Distances of the Stars

  • 7 Replies
  • 1811 Views
Distances of the Stars
« on: July 02, 2020, 09:08:10 AM »
Scanning through the page about the stars in the FE wiki I can find nothing specifically about the distances of the stars. This is another area of astronomy where FE and RE seem to have divided opinions.  The FE Wiki (tfes.org version at least) contains a very vague comment regarding the nature of the stars thus:

Quote
The stars are luminous elements which move in a layer above the Sun and Moon

What is apparent to the naked eye is that the stars are simply points of light of varying brightness (and to a lesser extent colour). What is also apparent through longer term observation is that the Sun, Moon and planets all move at varying rates against the starry background. The stars though appeared to remain fixed in their positions relative to each other. The Greeks recognised that the nearer objects were the more rapidly they moved relative to the observer.  So they interpreted the lack of observed relative moment of the stars provided an indication that they were much more distant.

Zetetic methods though seem to only take into account information provided by the senses directly. So how do we measure the distances of the stars?  Accepting that the stars are 'luminous elements' and hence emit their own light there are two possibilities.  Either they are tiny and nearby or they are very large and a long way away.

However before I go any further with this I would like to know what the FE take is with the distances of the stars and what your evidence is.
« Last Edit: July 02, 2020, 09:12:41 AM by Solarwind »

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2020, 03:42:56 PM »
Scanning through the page about the stars in the FE wiki I can find nothing specifically about the distances of the stars. This is another area of astronomy where FE and RE seem to have divided opinions.  The FE Wiki (tfes.org version at least) contains a very vague comment regarding the nature of the stars thus:

Quote
The stars are luminous elements which move in a layer above the Sun and Moon

What is apparent to the naked eye is that the stars are simply points of light of varying brightness (and to a lesser extent colour). What is also apparent through longer term observation is that the Sun, Moon and planets all move at varying rates against the starry background. The stars though appeared to remain fixed in their positions relative to each other. The Greeks recognised that the nearer objects were the more rapidly they moved relative to the observer.  So they interpreted the lack of observed relative moment of the stars provided an indication that they were much more distant.

Zetetic methods though seem to only take into account information provided by the senses directly. So how do we measure the distances of the stars?  Accepting that the stars are 'luminous elements' and hence emit their own light there are two possibilities.  Either they are tiny and nearby or they are very large and a long way away.

However before I go any further with this I would like to know what the FE take is with the distances of the stars and what your evidence is.

Flat earthers by virtue of their stance can have little if anything to say on the stars or any thing else to do with astronomy. To have anything valid or worthwhile to say on the matter one would require some means to study it such as access to a radio telescope, orbiting satellite or any serious piece of astronomical glass. Flat earthers have Access to none of these so have nothing of any consequence to say. The irony is if they did have access to such equipment they would soon discover the error of their ways. It’s only by taking a very 19th century approach and ignoring modern astronomy that they can maintain their their current beliefs.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2020, 05:13:11 PM »
Flat earthers by virtue of their stance can have little if anything to say on the stars or any thing else to do with astronomy. To have anything valid or worthwhile to say on the matter one would require some means to study it such as access to a radio telescope, orbiting satellite or any serious piece of astronomical glass. Flat earthers have Access to none of these so have nothing of any consequence to say. The irony is if they did have access to such equipment they would soon discover the error of their ways. It’s only by taking a very 19th century approach and ignoring modern astronomy that they can maintain their their current beliefs.

You can see quite a bit with a modern telescope.  Auto seeking, built in digital cameras, star tracking, long exposures, full star databases, just type in what you want to see and it finds it for you.

A $1000 modern scope can image all the planets, nebula, other galaxies... all kinds of things.  It doesn't take a lot of money these days.

The biggest barrier is just simply living somewhere with dark enough skies to be able to see faint stuff.

