Largest star ever discovered, compared to our Sun
Nebuchadnezzar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4iD-9GSW-0
- Norm Johnson
- At what mass does a star become a black hole?
- NWViewer1
- They say it'll take a star about 10 times the mass of our sun to become a black hole. The super-nova it creates will eject all but about 4 solar masses. That remaining 4 should be compressed into a black hole during that same process. If the star starts out with less than that 10 masses it'll only (Only?) get down to a neutron star.
- Johnathan Murphy
- it doesnt
- Anna Elise
- Black holes do not exist. It is impossible. I think you have been watching to much sci fi lol!
- PacifistKraut
- +Anna Elise
I think you're the one who's been watching too much sci fi and not enough actual science
- Anna Elise
- +PacifistKraut ???????????? No that is not true I don't think you know what you are talking about!
- PacifistKraut
- +Anna Elise
Oh? Then please cite a source showing me that black holes aren't real. News articles won't do it, I want science journals.
- Anna Elise
- It is against all the laws of science. but god could do it cuz he created the laws of science.
- PacifistKraut
- +Anna Elise
Get this religious shit out of here, this is science.
What law? You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever to support your argument, so I'll give you one last chance.
- Anna Elise
- UH how about we are all created! There is plenty proof of the flood the bible said the earth was round many thousand years before columbus sailed the ocean blue. there is so much I don't know were to start and you give me some evidence for evolution! You believe nothing exploded into every thing and that rock can turn into life! Talk about some fairy tales!
- PacifistKraut
- +Anna Elise
You blew your last chance. Good bye and fuck off, you scientifically illiterate retard
- Anna Elise
- +PacifistKraut See you will give me no proof cuz you don't have any.
- JeffersonDinedAlone
- +Anna Elise You are a useless imbecile.
[Impressed by his gallantry, aren't we all?]
- Anna Elise
- +JeffersonDinedAlone I am not useless and I am not an imbecile! Do you know what that means!?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- +Anna Elise - check out his pseudonym.
Jefferson Dined Alone.
He might prefer to dine alone in imitation of Jefferson. And thus trying to be deliberately rude to ladies.
Seriously, back to topic.
IF a star with ten times the mass of the Sun becomes a black hole THEN WHY hasn't Betelgeuse become one?
- Black holes don't exist?
- Betelgeuse isn't that far off from the Sun and thus not that much more massive?
- Both of above?
- Black holes don't exist?
- Anna Elise
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl Betelgeuse is not even close to our sun. And it is a lot bigger. And I think he only called me an imbecile cuz he just wanted to say something but couldn't think of anything to say scientific so he started calling names.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- The latter is a very good observation, I was actually joking.
Scientifically speaking, how do you prove Betelgeuse is bigger than the Sun?
- David Keir
- Anna Elise
Obvious troll. No one is that stupid.
- Anna Elise
- +David Keir A troll is someone who posts non stop hate comments.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- I am afraid his definition of troll differs from yours and is used partly to stop debate.
My question stands.
- Anna Elise
- ????????????????????
- Norm Johnson
- Our sun = white dwarf, 4-25 solar masses = neutron star, 40-90 solar masses = black hole and oddly enough 140 - 250 solar masses = no remnant.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- In other words, according to that theory of astrophysics, and according to usual acceptance of stellar distances and sizes, Betelgeuse should not exist?
- sargentnbawesome
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl nonononono. I will try and explain this very simply because you seem to actually want to learn something. A star doesn't just 'form' into a black hole at any time it feels like it. It takes the star's fuel source running out to finally kick it into motion. Right now, our sun fuses hydrogen with hydrogen to form helium. This process is the most energy releasing process ever. Enough energy is released to keep all that matter in the star from collapsing in on itself due to its massive gravity. When all the hydrogen runs out in a star, it must start fusing all the leftover helium. This process is so much less energy producing than the previous process, which is why a star's photosphere expands. It starts losing the battle to gravity. That is where giants like Betelgeuse and VY Can. Maj. Come from. After the fusion of helium into heavy elements like carbon, the star can no longer provide sufficient energy to battle against gravity. At this point, the stars photosphere s ejected, and all that remains is the core. At that point, if the core is of sufficient mass, its gravity will compress the core into a single point with such high gravity that nothing can escape its influence. Anything below this mass will have high enough gravity compression to start fusing heavy elements from the carbon left over. So do you understand now?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Yes, I understand the theory as an explanation.
