Star size vs distance?

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Star size vs distance?

Unread postby supermoon » Tue Jan 10, 2017 7:12 pm

Do any of you know if the size of the star relates/correlates with the distances to its closest neighboring stars?

If you know any databases of galactic information - with details like this - then I'd love to be able to run the numbers on it!
supermoon
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:31 pm

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby neilwilkes » Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:34 am

Not heard of anything - but the validity of such a database if it did exist would have to be dependent on our assumptions about stellar distances being accurate.
You will never get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.
User avatar
neilwilkes
 
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 4:30 am
Location: London, England

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby D_Archer » Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:58 am

supermoon wrote:Do any of you know if the size of the star relates/correlates with the distances to its closest neighboring stars?


Correlates how?

If you know any databases of galactic information - with details like this - then I'd love to be able to run the numbers on it!


There is Uranometria, but it only charts the stars etc and is forgotten.

Mainstream has databases for distances but they could be wrong completely. Their error margins are too large.

Best alternative idea is this > http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Distance-to-the-stars.htm

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby oz93666 » Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:23 am

D_Archer wrote:Best alternative idea is this > http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Distance-to-the-stars.htm
l


Excellent link ...will take sometime to digest ...
oz93666
 
Posts: 189
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 3:12 pm

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby moses » Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:14 pm

I have been saying that the stars are a lot closer than the calculated value, for 10 years or more. The article says that it is the bending of light from the very distant stars by the observed star, whereas I suspect that the light bends towards the Sun as it approaches the Earth. Either bending will do.

The evidence in the article is fine, but I have read that the stars would have to be enormously bright for us to see them at the calculated distances. I have not checked this today though. The consequences of much closer stars are mainly a lot less energy needed for novas, etc.

Cheers,
Mo
moses
 
Posts: 1026
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 3:18 pm
Location: Adelaide

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby D_Archer » Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:17 am

I found this funny PDF > http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~sheinis/ast103/ast103_12.ppt.pdf

What you see is that Mainstream ideas about size/distance/hot/cold is all over the place*, they have to call in binaries to fiddle the data until it matches what they want it to be.

*
Most of the brightest stars in the sky are
a) relatively hot main-sequence stars that are relatively
close to the Sun.
b) relatively cool giant stars that are relatively close to
the Sun.
c) relatively cool main-sequence stars that are relatively far
from the Sun.
d) relatively cool main-sequence stars that are relatively
close to the Sun.
e) giant stars and relatively hot main sequence stars


eh? sure.

More logical would be that stars start out one size and lose mass, get smaller and cool and dim. (as per GTSM).

EU has no real evolution of stars, but does have the z-pinch, it is observed that in our Galaxy, the Birkeland currents are roughly the same width so probably the z-pinches produce the same size stars.. but could still depend on how much matter is present to draw in and compress from the surrounding space... the pinch compacts the new star (white dwarf), after the pinch subsides, the star would likely grow in size and shine blue (due to loss of compression/magnetic pinch), that is the largest and brightest phase.

Regards,
Daniel
- Shoot Forth Thunder -
User avatar
D_Archer
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: Sat Apr 18, 2009 4:01 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby willendure » Tue Jan 17, 2017 3:33 am

supermoon wrote:Do any of you know if the size of the star relates/correlates with the distances to its closest neighboring stars?


I think you could figure this out from the distribution on the main sequence graph.

As you go up the graph, stars are bigger, down the graph they are smaller. But how many are big, and how many are small? Plot a histogram of size versus frequency - this is what I mean by the distribution of star sizes.

If star size was related to nearest neighbour, I think this would tend to induce a classic 1/f distribution in the data. I say this, because the 1/f distribution is very common when looking at natural phenomena that are influenced by neighbourly proximity. For example, the size of magnetic spin cells in the Ising model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-la ... sing_model

A bit of a hand-wavy answer but I feel it is intuitively correct. Do star sizes follow a 1/f distribution?
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby supermoon » Wed Jan 18, 2017 2:46 pm

Why hasn't anyone made an "architecture of the observable universe" diagram with the alternative calculations for distance between stars to show how clumpy/uniform the universe is according to that theory?

If anyone wants to, then I'm happy to help...
supermoon
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:31 pm

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby supermoon » Wed Jan 18, 2017 3:25 pm

willendure wrote:
supermoon wrote:Do any of you know if the size of the star relates/correlates with the distances to its closest neighboring stars?


I think you could figure this out from the distribution on the main sequence graph.

As you go up the graph, stars are bigger, down the graph they are smaller. But how many are big, and how many are small? Plot a histogram of size versus frequency - this is what I mean by the distribution of star sizes.