You can even build your own radio telescope.  Not going to image M87 but there is still PLENTY you can directly visualize for a few hundred dollars.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/track-the-movement-of-the-milky-way-with-this-diy-radio-telescope

It's not the lack of money that is preventing results. Modern tech is highly capable.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #3 on: July 03, 2020, 02:29:02 AM »
Flat earthers by virtue of their stance can have little if anything to say on the stars or any thing else to do with astronomy. To have anything valid or worthwhile to say on the matter one would require some means to study it such as access to a radio telescope, orbiting satellite or any serious piece of astronomical glass. Flat earthers have Access to none of these so have nothing of any consequence to say. The irony is if they did have access to such equipment they would soon discover the error of their ways. It’s only by taking a very 19th century approach and ignoring modern astronomy that they can maintain their their current beliefs.

You can see quite a bit with a modern telescope.  Auto seeking, built in digital cameras, star tracking, long exposures, full star databases, just type in what you want to see and it finds it for you.

A $1000 modern scope can image all the planets, nebula, other galaxies... all kinds of things.  It doesn't take a lot of money these days.

The biggest barrier is just simply living somewhere with dark enough skies to be able to see faint stuff.

You can even build your own radio telescope.  Not going to image M87 but there is still PLENTY you can directly visualize for a few hundred dollars.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/track-the-movement-of-the-milky-way-with-this-diy-radio-telescope

It's not the lack of money that is preventing results. Modern tech is highly capable.

Indeed if one wishes to gain a better view of the stars then it’s not to expensive to get started. What I was really referring to was not just looking but doing some hard accurate science that produces hard reliable data. Such as the European Space Agency orbiting telescope called Hipparcos. Its main purpose is to measure stellar distances using parallax with an accuracy of 2–4 milliarcseconds (mas), or thousandths of an arcsecond. According to their website, “ESA’s Hipparcos satellite has pinpointed more than 100,000 stars, 200 times more accurately than ever before.” Their results are available in an online searchable catalog.

 https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/millennium-star-atlas

The flat earth community have nothing,......but still maintain their own beliefs on the cosmos based totally on outdated 19th Century thinking.

What they believe about our own star is staggering and makes no sense whatever regardless of how you want to look at it. Incedentally a time lapse of the sun has been recently completed compressing a whole solar ten year cycle into just one hour.
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/30/this-10-year-timelapse-of-the-sun-was-made-from-425-million-images/
« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 02:31:37 AM by Timeisup »
Really…..what a laugh!!!

Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #4 on: July 03, 2020, 03:45:29 AM »
Quote
Flat earthers have Access to none of these so have nothing of any consequence to say. The irony is if they did have access to such equipment they would soon discover the error of their ways. It’s only by taking a very 19th century approach and ignoring modern astronomy that they can maintain their their current beliefs.

This comes down to a 'bury your head in the sand' situation.  You can ignore reality if it suits you to do so but that doesn't change reality.  Telescopic observations of the stars have revealing things about them that are not visible to the naked eye.  As the quality of telescope has improved so too has the accuracy of the observations that can be made with them.  Since the first half of the 19th century that includes observations of the proper motions and parallaxes of stars. These observations revealed not only that the Earth does orbit the Sun (so proving as incorrect the geocentric belief) and also provided a means of measuring the distances of the stars.  Starting with 61 Cygni in 1838.

I guess many telescopic astronomical observations are inadmissible as evidence as far as flat Earthers are concerned because they would maintain that anything that cannot be directly observed cannot be proved to be genuine.  That is a shame because they are placing a self imposed limit, based on their beliefs on how far their knowledge can go.  You can learn a lot about astronomy from just using your eyes, but telescopes have revealed a lot more.

I accept that you cannot change what someone believes but you can present the evidence to them.  It is up to them whether they choose to accept it or not.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 03:47:28 AM by Solarwind »

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #5 on: July 03, 2020, 06:10:27 AM »
Flat earthers by virtue of their stance can have little if anything to say on the stars or any thing else to do with astronomy. To have anything valid or worthwhile to say on the matter one would require some means to study it such as access to a radio telescope, orbiting satellite or any serious piece of astronomical glass. Flat earthers have Access to none of these so have nothing of any consequence to say. The irony is if they did have access to such equipment they would soon discover the error of their ways. It’s only by taking a very 19th century approach and ignoring modern astronomy that they can maintain their their current beliefs.

You can see quite a bit with a modern telescope.  Auto seeking, built in digital cameras, star tracking, long exposures, full star databases, just type in what you want to see and it finds it for you.

A $1000 modern scope can image all the planets, nebula, other galaxies... all kinds of things.  It doesn't take a lot of money these days.

The biggest barrier is just simply living somewhere with dark enough skies to be able to see faint stuff.

You can even build your own radio telescope.  Not going to image M87 but there is still PLENTY you can directly visualize for a few hundred dollars.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/track-the-movement-of-the-milky-way-with-this-diy-radio-telescope

It's not the lack of money that is preventing results. Modern tech is highly capable.

Indeed if one wishes to gain a better view of the stars then it’s not to expensive to get started. What I was really referring to was not just looking but doing some hard accurate science that produces hard reliable data. Such as the European Space Agency orbiting telescope called Hipparcos. Its main purpose is to measure stellar distances using parallax with an accuracy of 2–4 milliarcseconds (mas), or thousandths of an arcsecond. According to their website, “ESA’s Hipparcos satellite has pinpointed more than 100,000 stars, 200 times more accurately than ever before.” Their results are available in an online searchable catalog.

 https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/millennium-star-atlas

The flat earth community have nothing,......but still maintain their own beliefs on the cosmos based totally on outdated 19th Century thinking.

What they believe about our own star is staggering and makes no sense whatever regardless of how you want to look at it. Incedentally a time lapse of the sun has been recently completed compressing a whole solar ten year cycle into just one hour.
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/30/this-10-year-timelapse-of-the-sun-was-made-from-425-million-images/

Oh yes, there are of course going to be experiments they can't do.  But there are a surprising number they can.  An 8-inch scope with a decent digital camera can absolutely measure star parallax. Such a setup would be far cheaper than a $20,000 laser gyro!  It wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the Hipparcos system, but it would 100% show stellar paralax.

But then, the argument would just shift from "paralax doesn't exist" to "it's caused by the dome". 

Hobby rockets can get pictures of the curve now.  But again, the evidence would just be disregarded.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #6 on: July 04, 2020, 04:00:03 AM »
Flat earthers by virtue of their stance can have little if anything to say on the stars or any thing else to do with astronomy. To have anything valid or worthwhile to say on the matter one would require some means to study it such as access to a radio telescope, orbiting satellite or any serious piece of astronomical glass. Flat earthers have Access to none of these so have nothing of any consequence to say. The irony is if they did have access to such equipment they would soon discover the error of their ways. It’s only by taking a very 19th century approach and ignoring modern astronomy that they can maintain their their current beliefs.

You can see quite a bit with a modern telescope.  Auto seeking, built in digital cameras, star tracking, long exposures, full star databases, just type in what you want to see and it finds it for you.

A $1000 modern scope can image all the planets, nebula, other galaxies... all kinds of things.  It doesn't take a lot of money these days.

The biggest barrier is just simply living somewhere with dark enough skies to be able to see faint stuff.

You can even build your own radio telescope.  Not going to image M87 but there is still PLENTY you can directly visualize for a few hundred dollars.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/hands-on/track-the-movement-of-the-milky-way-with-this-diy-radio-telescope

It's not the lack of money that is preventing results. Modern tech is highly capable.

Indeed if one wishes to gain a better view of the stars then it’s not to expensive to get started. What I was really referring to was not just looking but doing some hard accurate science that produces hard reliable data. Such as the European Space Agency orbiting telescope called Hipparcos. Its main purpose is to measure stellar distances using parallax with an accuracy of 2–4 milliarcseconds (mas), or thousandths of an arcsecond. According to their website, “ESA’s Hipparcos satellite has pinpointed more than 100,000 stars, 200 times more accurately than ever before.” Their results are available in an online searchable catalog.

 https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/hipparcos/millennium-star-atlas

The flat earth community have nothing,......but still maintain their own beliefs on the cosmos based totally on outdated 19th Century thinking.