[In a v e r y general and nontechnical way ...]
I also consider it very ad hoc.
Plus, mass and volume are different. The process you describe will produce inflated volume, not greater mass:
"This process is so much less energy producing than the previous process, which is why a star's photosphere expands. It starts losing the battle to gravity. That is where giants like Betelgeuse and VY Can. Maj. Come from."
And one more thing, where I do not even understand the theory as an explanation - why would loosing to gravity result in expansion rather than contraction?
- LifeOfASmiley
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl "I also consider it very ad hoc."
Yes, we describe how things work with science, we don't prescribe them.
"Plus, mass and volume are different. The process you describe will produce inflated volume, not greater mass:"
Yes, the star expands, it doesn't gain anything "new" in the process. The new fusion process causes the energy produced to expand the star, which causes it to actually lose mass when the envelope is lost.
"And one more thing, where I do not even understand the theory as an explanation - why would loosing [sic] to gravity result in expansion rather than contraction?"
It loses to gravity after the fusion has stopped. The envelope escapes and the core is contracted, thus starting the fusion of the next cycle if possible.
You seem like you actually want to learn something here, not just dismiss everything explained, so I'll refer you to this basic explanation here:
The Life of a Star
http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/starlife/StarpageS_26M.html
If you actually want to study this in-depth, a course on astronomy from your local college/ university would be much more satisfactory. I could answer a few more of your questions, if you only want a basic explanation.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- If you describe how things work, rather than prescribing, I suppose you go as far as possible by perception (enhanced by telescopes and by probes getting closer and sending images, but still perception).
If so, where is the proof of this very ingenious explanation?
- LifeOfASmiley
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl "I suppose you go as far as possible by perception "
This isn't a coherent sentence. If we didn't use perception, we wouldn't know anything.
[Here he uses coherent as referring to coherent about content, I take it.]
"If so, where is the proof of this very ingenious explanation?"
Proof of which explanation?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "If we didn't use perception, we wouldn't know anything."
Which was not my point. I will give you my sentence again, one addition to clarify:
If you describe how things work, rather than prescribing, I suppose you go as far as possible by perception (enhanced by telescopes and by probes getting closer and sending images, but still perception), before declaring not directly perceived concepts true, before declaring anything directly perceived an illusion.
You need to practise your reading skills if you didn't find the original readable and coherent!
"Proof of which explanation?"
The long one which you both offered and linked to.
- Norm Johnson
- A star of 140 to 250 solar masses with low meatallicity will go hypernova with possible gama ray bursts and leave no remnant. No black hole, just nothing. WTF is up with that?
- Omitting
- one commenter who was just being rude to someone. Rudeness is not totally absent, but I have already given the setting and will in the following disclose some rudeness to myself.
- LifeOfASmiley
- +Norm Johnson Essentially, the effects of pair production and annihilation and the collapse of the core. As the core collapses, the energy involved in the production/ annihilation increases as well. This doesn't produce enough thermal pressure to counteract the increase in gravitational pressure due to the collapse. As the core collapses further, the energy involved increases. The reactions eventually absorb and release so much energy that it causes a nuclear explosion that blows the star apart, leaving nothing behind.
Not exactly a perfect explanation, but the best I could manage.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- and this has been observed when?
- Norm Johnson
- English Wikipedia : SN 2006gy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2006gy
Googled it, observed in 2006, Happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "SN 2006gy occurred in a distant galaxy (NGC 1260), approximately 238 million light years (73 megaparsecs) away. Therefore, due to the time it took light from the supernova to reach Earth, the event occurred about 238 million years ago."
Footnote reference: Fast Facts for SN2006gy". Retrieved 2014-04-30.
SN 2006gy: NASA's Chandra Sees Brightest Supernova Ever
http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2007/sn2006gy/
Now, 73 megaparsec sounds awfully hard to measure even if you believe in Heliocentrism (which I don't).
A parsec = a distance (theoretically) of a star making an apparent journey (parallactical journey, parallax), due to earth's supposed real journey of one arcsecond. Parsec is portmeanteau word for "PAR-allax of an arc-SEC-ond".
The supposedly closest star apart from Sun (which in modern Heliocentric theory is one of the stars) is supposed to be about 4 lightears away, and its supposed distance is more than one parsec meaning less than one arc-second's angle of its annual supposedly parallactic voyage.