If star size was related to nearest neighbour, I think this would tend to induce a classic 1/f distribution in the data. I say this, because the 1/f distribution is very common when looking at natural phenomena that are influenced by neighbourly proximity. For example, the size of magnetic spin cells in the Ising model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square-la ... sing_model

A bit of a hand-wavy answer but I feel it is intuitively correct. Do star sizes follow a 1/f distribution?


I don't think it would be so obvious because the 1/f distribution would not be between a star and its neighbor - but a star and all of its neighbors - right?
supermoon
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:31 pm

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby nick c » Wed Jan 18, 2017 6:18 pm

Do any of you know if the size of the star relates/correlates with the distances to its closest neighboring stars?

If you know any databases of galactic information - with details like this - then I'd love to be able to run the numbers on it!

Stars range from tiny glowworms (such as red and brown dwarfs) to average hand held flashlights (Sun like) to enormous searchlights (Rigel, Betelgeuse, etc.) When we look at the night sky we see a preponderance of searchlights at great distances mixed with some flashlights nearby. The glowworms are not visible to the naked eye. Proxima Centauri is an example of a glowworm red dwarf, the closest known star to the Sun yet it is not visible to a naked eye observer.
Of the 10 closest stars to the Sun only two (three if you count Alpha Centauri twice, since it is a double star) are visible to the naked eye. So 7 out of 10 of the nearest stars are too dim to see without optical aid.

Do we know if the local distribution of brown and red dwarfs is typical?
Can we assume that these small glowworms are the most common stars in the galaxy?
User avatar
nick c
Moderator
 
Posts: 2241
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby willendure » Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:20 am

nick c wrote:Of the 10 closest stars to the Sun only two (three if you count Alpha Centauri twice, since it is a double star) are visible to the naked eye. So 7 out of 10 of the nearest stars are too dim to see without optical aid.

Do we know if the local distribution of brown and red dwarfs is typical?
Can we assume that these small glowworms are the most common stars in the galaxy?


If 7/10 are of the smallest kind - that would be (very thin) evidence of a 1/f distribution. A 1/f has lots of the smallest kind, and fewest of the largest kind.
willendure
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 8:29 am

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby webolife » Thu Jan 19, 2017 11:20 am

Up to ~100,000 star distances are close enough to measure by parallax from an Earth-orbiting satellite with current technology -- only a few hundred by an Earth-based observer, due to atmospheric aberration. These distances are directly determined by trigonometry in parsecs [from parallax-seconds, ie. seconds of arc] as seen from the observing station at points in Earth orbit that are 6 months apart. The smaller the parallax, the larger the distance. A parsec is equivalent to about 3 x 10^13 km. The nearest star, Proxima Centauri, has a parallax angle of ~.77 seconds so 1/.77 = ~1.3 parsecs or ~ 3.9 x 10^13 km. The Hipparcos satellite was able to measure parallax distances up to about 1000 pc, or ~3 x 10^16 km. That's a good ways out, though still in our general neighborhood with respect to our position in the Milky Way. Then astronomers use spectral data and brightness comparisons [data used to create the HR diagram] from the better studied closer stars to determine "absolute" magnitude, sizes, etc. and infer from decreasing intensity ["relative" magnitude] distances to stars further out. Beyond that, distances to other galaxies, etc. rely on Doppler-based assumptions of red-shift. At this point astronomers go kinda out of control :?, with "anomalous" red-shift data being accounted for by all sorts of imaginary and phantasmic creatures [you know them: WIMPS, BHs, dark energy, etc.] leaving room for huge differences in stellar distance determinations depending on which physics paradigm you stand. Then you have to invoke some Kepler and Newtonian gravitation math to determine how close proximate stars actually are to each other... over the last century, it has been determined that the greater fraction of stars are members of multiple star systems, some with similar [1.1/.9] star sizes, eg. Alpha Centauri A and B; and some with vastly different star sizes, for example Sirius A and B, where A is 1000's of times more massive. Both of these star systems are very close to Sol, and contain widely varying sizes/masses of stars, leading me to conclude that stellar size and separation are not well correlated.
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby supermoon » Thu Jan 19, 2017 3:13 pm

The how are these "zoomed out" diagrams of the universe made? Basically most stars in our galaxy aren't known by their relative distances to each other - and the rest of the galaxies are far enough away to plot them with respect to our galaxy, in relative distances?
supermoon
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:31 pm

Re: Star size vs distance?

Unread postby webolife » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:15 pm

Try to rephrase that? I don't understand your questions...
Truth extends beyond the border of self-limiting science. Free discourse among opposing viewpoints draws the open-minded away from the darkness of inevitable bias and nearer to the light of universal reality.
User avatar
webolife
 
Posts: 2395
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 2:01 pm
Location: Seattle


Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest