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

These calculations are all false.

They are based on overly simplistic "rules" of propagation of light. This rule states speed is constant. This is FALSE. This rule states that the light always travels on a straight line. This is FALSE.

We simply do not have a model of propagation of light that we can apply to the Universe. We have built our model from our situation, closed up inside the heliosphere, ionosphere and magnetosphere. From this perspective we can develop only a very limited understanding of the cosmos.

No calculations will be accurate. They even are WAY OFF.

What I want to know is how do we know both the shape of our galaxy as well as our location within the galaxy? Like how do we make a 3D picture out of a 2D view from only 1 view point. Did they measure the position of 1000's of stars around us to make points?

Cause from our view point its just a smashed line of stars.

Now I understand--you are here to promote a website. That makes you a shill, OP.

You know I am right, so please don't act all butthurt.

Lol promote the website? Just because I'm trying to get you to read it doesn't mean I'm trying to promote it.

I would simply COPY and PASTE if it were possible.

I have no connection to the website and if you would pay attention for at my questions you would see that I'm personally trying to validate whether or not the information stands up to scrutiny.

Sounds like you have side to pick in all this and you're obviously not even bothering to check the information out.

Last Edited by SaveTheLivingEntities on 07/09/2011 09:29 PM

I repeat, you did not master high school math and physics.

If parallax is incorrect, suppose you show us the math showing the basic trig is wrong. if you can't do that you are just spouting bullshit you don't understand.

Ball is in your court, skippy.

It's Called E-MC squared.

Parallax is measurement via the Earth's orbit around the Sun, Sol. In six months from now, we will be on the other side of the orbit, and orbit that is 93,000,000 or so miles in radius. That makes the base of the triangle 186,000,000 miles in length. Therefore parallax comes from using that base and the triangle to the star and measuring how much it moves to our line of sight, notwithstanding proper motion of the star (is it moving closer to us or is it moving further away, measured by red shift which does involve the elements that make up the star and a spectrograph measurement, and also tells how hot the sun (star) may be by measuring the elements in the star - since stars start off by burning hydrogen the simplest element and the universe, until the star changes that to helium, and then has some heavier elements in it, all the way up the chemistry charts to iron.

That covers cepheid variables also because parallax can only be good out to a certain distance using the diameter of the Earth's orbit. But as satellites orbit and take better measurement the distance probably will be more accurate - in the future.

Thats easy light a candle and run to the otherside of room and wait for the ligh to get their and count how long it takes.

[] I forgot you have to find out what particles might be between you and the light first. Just kiddin.

You seem to misunderstand my intentions. I am not arguing that the formula of measuring Parallax is an incorrect formula.

I am arguing about the consistency of parallax measurements.

I don't have the capability to measure parallax or I would gladly do the calculations myself.

The History of measuring parallax is sketchy not in its methodology, but in it's agreement of measurements.

Taking measurements of Parallax involves getting data 6 months a part from each other and comparing them.

I don't have access to even the smallest of telescope, thus I am asking amateur astronomers who reside on GLP.

The case for the stars being closer than we believe
www.fixedearth.com

and

Bahram Katirai's book (pdf file)

[link to 1893611337431046394-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroup​s.com (secure)]

You use this formula and solve as needed:
Let m = apparent magnitude
Let M = absolute magnitude
Let d = distance in parsecs
Then
m - M = -5 + 5log(d)
Therefore
d = 10^((m - M + 5)/5)

If you know the luminosity, then you can calculate for the distance because the apparent brightness will decrease as a function of distance as the light spreads out.

Stellar Parallax appears to be one of the biggest scams in scientific history. If you really want to understand this subject, please read the papers by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons), formerly of the Clarendon Laboratory, Oxford University, England. I think that even the paid shills will be impressed.

Heliocentric problem no. 2 - Flower Pattern

[link to www.realityreviewed.com]

Heliocentric problem no. 3 - Restoring Forces

[link to www.realityreviewed.com]

Heliocentric problem no. 4 - Negative Parallax

[link to www.realityreviewed.com]

Stellar distances and Olbers' Paradox

[link to www.realityreviewed.com]

Geostationary satellites in a geocentric universe

[link to www.realityreviewed.com]

A gravitational field different from that of Newton

[link to www.realityreviewed.com]


Stellar Parallax is a scam. And because Stellar Parallax is the basis for all other distance measurements, the big boys don't REALLY know the true distance to any other stellar objects. You can argue, rant, piss and cry, however it doesn't change anything.

The entire astronomy scam is is just like the film industry.

"Nobody knows anything" - William Goldman


.

I had a feeling this thread was connected to geocentrism. Sure enough, no sooner do I make note of that than Neville Jones links start popping up. Yes, here's a guy who, in order to explain the existence of geostationary satellites in geocentrism, denies the inverse square law of gravity and the law of inertia. He claims that velocity ceases as soon as a spacecraft's engines are cut off. Yes, this means he claims that deep space travel is a hoax (manned AND unmanned) with the exception of ion engine powered missions, which must run the engines at all times. It's hysterically bad.

Last Edited by Astromut on 07/09/2011 10:23 PM

Why don't you spend some time at a university library and look up the history of these measurements from the source, not some crackpot on the web...

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH : IT IS IMPOSSIBLe TO MEASURE OR ESTIMATE SPACE DISTANCE ACCURATELy !!

Good job OP this one really stirred up the shill pot.

Don't ever tell someone who is an "expert" they might be wrong!

This is a mighty big speculation based on the assumption that most factors involved in the calculations are constant and known.

Calculations and formula's are useless when the input info is not verifiable!

Orbital mechanics is completely verifiable, that's the problem facing Neville. Geostationary satellites in particular are some of the most widespread verification since so many people have satellite dishes that depend on them, which is probably why Neville decided to trash any semblance of plausibility in order to force a solution which would allow for geostationary sats, even if it meant just about everything else had to be a hoax. Few people can verify the rest, so it's easier for him to claim that the rest is a hoax and anyone who says otherwise is just in on the conspiracy.

I'm not sure what you two are on about but it sounds quite interesting. Can you fill me in on the low down?

Geostationary orbits are easy they are very close. We are talking about distant galactic objects. One idea in particular that puzzles me is the assumption that we know exactly how light travels and behaves. How can we be so sure? All your calculations are based on the theory of how objects in space behave. Basically assumption and speculation, in other words you are guessing. Still they are intelligent and well thought out but just guesses.

I was responding to the neville jones crap. Thats not about distant galactic objects, it's about the configuration of the solar system and geostationary orbits are directly applicable.