A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

1) the negative paraxes...



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 27th 16, 09:38 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one.
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

IMHO He should truncated all measurements
with zero belonging to CI of the measurement (mean) value,
as with statistically insignificant difference to zero.

No. Provided that it is stated somewhere what the limits of
detection for the method actually is then the value determined even
if it is negative is more useful to later researchers than a "below
LOD" flag.

One thing is raw data, other thing is published processed data.
The limits should be available to a team of original data.

Such a limit can be estimated from the fluctuation around zero,
for stars where expected value is low enough.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

..thanks for contributions to Poutnik , to Mike , to Procarytic ..and
..
.. the old negative parallaxes could keep the errors ..but , i think
, if you repeated its , you could get a very different value nearer
to the rigth-one ...
.. the new parallaxes (HTS) have four significant numbers and if you
repeat , you get the same value ( so the man ,who wrote its , let me
to understand.. ) ( the measures of Bjmag , for galaxies , have the
same five significant numbers also if repeated during years ...) ...
the 'dramaticity' is that : the negative ones are truly negative
because there are intermediate bodies ... (so that man told) ..
.. in 'google astro' you can read the topic 'Link between dark
matter.. ' ...somebody proposes that the dark matter are powders ,
stones , little asteroides.. :so, for having the mass of dark matter
,probabely the sky should be not trasparent and unable to deviate
gravitationally - or rephrationally, then we see that - the ligth for
giving the negative parallaxes ...i suppose the black dwarfes and an
universe ' age many times longer than supposed , so trasparent and
able to deviate the light ...


I don't think any of this is close to reality. Parallax is a geometric
effect due to the earth's orbital motion around the Sun. It would not have
anything to do with refraction or gravitational lensing. If you are
thinking of some sort of photometric estimation of stellar distance, this is
called "photometric parallax" but it has nothing to do with geometry.

.. untill 200-300 y.l. , the white dwrfes are visible almost without
having neg parallaxes ... after it begins the problem.. and the warm
stars ( O,B,A) are deviating the ligth easierly , nearerly ... and
the warm galaxies are desparing easierly , for the same sigth' angle


I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but early type stars have
small parallaxes because they are a long way from us. These are so small
that many measures are effectively zero so individual measures would be half
positive and half negative.

...
.. cutting some steps : in a time almost infinite , the light could
condense like matter in the outern fields and the black dwarfes could
be the fuel and engine of the galaxy..


This does not sound like any physics or astrophysics I know about.
Hand-waving is not the same as carefully reasoned analysis.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)


..where a gradient of concetration of gas is , there is also a rephrational deviation of light ; if the gradient is round , there is a rephrational lens ... nothing of new-one
( home exp : put 10 cm. of water into an acquarius and also 5 kg. of salt ... after two days the salt ' water shall be clear and a part of salt remains insolute on the floor ..: a laser pointer shall go through the water showing a curved beam expecially if the light is blue or green and the distance is longer than 50 cm. ... the light spot shall go out from acquarius not circular but showing a little ellipse ...)
.. the atmosphere ' rephrational lens is the reason for observing the sun a little before the rising ..and little later the sunset ..... the bending of the light is in direction of the higther rephrational ' index = concentration of gas ..
.. for many people , it seems more difficult to believe=receive=understand=keep-in-mind that , there up in the sky , there are many heavy invisible bodies (black dwarves ?) deviating the light coming from the far-space , expecially if the light has an hight frequency ...


... somebody remember the flyby anomaly = effect etc. etc. ..just good observations : that kind of anomalies reminds to us the misterious acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11.. and the cosmic redshift can be in the same family of phenomenas , i think .. later i shall return over that..
... it happens often : you say same words .. many people , also clever people , read that words and they go to graze their sheeps = problems around that words , near and not so near ..
... boys , i say : there up , almost surely there are many heavy small dark bodies ( black dwarfs ) that are deviating the light ..to the right and to the left side ...
1) the parallaxes negative are not errors because , if repeated , its give the same exact values..
2) beyond the 800-1000 y.l. ' distance , the negative parallaxes are so many that its are the 50%..
3) its are so many to explicate the dark matter because the bodies must have the weight of the sun , the dimension of few kms and cold=invisible to keep a large atmosphere ...
.... so the age of universe can be much highter than suspected ... 1000 times more ? .. and the big bang ? .. we speak about later
Ads
  #12  
Old January 7th 17, 10:08 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno martedì 27 dicembre 2016 10:38:25 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one.
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

IMHO He should truncated all measurements
with zero belonging to CI of the measurement (mean) value,
as with statistically insignificant difference to zero.

No. Provided that it is stated somewhere what the limits of
detection for the method actually is then the value determined even
if it is negative is more useful to later researchers than a "below
LOD" flag.

One thing is raw data, other thing is published processed data.
The limits should be available to a team of original data.

Such a limit can be estimated from the fluctuation around zero,
for stars where expected value is low enough.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

..thanks for contributions to Poutnik , to Mike , to Procarytic ..and
..
.. the old negative parallaxes could keep the errors ..but , i think
, if you repeated its , you could get a very different value nearer
to the rigth-one ...
.. the new parallaxes (HTS) have four significant numbers and if you
repeat , you get the same value ( so the man ,who wrote its , let me
to understand.. ) ( the measures of Bjmag , for galaxies , have the
same five significant numbers also if repeated during years ...) ....
the 'dramaticity' is that : the negative ones are truly negative
because there are intermediate bodies ... (so that man told) ..
.. in 'google astro' you can read the topic 'Link between dark
matter.. ' ...somebody proposes that the dark matter are powders ,
stones , little asteroides.. :so, for having the mass of dark matter
,probabely the sky should be not trasparent and unable to deviate
gravitationally - or rephrationally, then we see that - the ligth for
giving the negative parallaxes ...i suppose the black dwarfes and an
universe ' age many times longer than supposed , so trasparent and
able to deviate the light ...

I don't think any of this is close to reality. Parallax is a geometric
effect due to the earth's orbital motion around the Sun. It would not have
anything to do with refraction or gravitational lensing. If you are
thinking of some sort of photometric estimation of stellar distance, this is
called "photometric parallax" but it has nothing to do with geometry.

.. untill 200-300 y.l. , the white dwrfes are visible almost without
having neg parallaxes ... after it begins the problem.. and the warm
stars ( O,B,A) are deviating the ligth easierly , nearerly ... and
the warm galaxies are desparing easierly , for the same sigth' angle

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but early type stars have
small parallaxes because they are a long way from us. These are so small
that many measures are effectively zero so individual measures would be half
positive and half negative.

...
.. cutting some steps : in a time almost infinite , the light could
condense like matter in the outern fields and the black dwarfes could
be the fuel and engine of the galaxy..

This does not sound like any physics or astrophysics I know about.
Hand-waving is not the same as carefully reasoned analysis.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)


..where a gradient of concetration of gas is , there is also a rephrational deviation of light ; if the gradient is round , there is a rephrational lens ... nothing of new-one
( home exp : put 10 cm. of water into an acquarius and also 5 kg. of salt ... after two days the salt ' water shall be clear and a part of salt remains insolute on the floor ..: a laser pointer shall go through the water showing a curved beam expecially if the light is blue or green and the distance is longer than 50 cm. ... the light spot shall go out from acquarius not circular but showing a little ellipse ...)
.. the atmosphere ' rephrational lens is the reason for observing the sun a little before the rising ..and little later the sunset ..... the bending of the light is in direction of the higther rephrational ' index = concentration of gas ..
.. for many people , it seems more difficult to believe=receive=understand=keep-in-mind that , there up in the sky , there are many heavy invisible bodies (black dwarves ?) deviating the light coming from the far-space , expecially if the light has an hight frequency ...


.. somebody remember the flyby anomaly = effect etc. etc. ..just good observations : that kind of anomalies reminds to us the misterious acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11.. and the cosmic redshift can be in the same family of phenomenas , i think .. later i shall return over that..
.. it happens often : you say same words .. many people , also clever people , read that words and they go to graze their sheeps = problems around that words , near and not so near ..
.. boys , i say : there up , almost surely there are many heavy small dark bodies ( black dwarfs ) that are deviating the light ..to the right and to the left side ...
1) the parallaxes negative are not errors because , if repeated , its give the same exact values..
2) beyond the 800-1000 y.l. ' distance , the negative parallaxes are so many that its are the 50%..
3) its are so many to explicate the dark matter because the bodies must have the weight of the sun , the dimension of few kms and cold=invisible to keep a large atmosphere ...
... so the age of universe can be much highter than suspected ... 1000 times more ? .. and the big bang ? .. we speak about later


...we present , from the Cat I/239 tyc-main in the site CDS-Strasbourg , the relations between groups of stars with higth temperature ( hight frequency of emitted light ! ) and groups with lower temperature ; we use like the temperature ' index the values of B-V and so a low value ( or negative of B-V ) shows an hight temperature ; for each group we calcule the percentage (%) of negative relieved parallaxes in that goup ; the logics of the dark heavy bodies ( black dwarfes = dark matter ? ) foresees that a far body produces an hight deviation ( positive or negative ) because the deviation begins probabely from far-away , consequentely the red giant stars ( which have low temperature but are far-away ) produce an hight percentage (%) of negative parallaxes , while the nearest stars produce only positive parallaxes ; the stars groups are composed by around 200-2000 elements

stars with B-V -0.4 49% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially O,B and A stars)

stars with B-V -0.25&-0.3 47% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V -0.01&-0.018 42% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.2&0.198 40% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.5&0.498 41% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.9&0.898 46% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially red giants)

stars with B-V 1.9&1.85 44% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 2.7&2.2 44% of neg.plx.

stars with B-V 2.7 34% of neg. plx...
  #13  
Old August 12th 17, 10:08 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno sabato 7 gennaio 2017 11:08:29 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno martedì 27 dicembre 2016 10:38:25 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one.
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

  #14  
Old August 14th 17, 08:58 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno sabato 12 agosto 2017 11:08:52 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 7 gennaio 2017 11:08:29 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno martedì 27 dicembre 2016 10:38:25 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one.
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

IMHO He should truncated all measurements
with zero belonging to CI of the measurement (mean) value,
as with statistically insignificant difference to zero.

No. Provided that it is stated somewhere what the limits of
detection for the method actually is then the value determined even
if it is negative is more useful to later researchers than a "below
LOD" flag.

One thing is raw data, other thing is published processed data..
The limits should be available to a team of original data.

Such a limit can be estimated from the fluctuation around zero,
for stars where expected value is low enough.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

..thanks for contributions to Poutnik , to Mike , to Procarytic ..and
..
.. the old negative parallaxes could keep the errors ..but , i think
, if you repeated its , you could get a very different value nearer
to the rigth-one ...
.. the new parallaxes (HTS) have four significant numbers and if you
repeat , you get the same value ( so the man ,who wrote its , let me
to understand.. ) ( the measures of Bjmag , for galaxies , have the
same five significant numbers also if repeated during years ...) ...
the 'dramaticity' is that : the negative ones are truly negative
because there are intermediate bodies ... (so that man told) ..
.. in 'google astro' you can read the topic 'Link between dark
matter.. ' ...somebody proposes that the dark matter are powders ,
stones , little asteroides.. :so, for having the mass of dark matter
,probabely the sky should be not trasparent and unable to deviate
gravitationally - or rephrationally, then we see that - the ligth for
giving the negative parallaxes ...i suppose the black dwarfes and an
universe ' age many times longer than supposed , so trasparent and
able to deviate the light ...

I don't think any of this is close to reality. Parallax is a geometric
effect due to the earth's orbital motion around the Sun. It would not have
anything to do with refraction or gravitational lensing. If you are
thinking of some sort of photometric estimation of stellar distance, this is
called "photometric parallax" but it has nothing to do with geometry.

.. untill 200-300 y.l. , the white dwrfes are visible almost without
having neg parallaxes ... after it begins the problem.. and the warm
stars ( O,B,A) are deviating the ligth easierly , nearerly ... and
the warm galaxies are desparing easierly , for the same sigth' angle

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but early type stars have
small parallaxes because they are a long way from us. These are so small
that many measures are effectively zero so individual measures would be half
positive and half negative.

...
.. cutting some steps : in a time almost infinite , the light could
condense like matter in the outern fields and the black dwarfes could
be the fuel and engine of the galaxy..

This does not sound like any physics or astrophysics I know about..
Hand-waving is not the same as carefully reasoned analysis.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

..where a gradient of concetration of gas is , there is also a rephrational deviation of light ; if the gradient is round , there is a rephrational lens ... nothing of new-one
( home exp : put 10 cm. of water into an acquarius and also 5 kg. of salt ... after two days the salt ' water shall be clear and a part of salt remains insolute on the floor ..: a laser pointer shall go through the water showing a curved beam expecially if the light is blue or green and the distance is longer than 50 cm. ... the light spot shall go out from acquarius not circular but showing a little ellipse ...)
.. the atmosphere ' rephrational lens is the reason for observing the sun a little before the rising ..and little later the sunset ..... the bending of the light is in direction of the higther rephrational ' index = concentration of gas ..
.. for many people , it seems more difficult to believe=receive=understand=keep-in-mind that , there up in the sky , there are many heavy invisible bodies (black dwarves ?) deviating the light coming from the far-space , expecially if the light has an hight frequency ...

.. somebody remember the flyby anomaly = effect etc. etc. ..just good observations : that kind of anomalies reminds to us the misterious acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11.. and the cosmic redshift can be in the same family of phenomenas , i think .. later i shall return over that..
.. it happens often : you say same words .. many people , also clever people , read that words and they go to graze their sheeps = problems around that words , near and not so near ..
.. boys , i say : there up , almost surely there are many heavy small dark bodies ( black dwarfs ) that are deviating the light ..to the right and to the left side ...
1) the parallaxes negative are not errors because , if repeated , its give the same exact values..
2) beyond the 800-1000 y.l. ' distance , the negative parallaxes are so many that its are the 50%..
3) its are so many to explicate the dark matter because the bodies must have the weight of the sun , the dimension of few kms and cold=invisible to keep a large atmosphere ...
... so the age of universe can be much highter than suspected ... 1000 times more ? .. and the big bang ? .. we speak about later


..we present , from the Cat I/239 tyc-main in the site CDS-Strasbourg , the relations between groups of stars with higth temperature ( hight frequency of emitted light ! ) and groups with lower temperature ; we use like the temperature ' index the values of B-V and so a low value ( or negative of B-V ) shows an hight temperature ; for each group we calcule the percentage (%) of negative relieved parallaxes in that goup ; the logics of the dark heavy bodies ( black dwarfes = dark matter ? ) foresees that a far body produces an hight deviation ( positive or negative ) because the deviation begins probabely from far-away , consequentely the red giant stars ( which have low temperature but are far-away ) produce an hight percentage (%) of negative parallaxes , while the nearest stars produce only positive parallaxes ; the stars groups are composed by around 200-2000 elements

stars with B-V -0.4 49% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially O,B and A stars)

stars with B-V -0.25&-0.3 47% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V -0.01&-0.018 42% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.2&0.198 40% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.5&0.498 41% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.9&0.898 46% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially red giants)

stars with B-V 1.9&1.85 44% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 2.7&2.2 44% of neg.plx.

stars with B-V 2.7 34% of neg. plx...


...a curious exp for boys , but perhaps a tragic exp for the teachers and for the physics of the last century ..: you take a glass' box (acquarius?) long at least 80 cm. , then you put the box firmly at the V position ( a corner at earth ) , then you put 10-15 cm. of water , then you put the rock salt ( NaCl ; 1-2 kg. in pieces 3-5 mm. ) in the angular floor ..... after 5-7 days in the sea-bottom it must remain enough insolute salt and inside the box there is now a liquid with a vertical hight gradient of solution = hight rephrational gradient .. so a laser pointer -expecially if blue- cannot go throught the box and it shows a fine curve untill the floor ! and the spot is ellipsoidal !.. if you believe to the pictures , i can sent to you my exp 'execution ..ldogf (AT) yahoo (DOT) it ...
.. moral of the story : when a light meet a rephrational gradient goes towards the highter density ; an highter frequency ' light makes an highter deviation ( blue pointer !) .. the song can be long but this thing can be chained a) with the gravitational deviation of the light b) with the negative parallaxes c) with the dark matter d) with the age of universe and the big bang... step by step..


dear Fuller .. i had been along my life a simple seaman and to understand your mathematics is almost impossible for me ; much easier it should be for you to follow my steps ...: the neg. par. are an absurdity , you say , but its exist ... the HST reveiled that its are almost the 50% ! .. and the errors in this reliefments are less than 98% ( if you repeit the measurements , you get always the same datas ! .. the persons , who write the catalogues , told me that perhaps there , in the space , are many bodies that could deviate the light ... my rephrational exps show that the light is deviate more if with hight frequency and the same happens there in the sky .. a good large discussion around this facts could resolve many misteries ..
  #15  
Old August 21st 17, 06:15 PM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno lunedì 14 agosto 2017 09:58:18 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 12 agosto 2017 11:08:52 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 7 gennaio 2017 11:08:29 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno martedì 27 dicembre 2016 10:38:25 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one.
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

IMHO He should truncated all measurements
with zero belonging to CI of the measurement (mean) value,
as with statistically insignificant difference to zero.

No. Provided that it is stated somewhere what the limits of
detection for the method actually is then the value determined even
if it is negative is more useful to later researchers than a "below
LOD" flag.

One thing is raw data, other thing is published processed data.
The limits should be available to a team of original data.

Such a limit can be estimated from the fluctuation around zero,
for stars where expected value is low enough.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

..thanks for contributions to Poutnik , to Mike , to Procarytic ..and
..
.. the old negative parallaxes could keep the errors ..but , i think
, if you repeated its , you could get a very different value nearer
to the rigth-one ...
.. the new parallaxes (HTS) have four significant numbers and if you
repeat , you get the same value ( so the man ,who wrote its , let me
to understand.. ) ( the measures of Bjmag , for galaxies , have the
same five significant numbers also if repeated during years ....) ...
the 'dramaticity' is that : the negative ones are truly negative
because there are intermediate bodies ... (so that man told) ...
.. in 'google astro' you can read the topic 'Link between dark
matter.. ' ...somebody proposes that the dark matter are powders ,
stones , little asteroides.. :so, for having the mass of dark matter
,probabely the sky should be not trasparent and unable to deviate
gravitationally - or rephrationally, then we see that - the ligth for
giving the negative parallaxes ...i suppose the black dwarfes and an
universe ' age many times longer than supposed , so trasparent and
able to deviate the light ...

I don't think any of this is close to reality. Parallax is a geometric
effect due to the earth's orbital motion around the Sun. It would not have
anything to do with refraction or gravitational lensing. If you are
thinking of some sort of photometric estimation of stellar distance, this is
called "photometric parallax" but it has nothing to do with geometry.

