Are any stars...

approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all stars
by their distance~?

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:12:12 -1000, Mike wrote:

approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all stars
by their distance~?


Google is your friend:

Try this:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/50lys.html

"Mike" wrote in message
...
approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all
stars
by their distance~?

This may be what you are after... it would help if you explained "why"
you are asking.

http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/birthstars/

Mike wrote:

approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all stars
by their distance~?

There are a great many stars within forty light-years, but we don't
know exactly how many because the faintest ones are very hard to
detect at any interstellar distance. For example, in the list of the
hundred nearest stars at

http://www.chara.gsu.edu/RECONS/TOP100.htm

a couple of recent additions, red dwarfs with about a tenth of the
Sun's mass and a ten-thousandth or less the luminosity, are as nearby
as twelve light-years or so. Even if we assume that we've now found
everything within that distance, and that our immediate environs are
typical of the 'neighbourhood', based on the above table we could
expect there to be some 19*37 or seven hundred star-systems,
comprising 33*37 or twelve hundred individual stars, within 40 LY.
(37 is about 40/12 cubed.)

Here's a list of the 150 nearest star-systems in the Hipparcos catalogue:

http://astro.estec.esa.nl/Hipparcos/table361.html.

You can also query the Hipparcos catalogue by parallax in order to
get lists of stars within a certain distance range, but you'd have to
sort them yourself, whether by hand or by loading them into a
database. Here's the "multi-parameter search" page:

http://astro.estec.esa.nl/hipparcos_scripts/hipMultiSearch.pl.

For example when I asked for the entries between 35 and 45 LY
(parallax of 72.4 - 93.1 mas) I got a list of 177 star-systems.
Narrowing the range down to 39.5 - 40.5 LY (80.5 - 82.5 mas) I still
got ten results, the brightest of which being the third-magnitude
"proper motion star" Beta Trianguli Australis at 40.1 +/- .3 LY.

--
Odysseus

Just about any star map will show that there's many within that range.


--


"And for the second time in four million years, the monolith awoke."
Arthur C.Clarke 2062dyssey three

SIAR
www.starlords.org
Blast Off Cybershop
http://www.cafeshops.com/starlords
In the Garden Gift Shop
http://www.cafeshops.com/InGarden
Astronomy-net shop
http://www.cafeshops.com/Astronomy_net
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord

"Mike" wrote in message
...
approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all
stars
by their distance~?




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.734 / Virus Database: 488 - Release Date: 8/4/04

All the distances use red shift data and soon are going to prove to be
in complete error anyways, so don't bother with the simplistic red shift
nonsense.

Tom Randy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:12:12 -1000, Mike wrote:


approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all stars
by their distance~?



Google is your friend:

Try this:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/50lys.html

Roger Hamlett wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

All the distances use red shift data and soon are going to prove to be
in complete error anyways, so don't bother with the simplistic red shift
nonsense.

None of the short range measurements use 'red shift data'. Stars this
close are measured by simple parallax.

According to some web sites, Parallax is only good for about 750 stars.
Clearly the measurements used parallax trigonometry are calibrated after
'known' red shift data. Otherwise how else would merely knowing the
angle of a stars movement help with distance. Clearly a known distance
is used to calibrate Parallax data. I already know that the science of
red shift is destined to be proven false anyways and all known
measurements of objects virtual or apparent distance from our solar
system will have to be adjusted and updated.

For example globular star clusters have a minimum of 1 million stars.
Current astronomy is oblivious to this. Clearly something is either
wrong with the math or something is lacking in our detection methods.




Tom Randy wrote:


On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:12:12 -1000, Mike wrote:



approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all

stars

by their distance~?



Google is your friend:

Try this:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/50lys.html


Best Wishes

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
All the distances use red shift data and soon are going to prove to be
in complete error anyways, so don't bother with the simplistic red shift
nonsense.
None of the short range measurements use 'red shift data'. Stars this
close are measured by simple parallax.

Tom Randy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:12:12 -1000, Mike wrote:


approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all
stars
by their distance~?



Google is your friend:

Try this:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/50lys.html

Best Wishes

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...
All the distances use red shift data and soon are going to prove to be
in complete error anyways, so don't bother with the simplistic red shift
nonsense.

Realy. Do tell us your alternative, and please explain how your alternative
accounts for the *observed* characteristics of the rotation of galaxies, the
measurement of the light curves of Cepheid Variables, and Type 1 Supernovae.






Tom Randy wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:12:12 -1000, Mike wrote:


approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all
stars
by their distance~?



Google is your friend:

Try this:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/50lys.html

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...


Roger Hamlett wrote:

"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
t.cable.rogers.com...

All the distances use red shift data and soon are going to prove to be
in complete error anyways, so don't bother with the simplistic red shift
nonsense.

None of the short range measurements use 'red shift data'. Stars this
close are measured by simple parallax.

According to some web sites, Parallax is only good for about 750 stars.


And how many stars do you think are within 40 light years?



Clearly the measurements used parallax trigonometry are calibrated after
'known' red shift data.

BWHAHAHAHQAHAHHAHAHAHHAH! No wonder you won last months VVFWS Award.

You clueless nitwit. The measurements for stars distances determined by the
parralax method are primarily based on simple trigonometry, which you are
incapable of understanding.


For those watching, I realise Mad "Scientist" isn't going to be capable of
learning. This is aimed primarily at those who might stumble across his
postings and think he has a point other than the one at the top of his head.



Otherwise how else would merely knowing the
angle of a stars movement help with distance. Clearly a known distance
is used to calibrate Parallax data. I already know that the science of
red shift is destined to be proven false anyways and all known
measurements of objects virtual or apparent distance from our solar
system will have to be adjusted and updated.


For example globular star clusters have a minimum of 1 million stars.
Current astronomy is oblivious to this.

Not at all, fool.


Clearly something is either
wrong with the math or something is lacking in our detection methods.
No something is wrong with your understanding of basic trigonometry.







Tom Randy wrote:


On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 12:12:12 -1000, Mike wrote:



approximately 40 light years away? And ftm, is there a ranking of all

stars

by their distance~?



Google is your friend:

Try this:

http://www.anzwers.org/free/universe/50lys.html


Best Wishes