A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Others » UK Astronomy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Star Distances



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 3rd 06, 04:59 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


That idea is not new: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis


That sounds about right.


And it's also very unlikely. A star that close to us would appear quite
bright - either in visible light or in the infrared. Despite numerous
attempts, no such star has been found,


I understand there is a lot of activity in observatories in the
Southern Hemisphere. We might not be able to see it from up here. And
even if we could it might not be all that easy to find. "They" might
be keeping the news secret. IRAS data doesn't get piped directly to
the internet you know. If it does exist we'll have to hope some
Australian amateurs find it.

  #12  
Old July 3rd 06, 07:12 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Paul Schlyter[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Star Distances

In article . com,
says...

That idea is not new:
http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis

That sounds about right.


Including the last sentence? That about the failure of IRAS to find that
bright IR source which should have been there if there had been a nearby
"dark" star?

And it's also very unlikely. A star that close to us would appear quite
bright - either in visible light or in the infrared. Despite numerous
attempts, no such star has been found,


I understand there is a lot of activity in observatories in the
Southern Hemisphere. We might not be able to see it from up here. And
even if we could it might not be all that easy to find. "They" might
be keeping the news secret. IRAS data doesn't get piped directly to
the internet you know. If it does exist we'll have to hope some
Australian amateurs find it.


When IRAS was up there charting the IR sky, some 20+ years ago, the web
didn't even exist yet..... there was an Internet though, although a quite
different Internet compared to today.

The fact remains that if your nearby star had existed, it would have been
discovered already.


--
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at saaf dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
  #13  
Old July 3rd 06, 08:24 PM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


Including the last sentence? That about the failure of IRAS to find that


It's the first sentence that I was hoping is wrong and that the star is
actually closer.



The fact remains that if your nearby star had existed, it would have been
discovered already.


Maybe. No doubt if it does exist there are people who do know about
it.

  #14  
Old July 3rd 06, 09:15 PM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
George Dishman[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,509
Default Star Distances


"Hurt" wrote in message
oups.com...

No, the majority of the anomaly would then be
directed out of the plane. The anomalous
acceleration is in the plane towards the Sun.


They don't give any precise vector; they use words like away, towards,
and radial towards the Sun.


Page 18:

"Over the years the data continually indicated that
the largest systematic error in the acceleration
residuals is a constant bias of a_P ~ 8+/-3)*10^-8
cm/s^2, directed toward the Sun (to within the
beam-width of the Pioneers’ antennae [73])."

Note [73] indicates the beamwidth is 3.6 degrees. As
I said, there's a lot of information in the paper if
you are serious, but that means reading the endnotes.

And each of the values appears to be constant,
independent of the distance from the Sun.


The sigma is very large. You can't be sure it's constant with that
sigma, over that range.

No magnitude variation
of aP with distance was found, within a sensitivity of
s0 = 2×10-8 cm/s2 over a range of 40 to 60 AU.


Page 34, commenting on the possibility of a correlation
with the RTG radioactive decay:

"Finally, we want to comment on the significance
of radioactive decay for this mechanism. Even
acknowledging the Interval jumps due to gas
leaks (see below), we reported a one-day batch-
sequential value (before systematics) for a_P,
averaged over the entire 11.5 year interval, of
a_P = (7.77+/-0.16)*10^-8 cm/s^2. From radioactive
decay, the value of a_P should have decreased by
0.75 of these units over 11.5 years. This is 5
times the above variance, which is very large
with batch sequential."

And the planets are being affected. Solar "Global" Warming.


Nope their motion is not being affected.


George; something that barely budges a small spacecraft won't move a
planet.

It might deflect some asteroids over a long duration though.


"Hurt", gravity produces the same acceleration
independent of mass. Read up on Galileo.

They checked to see if a gravitational effect was
a possible cause and the orbits of the planets
would have shown changes that would be detectable
in a few years. I can't remember the exact numbers
but no such variation exists so that possibility
is ruled out. Just as well or our planet would be
a lot closer to the Sun by now if it had formed
anywhere near this orbit.

There's a lot of good background information
in the paper if you are serious about
understanding the problem.


The problem? Denial.


Denial of what? You haven't come up with anything
even vaguely credible, just stabs in the dark that
are obviously nonsense to anyone who has looked at
the data. Sadly, none of the other ideas works well
either, and there have been many.

George


  #15  
Old July 4th 06, 02:13 AM posted to sci.astro,alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Hurt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 114
Default Star Distances


Sorry, clicked post accidentally.


"Over the years the data continually indicated that
the largest systematic error in the acceleration
residuals is a constant bias of a_P ~ 8+/-3)*10^-8
cm/s^2, directed toward the Sun (to within the
beam-width of the Pioneers' antennae [73])."


And...? That was the ~ (approximate) LARGEST error. That doesn't
change the uncertainty of the magnitude variation. Once again:

"No magnitude variation of aP with distance was found, within a
sensitivity of s0 = 2×10-8 cm/s2 over a range of 40 to 60 AU."

Note [73] indicates the beamwidth is 3.6 degrees. As


What note [73] indicates is that they could not tell whether the force
direction
was towards the Sun or if the force direction was towards the Earth.
Or somewhere else! A beamwidth of 3.6 degrees, at the probe, spreads a
whole lot over a distance of over 60 AU.

