red giants'. They are not necessarily any older than any other star. Notice that some are relatively quite cool - in the range of 1000 K. How do stars at this low a temperature maintain an internal fusion reaction? The simple answer is: They cannot! And they do not! And beneath an extended diffuse corona, they may be quite small stars.
nick c wrote: Again you did not address the issues that I raised. I did not even mention "parallax" in my posts, that is a diversion on your part.
You did not answer the issue of how all the nearby red dwarfs (bright enough to be visible to the naked eye with several of them being amongst the brightest stars in the sky) do not display the proper motion one would expect from a near neighbor. Common sense dictates that it is highly improbable that every "red dwarf" visible to the naked eye is moving directly away from us so as to conveniently (for your theory) not have a proper motion commensurate with that of nearby object.
Red Giants The diffuse group in the upper right hand corner of the HR diagram are stars which are cool (have low values of current density powering them) but are luminous and so are thought to be very large. They are highly luminous only because of their apparent size. And that size may well be due to having a huge corona rather than an inherently large diameter. At any rate, these are the 'red giants'. They are not necessarily any older than any other star. Notice that some are relatively quite cool - in the range of 1000 K. How do stars at this low a temperature maintain an internal fusion reaction? The simple answer is: They cannot! And they do not! And beneath an extended diffuse corona, they may be quite small stars.
I have addressed the failure of parallax as a result of extreme confirmation bias. Since parallax is built off massive confirmation bias, and proper motion is tied to this supposed "parallax", then both proper motion and parallax are a result of a failure to determine both the motions and the distances to the stars.
Thus I did address the issue. I am addressing the root of the problem, not the leaves. If parallax and proper motion as stated are a result of huge confirmation bias to the contrary, then asking the question, "where is the huge proper motion of Betelguese" is moot. We must first figure out why half the stars catalogued have negative parallax. This is the real dilemma!
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
If parallax and proper motion as stated are a result of huge confirmation bias to the contrary, then asking the question, "where is the huge proper motion of Betelguese" is moot.
How can you tie falsified parallax motion to proper motion? Proper motion would show what distance was either too far to not see motion, or close enough to see proper motion. It is really simple to evaluate. Parallax doesn't enter into the problem..
But, you set up a strawman to tear down, then illogically connect it to something which you don't want to address.
You think you are hiding behind such nonsense, but your deceptions are obvious.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote: Betelgeuse and Antares are moving away from us like a tracer round as you fire a machine gun.
A better question would be, why are there 454,700 stars in the Tycho Catalogue of stars with -.01 to -1000 milliarcseconds of parallax?
Negative parallax. Meaning, they are foreground objects. Could someone please explain to me why there are almost half a million stars with negative parallax?
Negative parallax means this:
The question I'm asking is, what is the distance to an object (much less a star) which has a negative parallax of -916 milliarcseconds? Also, why isn't negative parallax mentioned in the wikipedia article on stellar parallax? How did half a million objects escape their theories on parallax?
I think this reasoning is a red herring or non-applicable in context of this discussion.
From the Wiki article, all parallax implies, in this context, is a unit of measure based on the "parsec" = PAR (parallax) SEC (1 arc second of movement relative to the background). Therefore, a star's distance can be calculated using trigonometry: The star's relative motion to Earth (the solar system) is measured at 6 month intervals when the Earth is 1. directly between the Sun and the observed star and 2. when the Earth is directly opposite the observed star and the Sun (where the Sun is in the middle---between Earth and the observed star).
Nothing in the article mentions the relevancy of + or - parallax.
Therefore this has nothing to do with negative or positive parallax (which implies ocular focus as applied to stereoscopic vision).
If you disagree then please explain why + or - parallax is of any relevance here. In space, like on the ground (when you experience motion parallax from a car when looking out the window at a horizon), you have fore, mid, and background objects and they're relative distances from the observer are merely being measured. How does this invalidate the existence of red or blue giant stars?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
Nothing in the article mentions the relevancy of + or - parallax.
Therefore this has nothing to do with negative or positive parallax (which implies ocular focus as applied to stereoscopic vision).
If you disagree then please explain why + or - parallax is of any relevance here. In space, like on the ground (when you experience motion parallax from a car when looking out the window at a horizon), you have fore, mid, and background objects and they're relative distances from the observer are merely being measured. How does this invalidate the existence of red or blue giant stars?
Negative parallax means that the distance cannot be determined via parallax. Parallax always has to be positive. In angles you have 10 arc minutes, or 10 arc seconds or 10 milliarcseconds...
There is no such thing as measuring a negative angle, because even if it flip flops it is still a positive angle. Like saying the length of a car is 12 feet. You don't say, the length is -12 feet, you just say 12 feet.
How the hell did they get negative angles for 441,000 stars? It doesn't make any sense!
What they do is ignore all the stars that do not conform to their standards, all the stars with negative parallax, and then keep all the positive parallax ones as proof parallax is accurate at close distances! They flip a coin to count all the times it lands on heads and tails, but then throw out all the times it lands on heads! They really crazy part is that they say, look, the coin lands on tails all the time.
Quit asking questions! Parallax is correct! Resistance is futile!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
Nothing in the article mentions the relevancy of + or - parallax.
Therefore this has nothing to do with negative or positive parallax (which implies ocular focus as applied to stereoscopic vision).
If you disagree then please explain why + or - parallax is of any relevance here. In space, like on the ground (when you experience motion parallax from a car when looking out the window at a horizon), you have fore, mid, and background objects and they're relative distances from the observer are merely being measured. How does this invalidate the existence of red or blue giant stars?
Negative parallax means that the distance cannot be determined via parallax. Parallax always has to be positive. In angles you have 10 arc minutes, or 10 arc seconds or 10 milliarcseconds...
There is no such thing as measuring a negative angle, because even if it flip flops it is still a positive angle. Like saying the length of a car is 12 feet. You don't say, the length is -12 feet, you just say 12 feet.
How the hell did they get negative angles for 441,000 stars? It doesn't make any sense!
What they do is ignore all the stars that do not conform to their standards, all the stars with negative parallax, and then keep all the positive parallax ones as proof parallax is accurate at close distances! They flip a coin to count all the times it lands on heads and tails, but then throw out all the times it lands on heads! They really crazy part is that they say, look, the coin lands on tails all the time.
But that is non-applicable. And I don't quite understand how you're arriving at a "negative angle" principle. Stars are all far away. All of the angles using the Parsec will be measured in terms of arcseconds. There are no "negative angles" in terms of distant objects. + and - parallax have more to do with ocular focus, ie, astigmatism, than parsecs.
With trig you can calculate the distance from your desk to the hilltop outside. The angles are all based on the triangle. You can use this all the way to a star. How does this invalidate the existence of red giant stars?
too difficult to answer?