So to get a distance of 73 parsec you need to get an angle about 73 times smaller than an arcsecond (it does not work quite that directly in trigonometry which I do not master, but it will give you an idea). Putting mega between number and the word parsec multiplies the distance by exactly, was it a million?, and divides observed angle by about a million too.
Now, what exact angle is ONE arc second?
Two poles standing apart anywhere on earth, both exactly vertical, have prolongations meeting in the centre of earth. That meeting point has an angle of 1 arcsecond if the poles are about 30 metres apart on the surface of the earth.
And you supposed an angle by which that distance has been calculated can by any chance at all have been accurately observed? Yo' kiddin'?
So, I will take the 238 million light years away with a big pinch of salt. In other words, no challenge at all to Biblical chronology, and especially not unless you make some Heliocentric (= Geokinetic) and Astrophysical assumptions.
- LifeOfASmiley
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl "Biblical chronology"
Just don't bother with science then, it's obviously be too hard for you to understand.
"Now, 73 megaparsec sounds awfully hard to measure even if you believe in Heliocentrism (which I don't)."
You believe that the Earth is the center of the Universe? Why even bother with astronomy, everything contradicts your archaic beliefs.
"The supposedly closest star apart from Sun (which in modern Heliocentric theory is one of the stars)"
No, the Sun being a star is not a part of Heliocentric theory.
"And you supposed an angle by which that distance has been calculated can by any chance at all have been accurately observed? Yo' kiddin'?"
Incoherent sentence. Is english your first language? Please, don't tell me it is.
[Here he seems to refer to grammatic incoherence.]
"So to get a distance of 73 parsec you need to get an angle about 73 times smaller than an arcsecond (it does not work quite that directly in trigonometry which I do not master, but it will give you an idea). Putting mega between number and the word parsec multiplies the distance by exactly, was it a million?, and divides observed angle by about a million too."
You do not "master" in trigonometry? No surprise there, and don't bother "mastering" it either as it would be useless in this scenario. Astronomers don't use Stellar Parallax to reliably measure objects at anything over ~100pc, because (surprise, surprise!) the angle cannot be measured accurately. If you actually studied basic astronomy, you would know this, but we all know you didn't. To see actual methods used to calculate distances further than that, this is a nice chart http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~afrank/A105/LectureXV/images/FG24_010.JPG .
"Now, what exact angle is ONE arc second?
Two poles standing apart anywhere on earth, both exactly vertical, have prolongations meeting in the centre of earth. That meeting point has an angle of 1 arcsecond if the poles are about 30 metres apart on the surface of the earth."
No need to give such a stupid explanation for an arc second. A simple google search could have spared you the trouble. 1 arcsec is 1⁄60 of an arcminute or 1⁄3,600 of a degree.
I don't know why you even bother searching for these supposed answers. You don't believe anything unless it fits your biblical nonsense.
Cognitive dissonance perfected.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Incoherent sentence. Is english your first language? Please, don't tell me it is."
It's not, but if you took the sentence to be incoherent, your English is worse than mine.
"And you supposed" = main clause
"[that] an angle by which that distance has been calculated can by any chance at all have been accurately observed?" = subordinate clause with inserted such, though interrogation mark belongs to main clause.
Let me parse that too:
"[that] an angle ..." = subject of main subordinate clause
"by which that distance has been calculated" = relative subordinate clause with correlate in subject of the main subordinate clause
"that" is an emphatic qualification to distance, and refers back to 73 megaparsec
" ... can by any chance at all have been accurately observed?" = predicate of main subordinate clause.
"Astronomers don't use Stellar Parallax to reliably measure objects at anything over ~100pc, because (surprise, surprise!) the angle cannot be measured accurately."
Thank you very much for this admission.
"No need to give such a stupid explanation for an arc second. A simple google search could have spared you the trouble. 1 arcsec is 1⁄60 of an arcminute or 1⁄3,600 of a degree."
Exactly. And if you take circumference of equator as 360° around centre of earth, you get about 30 metres [at surface of Earth] for one arcsecond, if angle is in centre of earth.
Thank you for making my point.
Actually, if astronomers use stellar parallax to even about 100 parsec, I think they overestimate the accuracy of their angular measurements.
I might as well spell out for you how one arcsecond corresponds to 30 m apart vertical poles on the ground.
Two vertical poles on opposite parts of earth would be 180° apart. If you had four equidistant ones around equator, they would be 90° in angle to each other. In so big parts of equator, no need to get metres, distances are geographical, not architectural.
