|
REPORT ABUSIVE REPLY
|
|
Message Subject
|
Calling All Amateur Astronomers! How far away are stars? How do we determine this distance? What makes it reliable?
|
|
Poster Handle
|
SaveTheLivingEntities |
|
Post Content
|
Actually, here is what I'm really going on about. [ link to astronomyinformation.org] "In previous chapters we have proven that the ability of telescopes to see distant stars has been greatly exaggerated. Experiments have also proven that the distance at which the sun would be barely visible by the naked eye or a telescope has also been greatly overstated. Here we will explore some of the problems regarding parallaxes and star distances.
Astronomers have tried to determine star distance by a method called trigonometric parallax. The distances that astronomers calculated using this method are in turn used as yard sticks to determine the distances of all other, much farther, objects. Trigonometric parallax is one of the main methods that astronomers use to estimate the distances of remote objects such as galaxies. If this foundation is proven to be doubtful, then, automatically, the whole scale of measurements in astronomy regarding the distances of stars, star clusters, galaxies, etc., like falling dominoes, comes into question. "
Quoted for the post below.. they use a method called Parallax - this a method of trigonometry. the below link gives you a basic understanding of parallax. [ link to www.youtube.com] As you can see I posted information about Parallax. The article that I quoted above this post is what I'm trying to get to. Parallax is exactly what the paper I posted is about. Could you read it and then respond? Google it
Quoting: ObscuraI wasn't asking Google. I was asking a person. I know what Google has to say on the subject. This is called a discussion forum, not a "Google it" forum. I am in the process of discussing information with my targeted audience of amateur astronomers. Once you understand that the light that you are seeing as stars right now, left each individual star hundreds, or thousands, or even millions of years ago, and they could possibly no longer even exist, you begin to grasp just how large the space between stars really is. Once you have on understanding of that, you can can grasp the concept of "that aint dick compared to the empty space between galaxies. Add to that the fact that some of those stars are as big as our entire solar system, and that the Sun is relatively tiny compared to some of the big monster stars out there, and knowing the exact distance in miles becomes meaningless. Some stars that you can see are 87623514426437328134985764303478564789569428375759565846945543543856093485769567986572437346754677043956740 miles from Earth, so distances that big are not even easily expressed, which is why we use the phrase "light years" which is the distance that light travels in one year. Even THINKING that us hairless talking apes can understand distances that great, with any degree of accuracy, is a huge egotistical way to think. The point I'm trying to make is I'm questioning the very accuracy of the distances that modern astronomy gives us to these objects, based on the article I have first quoted in this post. apparently this "method is valid out to 30,000 light years...only! even the above seems suspect 30k ly is an awful lot of space using trig type method. I dont think the instruments used can employ such resolution - it starts to get silly. in fact the guy who was talking bollocks earlier is now making sense... the age of the light coming from these stars and the fact that you are looking at a stationary object... it makes no sense to quantify using distance/time - itself an illusion. by the way I absolutely know nothing of what I am talking about - I'm only making assumptions on what I have read these last few minutes...  I'm not clueless on the subject and I have a decent grasp of modern astronomy, but I have yet to see a good argument to prove this man in this paper [ link to astronomyinformation.org] is wrong. He is saying that modern astronomers are possibly wrong on the distances to stars, because the preferred method of measurement is not entirely accurate. Actually, here is what I'm really going on about. [ link to astronomyinformation.org] "In previous chapters we have proven that the ability of telescopes to see distant stars has been greatly exaggerated. Experiments have also proven that the distance at which the sun would be barely visible by the naked eye or a telescope has also been greatly overstated. Here we will explore some of the problems regarding parallaxes and star distances.
Astronomers have tried to determine star distance by a method called trigonometric parallax. The distances that astronomers calculated using this method are in turn used as yard sticks to determine the distances of all other, much farther, objects. Trigonometric parallax is one of the main methods that astronomers use to estimate the distances of remote objects such as galaxies. If this foundation is proven to be doubtful, then, automatically, the whole scale of measurements in astronomy regarding the distances of stars, star clusters, galaxies, etc., like falling dominoes, comes into question. "
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? I don't think it's an astronomy organization from Main Stream science. It's just an individual with a great paper explaining what he's possibly discovered in regard to the measuring methods of astronomy. 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
|
|
|
Please verify you're human:
|
|
|
Reason for reporting:
|
