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.
Bingo. What usually happens is that the proponents of parallax as applied to stellar distances just say, hey, it works for distances up to like 500 light years or whatever, THEN it gets iffy. The truth is that it just doesn't work at all for stars outside of our system. This means all the distances are up for revision using some other technique.
The only other technique I have found was Mr. Jerrold Thacker's paper on stellar distances (I don't agree when he goes off on his general relativity tangent), but measuring them with BV index against apparent magnitude (I think that's it I'll have to reread his paper) sets both the distances of quasars AND stars at more intuitive distances. Both in agreement with Halton Arp's conclusions of quasars being near objects AND in agreement with parallax being unreliable for distance determination of the stars. This is where I am going with it.
thus the entire mantra of "super giant" stars can be soon reset to normal stars at really close distances, which is also in agreement with common sense.
The resolution of space-based telescopes, which do not have to contend with atmospheric distortion, is determined predominantly by the quality of the optics and size of the telescope objective. Specially designed space telescopes such as the Hipparcos have enabled accurate parallax measurement down to 1 milli-arc second(0.001"), giving distance measurements for nearly 120 000 stars out to about 1000 pc. The distances to over 7000 stars can now be calculated within 5% accuracy.
Future space telescopes, including the planned GAIA and FAME, should be able to resolve parallax angles down to between 50-500 micro-arc seconds, depending on the brightness of stars (higher resolution for brighter stars). This would allow the distances to about 40 million stars to be measured, out to about 20 000 pc, giving an accurate three-dimensional map of much of the Milky Way Galaxy.
High Precision Parallax Collecting Satellite
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JeffreyW wrote:
viscount aero wrote:
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.
Bingo. What usually happens is that the proponents of parallax as applied to stellar distances just say, hey, it works for distances up to like 500 light years or whatever, THEN it gets iffy. The truth is that it just doesn't work at all for stars outside of our system. This means all the distances are up for revision using some other technique.
The only other technique I have found was Mr. Jerrold Thacker's paper on stellar distances (I don't agree when he goes off on his general relativity tangent), but measuring them with BV index against apparent magnitude (I think that's it I'll have to reread his paper) sets both the distances of quasars AND stars at more intuitive distances. Both in agreement with Halton Arp's conclusions of quasars being near objects AND in agreement with parallax being unreliable for distance determination of the stars. This is where I am going with it.
thus the entire mantra of "super giant" stars can be soon reset to normal stars at really close distances, which is also in agreement with common sense.
Yeah initially I didn't quite feel your position but now I do. For terrestrial purposes triangulation is quite accurate and can navigate craft very eloquently. I think, too, they use it to calibrate space probes to the planets and beyond. So it does work. But only in certain cases. The fact that stars are not actually fixed creates issues when trying to resolve things down to greater "granularity."
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
viscount aero wrote: Yeah initially I didn't quite feel your position but now I do. For terrestrial purposes triangulation is quite accurate and can navigate craft very eloquently. I think, too, they use it to calibrate space probes to the planets and beyond. So it does work. But only in certain cases. The fact that stars are not actually fixed creates issues when trying to resolve things down to greater "granularity."
I like the idea of parallax and applying it to stars inside of our system, but I think the mathematicians have gone overboard. They have made a simple calculation applied to everything. They have made an easy to understand measurement technique and applied it to objects that currently still defy their explanations for both formation and motion.
This attitude of placing a mathematical explanation towards something still not fully understood is an arm to the root of scientism.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I think what needs to be stressed here as we work though this stage of coming to the conclusion that "giant stars" are not "giant" is the over-reliance on the consensus that mathematics is somehow infallible.
I think what has happened is that mathematicians have tried to replace natural philosophy. This is a massive problem, because science as it stands is not rooted in math, its rooted in natural philosophy. When an individual takes a strange occurrence and tries to fit it in some meaningful pattern we have someone who is developing an understanding. I would use the term "theory" but that is overused and abused wholeheartedly by the former of the labels. As "theory" means patterns involving the real world, not some imaginary construct.
If one should notice this issue in the determination of "parallax" they would notice the "imaginary star" in the diagram that have presented in earlier posts. Thus is the condition of mathematics. Imagine what is not there to make the math work. This preponderance is prevalent in institutions, which is of placing the cart before the horse.
viscount aero wrote: Yeah initially I didn't quite feel your position but now I do. For terrestrial purposes triangulation is quite accurate and can navigate craft very eloquently. I think, too, they use it to calibrate space probes to the planets and beyond. So it does work. But only in certain cases. The fact that stars are not actually fixed creates issues when trying to resolve things down to greater "granularity."
