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?
Their parallax is negative! If you plug in the negative angles you get weird measurements:
"For example, Proxima Centauri (the nearest star to Earth), whose parallax is 0.7687, is 1 / 0.7687 = 1.3009 parsecs (4.243 ly) distant."
The parallax for one star on the Tycho Catalogue is -.916!
So, 1/-.916 = -1.091 parsecs!
So the star's distance is negative light years. lol
It's like that with over 440,000 stars! Why? How the hell can a star be at a negative distance from us? It doesn't make any sense!
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
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?
Their parallax is negative! If you plug in the negative angles you get weird measurements:
"For example, Proxima Centauri (the nearest star to Earth), whose parallax is 0.7687, is 1 / 0.7687 = 1.3009 parsecs (4.243 ly) distant."
The parallax for one star on the Tycho Catalogue is -.916!
So, 1/-.916 = -1.091 parsecs!
So the star's distance is negative light years. lol
It's like that with over 440,000 stars! Why? How the hell can a star be at a negative distance from us? It doesn't make any sense!
Explain "Negative angle" in this context.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Their parallax is negative! If you plug in the negative angles you get weird measurements:
"For example, Proxima Centauri (the nearest star to Earth), whose parallax is 0.7687, is 1 / 0.7687 = 1.3009 parsecs (4.243 ly) distant."
The parallax for one star on the Tycho Catalogue is -.916!
So, 1/-.916 = -1.091 parsecs!
So the star's distance is negative light years. lol
It's like that with over 440,000 stars! Why? How the hell can a star be at a negative distance from us? It doesn't make any sense!
Parallax angle as noted as the small "p" angle right behind the imaginary star will ALWAYS be positive when determining distances. Even if you flip flop the end points, the angle will still be positive. Where the hell do we fit a "negative" parallax angle in this diagram? Much less, 440,000+ negative parallax angles.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
Parallax angle as noted as the small "p" angle right behind the imaginary star will ALWAYS be positive when determining distances. Even if you flip flop the end points, the angle will still be positive. Where the hell do we fit a "negative" parallax angle in this diagram? Much less, 440,000+ negative parallax angles.
Right so you've debunked your own reasoning. When measuring using trig there are no such things as negative angles, from as close as the stop sign outside to a star.
So what is your issue?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Parallax angle as noted as the small "p" angle right behind the imaginary star will ALWAYS be positive when determining distances. Even if you flip flop the end points, the angle will still be positive. Where the hell do we fit a "negative" parallax angle in this diagram? Much less, 440,000+ negative parallax angles.
Right so you've debunked your own reasoning. When measuring using trig there are no such things as negative angles, from as close as the stop sign outside to a star.
So what is your issue?
My issue is that there are negative parallax angles measured for 440,000+ stars. This means one of two things:
1. Parallax is wrong on all accounts for measuring stellar distances. 2. There is an additional feature of measuring distance that is being neglected, thus parallax is at best, wrong.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
And guess what this means, if parallax is unreliable for all distances, then we need to devise a way to determine their distances without it.
Having a system of determining the distances of the stars with 440,000+ stars in error (negative parallax mind you) means that the system is flawed, and only the results which agreed to the system were kept, meaning those agreements were actually cherry picked, and the method for determining stellar distances was never accurate to begin with. Thus the stars we see in the night sky are at vastly different distances.
The method for determination of true distance was already put forth in Mr. Jerrold Thacker's paper on star distances, without parallax (which has shown to be extremely unreliable at all distances).
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
Parallax angle as noted as the small "p" angle right behind the imaginary star will ALWAYS be positive when determining distances. Even if you flip flop the end points, the angle will still be positive. Where the hell do we fit a "negative" parallax angle in this diagram? Much less, 440,000+ negative parallax angles.
Right so you've debunked your own reasoning. When measuring using trig there are no such things as negative angles, from as close as the stop sign outside to a star.
So what is your issue?
My issue is that there are negative parallax angles measured for 440,000+ stars. This means one of two things:
1. Parallax is wrong on all accounts for measuring stellar distances. 2. There is an additional feature of measuring distance that is being neglected, thus parallax is at best, wrong.
You're not answering the question. Let me say it differently:
Show me along the line of sight, using parsecs or millimeters, where the angle from the surface of your eye--to an object that moves over time--becomes negative. In other words, when does the angle between you and a stop sign become "negative" as you move relative to it? Same for a bug crawling on your arm--when does the viewing angle between you and it become "negative" ?
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Proper motion explained for those who conflate it with parallax..
Mira's motion is not as different from that of its neighbors as Barnard's Star, but has recently attracted attention because of its spectacular, thirteen-light-year long "tail". (Mira is in the constellation of Cetus, the Whale, hence the pun commonly used to refer to its tail.) Mira is a red giant, near the end of its life. Because of its large size, it has a low surface gravity, and gas is easily ejected from its outer layers into space. If it were stationary relative to the material surrounding it, the gas leaving Mira would gradually expand in all directions, forming a "planetary" nebula. But it is moving through space, relative to nearby stars and interstellar gas, at about 80 miles per second (most such motions are only a quarter that speed), and as the star and the gas leaving it plow through the interstellar medium, a "bow shock" is formed, like the bow wave in front of a speedboat, and a long "wake" or "tail" has formed behind the star. The collision of the stellar and interstellar gas heats them to very high temperatures, and as the gas streams behind the star, the hydrogen which makes up most of the gas emits radiation (almost entirely in the ultraviolet), as shown below.