Vertical poles at WHAT exact distance apart would have prolongations meeting in centre of earth at the angle of ONE arcsecond?
Here is how I go about it:
- equatorial circumference (360°) = 40 075.017 km = 40 075 017 m
- one degree = 40075017 m / 360 = 111 319.4916 m
- one arcsecond = 111 319.4916 m / 3600 = 30 m 922 mm
So vertical poles 30 metres and 922 millimetres apart are not parallel, they have an angle.
If I only saw them 30 metres and 922 millimetres apart without any idea of how huge the earth was, how would I non-mathematically, merely visually, go about measuring the angle between the two poles that are 30 metres 922 millimetres apart?
You are basically saying astronomers can visually measure angles like the ones between two vertical poles that are only zero metres and 309 millimetres apart?
ONLY AFTER WHICH they find the stellar parallax method unreliable?
By "non-mathematically, merely visually", I am not even excluding use of instruments. I saw how a right angle was measured by the protractor to 88 / 89° in a geometric contruction that I saw on a video.
One more thing: The supposedly closest star apart from Sun (which in modern Heliocentric theory is one of the stars)
"No, the Sun being a star is not a part of Heliocentric theory."
If radius from Earth to where the fix stars are is much smaller than astronomy supposes, the stars, not just planets but fix stars too, are so much smaller than the sun that calling sun "one of the stars" becomes idiotic and one would have to say (with a sufficiently small universe, let's say arbitrarily one light day from earth to periphery) that sun is rather "like a star but hugely much huger".
- LifeOfASmiley
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl A tip, maybe look up the definition of incoherent.
Full Definition of INCOHERENT
: lacking coherence: as
a : lacking cohesion : loose
b : lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent
c : lacking normal clarity or intelligibility in speech or thought
[Here he seems to forget on which level he used the word "incoherent".]
"Thank you very much for this admission."
No problem, at least I know the limits of our current knowledge regarding stellar parallax.
"Exactly. And if you take circumference of equator as 360° around centre of earth, you get about 30 metres for one arcsecond, if angle is in centre of earth.
Thank you for making my point."
You weren't making a point, just rambling on for no reason. I wanted to cut it down for something called coherency.
[Of which, unlike astronomy, he is no master.]
"Actually, if astronomers use stellar parallax to even about 100 parsec, I think they overestimate the accuracy of their angular measurements."
I think you either don't understand how we do stellar parallax measurements, or underestimate the accuracy of the telescopes used.
"I might as well spell out for you how one arcsecond corresponds to 30 m apart vertical poles on the ground.
(.....)
ONLY AFTER WHICH they find the stellar parallax method unreliable?"
Irrelevant, all the irrelevance you could ever ask for. You think the Sun orbits around us, so of course you don't understand how we measure stellar parallax. Hint: We don't measure it from each pole
[I was not saying that. I was saying the angle of the greatest observed positive parallax is like the real visually undetectable angle between two apparently perfectly parallel vertical poles at 30 meters' distance the prolongations of which meet in the centre of the earth at the angle of ... 1 arc second.]
"By "non-mathematically, merely visually", I am not even excluding use of instruments. I saw how a right angle was measured by the protractor to 88 / 89° in a geometric contruction [sic] that I saw on a video."
Oh no, a geometric construction that you saw in a video? THAT HAS TO BE HOW SCIENTISTS DO IT
[That would be a correct example of detecting it visually with an instrument, rather than mathematically by counting from observations not directly measuring the angle as such.]
"If radius from Earth to where the fix stars are is much smaller than astronomy supposes, the stars, not just planets but fix stars too, are so much smaller than the sun that calling sun "one of the stars" becomes idiotic and one would have to say (with a sufficiently small universe, let's say arbitrarily one light day from earth to periphery) that sun is rather 'like a star but hugely much huger'"
Fix stars? You mean fixed stars? I hope you know they aren't actually fixed in space. They just appear to be fixed due to their distance from us. Unfortunately, the universe isn't an arbitrarily small distance. Also, the stars that you see in the sky are much bigger than how they appear, but you should know this already, right? I mean, no one could be so stupid as to suggest that the Sun is the biggest star because it appears the biggest to us, right? Oh wait, you did. I guess you really are that stupid. Basically, I am trying to pad out this comment to call you stupid. Call me out on my ad hominem, but it wouldn't really do anything.