.. untill 200-300 y.l. , the white dwrfes are visible almost without
having neg parallaxes ... after it begins the problem.. and the warm
stars ( O,B,A) are deviating the ligth easierly , nearerly .... and
the warm galaxies are desparing easierly , for the same sigth' angle

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but early type stars have
small parallaxes because they are a long way from us. These are so small
that many measures are effectively zero so individual measures would be half
positive and half negative.

...
.. cutting some steps : in a time almost infinite , the light could
condense like matter in the outern fields and the black dwarfes could
be the fuel and engine of the galaxy..

This does not sound like any physics or astrophysics I know about.
Hand-waving is not the same as carefully reasoned analysis.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

..where a gradient of concetration of gas is , there is also a rephrational deviation of light ; if the gradient is round , there is a rephrational lens ... nothing of new-one
( home exp : put 10 cm. of water into an acquarius and also 5 kg. of salt ... after two days the salt ' water shall be clear and a part of salt remains insolute on the floor ..: a laser pointer shall go through the water showing a curved beam expecially if the light is blue or green and the distance is longer than 50 cm. ... the light spot shall go out from acquarius not circular but showing a little ellipse ...)
.. the atmosphere ' rephrational lens is the reason for observing the sun a little before the rising ..and little later the sunset ..... the bending of the light is in direction of the higther rephrational ' index = concentration of gas ..
.. for many people , it seems more difficult to believe=receive=understand=keep-in-mind that , there up in the sky , there are many heavy invisible bodies (black dwarves ?) deviating the light coming from the far-space , expecially if the light has an hight frequency ...

.. somebody remember the flyby anomaly = effect etc. etc. ..just good observations : that kind of anomalies reminds to us the misterious acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11.. and the cosmic redshift can be in the same family of phenomenas , i think .. later i shall return over that..
.. it happens often : you say same words .. many people , also clever people , read that words and they go to graze their sheeps = problems around that words , near and not so near ..
.. boys , i say : there up , almost surely there are many heavy small dark bodies ( black dwarfs ) that are deviating the light ..to the right and to the left side ...
1) the parallaxes negative are not errors because , if repeated , its give the same exact values..
2) beyond the 800-1000 y.l. ' distance , the negative parallaxes are so many that its are the 50%..
3) its are so many to explicate the dark matter because the bodies must have the weight of the sun , the dimension of few kms and cold=invisible to keep a large atmosphere ...
... so the age of universe can be much highter than suspected ... 1000 times more ? .. and the big bang ? .. we speak about later

..we present , from the Cat I/239 tyc-main in the site CDS-Strasbourg , the relations between groups of stars with higth temperature ( hight frequency of emitted light ! ) and groups with lower temperature ; we use like the temperature ' index the values of B-V and so a low value ( or negative of B-V ) shows an hight temperature ; for each group we calcule the percentage (%) of negative relieved parallaxes in that goup ; the logics of the dark heavy bodies ( black dwarfes = dark matter ? ) foresees that a far body produces an hight deviation ( positive or negative ) because the deviation begins probabely from far-away , consequentely the red giant stars ( which have low temperature but are far-away ) produce an hight percentage (%) of negative parallaxes , while the nearest stars produce only positive parallaxes ; the stars groups are composed by around 200-2000 elements

stars with B-V -0.4 49% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially O,B and A stars)

stars with B-V -0.25&-0.3 47% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V -0.01&-0.018 42% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.2&0.198 40% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.5&0.498 41% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.9&0.898 46% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially red giants)

stars with B-V 1.9&1.85 44% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 2.7&2.2 44% of neg.plx.

stars with B-V 2.7 34% of neg. plx...


...a curious exp for boys , but perhaps a tragic exp for the teachers and for the physics of the last century ..: you take a glass' box (acquarius?) long at least 80 cm. , then you put the box firmly at the V position ( a corner at earth ) , then you put 10-15 cm. of water , then you put the rock salt ( NaCl ; 1-2 kg. in pieces 3-5 mm. ) in the angular floor ..... after 5-7 days in the sea-bottom it must remain enough insolute salt and inside the box there is now a liquid with a vertical hight gradient of solution = hight rephrational gradient .. so a laser pointer -expecially if blue- cannot go throught the box and it shows a fine curve untill the floor ! and the spot is ellipsoidal !.. if you believe to the pictures , i can sent to you my exp 'execution ..ldogf (AT) yahoo (DOT) it ...
.. moral of the story : when a light meet a rephrational gradient goes towards the highter density ; an highter frequency ' light makes an highter deviation ( blue pointer !) .. the song can be long but this thing can be chained a) with the gravitational deviation of the light b) with the negative parallaxes c) with the dark matter d) with the age of universe and the big bang... step by step..


dear Fuller .. i had been along my life a simple seaman and to understand your mathematics is almost impossible for me ; much easier it should be for you to follow my steps ...: the neg. par. are an absurdity , you say , but its exist ... the HST reveiled that its are almost the 50% ! .. and the errors in this reliefments are less than 98% ( if you repeit the measurements , you get always the same datas ! .. the persons , who write the catalogues , told me that perhaps there , in the space , are many bodies that could deviate the light ... my rephrational exps show that the light is deviate more if with hight frequency and the same happens there in the sky .. a good large discussion around this facts could resolve many misteries ..


.... i reached to put on-line (
www.francisoldog.tumblr.com ) the pictures of the curious exp of the curved beams ..
... relatively to the point a) :::
: in the old thread '' Rephrational or gravitational lens '' , the question is reported ; the Einstein formula does't foresee the influence of the frequency in deviation so it's mistaken or the gravity makes only a little part of the deviation ; the Eddington 'test could be contested ; of course , the gravity is related to the rephrational gradient , but is not the reason of deviation which depends also by the frequency like it's clear in the Tumblr ' pictures ; the rephrational gradients are normally around the stars and the galaxies ..
  #16  
Old September 12th 17, 10:00 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno lunedì 21 agosto 2017 19:15:38 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 14 agosto 2017 09:58:18 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 12 agosto 2017 11:08:52 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 7 gennaio 2017 11:08:29 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno martedì 27 dicembre 2016 10:38:25 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one.
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

IMHO He should truncated all measurements
with zero belonging to CI of the measurement (mean) value,
as with statistically insignificant difference to zero.

No. Provided that it is stated somewhere what the limits of
detection for the method actually is then the value determined even
if it is negative is more useful to later researchers than a "below
LOD" flag.