Mira's motion is not as different from that of its neighbors as Barnard's Star, but has recently attracted attention because of its spectacular, thirteen-light-year long "tail". (Mira is in the constellation of Cetus, the Whale, hence the pun commonly used to refer to its tail.) Mira is a red giant, near the end of its life. Because of its large size, it has a low surface gravity, and gas is easily ejected from its outer layers into space. If it were stationary relative to the material surrounding it, the gas leaving Mira would gradually expand in all directions, forming a "planetary" nebula. But it is moving through space, relative to nearby stars and interstellar gas, at about 80 miles per second (most such motions are only a quarter that speed), and as the star and the gas leaving it plow through the interstellar medium, a "bow shock" is formed, like the bow wave in front of a speedboat, and a long "wake" or "tail" has formed behind the star. The collision of the stellar and interstellar gas heats them to very high temperatures, and as the gas streams behind the star, the hydrogen which makes up most of the gas emits radiation (almost entirely in the ultraviolet), as shown below.
Sorry image too large...But worth the time to view.
We have a star, the red giant, Mira, behaving as a comet!!! Plasma is lit up with ultraviolet. Suggesting an electrical connection! Falsifying gtsm!!!
Thank you, Sparky, for that reference.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
You're not answering the question. Let me say it differently:
Show me along the line of sight, using parsecs or millimeters, where the angle from the surface of your eye--to an object that moves over time--becomes negative. In other words, when does the angle between you and a stop sign become "negative" as you move relative to it? Same for a bug crawling on your arm--when does the viewing angle between you and it become "negative" ?
that's what I'm saying. the viewing angle never becomes negative.
Yet there are 441,000 stars with negative parallax. ????
These stars undermine the entire credibility of the parallax measurement technique in all stars. The viewing angle for Proxima Centauri at what, ~760 milliparsec would be equivalent to 2 cm at like 5000 meters. A quarter placed 5 kilometers away, and that's a LARGE angle when it comes to stars.
The accuracy of parallax is non-existent. I am beginning to believe it was force fitted, and the relevant data which contradicts its accuracy, the 441,000 stars with negative parallax is evidence of this.
In short, parallax is completely unreliable for measurement of stellar distance. You can't ignore 441,000 stars and just keep the ones without "error" as proof! That's what Eddington did to the solar eclipse stuff. Ignore and delete 60% of the data that contradicted what he believed was true. Scientists do this with radiometric dating stuff too concerning the Apollo rock samples. All samples that were dated to be WAY outside the prescribed limit of around 4.5 billion years were deleted and ignored, brushed under the rug to keep with the status quo of the Moon being around the same age as Earth.
It doesn't matter if the scientists take their samples and test them mutually exclusive of one another, once their results are published, you better believe they will fit with the prescribed ideas. If they don't they won't get published, the peer review system is designed to hammer all the nails that stick out.
So in effect, its democracy that has killed science. The rule of the majority is democracy, but this contradicts even Galileo, in which he was quoted stating the essence of having a single rational person more correct than 1000 in authority.
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
You're not answering the question. Let me say it differently:
Show me along the line of sight, using parsecs or millimeters, where the angle from the surface of your eye--to an object that moves over time--becomes negative. In other words, when does the angle between you and a stop sign become "negative" as you move relative to it? Same for a bug crawling on your arm--when does the viewing angle between you and it become "negative" ?
that's what I'm saying. the viewing angle never becomes negative.
Yet there are 441,000 stars with negative parallax. ????
That's not what you're saying. Stars cannot have negative parallax in terms of arcseconds of movement in the sky because there is no such thing in this context. The parsec as used in triangulation is not a "negative angle" technique. What is a "negative angle"? You have yet to answer that.
JeffreyW wrote: These stars undermine the entire credibility of the parallax measurement technique in all stars. The viewing angle for Proxima Centauri at what, ~760 milliparsec would be equivalent to 2 cm at like 5000 meters. A quarter placed 5 kilometers away, and that's a LARGE angle when it comes to stars.
The accuracy of parallax is non-existent. I am beginning to believe it was force fitted, and the relevant data which contradicts its accuracy, the 441,000 stars with negative parallax is evidence of this.
Source for "negative parallax" of these stars?
JeffreyW wrote: In short, parallax is completely unreliable for measurement of stellar distance. You can't ignore 441,000 stars and just keep the ones without "error" as proof! That's what Eddington did to the solar eclipse stuff. Ignore and delete 60% of the data that contradicted what he believed was true. Scientists do this with radiometric dating stuff too concerning the Apollo rock samples. All samples that were dated to be WAY outside the prescribed limit of around 4.5 billion years were deleted and ignored, brushed under the rug to keep with the status quo of the Moon being around the same age as Earth.
