Calling All Amateur Astronomers! How far away are stars? How do we determine this distance? What makes it reliable?

No one really knows, 100%.

Focusing on a textbook is a sure way to actually get sucked into literary debates.

Start simple.

I don't subscribe to the Cepheid Variable Star theory. I don't believe that these objects are 4-20 times more massive or 100,000 times more luminous than the Sun.

Those sort of figures are entirely unnecessary if we begin to question the various Parallax methods of determining distance.

You should read the rest of the discussion in this post and see how I was referencing to a specific article and asking for rebuttal toward it?

Is he false in saying that these Parallax methods are unreliable? How do you prove him wrong?

[link to science.howstuffworks.com]

and to you I say


This is a rebuttal toward the accuracy of Parallax.

[link to astronomyinformation.org]

Last Edited by SaveTheLivingEntities on 07/09/2011 05:42 PM

I don't think that is an astronomy organization. Reads more like a creationist site registered to an astronomy name.

You can post in the "against the mainstream" section. Of course seing as how you'd be posting creationist propaganda don't expect many to fall for it.

Consult the vedas

Better information than google or rascal astronomers can give you

abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino 'rjuna

"My dear Arjuna, even if you go to the highest planetary system, which is called Brahmaloka, you will have to come back."

Bhagavad Gita (8.16)

Chant and be happy, prabhu

Haribol, thank you very much.

I am personally thinking of the verse .

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 10.21

adityanam aham vishnur
jyotisham ravir amsuman
maricir marutam asmi
nakshatranam aham sasi


Of the Adityas I am Vishnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, of the Maruts I am Marici, and among the stars I am the moon.


Among the stars, the moon is the most prominent at night, and thus the moon represents Krishna. It appears from this verse that the moon is one of the stars; therefore the stars that twinkle in the sky also reflect the light of the sun. The theory that there are many suns within the universe is not accepted by Vedic literature. The sun is one, and as by the reflection of the sun the moon illuminates, so also do the stars. Since Bhagavad-gita indicates herein that the moon is one of the stars, the twinkling stars are not suns but are similar to the moon.

Last Edited by SaveTheLivingEntities on 07/09/2011 07:53 PM

Not creationist propaganda.

Vedic knowledge. I accept its authority.

Triangles

Reads like a geocentrist manifesto to me. They tend to get their panties in a twist when it comes to parallax. Heaven help you if you should utter the words "light echo" as it pertains to supernova explosions reflecting off of nebulae.

Hey Astronut, thanks for your input.

So how accurate do you reckon that the modern day methods of determining distance are?

Depends on the method. Parallax works but is limited in range, Cepheid variable method is beyond reproach, but you automatically discount that there are stars more luminous than the sun, so naturally you automatically disbelieve it.

What exactly is involved in the Cepheid variable method of measurement? What makes it more accurate than other methods?

I only discount that stars are more luminous than the Sun if they are indeed closer than we have calculated.


Why should they have to be more Luminous and larger, if they could just be closer? What evidence has pushed this argument toward one way or the other in History?

Thanks for your input Astronut, I value your amateur knowledge. I know how much enjoyment one can get from amateur hobbies and I commend you for sticking through and through with your convictions.

The rate of fluctuation in a Cepheid variable's brightness is directly tied to its absolute luminosity, therefore monitoring the rate allows you to convert from apparent to absolute magnitude and therefore solve for distance.

You can't measure the parallax of a distant galaxy, but you can see Cepheid variables within a galaxy.

Stars are good examples of black body radiators. A star's temperature drives luminosity, and that temperature can be determined by examining the spectral curve of its emissions.

Armageddon !!!!

So basically an astronomy organization is saying the methods of determining distance of galactic objects could be all wrong??

This shakes the foundation of everything we think we know don't you think?

It's even worse. What about a situation, when we are living in a geocentric system?

In a such case all of these distances are rubbish, because is no paralax in geocentric system.

I would like to stress it strongly, that I do not advocate geocentric system, but there is many sources, where are serious doubts about heliocentric system.

We still don't have a single evidence of Earth moving around Sun. Nothing at all.

All calculations are made in geocentric system do apply to heliocentric system as well.

What is disturbing -Western World based astronomy basically ignoring magnetic forces in the Universe, relying only on gravitational forces. Russians are taking into consideration magnetism in the Universe as well.

Such huge mistake! Just take a look at that film.



Some links to geocentric web pages.

[link to www.geocentricity.com]
[link to www.fixedearth.com]
[link to www.loveforlife.com.au]
[link to www.loveforlife.com.au]
[link to www.geocentrism.com]
[link to www.fixedearth.com]
[link to www.geocentricbible.com]
[link to www.cuttingedge.org]
[link to www.reformation.org]

Excellent descriptive answer.