One thing is raw data, other thing is published processed data.
The limits should be available to a team of original data.

Such a limit can be estimated from the fluctuation around zero,
for stars where expected value is low enough.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

..thanks for contributions to Poutnik , to Mike , to Procarytic ..and
..
.. the old negative parallaxes could keep the errors ..but , i think
, if you repeated its , you could get a very different value nearer
to the rigth-one ...
.. the new parallaxes (HTS) have four significant numbers and if you
repeat , you get the same value ( so the man ,who wrote its , let me
to understand.. ) ( the measures of Bjmag , for galaxies , have the
same five significant numbers also if repeated during years ...) ...
the 'dramaticity' is that : the negative ones are truly negative
because there are intermediate bodies ... (so that man told) ..
.. in 'google astro' you can read the topic 'Link between dark
matter.. ' ...somebody proposes that the dark matter are powders ,
stones , little asteroides.. :so, for having the mass of dark matter
,probabely the sky should be not trasparent and unable to deviate
gravitationally - or rephrationally, then we see that - the ligth for
giving the negative parallaxes ...i suppose the black dwarfes and an
universe ' age many times longer than supposed , so trasparent and
able to deviate the light ...

I don't think any of this is close to reality. Parallax is a geometric
effect due to the earth's orbital motion around the Sun. It would not have
anything to do with refraction or gravitational lensing. If you are
thinking of some sort of photometric estimation of stellar distance, this is
called "photometric parallax" but it has nothing to do with geometry.

.. untill 200-300 y.l. , the white dwrfes are visible almost without
having neg parallaxes ... after it begins the problem.. and the warm
stars ( O,B,A) are deviating the ligth easierly , nearerly ... and
the warm galaxies are desparing easierly , for the same sigth' angle

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but early type stars have
small parallaxes because they are a long way from us. These are so small
that many measures are effectively zero so individual measures would be half
positive and half negative.

...
.. cutting some steps : in a time almost infinite , the light could
condense like matter in the outern fields and the black dwarfes could
be the fuel and engine of the galaxy..

This does not sound like any physics or astrophysics I know about.
Hand-waving is not the same as carefully reasoned analysis.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

..where a gradient of concetration of gas is , there is also a rephrational deviation of light ; if the gradient is round , there is a rephrational lens ... nothing of new-one
( home exp : put 10 cm. of water into an acquarius and also 5 kg. of salt ... after two days the salt ' water shall be clear and a part of salt remains insolute on the floor ..: a laser pointer shall go through the water showing a curved beam expecially if the light is blue or green and the distance is longer than 50 cm. ... the light spot shall go out from acquarius not circular but showing a little ellipse ...)
.. the atmosphere ' rephrational lens is the reason for observing the sun a little before the rising ..and little later the sunset ...... the bending of the light is in direction of the higther rephrational ' index = concentration of gas ..
.. for many people , it seems more difficult to believe=receive=understand=keep-in-mind that , there up in the sky , there are many heavy invisible bodies (black dwarves ?) deviating the light coming from the far-space , expecially if the light has an hight frequency ...

.. somebody remember the flyby anomaly = effect etc. etc. ..just good observations : that kind of anomalies reminds to us the misterious acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11.. and the cosmic redshift can be in the same family of phenomenas , i think .. later i shall return over that..
.. it happens often : you say same words .. many people , also clever people , read that words and they go to graze their sheeps = problems around that words , near and not so near ..
.. boys , i say : there up , almost surely there are many heavy small dark bodies ( black dwarfs ) that are deviating the light ..to the right and to the left side ...
1) the parallaxes negative are not errors because , if repeated , its give the same exact values..
2) beyond the 800-1000 y.l. ' distance , the negative parallaxes are so many that its are the 50%..
3) its are so many to explicate the dark matter because the bodies must have the weight of the sun , the dimension of few kms and cold=invisible to keep a large atmosphere ...
... so the age of universe can be much highter than suspected ... 1000 times more ? .. and the big bang ? .. we speak about later

..we present , from the Cat I/239 tyc-main in the site CDS-Strasbourg , the relations between groups of stars with higth temperature ( hight frequency of emitted light ! ) and groups with lower temperature ; we use like the temperature ' index the values of B-V and so a low value ( or negative of B-V ) shows an hight temperature ; for each group we calcule the percentage (%) of negative relieved parallaxes in that goup ; the logics of the dark heavy bodies ( black dwarfes = dark matter ? ) foresees that a far body produces an hight deviation ( positive or negative ) because the deviation begins probabely from far-away , consequentely the red giant stars ( which have low temperature but are far-away ) produce an hight percentage (%) of negative parallaxes , while the nearest stars produce only positive parallaxes ; the stars groups are composed by around 200-2000 elements

stars with B-V -0.4 49% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially O,B and A stars)

stars with B-V -0.25&-0.3 47% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V -0.01&-0.018 42% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.2&0.198 40% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.5&0.498 41% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.9&0.898 46% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially red giants)

stars with B-V 1.9&1.85 44% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 2.7&2.2 44% of neg.plx.

stars with B-V 2.7 34% of neg. plx...

...a curious exp for boys , but perhaps a tragic exp for the teachers and for the physics of the last century ..: you take a glass' box (acquarius?) long at least 80 cm. , then you put the box firmly at the V position ( a corner at earth ) , then you put 10-15 cm. of water , then you put the rock salt ( NaCl ; 1-2 kg. in pieces 3-5 mm. ) in the angular floor ..... after 5-7 days in the sea-bottom it must remain enough insolute salt and inside the box there is now a liquid with a vertical hight gradient of solution = hight rephrational gradient .. so a laser pointer -expecially if blue- cannot go throught the box and it shows a fine curve untill the floor ! and the spot is ellipsoidal !.. if you believe to the pictures , i can sent to you my exp 'execution ..ldogf (AT) yahoo (DOT) it ...
.. moral of the story : when a light meet a rephrational gradient goes towards the highter density ; an highter frequency ' light makes an highter deviation ( blue pointer !) .. the song can be long but this thing can be chained a) with the gravitational deviation of the light b) with the negative parallaxes c) with the dark matter d) with the age of universe and the big bang... step by step..


dear Fuller .. i had been along my life a simple seaman and to understand your mathematics is almost impossible for me ; much easier it should be for you to follow my steps ...: the neg. par. are an absurdity , you say , but its exist ... the HST reveiled that its are almost the 50% ! .. and the errors in this reliefments are less than 98% ( if you repeit the measurements , you get always the same datas ! .. the persons , who write the catalogues , told me that perhaps there , in the space , are many bodies that could deviate the light ... my rephrational exps show that the light is deviate more if with hight frequency and the same happens there in the sky .. a good large discussion around this facts could resolve many misteries ..


