Stellar Parallax

• 16 Replies
• 6148 Views

Max Fagin

• 695
Stellar Parallax
« on: October 25, 2006, 03:52:29 PM »
I mentioned this in another topic, but it seemed like it needed a thread of it's own.

Although you cannot see this effect with the naked eye, the stars do actually appear to move a significant distance throughout the year.  This effect is called "Stellar Parallax."

In RE, this is caused by the motion of the Earth orbiting the sun.  As we go through the year, the nearby stars seem to shift significant amounts, while the distant stars less so.

The shift rarely amounts to more then a fraction of an arcsecond (1/3600th of a degree) but it is nevertheless detectable.  I have personally seen it with some of the very nearby stars.

Stellar parallax is now one of the most confirmed observations in astronomy.

So, every star within 100 light-years is moving in exactly the way predicted if the Earth were orbiting the sun at a distance of 150,000,000 kilometers.

How can this be accounted for in FE?

Note to the true astronomy nerd: Some of you may have noticed the similarity beetween the words arcsecond in the astronomical distance parsec (About 3.26 light-years).  This is no coincidence.  The parsec was derived from the parallax method.  One parsec is the distance a star is at if there is an observed apparent motion of 1 arcsecond.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."

?

Erasmus

• The Elder Ones
• 4242
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #1 on: October 26, 2006, 12:23:35 AM »
Interesting and important.  However I feel that you must make one of two assumptions, otherwise you have more variables than you have equations: you must either specify the distances to the nearby stars, or you must specify that the Earth is orbiting the sun.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

Max Fagin

• 695
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2006, 07:45:34 AM »
Erasmus,

That's true, we do make assumptions, but not ones that negate the results.

For example, let us assume that all the stars are part of the celestial sphere that is only 3000 miles away (As you have claimed).  We should then observe one of two things.

1) No parallax owing to the stars being stationary.

2) Parallax of exactly the same amount in each star, as the Earth moves somehow relative to all of them.

But that is not observed.  Instead, parallax occurs in different amounts, depending on which star you are looking at.  The only way that we can get the mathematics to work out for every star is to assume that the stars are light-years away from us, and the Earth moves a significant amount.

Also, we have other ways of calculating stellar distances.  Some of which are:

Spectral comparison:  Something tells me you won't believe in Star types, or comparing them to our sun.  You don't even believe that the sun is a star.  So I'll just say this:  In general, Parallax occurs in the greatest amounts with the brighter stars, and to smaller amounts with the dimmer stars.  Although not all stars shine at the same luminosity, that still means that the brighter stars are closer then the dim ones.  We know that luminosity falls off with the inverse square of the distance.  So we run through the math, and get distances of light-years.

Doppler shift:  This is one of the most reliable distance calculators in cosmology.  If you want to debate the science that gives it credibility, feel free to.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."

Max Fagin

• 695
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2006, 08:34:35 PM »
So are no other FE'ers willing to adress this?  It's a prety big hole in geocentrism, and thus, FE.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."

beast

• 2997
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #4 on: October 28, 2006, 10:08:06 PM »
Care to give us some documentation of this apparant effect?

dysfunction

• The Elder Ones
• 2261
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #5 on: October 28, 2006, 10:59:11 PM »
The problem with this evidence, from the vantage point of FEers, is that the telescopes used to make these observations are not available to everyone. The parallax angles of even the nearest stars are far too small to be seen without the aid of a fairly large telescope. Even with our most powerful, space-based telescopes, we are only able to measure parallax on stars less than a few thousand lightyears away. Thus, stellar parallax is easily brushed aside by the 'conspiracy' framework.
the cake is a lie

beast

• 2997
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #6 on: October 28, 2006, 11:12:43 PM »
If a round Earther wants to send me a telescope I will use it and comment about if this is actually true or not.

?

fathomak

• 198
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2006, 11:31:07 PM »
You don't need a telescope to do it just pay attention to where certain stars are relative to reference points on the surface of the earth.
captain is sailing through the arctic. The first mate runs up and says to him, "captain, there is an iceberg dead ahead. What should we do?" The captain looks at the iceberg, then glances at his map and says, "there's no iceberg here! Keep going!"

?

fathomak

• 198
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2006, 11:38:57 PM »
Probably nobody is going to bother to do this since it takes more than 5 minutes.
captain is sailing through the arctic. The first mate runs up and says to him, "captain, there is an iceberg dead ahead. What should we do?" The captain looks at the iceberg, then glances at his map and says, "there's no iceberg here! Keep going!"

beast

• 2997
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2006, 12:00:53 AM »
But how do I know they look the same or different somewhere else?

Are you going to pay for a trip overseas for me?

?

woopedazz

• 421
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2006, 02:54:13 AM »
Quote
The shift rarely amounts to more then a fraction of an arcsecond (1/3600th of a degree) but it is nevertheless detectable.