It doesn't matter if the scientists take their samples and test them mutually exclusive of one another, once their results are published, you better believe they will fit with the prescribed ideas. If they don't they won't get published, the peer review system is designed to hammer all the nails that stick out.
So in effect, its democracy that has killed science. The rule of the majority is democracy, but this contradicts even Galileo, in which he was quoted stating the essence of having a single rational person more correct than 1000 in authority.
I have no idea what you're talking about. Measuring arcseconds and degrees involves no "negative angles". Show me where you have a "negative angle" for the stars you are talking about.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Measuring arcseconds and degrees involves no "negative angles". Show me where you have a "negative angle" for the stars you are talking about.
I have answered it repeatedly. Yet people just ignore what I am saying and the fact that this reference was already posted in this thread a few statements back:
Put in -1000 to -01 for the parallax on the Tycho Main Catalogue.
You will see there are ~454,000 stars which have NEGATIVE PARALLAX.
Yes, negative parallax means NEGATIVE ANGLE.
How is parallax even trust at all is the question I am asking if half of the stars with non-zero parallax (margin of 0 +-20 mas) have negative parallax?
How do 454,000 stars have negative distance to us?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
You're not answering the question. Let me say it differently:
Show me along the line of sight, using parsecs or millimeters, where the angle from the surface of your eye--to an object that moves over time--becomes negative. In other words, when does the angle between you and a stop sign become "negative" as you move relative to it? Same for a bug crawling on your arm--when does the viewing angle between you and it become "negative" ?
that's what I'm saying. the viewing angle never becomes negative.
Yet there are 441,000 stars with negative parallax. ????
Well there are no "negative angles." Perhaps the values are due to the optics they are using. Riflemen must adjust for this phenomenon in their scopes. The ground glass within the tube creates aberration and distortion. Also, using motion parallax in context of star movement has always been very difficult even today. The alleged "fixed" background reference is not fixed in actuality. Plus one must contend with the relative motions of EVERYTHING relative to EVERYTHING.
Whereas a sextant and astrolabe are practical terrestrial measuring devices, is it a useful technique on cosmological scales?
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
You're not answering the question. Let me say it differently:
Show me along the line of sight, using parsecs or millimeters, where the angle from the surface of your eye--to an object that moves over time--becomes negative. In other words, when does the angle between you and a stop sign become "negative" as you move relative to it? Same for a bug crawling on your arm--when does the viewing angle between you and it become "negative" ?
that's what I'm saying. the viewing angle never becomes negative.
Yet there are 441,000 stars with negative parallax. ????
Well there are no "negative angles." Perhaps the values are due to the optics they are using. Riflemen must adjust for this phenomenon in their scopes. The ground glass within the tube creates aberration and distortion. Also, using motion parallax in context of star movement has always been very difficult even today. The alleged "fixed" background reference is not fixed in actuality. Plus one must contend with the relative motions of EVERYTHING relative to EVERYTHING.
Whereas a sextant and astrolabe are practical terrestrial measuring devices, is it a useful technique on cosmological scales?
I don't think using angles is practical at all to determine distances on cosmological scales. In fact, it should be trashed. Using good principles of parallax to find stellar distances is grossly ill-suited.
The data for parallax measurements is as reliable as a coin toss. Ignore all the negative parallaxes, (only count the tosses when they conform to our theory of coins always landing on tails).
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
You're not answering the question. Let me say it differently:
Show me along the line of sight, using parsecs or millimeters, where the angle from the surface of your eye--to an object that moves over time--becomes negative. In other words, when does the angle between you and a stop sign become "negative" as you move relative to it? Same for a bug crawling on your arm--when does the viewing angle between you and it become "negative" ?
that's what I'm saying. the viewing angle never becomes negative.
Yet there are 441,000 stars with negative parallax. ????
Well there are no "negative angles." Perhaps the values are due to the optics they are using. Riflemen must adjust for this phenomenon in their scopes. The ground glass within the tube creates aberration and distortion. Also, using motion parallax in context of star movement has always been very difficult even today. The alleged "fixed" background reference is not fixed in actuality. Plus one must contend with the relative motions of EVERYTHING relative to EVERYTHING.
Whereas a sextant and astrolabe are practical terrestrial measuring devices, is it a useful technique on cosmological scales?
I don't think using angles is practical at all to determine distances on cosmological scales. In fact, it should be trashed. Using good principles of parallax to find stellar distances is grossly ill-suited.
The data for parallax measurements is as reliable as a coin toss. Ignore all the negative parallaxes, (only count the tosses when they conform to our theory of coins always landing on tails).
Coming full circle, I will agree with you
The fact that negative parallaxes arise at all should denote that the technique is non-applicable. It shouldn't be used. It also tells me, as you suggest, that the nature of distance and relative movement is unknown. Like radiometric dating, the results are specious at best. But science is uncomfortable with this. It insists upon "knowing" everything.