You haven't said anything worth any salt in this discussion. All you have done is display just how much you can lie to yourself so that everything fits your naive biblical delusion.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "I think you either don't understand how we do stellar parallax measurements, or underestimate the accuracy of the telescopes used."
A telescope, by itself, is not a measure instrument of angles.
"Oh no, a geometric construction that you saw in a video? THAT HAS TO BE HOW SCIENTISTS DO IT"
I was not saying Scientists do it the same way. I was saying instruments of measuring angles have an imprecision necessarily inherent in the case.
"Fix stars? You mean fixed stars?"
Sure. Since "fixus, fixa, fixum" is already a passive perfect participle in Latin, it is synonymous to "fixed stars" where the Latin participle has been basis for an Anglo-French verb (fixer/to fix) the English participle of which is "fixed".
[He knows one way of saying it in English, I know two, and he thinks my English is bad ...]
"I hope you know they aren't actually fixed in space. They just appear to be fixed due to their distance from us."
That they are not actually totally fixed is part of my case against taking the observed parallaxes (even supposing angles one hundredth of an arcsecond could be accurately observed in themselves) as merely parallactic movement, i e as illusory movement in them due to real movement in us.
The greatest proper movement (admittedly such according to Heliocentric astronomers) is 10 arcseconds per year - no back and forth observed as yet. I e like the angle of two poles at 309 metres 22 centimetres distance both poles vertical.
So, how should one know the supposed parallax is not a proper movement? If angels can move stars, as we Christians certainly think they can, or used to think up to some of us feeling subdued by modernity, we have no guarantee of the 0.76 arcseconds back and forth yearly of proxima Centauri being really parallactic. Which, quite as much as the problem of measuring the angle accurately, rules out using parallax as a reliable distance measure AT ALL.
[Wow, this time I actually said "proxima" and not α for this parallax angle! As I should!]
"Unfortunately, the universe isn't an arbitrarily small distance."
Admittedly, it has to be huger than the largest distances accurately measured that one cannot doubt. And that means I am not doubting distances to Sun and Moon. Stars would be beyond Pluto.
"Also, the stars that you see in the sky are much bigger than how they appear, but you should know this already, right? I mean, no one could be so stupid as to suggest that the Sun is the biggest star because it appears the biggest to us, right?"
No, not quite just because of that, no. As you suggest, the distances could theoretically be such that stars very much bigger appeared very much smaller.
Or, with certain smaller distances, like as I somewhat arbitrarily suggested one light day's radius around earth, stars could be smaller than Sun, but not so much smaller than Sun as they appear. I mean, one lightday is further away than 8 lightminutes, which is, if I recall correctly, the accepted distance to Sun.
"You haven't said anything worth any salt in this discussion. All you have done is display just how much you can lie to yourself so that everything fits your naive biblical delusion."
You have shown how much you can lie to yourself to fit your naive faith in "science" - as if astrophysics were science in the same way as the cell biology used in medicine, as if studying things through the telescope were science in the same way as studying them through the microscoipe (where we know the distance in cm between probe and objective).
Any argument I have attacked as insufficiently proven, you have supported not by further proof but only by ... ad hominem.
I'll return one.
If you meant that my sentence was grammatically speaking "lacking orderly continuity, arrangement, or relevance : inconsistent" I have already called out your lack of grammatic expertise if that is how you subjectively feel with it. I parsed it coherently, and revealed its orderly arrangement.
If you are instead shifting your ground so as to mean it was incoherent in content, you have first of all contradicted your earlier statement when you ascribed it to my English, and on top of that shown a lack of grasping logic of discourse ... excepting of course when the discourse belongs to yourself or those you admire. You are not an excellent debater, now smoke that in your pipe for an ad hominem!
My distance of 1 lightday is btw not quite arbitrary.
It has to do with following aspects:
- veracity of creator is better served if we can rely on stars showing in the spot where they were 24 h earlier (or any exact number of days, or possibly of stellar days) and coinciding with where they are today. If they were say 3 lighthours away, we would have the real position of a star at another angle than where we see it;
- one or two lightdays is ideal maximum distance, since created on day four, they had to show already on day six, so Adam could see them;
- one lightday radius = two lightdays diameter = 6.28 lightdays being the distance they run during our days, referring to creation week having six days of work and one day of rest, all of it accomplished artitsically speaking in one day of orbitting around us.
In other words, there is an artistic reason, if not a strictly logic proof, for this distance.