PDF page 51:

[73] We only measure Earth-spacecraft Doppler frequency
and, as we will discuss in Sec. VIIIA, the down link
antenna yields a conical beam of width 3.6 degrees at
half-maximum power. Therefore, between Pioneer 10's
past and present (May 2001) distances of 20 to 78 AU,
the Earth-spacecraft line and Sun-spacecraft line are so
close that one can not resolve whether the force direction
is towards the Sun or if the force direction is towards
the Earth. If we could have used a longer arc fit
that started earlier and hence closer, we might have able
to separate the Sun direction from the Earth direction.


I said, there's a lot of information in the paper if
you are serious, but that means reading the endnotes.


Unfortunately I don't have enough useful time to read everything; and
still, I'm doing pretty good.




Page 34, commenting on the possibility of a correlation
with the RTG radioactive decay:

"Finally, we want to comment on the significance
of radioactive decay for this mechanism. Even
acknowledging the Interval jumps due to gas
leaks (see below), we reported a one-day batch-
sequential value (before systematics) for a_P,
averaged over the entire 11.5 year interval, of
a_P = (7.77+/-0.16)*10^-8 cm/s^2. From radioactive
decay, the value of a_P should have decreased by
0.75 of these units over 11.5 years. This is 5
times the above variance, which is very large
with batch sequential."


Unless you're trying to tell me something indirectly I don't see what
this has to do with our conversation. Maybe you're trying to baffle
the masses?


"Hurt", gravity produces the same acceleration
independent of mass. Read up on Galileo.


Did I say anything about acceleration? I can qualify my statement.

"... something that barely budges a small spacecraft won't [measurably
OR significantly OR noticeably] move a planet."

What is the angular acceleration of a planet, say Earth. Not to
mention its instantaneous linear tangential acceleration. IT'S HUGE.
Take that vector and add it to ~ 8*10^ -8 (that's a minus 8) cm/s^2
and you basically get that vector. I don't know if we could even
measure such a small change over many years.


They checked to see if a gravitational effect was
a possible cause and the orbits of the planets
would have shown changes that would be detectable
in a few years. I can't remember the exact numbers


Can you point out the section that says this please.

  #16  
Old July 4th 06, 02:54 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics,alt.usenet.kooks
Art Deco[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,280
Default Star Distances

Hurt wrote:

That idea is not new: http://www.nineplanets.org/hypo.html#nemesis


That sounds about right.


And it's also very unlikely. A star that close to us would appear quite
bright - either in visible light or in the infrared. Despite numerous
attempts, no such star has been found,


I understand there is a lot of activity in observatories in the
Southern Hemisphere. We might not be able to see it from up here. And
even if we could it might not be all that easy to find. "They" might
be keeping the news secret. IRAS data doesn't get piped directly to
the internet you know. If it does exist we'll have to hope some
Australian amateurs find it.


How does that shoe leather taste? It's in there pretty deep now.

--
COOSN-266-06-39716
Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
Co-Winner, alt.(f)lame Worst Flame War, December 2005
Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
as designated by Brad Guth

"And without accurate measuring techniques, how can they even
*call* quantum theory a "scientific" one? How can it possibly
be referred to as a "fundamental branch of physics"?"
-- Painsnuh the Lamer

"Well, orientals moved to the U.S. and did amazingly well on
their own, and the races are related (brown)."
-- "Honest" John pontificates on racial purity

"Significant new ideas have rarely come from the ranks of
the establishment."
-- Double-A on technology development
  #17  
Old July 4th 06, 04:22 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Roy L. Fuchs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Star Distances

On 3 Jul 2006 08:59:54 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

We might not be able to see it from up here.


How old are you... I mean... mentally? 12?
  #18  
Old July 4th 06, 04:24 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Roy L. Fuchs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Star Distances

On 3 Jul 2006 08:59:54 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

"They" might
be keeping the news secret.


Like your momma kept it a secret that you were "touched"?

Oh... that's right... The other kids know... they ALWAYS know...

No secret(s) there... either.

Dude... come back when you have gained adulthood, and I am not
referring to numerical age either.
  #19  
Old July 4th 06, 04:26 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Roy L. Fuchs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Star Distances

On 3 Jul 2006 08:59:54 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

If it does exist we'll have to hope some
Australian amateurs find it.


The only *IT* that exists is the *IT* that YOU put in YOUR head.

You are indeed HURT beyond repair.
  #20  
Old July 4th 06, 04:30 AM posted to alt.conspiracy,alt.astronomy,sci.astro,uk.sci.astronomy,sci.physics
Roy L. Fuchs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default Star Distances

On 3 Jul 2006 12:24:51 -0700, "Hurt"
Gave us:

No doubt if it does exist there are people who do know about
it.


Unbelievable. What ****Tard U did you flop out of?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Yes, Virginia, Man NEVER Walked on the Moon... Ed Conrad Amateur Astronomy 12 September 4th 06 01:20 PM
Who Says CROP CIRCLES are Man Made? Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 May 25th 06 05:35 AM
Off to Early Start in Worldwide Burning of EVOLUTION Textbooks Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 April 29th 06 09:08 PM
THE INCREDIBLE BILLY MEIER EXTRATERRESTRIAL CASE -- All the critics can go to hell [email protected] Astronomy Misc 3 April 20th 06 08:23 PM
Space Calendar - January 27, 2004 Ron Astronomy Misc 7 January 29th 04 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.