I like the idea of parallax and applying it to stars inside of our system, but I think the mathematicians have gone overboard. They have made a simple calculation applied to everything. They have made an easy to understand measurement technique and applied it to objects that currently still defy their explanations for both formation and motion.
This attitude of placing a mathematical explanation towards something still not fully understood is an arm to the root of scientism.
Right.
JeffreyW
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
I just watched Mr. Robitaille's argument against the gaseous model of the Sun.
He says the gaseous model does not work because:
1. Gas doesn't emit black body radiation (invalidation of Kirchhoff's Law) (I agree) 2. Gas doesn't ripple (I agree)
But my problem with Mr. Robitaille's argument is that the Sun is not a gas. It is plasma, or "plasmatic" matter. It is a distinctly different phase of matter. It is as different as a stone cup and the water in that very same stone cup. Sure the establishment's excuses are all over the place, optical thickness causes black body radiation, etc etc. My issues are much different.
Plasma ripples like water, thus it can emit black body radiation because it is latticed structure.
Saying the sun was liquid was never needed. It is not gas to begin with, it is plasma. It is a distinct phase all to itself.
Saying plasma is gas is wrong. Plasma reacts very strongly to electromagnetic fields, gas reacts very weakly to electromagnetic fields.
In other words, a plasma is not ionized gas (thus keeping the "gas" construct), it is plasma. Plasma is at a much higher enthalpy than gas, and gas is at a higher enthalpy than liquid. Check out this simple experiment you can do in your home.
For the purposes of this theory of stellar metamorphosis, young stars are mostly plasma. When they lose energy they become gas. When their gaseous counterparts lose even more energy they will THEN become liquid and then solid as more and more energy is lost and the matter moves down the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
seasmith
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
JefferyW wrote:
Just looking at the image there, is it yours? May i suggest it's missing a set of arrows: between Liquid and Plasma would be the dual-reciprocal of Oxidation<> Reduction, as with electrolyte-s for example, or gasoline. In most chemistry, gas and liquid are compatible transition states between dark mass and bright emission, maybe in stars too.
[ Enthalpy needs another arrow as well, for diabatic or adiabatic.]
LunarSabbathTruth
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
The diagram above is simple and straightforward, but it does not reflect the way that astronomers actually measure parallax on those distant stars. In real life, they use more indirection, adding more layers of assumptions and errors.
New research following up on the Kepler discoveries shows that alien worlds, or exoplanets, can be divided into three groups - terrestrials, gas giants, and mid-sized "gas dwarfs" - based on how their host stars tend to fall into three distinct groups defined by their compositions.
Mega-Earth, also known as Kepler-10c, is 18,000 miles in diameter and 2.3 times as large as Earth. It appears to be as solid as the planet beneath our feet.
Kepler-10c was previously known to astronomers, but they had not yet measured its mass. Due to its size — 2.3 times that of Earth — it was assumed to be a "mini-Neptune," a planet encased in thick gas. But the new observations have confirmed that it is rocky, not gassy.
Mega-Earth, also known as Kepler-10c, is 18,000 miles in diameter and 2.3 times as large as Earth. It appears to be as solid as the planet beneath our feet.
Kepler-10c was previously known to astronomers, but they had not yet measured its mass. Due to its size — 2.3 times that of Earth — it was assumed to be a "mini-Neptune," a planet encased in thick gas. But the new observations have confirmed that it is rocky, not gassy.
They're always finding "impossible" objects!! LOL
Isn't it more like their theories are impossible
Sparky
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Their observations are all there is...Don't have to accept their conclusions...
If the science is correct and huge planets can be rocky, what does that imply?
viscount aero
Re: The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis
Sparky wrote: Their observations are all there is...Don't have to accept their conclusions...
If the science is correct and huge planets can be rocky, what does that imply?
Lots of things.
Could be that planetary formation isn't at what is assumed. I think that's been a foregone conclusion even before this finding. But if we're seeing things like ringed asteroids and far-distant comets with tails, then nothing is off-limits except for the pre-existing theories that are disproven every time another "impossible finding arises.