Absolute magnitude being solved for distance involves what sort of equation?

What defines this relation between absolute magnitude and distance?

I'm just trying to get a good grasp of how monitoring the absolute luminosity can give us a measurement for distance.



I see. This seems like it could be a reliable method, if Absolute Magnitude is proven to be related to distance.



I understand that point well. But determining the temperature of the Star doesn't directly tell us how far away a Star is, correct? It all hinges on whether or not luminosity can be correctly calculated and correlated to distance?

Sigh...
Go Google your question. Sheesh...

[link to www.google.com]

You're missing the entire point of my thread.

I already know the answer. I am trying to determine how accurate or how controversial some of these methods are.

I am presenting an argument toward the commonly accepted facts and I am just seeking simple answers from knowledgeable, in the know people who happen to frequent GLP, a DISCUSSION forum.

the people who live there told us

You have not mastered high school math and physics yet, have you, kid?

Nice insult. You can take a hike if you will continue on with that sort of attitude.

High School Physics theories constantly being outdated and updated, ask anyone who has attended college.

This has nothing to do with high school math or physics, it is far beyond just basic high school math or physics. It has to do with critical thinking, of which you fail apparently.


Please if you are commenting on this topic, please take the time to read this whole paper, it has many pages. At least skim over them.

[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 1
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 2
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 3
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 4
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 5
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 6
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 7
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 8
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 9
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 10
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 11
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 12
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 13

Last Edited by SaveTheLivingEntities on 07/09/2011 08:00 PM

OP, I'll be honest here - I think there's a fairly good chance you are just being an ass but - here's to hoping you're not.

There is never a reason why you should NOT question current methods. HOWEVER, our current space programs have been using what you are calling 'outdated' thinking and coming back successfully for 40 some odd years now. At least SOME of what they are doing is right. Scientists are very careful to say that they are using 'current thinking' and that their knowledge is not absolute.
Others have described the method. It doesn't seem to have changed since I was in college. And as for what makes it reliable? It's as reliable as we can make it right now with what we know. That is different from "reliable".
As our knowledge of the universe increase, so will the accuracy of the methods we use. Until then, we will just have to trust the math and keep learning.

So you already know the answer, but you are trying to determine how accurate or how controversial some of these methods are by posting this question on GLP? Do you realize how bogus that sounds? I don't know what your true reason for posting this is, but it is NOT your stated reason. So I am calling you out as either a liar or a shill. Which is it?

this is the only sun/solar system that currently exists. all the stars in the sky are like looking into your trash can.

It is neither. You are a black or white kind of person. You failed to realize what I was speaking of.

Let me rephrase so you can understand properly.


I know the answer that google will provide. It will agree with mainstream modern academia.

I am seeking to know whether or not individual amateur astronomers have any personal experience with arguments on whether or not the above mentioned parallax methods are controversial or notably accurate.


You should tone down your aggressive attitude, or log of GLP for a few weeks and get in touch with the real world, no one acts like that socially.

You should also read the main content of this topic which involves this information here.


[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 1
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 2
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 3
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 4
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 5
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 6
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 7
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 8
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 9
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 10
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 11
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 12
[link to astronomyinformation.org] Page 13

Before you go accuse me of being a Shill or a Liar.

Last Edited by SaveTheLivingEntities on 07/09/2011 08:30 PM

The point is, you are a lying sack of shit. No rational person would come to GLP "seeking to know whether or not individual amateur astronomers have any personal experience with arguments on whether or not the above mentioned parallax methods are controversial or notably accurate." If you are really seeking answers you would go to astronomy websites with this inquiry, NOT GLP!

So again, you are either a liar or a shill. Which is it?
You are not giving an honest portrayel of

You are not giving an honest portrayal of yourself.

No I think you are just being a stubborn little troll who is trying to coax something out of me that does not exist.

What is your problem with sparking debate? That is the point of a discussion forum. GLP just happens to be a targeted audience because of the nature of how people share information on this forum.

I'm what's called a fence sitter. I'm sitting on the fence, not leaning one way or the other. I'm trying to logically and rationally understand a topic. I like asking the tough questions that makes myself think, and it just so happens I ask those questions on GLP.

Why are you so adamant about trying to pull some confession from me? Whats your ulterior motive? Why are you being so aggressive? I don't even know what I would have to confess about because I'm honestly just discussing the information that I found at this website.

[link to astronomyinformation.org]

Last Edited by SaveTheLivingEntities on 07/09/2011 08:46 PM