As to your far greater distance "to even the nearest stars", it dethrones Sun among the stars, it implies speeds for objects distant in the universe around earth, that some call impossible speeds, and so it helps atheism to dethrone God by denying His pushing the universe around us each day and night. It serves a purpose more than obeys a logic proof.
- veracity of creator is better served if we can rely on stars showing in the spot where they were 24 h earlier (or any exact number of days, or possibly of stellar days) and coinciding with where they are today. If they were say 3 lighthours away, we would have the real position of a star at another angle than where we see it;
- LifeOfASmiley
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl I have never said this is a debate. Calling this a debate would consider anything you have said a coherent argument. Unfortunately, I cannot grace your rambling with such an award.
You're "rebuttal" against my "poor english" is so laughable. You consider my grammar skills inadequate, when you cannot even understand a simple definition? You should ramble in your native language instead of trying to so in a language which is, obviously, too difficult for you to understand.
You want to use ad hominem against me? I only did it to extend my reply because your rambling is so inane and incoherent. If you want to use ad hominem, at least have some substance to your replies. If you don't, you're just going to undermine your own position.
Now, after sifting through the words you sent back to me, there is one part which I cannot just ignore. It offends reality to such a degree I cannot describe. Thus, I shall ignore and forgive the rest of your rambling, to focus on it.
"You have shown how much you can lie to yourself to fit your naive faith in 'science' - as if astrophysics were science in the same way as the cell biology used in medicine, as if studying things through the telescope were science in the same way as studying them through the microscoipe [sic] (where we know the distance in cm between probe and objective).
Any argument I have attacked as insufficiently proven, you have supported not by further proof but only by ... ad hominem."
Where have I lied? Citations are required, with relevant scientific sources that show that I am lying. [Breaking off:
Is he naive or is he tongue in cheek about my accusation of him being a naive believer in science?
Resuming his text:] Of course, you don't consider astrophysics a scientific field, as I can presume evolutionary biology as well, as it doesn't agree with your naive biblical scripture. I don't see why you consider yourself an authority in deciding, with some arbitrary line, what is and isn't a science. Unfortunately, science is unconcerned about your beliefs and arbitrary presumptions and is only concerns itself with the natural world and it's quest to understand it. Even worse is when you compare microscopes and telescopes, not fully understanding the "uncertainty" associated with them both. Every disagreement you have with the methods of astronomers using telescopes to study space, can be quite ironically, used to question the biologists and their use of microscopes. [Actually not ...] The main disagreement, being this arbitrary "perception" that you keep bringing up, but not fully forming a point with. [I did, but not the one he was expecting ...]
Also, "any argument I have attacked as insufficiently proven" [sic] would be giving you too much credit. The best I could say is that you disagree, but only on the basis that it doesn't agree with literal biblical scripture. [No, I gave scientific/logic/epistemological reasons which consistently stand even without the Bible.] You have never asked for any sort of evidence [oh yes, I have specified what types I asked for, in order to have the pleasure of ripping it apart], and have never given any evidence either [technically, logical observations aren't pieces of evidence], only dismissed elementary school concepts about space (such as the heliocentric model of our solar system). Of course, I would be happy to provide relevant scientific studies or some aid to help you understand basic scientific facts. An aid would be more relevant in this case, as your poor understanding of english and science would hinder your ability to understand an english scientific paper.
Anyways, I am growing increasingly tired of devoting 10-15 precious minutes of my day to reply to you. My impression of you has changed from the first time I replied, and it obvious you don't want to learn and change your "beliefs". So, unless you actually want to learn and catch up to modern science from your outdated scientific understanding, please don't bother wasting my time.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Where have I lied? Citations are required, with relevant scientific sources that show that I am lying."
If I were accusing you of lying ... wait, you mean you can not take it that I accuse you of being wrong - lying to yourself as I put it - without relevant scientific sources?
My relevant scientific sources for your being wrong are so elementary as to be wikipedia level. Now, that is indeed calling this - in a backhanded way - a debate.
[My sources - as distinct from the usage I make of them!]
"Anyways, I am growing increasingly tired of devoting 10-15 precious minutes of my day to reply to you."
Then don't. I prefer arguing with people who want to argue about the issues to quarrelling with people who attack my person.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl/added later
- Since +LifeOfASmiley seems to have taken me at the word, I will comment further for the profit of others.
I actually led him on a bit on the issue of how astronomers "measure the angle of parallax".