... i reached to put on-line (
www.francisoldog.tumblr.com ) the pictures of the curious exp of the curved beams ..
.. relatively to the point a) :::
: in the old thread '' Rephrational or gravitational lens '' , the question is reported ; the Einstein formula does't foresee the influence of the frequency in deviation so it's mistaken or the gravity makes only a little part of the deviation ; the Eddington 'test could be contested ; of course , the gravity is related to the rephrational gradient , but is not the reason of deviation which depends also by the frequency like it's clear in the Tumblr ' pictures ; the rephrational gradients are normally around the stars and the galaxies ..

.... many years ago i sent an email about the neg.ative ParaLlaXes to the persons who wrote the catalogues : they sayed ''..some errors.. some interposed bodies..''.. a PLX needs six mounths for measuring : our plxs can be pos..itive on beginning and become neg. later .. or its can stay pos or neg , but at different strange incoming rate .. so their words
.... many years ago i sent some emails to Halton Arp ( He wrote the book '' The controversy of the RedShift '') proposing that the temp.erature and the dist.ance could produce the RedShift.. he was answering that the luminosity could produce a part of the RS..
.... we have right , all, probabely .. now we go to show that .. but the word 'errors' is discussible because if you repeat the measure, you get the same value ..
.... we report a series of cat' elaborations ( i can teach you , how to get yourself!) .. on the beginning of years 2000 , the cat I/239 had the 49% of neg plx .. the last I/239 hip-main in cds-strasbourg has 906 neg and 9506 pos ; the neg plx are things to evoide ! ..: an hight plx means a nearer star ; a lower B-V value means an highter temp. ; a pos. Radial Velocity=RV means a velocity away from the sun ( a kind of RedShift ) ; a lower Visual-magnitude=V is a bigger L.uminosity ..
... the O B stars are a large stars family with hight temp and hight L.. : in this group , if we consider that:the
stars with V 0 and with B-V 0 are 233 with neg plx and 4756 with pos plx (1/20)
stars with V6 and with B-V-0.06 are 116 stars with neg plx and 1980 with pos plx (1/17)
stars with V6.13 with B-V-0.12 are 53 with neg plx and 532 with pos plx (1/10)
stars with V6.42 with B-V-0.18 are 15 with neg plx and 67 with pos plx (1/4.5)
.. so the temp. and the dist. increase the neg.plx. number
... the cat. V/145/sky 2kv gives also the Rad. Vel. for the OB bodies..
in stars with B-V0 , the pos. RV are 1402 and the neg-ones are 933 (1.5/1)
in stars with B-V-0.1, the pos RV are 744 and neg RV are 276 ( 2.5/1)
in stars with B-V-0.15, the pos RV are 321 and neg RV are 63 ( 5/1)
in stars with B-V-0.2, the pos RV are 42 and neg RV are 7 (6/1)
... the K stars is a family of cold bodies ( like the red giants!); in the same V/145 we have:
the K stars with pos RV are 1762 , with neg RV are 1766 ; so normally the number of VR are distribuited equally in pos and neg because casually !
.... so the stars 'hight temp. (or B-V ) clearly makes also the pos Rad Vel !
... recently it's arrived also a new cat , which makes obsolete the old III/235B (the dwarf cat ) : B/wd .. it presents 188 dwarves with pos plx , B-V, RV .. a dwarf star is very small, but very hot and near : its light has a very hight specific luminosity .. so :
... in 188 totally only 42 have a neg RV
... ordered for temp (B-V), in the hottest half part there are only 12 stars with a neg RV
... in the hottest 30 stars , only one has a neg RV
... in the coldest 30 stars , 13 dwarves have a neg RV
... ordered for dist (plx), the half with farest star has 63 dwarves with pos RV
.... in past, somebody spoke that the hight RV of dwarves were depending by its great gravity...but the overshowed means that the gravity influence is very little in RV formation ..
.... the true reason of the main contribution to the RV(and to the redshift) is the effect of the light' temp ( like i was suspected), light density ( like suspected by H. Arp) , of the distance ( like Hubble suspicion) throught the Raman scattering ... while the neg plx is a phenomenon caused mainly by the intermediated cold stars ( like suggested by the cat' writers) in condition of large dist and hight temp...
  #17  
Old August 19th 18, 10:00 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno martedì 12 settembre 2017 11:00:57 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 21 agosto 2017 19:15:38 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno lunedì 14 agosto 2017 09:58:18 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 12 agosto 2017 11:08:52 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno sabato 7 gennaio 2017 11:08:29 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno martedì 27 dicembre 2016 10:38:25 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno domenica 18 dicembre 2016 12:16:55 UTC+1, ha scritto:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 14:43:54 UTC+1, Mike Dworetsky ha scritto:
wrote:
Il giorno mercoledì 14 dicembre 2016 08:44:15 UTC+1, Poutnik ha
scritto:
Dne 13/12/2016 v 09:44 Martin Brown napsal(a):
On 12/12/2016 06:42, Poutnik wrote:


For exactly the reason I stated in the part of my reply that you
snipped: Negative values are unphysical, but form the part of the
statistical distribution of values that happen to lie below zero
when the mean is close to zero.

Positive and negative noise values are equally unphysical.

But you only know for certain that the negative values are
unphysical the positive ones could be real to within some
measurement error. Later more refined experiments may be able to
narrow down the error bars.

Later experiment can. But I speak in context of this one..
These small values are not statistically justified,
as there is high probability it is just a noice.



Imagine that someone plotted a graph of, say, a spectrum (with
low S/N), and wherever the plotted flux was below zero, they
simply truncated it. Would you be happy with that? I wouldn't.

IMHO He should truncated all measurements
with zero belonging to CI of the measurement (mean) value,
as with statistically insignificant difference to zero..

No. Provided that it is stated somewhere what the limits of
detection for the method actually is then the value determined even
if it is negative is more useful to later researchers than a "below
LOD" flag.

One thing is raw data, other thing is published processed data.
The limits should be available to a team of original data.

Such a limit can be estimated from the fluctuation around zero,
for stars where expected value is low enough.

--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

..thanks for contributions to Poutnik , to Mike , to Procarytic ..and
..
.. the old negative parallaxes could keep the errors ..but , i think
, if you repeated its , you could get a very different value nearer
to the rigth-one ...
.. the new parallaxes (HTS) have four significant numbers and if you
repeat , you get the same value ( so the man ,who wrote its , let me
to understand.. ) ( the measures of Bjmag , for galaxies , have the
same five significant numbers also if repeated during years ...) ...
the 'dramaticity' is that : the negative ones are truly negative
because there are intermediate bodies ... (so that man told) ..
.. in 'google astro' you can read the topic 'Link between dark
matter.. ' ...somebody proposes that the dark matter are powders ,
stones , little asteroides.. :so, for having the mass of dark matter
,probabely the sky should be not trasparent and unable to deviate
gravitationally - or rephrationally, then we see that - the ligth for
giving the negative parallaxes ...i suppose the black dwarfes and an
universe ' age many times longer than supposed , so trasparent and
able to deviate the light ...

I don't think any of this is close to reality. Parallax is a geometric
effect due to the earth's orbital motion around the Sun. It would not have
anything to do with refraction or gravitational lensing. If you are
thinking of some sort of photometric estimation of stellar distance, this is
called "photometric parallax" but it has nothing to do with geometry.

.. untill 200-300 y.l. , the white dwrfes are visible almost without
having neg parallaxes ... after it begins the problem.. and the warm
stars ( O,B,A) are deviating the ligth easierly , nearerly ... and
the warm galaxies are desparing easierly , for the same sigth' angle

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying but early type stars have
small parallaxes because they are a long way from us. These are so small
that many measures are effectively zero so individual measures would be half
positive and half negative.

...
.. cutting some steps : in a time almost infinite , the light could
condense like matter in the outern fields and the black dwarfes could
be the fuel and engine of the galaxy..

This does not sound like any physics or astrophysics I know about.
Hand-waving is not the same as carefully reasoned analysis.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

..where a gradient of concetration of gas is , there is also a rephrational deviation of light ; if the gradient is round , there is a rephrational lens ... nothing of new-one
( home exp : put 10 cm. of water into an acquarius and also 5 kg. of salt ... after two days the salt ' water shall be clear and a part of salt remains insolute on the floor ..: a laser pointer shall go through the water showing a curved beam expecially if the light is blue or green and the distance is longer than 50 cm. ... the light spot shall go out from acquarius not circular but showing a little ellipse ...)
.. the atmosphere ' rephrational lens is the reason for observing the sun a little before the rising ..and little later the sunset ...... the bending of the light is in direction of the higther rephrational ' index = concentration of gas ..
.. for many people , it seems more difficult to believe=receive=understand=keep-in-mind that , there up in the sky , there are many heavy invisible bodies (black dwarves ?) deviating the light coming from the far-space , expecially if the light has an hight frequency ...

.. somebody remember the flyby anomaly = effect etc. etc. ..just good observations : that kind of anomalies reminds to us the misterious acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11.. and the cosmic redshift can be in the same family of phenomenas , i think .. later i shall return over that..
.. it happens often : you say same words .. many people , also clever people , read that words and they go to graze their sheeps = problems around that words , near and not so near ..
.. boys , i say : there up , almost surely there are many heavy small dark bodies ( black dwarfs ) that are deviating the light ..to the right and to the left side ...
1) the parallaxes negative are not errors because , if repeated , its give the same exact values..
2) beyond the 800-1000 y.l. ' distance , the negative parallaxes are so many that its are the 50%..
3) its are so many to explicate the dark matter because the bodies must have the weight of the sun , the dimension of few kms and cold=invisible to keep a large atmosphere ...
... so the age of universe can be much highter than suspected .... 1000 times more ? .. and the big bang ? .. we speak about later

..we present , from the Cat I/239 tyc-main in the site CDS-Strasbourg , the relations between groups of stars with higth temperature ( hight frequency of emitted light ! ) and groups with lower temperature ; we use like the temperature ' index the values of B-V and so a low value ( or negative of B-V ) shows an hight temperature ; for each group we calcule the percentage (%) of negative relieved parallaxes in that goup ; the logics of the dark heavy bodies ( black dwarfes = dark matter ? ) foresees that a far body produces an hight deviation ( positive or negative ) because the deviation begins probabely from far-away , consequentely the red giant stars ( which have low temperature but are far-away ) produce an hight percentage (%) of negative parallaxes , while the nearest stars produce only positive parallaxes ; the stars groups are composed by around 200-2000 elements

stars with B-V -0.4 49% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially O,B and A stars)

stars with B-V -0.25&-0.3 47% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V -0.01&-0.018 42% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.2&0.198 40% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.5&0.498 41% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 0.9&0.898 46% of neg. plx. (group of stars containing expecially red giants)

stars with B-V 1.9&1.85 44% of neg. plx.

stars with B-V 2.7&2.2 44% of neg.plx.

stars with B-V 2.7 34% of neg. plx...

...a curious exp for boys , but perhaps a tragic exp for the teachers and for the physics of the last century ..: you take a glass' box (acquarius?) long at least 80 cm. , then you put the box firmly at the V position ( a corner at earth ) , then you put 10-15 cm. of water , then you put the rock salt ( NaCl ; 1-2 kg. in pieces 3-5 mm. ) in the angular floor ..... after 5-7 days in the sea-bottom it must remain enough insolute salt and inside the box there is now a liquid with a vertical hight gradient of solution = hight rephrational gradient .. so a laser pointer -expecially if blue- cannot go throught the box and it shows a fine curve untill the floor ! and the spot is ellipsoidal !.. if you believe to the pictures , i can sent to you my exp 'execution ..ldogf (AT) yahoo (DOT) it ...
.. moral of the story : when a light meet a rephrational gradient goes towards the highter density ; an highter frequency ' light makes an highter deviation ( blue pointer !) .. the song can be long but this thing can be chained a) with the gravitational deviation of the light b) with the negative parallaxes c) with the dark matter d) with the age of universe and the big bang... step by step..

dear Fuller .. i had been along my life a simple seaman and to understand your mathematics is almost impossible for me ; much easier it should be for you to follow my steps ...: the neg. par. are an absurdity , you say , but its exist ... the HST reveiled that its are almost the 50% ! .. and the errors in this reliefments are less than 98% ( if you repeit the measurements , you get always the same datas ! .. the persons , who write the catalogues , told me that perhaps there , in the space , are many bodies that could deviate the light ... my rephrational exps show that the light is deviate more if with hight frequency and the same happens there in the sky .. a good large discussion around this facts could resolve many misteries ..