What they believe about our own star is staggering and makes no sense whatever regardless of how you want to look at it. Incedentally a time lapse of the sun has been recently completed compressing a whole solar ten year cycle into just one hour.
https://petapixel.com/2020/06/30/this-10-year-timelapse-of-the-sun-was-made-from-425-million-images/

Oh yes, there are of course going to be experiments they can't do.  But there are a surprising number they can.  An 8-inch scope with a decent digital camera can absolutely measure star parallax. Such a setup would be far cheaper than a $20,000 laser gyro!  It wouldn't be anywhere near as good as the Hipparcos system, but it would 100% show stellar paralax.

But then, the argument would just shift from "paralax doesn't exist" to "it's caused by the dome". 

Hobby rockets can get pictures of the curve now.  But again, the evidence would just be disregarded.

The problem is flaterthists will only do what they term ‘science’, such as looking out their window, if it confirms their beliefs. They have painted them selves into a flat earth corner, which has the result than everything no matter how ludicrous, small near sun for example, has to fit in with what they believe. That’s their starting point, the earth is flat,  that all other beliefs they have must conform to.

Take the sun for example. At the flat earth diameter of 32 miles there is no known process that will have allowed it to; carry out a process that constantly emits huge amounts of energy; maintained such an energy output for over 4.5 billon years!

I and others have pointed out that their beliefs fly in the face of the basic fundamentals of physics , but they never quite appear to grasp that point. The most basic question that no flat earther has ever managed to answer, how can they,  is what has kept the flat earth sun burning for 4.5 billion years?

The other implications for a small near sun are staggering, but all because the earth looks flat from their collectives windows, they prefer not to think about them. Such are the workings of the free thing flat earth mind.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

Re: Distances of the Stars
« Reply #7 on: July 04, 2020, 09:13:11 AM »
When I started out checking out flat Earth websites out of pure curiosity more than anything else, the question at the forefront of my mind was simply in this day and age 'Why would anybody still believe the Earth is flat?'

There were various comments banded around such as you indicate, i.e look out of the window and the Earth looks flat. OK so the horizon all around you is indeed flat.  Now phone up your friend who lives a few 1000 miles away and at the same same time ask them to look out of their window and they will say the same thing.  The Earth looks flat.

So we have two people spaced 1000s of miles apart who both say the Earth to them looks flat.  A flat Earther will say 'there you go that proves it... the Earth is flat!'  And they will leave it there.

I on the other hand would say 'OK but hang on there is another possibility... ' and then go on to point out that if we are very, very tiny in relation to the size of the Earth and walking around on the curved surface of a huge sphere then the result would be the same. In fact if the Earth really was flat then we wouldn't see a sharply defined flat horizon. Instead the clarity of what we can see in the distance would just get more and more hazy as the scattering effect on the light from distant objects caused by the air increased more and more.

So it seems to me that the belief held by some that the Earth is flat is not based on facts but is simply a rebellious thing.  In other words some people just naturally choose to believe something different to the majority view. That gives them a kind of deluded sense of being special because they believe they 'know' something which is different to the mainstream and not shared by the majority.  They know the 'truth'.

Many aspects of flat Earth belief seem to fall in line with the generic descriptions and definitions of conspiracy theorists. That makes me think that a large proportion of flat Earth believers are also people who hold strong anti-authoritarian opinions about government or military cover ups, lies, denials etc etc.  To a flat Earth conspiracy theorist authoritarian includes the science world because of course mainstream science flies in the face of many aspects of flat Earth belief. So science is regarded as nothing more than a conspiracy against them.  Hence whatever science says about something, a flat Earther say the opposite is true. 

Many aspects of FE 'theory' however are very vague and non-specific.  The stars says the tfes.org version of FE Wiki are 'luminous elements' but that is as far as it goes.  The modern understanding of the physical nature of the stars is a very recent thing comparatively but that doesn't make it wrong.  We are making new discoveries all the time.  Its called progress.



« Last Edit: July 04, 2020, 09:21:15 AM by Solarwind »