I am pretty certain it is not a direct measure of the angle as such. It is - since he measured mentioned telescopes - probable to my imagination that they do it like this:
Between "top and bottom" of Orion how much of a circle going through celestial poles in terms of angle on earth (as observation point is on earth) can be accurately known.
And precisely so for space between "shoulders" or between jewels in the Belt in terms of celestial longitudes.
It is a matter of degrees and not just minutes or seconds. Then they can pinpoint a smaller area within that and by tracking the picture on a screen not visually measure angle as such, but measure part of the screen and from there also part of the known angle. This stage might already get us to where centimetres on a screen correspond to minutes rather than degrees on the celestial curvature.
Then they can take an even smaller bit of that and concentrate and they can "measure" arc seconds of Heaven via the screen's subdivisions of length. That is, they cna calculate it so.
BUT, when it comes to taking this method of "measuring angle of parallax" of say α Centauri ... bbl ... [continued:]
... the method presupposes that the overall scheme of stars around the one studied stays still, has as such "zero parallax."
If instead all of Centaurus collectively has a parallax - supposing it to be such - of say 0.90 arc seconds, the measuring of 0.76 arc seconds against that background really amounts to a parallax of 1.66 arc seconds.
[My bad: "the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri", really the 0.76 for Proxima and the 0.74 for α Centauri, see Life of a Smiley's correction later on.]
Now, why would all of the stars collectively have a parallax of 0.90 arcseconds? Doesn't make sense, does it? So one can rely on the stars in Centaurus not having collectively a parallax, can't one?
Well, negative parallax to up to -0.90 arc seconds (i e 0.90 arc seconds other way round as compared to usual parallax) do not make sense in Heliocentrism, which attributes parallax (and indeed calls it so for this reason) to Earth observing virtually fixed stars in a way which parallactically makes it look as if they were moving, like being in a train parallactically makes it look as if trees are moving.
If parallactic misattribution of movement in observation were then the true explanation of "parallax," the fact that negative parallax has been "measured" (same methods as above), indicates that or would indicate that stars have a standard parallax of about at least 0.90 arc seconds. That would imply that most stars were in a kind of shell about 4 light years or closer to the Sun. And that alpha Centauri would have at least 1.66 arc seconds parallax and be far nearer than four light years, more like two light years.
But this supposes that maximal measuring of negative parallax corresponds to zero parallax. Probably it would correspond to a positive one.
So, with Earth moving, we have NO clue as to how far away stars really are.
Neither with Earth standing still, unless one would say that such and such a distance would be a reasonable speed for God to give the outermost parts of the Universe.
Because with Earth standing still the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri would not really be parallax, it would be a proper movement (probably to be explained as a dancelike aesthetic exercise of the angel holding it) and this interpretation leaves us with only one known (?) angle at earth and no known distance. The known distance between Earth and Sun would not be involved, unlike the facts pertaining to Heliocentric interpretation of the observations.
[My bad: "the 0.76 arc seconds of α Centauri", really the 0.76 for Proxima and the 0.74 for α Centauri, see Life of a Smiley's correction later on.]
As to the original ideological background for accepting parallax measures like 0.76 for α Centauri at all, it goes a bit like this:
Newton / Kant and a few more had theorised that stars exactly like the Sun (yes, back then they were not speculating in some stars half as big and some stars ten times huger than the Sun) spangle the universe uniformly (or pretty much so, like in a disc formed dimension) to an infinity every way you look (ok, perhaps the infinity was just in the disc shape of Milky Way and more sparesely spangled stars in other directions might just be finite either way). Some even that stars had existed from all eternity, so that however far away it was, even with a limited speed of light, that part going back to Roemer, before Heliocentrism was accepted, light from all stars must be reaching earth, and infinite improvement of telescopes would result in infinite new discoveries of stars.
With THAT mindset it was reasonable to assume that the standard parallax would be zero parallax so that only the closest stars had a parallax.
And thus one had no suspicions about considering the 0.76 arcseconds of α Centauri [later one has distinguished α from proxima, if I recall correctly, it is Proxima which has 0.76 arcseconds, α only 0.74]as its very own parallax, absolute as such, relative to only one movement, the individual movement of Earth around Sun.
And therefore as a reliable distance measure.
It can be noted that this parallax was not like the one discussed in the Galileo trial.