Quote
You don't need a telescope to do it just pay attention to where certain stars are relative to reference points on the surface of the earth.

good luck having eyes that can detect 1/3600 th of a degree...

Max Fagin

• 695
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2006, 07:19:37 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
The parallax angles of even the nearest stars are far too small to be seen without the aid of a fairly large telescope.

You are mistaken.  Of course, the bigger the telescope, the more parallax that can be observed, but the parallax of the closest stars is visible through a fairly modest telescope.  The observatory at my college measures the distance to nearby stars all the time with parallax.  And the parallax of the really close stars can be seen by most amateur astronomers.  If a camera is employed, the effect is even more pronounced.

And beast wanted documentation, other then my testimony.

Here is a list of experiments published in three big peer reviewed astronomy journals in the last five years that were dependant on the parallax method in some way.
Better get reading, there are 300 of them!

http://www.scopus.com/scopus/results/results.url?sort=plf-f&src=s&st1=parallax&st2=&nlo=&nlr=&nls=&sid=3S4BmY9mPkvvAP3WYudJNoc%3a80&sot=b&sdt=cl&cluster=scoexactsrctitle%2c%22Astrophysical+Journal%22%2ct%2c%22Astronomy+and+Astrophysics%22%2ct%2c%22Astronomical+Journal%22%2ct&sl=23&s=TITLE-ABS-KEY%28parallax%29&txGid=3S4BmY9mPkvvAP3WYudJNoc%3a8
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."

?

phaseshifter

• 841
Stellar Parallax
« Reply #12 on: November 23, 2006, 09:58:02 AM »
Why is this being ignored?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Henry Borbath

• 133
Re: Stellar Parallax
« Reply #13 on: July 04, 2008, 08:35:41 PM »
FlatEarth theory clearly states that all stars revolve around the north pole. Yet it is simple to demonstrate that they do not.
Quote
The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

This topic has largely been ignored. Why? I think it is obvious.
Quote from: Robosteve
IP banned Narc.

?

Agent_0042

• 1419
Re: Stellar Parallax
« Reply #14 on: July 04, 2008, 09:15:12 PM »
FlatEarth theory clearly states that all stars revolve around the north pole. Yet it is simple to demonstrate that they do not.
Quote
The earth is a plane, with a northern centre, over which the stars (whether fixed in some peculiar substance or floating in some subtle medium is not yet known) move in concentric courses at different radial distances from the northern centre as far south as and wherever observations have been made. The evidence is the author's own experiments in Great Britain, Ireland, Isle of Man, Isle of Wight, and many other places; the statements of several unbiassed and truthful friends, who have resided in New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Rio Janeiro, Valparaiso, and other southern localities, and the several incidental statements already quoted.

The southern region of the earth is not central, but circumferential; and therefore there is no southern pole, no south pole star, and no southern circumpolar constellations;

This topic has largely been ignored. Why? I think it is obvious.

Because all fresh debate on these forums ceased and desisted over a year ago? Perhaps.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

?

Oedipus

Re: Stellar Parallax
« Reply #15 on: August 04, 2008, 06:28:29 AM »
Erasmus,

That's true, we do make assumptions, but not ones that negate the results.

For example, let us assume that all the stars are part of the celestial sphere that is only 3000 miles away (As you have claimed).  We should then observe one of two things.

1) No parallax owing to the stars being stationary.

2) Parallax of exactly the same amount in each star, as the Earth moves somehow relative to all of them.

But that is not observed.  Instead, parallax occurs in different amounts, depending on which star you are looking at.  The only way that we can get the mathematics to work out for every star is to assume that the stars are light-years away from us, and the Earth moves a significant amount.

Also, we have other ways of calculating stellar distances.  Some of which are:

Spectral comparison:  Something tells me you won't believe in Star types, or comparing them to our sun.  You don't even believe that the sun is a star.  So I'll just say this:  In general, Parallax occurs in the greatest amounts with the brighter stars, and to smaller amounts with the dimmer stars.  Although not all stars shine at the same luminosity, that still means that the brighter stars are closer then the dim ones.  We know that luminosity falls off with the inverse square of the distance.  So we run through the math, and get distances of light-years.

Doppler shift:  This is one of the most reliable distance calculators in cosmology.  If you want to debate the science that gives it credibility, feel free to.
Obviously the celestial sphere is made of a substance which softens with heat. the brighter stars being hotter soften the material in which they are embedded which means that they can move about in their 'slots' a little bit as the celestial sphere tilts back and forth in a yearly cycle. The dimmer stars do not soften the material in which they are embedded. The parallax theory represents an ingenious attempt to dismiss the real motion of the brighter stars as apparent motion.

The life-cycles of stars entail temperature changes which cause changes in colour which can be mistakenly interpreted as manifestations of the so-called doppler effect.

Henry Borbath

• 133
Re: Stellar Parallax
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2008, 06:33:08 PM »
RET stands tall here.
FET avoids the show...
Quote from: Robosteve
IP banned Narc.