... i reached to put on-line (
www.francisoldog.tumblr.com ) the pictures of the curious exp of the curved beams ..
.. relatively to the point a) :::
: in the old thread '' Rephrational or gravitational lens '' , the question is reported ; the Einstein formula does't foresee the influence of the frequency in deviation so it's mistaken or the gravity makes only a little part of the deviation ; the Eddington 'test could be contested ; of course , the gravity is related to the rephrational gradient , but is not the reason of deviation which depends also by the frequency like it's clear in the Tumblr ' pictures ; the rephrational gradients are normally around the stars and the galaxies ..

... many years ago i sent an email about the neg.ative ParaLlaXes to the persons who wrote the catalogues : they sayed ''..some errors.. some interposed bodies..''.. a PLX needs six mounths for measuring : our plxs can be pos.itive on beginning and become neg. later .. or its can stay pos or neg , but at different strange incoming rate .. so their words
... many years ago i sent some emails to Halton Arp ( He wrote the book '' The controversy of the RedShift '') proposing that the temp.erature and the dist.ance could produce the RedShift.. he was answering that the luminosity could produce a part of the RS..
... we have right , all, probabely .. now we go to show that .. but the word 'errors' is discussible because if you repeat the measure, you get the same value ..
... we report a series of cat' elaborations ( i can teach you , how to get yourself!) .. on the beginning of years 2000 , the cat I/239 had the 49% of neg plx .. the last I/239 hip-main in cds-strasbourg has 906 neg and 9506 pos ; the neg plx are things to evoide ! ..: an hight plx means a nearer star ; a lower B-V value means an highter temp. ; a pos. Radial Velocity=RV means a velocity away from the sun ( a kind of RedShift ) ; a lower Visual-magnitude=V is a bigger L.uminosity ..
.. the O B stars are a large stars family with hight temp and hight L.. : in this group , if we consider that:the
stars with V 0 and with B-V 0 are 233 with neg plx and 4756 with pos plx (1/20)
stars with V6 and with B-V-0.06 are 116 stars with neg plx and 1980 with pos plx (1/17)
stars with V6.13 with B-V-0.12 are 53 with neg plx and 532 with pos plx (1/10)
stars with V6.42 with B-V-0.18 are 15 with neg plx and 67 with pos plx (1/4.5)
.. so the temp. and the dist. increase the neg.plx. number
.. the cat. V/145/sky 2kv gives also the Rad. Vel. for the OB bodies..
in stars with B-V0 , the pos. RV are 1402 and the neg-ones are 933 (1.5/1)
in stars with B-V-0.1, the pos RV are 744 and neg RV are 276 ( 2.5/1)
in stars with B-V-0.15, the pos RV are 321 and neg RV are 63 ( 5/1)
in stars with B-V-0.2, the pos RV are 42 and neg RV are 7 (6/1)
.. the K stars is a family of cold bodies ( like the red giants!); in the same V/145 we have:
the K stars with pos RV are 1762 , with neg RV are 1766 ; so normally the number of VR are distribuited equally in pos and neg because casually !
... so the stars 'hight temp. (or B-V ) clearly makes also the pos Rad Vel !
.. recently it's arrived also a new cat , which makes obsolete the old III/235B (the dwarf cat ) : B/wd .. it presents 188 dwarves with pos plx , B-V, RV .. a dwarf star is very small, but very hot and near : its light has a very hight specific luminosity .. so :
.. in 188 totally only 42 have a neg RV
.. ordered for temp (B-V), in the hottest half part there are only 12 stars with a neg RV
.. in the hottest 30 stars , only one has a neg RV
.. in the coldest 30 stars , 13 dwarves have a neg RV
.. ordered for dist (plx), the half with farest star has 63 dwarves with pos RV
... in past, somebody spoke that the hight RV of dwarves were depending by its great gravity...but the overshowed means that the gravity influence is very little in RV formation ..
... the true reason of the main contribution to the RV(and to the redshift) is the effect of the light' temp ( like i was suspected), light density ( like suspected by H. Arp) , of the distance ( like Hubble suspicion) throught the Raman scattering ... while the neg plx is a phenomenon caused mainly by the intermediated cold stars ( like suggested by the cat' writers) in condition of large dist and hight temp...


.... perhaps nobody understood what i said untill now .. a minimal question : are the negative parallaxes existing ? how is it possible ?
  #20  
Old December 16th 18, 09:14 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 73
Default 1) the negative paraxes...

Il giorno domenica 26 agosto 2018 19:01:58 UTC+2, ha scritto:
Il giorno martedì 21 agosto 2018 19:27:44 UTC+2, Steve Willner ha scritto:
In article ,
writes:
... perhaps nobody understood what i said untill now


Yes, your writing is very hard to understand.

.. a minimal question =
: are the negative parallaxes existing ? how is it possible ?


That has been answered many times before. If the parallax is small,
measurement errors can produce negative values. In essence one is
measuring a _difference_ in stellar positions. If the star doesn't
move, the position change one measures can equally well be either
positive or negative. What the measurement actually gives, knowing
the uncertainties, is a lower limit on distance.

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

Cambridge, MA 02138 USA


.. this converation is continuing 'google group sci relativity'


.. again over the neg plx .. : in a domestic experience if you go to the rigth side , all the objects go to the rigth side , as regard to an intermediate fixed point ( the quantity of this angle is depending to the distance and it's called 'parallax' ) ; in the sky , the 60% of objects go correctly to the rigth-pos plx!- and the 40% go to the left side-neg plx!- ( so from the reliefs of HST ( 0.5 datas ) and of GAIA ( 1500 datas ) ).. if the observed objects are enough far , the 50% go to the rigth and the 50% go to the left .. many astronomers know that , it's a kind of powder to hide under the carpet ..
... if we don't resolve this simple enigmas , to try to build some theories could mouve some smiles..
 




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
negative energy kurt stocklmeir Astronomy Misc 0 October 30th 14 09:04 PM
we're negative 4HEAD[_3_] Misc 8 July 26th 13 04:37 AM
negative mass brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 2 September 30th 05 11:21 AM
Bz now negative!! Brian O'Halloran Amateur Astronomy 4 October 31st 03 10:30 PM
Bz now negative!! Brian O'Halloran UK Astronomy 3 October 29th 03 08:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.