To all involved back then, "sphere of fixed stars" was a concept not to be lightly fiddled with. St Robert Bellarmine had been among the judges of Giordano Bruno who had done so. The parallax he was talking about as a non-seen corrolary of Heliocentrism and the parallax Galileo affirmed as "we will perhaps see it when telescopes get better" would have been a collective parallax of all stars. Like Virgo getting a bigger part of sky in Mars than early August/Late September (in late August and early September Virgo is anyway hidden by the Sun!) and same for Pisces getting a bigger part of the sky in September (when in opposition to the Sun).
If anyone wonders why I usually take Virgo and Pisces, it is because they are the only astrological signs I am really sure of - would Capricorn and Cancer be the signs of the solstices? I am not an astrologer and not even an astronomer.
So, the parallax foreseen as a corrollary of Heliocentrism has not been observed.
What has been observed and classified as parallax contradicts it whether you consider the real value for alpha Centauri as 0.76 arc seconds, as 1.66 arc seconds (the 0.76 arc seconds plus the 0.90 it shares with all surrounding stars) or more than 1.66 arc seconds (if the negative parallax of 0.90 is not zero parallax either, but also a positive parallax of an unknown size, though below what is directly and visually detectable).
The perhaps most economic explanation is that Heliocentrism is wrong and that parallax values are like "measured", either positive or negative or zero, but not parallactic but rather proper movements of the stars.
- Life of a Smiley
- +Hans-Georg Lundahl My apologies that I didn't reply to you with the swiftness you demand (sarcasm by the way, since you probably can't tell). I wasn't aware that I had a duty to reply to your rambling within a certain time frame.
"My relevant scientific sources for your being wrong are so elementary as to be wikipedia level. Now, that is indeed calling this - in a backhanded way - a debate."
Yet you didn't provide any and I'm not going to do your homework for you. Maybe this is why you are so bad at learning, you expect everyone else to learn it then teach it to you. Also, not a debate when your arguments are so bad and incoherent. Try harder or, more preferably, don't try at all.
"I actually led him on a bit on the issue of how astronomers 'measure the angle of parallax'."
You didn't lead me on about any "issue". You don't know any issues in astronomy to actually lead me on about.
"I am pretty certain it is not a direct measure of the angle as such."
You are not qualified in any relevant fields to say the phrase "pretty certain" with regards to this subject. Please refrain from doing so.
The rest of your rambling is so irrelevant and has no context with our previous discussion. I really have to ask you this first, do you know the difference between parallax and proper motion and how we measure them? Just tell me yes or no, with a brief explanation should suffice. If it is too hard for you, you could just tell me to "wikipedia" it which would lead me to conclude you don't actually know.
Why are you talking about Newton and Kant and their theories? You do know we have new observations and new theories which have been further developed, right? Why are you talking about astrology? It is a pseudoscience and completely irrelevant in this discussion.
Did you get the parallax angle for Alpha C confused with the value for Proxima C? 0.7678 +/- 0.0003 arcsec is the value for PC, while 0.7471 +/- 0.0012 arcsec is the value for AC from wikipedia. So I'd like to see your source for that. Positive parallax? Zero Parallax? Negative Parallax? You think that space is like a stereoscopic 3D TV? Please, define what you mean by each these terms and how they, in any way, relate to astronomy with regards to our current discussion. Another thing, 0.90 arcsec parallax it shares with other stars? You better provide a source for this.
I don't know why I bother. You failed at high school level physics and aren't even grasping even the most basic subjects in astronomy. If this goes on for much longer, I would expect some sort of monetary compensation for exerting so much energy. Not exerting really much energy, but the amount I am exerting is much more than I should be.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- My relevant scientific sources are as said wikipedia level. Most of them.
I have some lacunae though, yes I meant Proxima Centauri very probably.
0.76 for Proxima, 0.74 for α. If you say so.
Either way, model our observation point as centre of Earth (to the millimetre), model the positions of either - as observed, not as deduced - as points on Earth surface, they will be closer together than 30 metres. To give you an idea of what the angle means, as an angle.
Now, as to negative parallax, for once my scientific sources are not wikipedia level.
The term means that the positions are not just indistinguishable but along the year opposite directions of those expected from current explanation of what parallax is.
My ultimate scientific source is Hipparcus catalogue, via this thread:
Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe
[Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics]
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=462165&page=1
The highest level of negative parallax is thus a -0.90 arc seconds or so parallax, whence my reasoning stands.
Btw, I did not fail High School Physics.
