The relativity of the sky that we see...

Il giorno martedì 25 ottobre 2016 20:39:59 UTC+2, Steve Willner ha scritto:
In article ,
writes:
So the positive and negative parallaxes have the same probability
to exis= t for not near stars

If your measurement uncertainty is much larger than the true value of
the quantity being measured, half the time the measured value will be
negative. This is often useful in astronomy: the negative values
tell you about the noise properties of your measurement. That's why
the actual negative values are published rather than replaced by a
non-quantitative "not detected."
... you touched the hearth of problem : the uncertainty of measurement ..
1) first i asked to CDS-Strasbourg and they gave e-mail of the experts (?) and they : ..some possible errors ...some intermediate bodies ..(No words about uncertainty ! ..and 'error' had the smell of hiding the problem ..)
2) the uncertainties -like you say- are possible but in the last numbers - not in all number and in the + or - sign - .. and its are superable easily with more measurements ...while i could see measures with 5 significant numbers repeited at the distance of mounths..

3) later i could show to you how the negative pallaxes are easier and wider if the star has an higther temperature ( higther frequency of light ) , showing that the gravitational lens are unable to explicate phenomenas -- better rephrational lens : you can read in the topic of 'sci. relativity' named '' gravitational or rephrational lens?'' or the case (C) in the topic '' The misterious case of desappeared galaxies'' --
4) if we are speaking of rephractional deviations , the negative parallaxes are showing that the dark matter is already there and the galaxy ' escape and CBR can find a simple explications ...

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA