Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

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: bboyer, MGmirkin

Millennium
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am

Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by Millennium » Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:51 am

haku Electric All,

have been overwhelmed last two years with the flood of neolithic Songline wisdom from the studies of our 'Chumash' archaeological site studies at Matilija Megaliths, the founding of Matilija University, my readings (getting up to speed in a new field) in ArchaeoAstronomy, EthnoAstronomy, etc -- and my researches, analysis and writings regarding our recent approximately 413,000 Year Human Development Cycle (mirrored in our helical co-propagation cycle relationship with the Sirius-UMa Stream and the Ursa Major Moving Group), and the lesser resonant astro- and geo-physical cycles (mirroring our helical co-propagation rhythm with Alpha Centaurus and our other local star systems).

the SCALE of the 'Local Fluff' of 'Local Cloud', the actual distance of our neighboring and Moving Groups, has been a central focus of my Astrophysics work the last two-plus decades -- evolving out of the "factor of ten" 'apparent discrepancy' discussions in the whole world astrophysics regarding the greater cosmic scales which Halton Arp, myself and many others have drawn attention to.

the convergence of my research and writings in the '80s and '90s was that -- for the local scale of the Orion Arm and the Local Bubble -- the scale error, 'scale inflation', was by about a factor of two to four. and my focused attentions comparing the data from the greater geophysics, anthropology, archaeology and musicology fields has only reinforced that scale range -- from which I now have a draft refined figure, to two significant digits, of 2.5 -- a 2.5 scale inflation for the local stellar distances, currently determined by stellar parallax measurements of the reigning global Astrophysics institutions.

Image

[the public literature/discussions of Parallax distance determinations focus on the position change of the Earth, in its orbit about the Sun, between the times of the two measurements of the relative position of the target star, against the position of a background star. the obvious error lies in the much GREATER position displacements of the Sun and the background star, which are moving at hundreds of kilometers per second, compared to the Earth's motion with respect to the Sun of only 30 km/sec. thus, for ACTUAL, determinations of the Parallax distance of Alpha Centauri or Sirius, for example, there are FOUR position variables in the equation, for the Earth, Sun, target star and background star -- not simply the one or two of the Earth and the target star.]

this scale factor would result in a distance measurement from Sol, the Sun, to Alpha Centauri being multiplied frm 1.7 lightyears to 4.2 lightyears, and to Sirius, multiplied from 3.4 lightyears to 8.6 lightyears. [in round numbers, it would be accurate enough to say that one could simply transpose the published distances of our local stars from parsecs to lightyears to find the corrected distance determinations!]

so the question I have for our Electic Universe Forum discussion colleagues is where should we be looking in the literature and international committee debates as to the methods and gauges used for determing what numbers will be published in the Gliese, Yale, Tycho, Hipparcos and other Catalogues? specifically what are the correct keywords for the discussions of the gauges and formulas used for Parallax determination? Parallax qauges? Parallax formalisms? Parallax error? Parallax multiplier? Parallax discrepancy? 'Apparent Parallax discrepancy'?

and which are the international Astrophysics committees that determine the gauges and formalisms for 'Parallax determinism'?

[here is where I am currently assembling my 'Parallax Twain' related online discussions of the last couple of years ... http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 4656414525

Millennium
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by Millennium » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:47 am

Hipparcos Science Team. including "Astrometric Results Merging Group" ...
http://www.rssd.esa.int/index.php?proje ... ntributors

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:43 am

Howdy Mill, I read this Ebook and as Michael said the authors arguments are brilliant and simple.
It seems it must be downloaded so I can not at the moment tell you the authors name. It was free when I read it and I am pretty sure it still is. Anyhow you prolly should have a look. In fact I think I will read it again and get back to you with a buttload of stoopid questions.
Re: Distance Calculations


Posts: 473
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm
Stars Are Thousands Of Times Closer Than They Appear

Postby michael.suede » Wed Mar 02, 2011 4:50 pm
I stumbled across the e-book in my web surfing recently and was nearly knocked out of my chair with the arguments presented.

Seriously, the arguments are brilliant and simple.

http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm

The author takes a long hard look at just how far away we know we can see compared to how far away we are told we can see using telescopic enhancements and concludes that there is no possible way stars are as far from us as we are told by the mainstream establishment.

The author follows up with a look at how parallaxes are calculated and concludes they are also grossly in error.

Since we know red shift does not equate to distance, this is some major icing on the cake.

If a lot of you download the ebook, his site will run out of bandwidth for the day. So if you get a message saying the site is out of bandwidth come back and try it tomorrow.

If the authors calculations are correct, which they appear to be, then the stars are within light DAYS of us, not light years.

Of course the author is confused about what constitutes stars in the end because he is unfamiliar with EU theory, however his depictions of brightness and parallaxes seem spot on. There is just no way we should be able to see "billions of light years" into space.

Here is a pdf version of the ebook, hosted from Google:
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... ects=0&d=1
I enjoyed it the first time though but then again I am so open minded my brains have fallen out.

Peace
JD

Millennium
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by Millennium » Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:30 am

thanks JD,

however the first link you provided http://astronomyinformation.org/astronomy/1.htm
contains NO discussion of Stellar Parallax distance determination methods.

your 2nd link -- "Revolution in Astronomy" by Bahram Katirai -- wasn't entered completely.
Here is the full link:

https://sites.google.com/site/cosmology ... ects=0&d=1

I skimmed it, but there are no discussions of state-of-the art satellite Stellar Parallax
determination technologies, or formalisms, or qauges -- or the committees doing same --
specifically the Hipparcos Star Catalog.

[There are some simple discussions of old ground-based telescope photographic techniques.]

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by GaryN » Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:23 pm

I skimmed it, but there are no discussions of state-of-the art satellite Stellar Parallax
determination technologies, or formalisms, or qauges -- or the committees doing same --
specifically the Hipparcos Star Catalog.
Having spent quite a lot of time looking into the instruments used in
many aspects of astrophysics, I must say I am impressed. My background
in in instrumentation, though the accuracy of their instruments is far
superior to anything I ever worked on.
I do believe that for the most part, the structures they 'see', even though
we are still very limited as to the number of wavelengths we can image,
are accurate. The distance, and hence size, I am in no way convinced of.
However, I was wondering with Hipparcos, if we assume that the instruments
are indeed accurate to a very high degree, and we took all the measurements
including those with negative parallax as being correct, would, or could we,
come up with a different physical model for all the objects within parallax
method observation?
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Millennium
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by Millennium » Mon Oct 17, 2011 2:23 pm

thanks for helping us along, Gary!

the wonderful thing about having a long lifetime to work on such projects,
particularly with computers to make the daily, weekly, monthly, yearly
and decade-spanning revisions easy
-- and now the whole world internet for
networking in and adding to individual databases -- the wholesale transparency
of the private, proprietary, advantage-seeking, authority-preserving, system of
'peer' science and engineering can be seen by any truth-seeking student with the
mental ability to integrate knowledge and experience over even just a few years.

Image

thus anyone who has studied a little astronomy or astrophysics will look at this
fraudulent (standard, universal) image of 'Stellar Parallax' distance
determination
-- and will laugh -- knowing that:

1) the velocity of the Sun, and hence distance traveled between two successive
data points, is measured in hundreds of kilometers per second against our galactic background,
and tens of km/sec against our local background stars; 2) the 'distant' background stars
for the measurements are also moving at hundreds of km/sec with respect to our galactic
background, and in the range of plus-or-minus a hundred km/sec with respect to each other
and the Sun; 3) the image, showing the background stars NOT moving or changing their
position relationships, is equally (ludicrously) false, as they will also move and change their
relative positions, as a function of distance -- just as does the target, candidate, star whose
distance we are allegedly determining; 4) though many of the local stars do move together
in local streams & groups, there are many substreams within the local Sirius-UMa Stream,
which has been determined NOT to be a member of the several times more distant Ursa
Major Moving Group
, so we KNOW for a fact that the local stars do not have the same
velocities with respect to each other, neither in magnitude or direction; and 5) now
scratching my head, will have to check my notes again, the Sun is not even considered
to be part of the VERY local Sirius-UMa Stream
, only being loosely associated with
it for the last few millions of years or so [again, maybe with help from our Electric
Friends here, we can nail down all these (soft) facts of current Astrophysics knowledge
and opinion.]

Image

which is to say the 'Local Fluff' or 'Local Cloud' which includes the Sun and Sirius is
separated by several times it's diameter from the larger Ursa Major Moving Group,
and the the Fluff is probably not a group or association in itself, simply a current
picture of the local region around the Sun, of which Sirius, from the SIrius UMa
stream, is overlapping, in transition.

I have yet to find ONE clear illustration of the ACTUAL STELLAR PARALLAX models
used by the Hipparcos, or former Star Catalog, Teams -- which is a bad sign for the
integrity and intention of the Astrometry Teams -- which means we will have to create
(and discuss) one, our own design, here -- and see if it doesn't lead to someone from
the 'Official' Intl Astrophysics Standards Committees stepping forth to present their
ACTUAL methods, equations, qauges, and peer authorities.

[hopefully I can cobble one together later today, or tomorrow ...]

until then, anyone any whole, complete, detailed Stellar Parallax illustrations to
share from ESA, NASA, the AGU, the Intl Astronomical Union, the Intl Astrophysical Union,
the Hipparcos 'Science' Team?

???

601L1n9FR09
Posts: 111
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 10:24 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by 601L1n9FR09 » Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:56 pm

Yeah, sorry bout that. I could not get it to go entirely blue for some reason. I was hoping you would get it off the thread . Worse still I ended up downloading it and now must remove some software application from my machine too. I will delete the copy of the ebook as well but it was a good read just the same. Anyhow I just figured there might be something in there that might effect what you are dealing with. If even half of what he says is true it is bound to rattle a paradigm or two. Have a good one .

JD

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by tholden » Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:58 am

Are you claiming that gravity binds our sun and Sirius into a binary system, i.e. that they revolve around eachother at a distance of eight light years??

If so, are you aware that what you're talking about is equivalent to asking gravity to bind two microscopic dust motes together from a distance of eight miles?

shadowmane
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2010 7:24 am
Location: Salisbury, NC

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by shadowmane » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:36 am

I think he's suggesting that Sirius is much closer than 8 light years.

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by GaryN » Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:36 am

I think he's suggesting that Sirius is much closer than 8 light years.
If I could find information on the flaring of our 2 nearest stars, then
I believe my test method could prove or disprove the distances to them.
We know our Sun has 'explosions' in x-ray and UV, and we also know that
planetary ionosheres react to Solar flares at light speed. If there was any
time offset correlation between Solar flares and flares on the two nearest
'stars', then we would know that it was a ionospheric reaction to our Sun,
and not from flares originating on a neighboring star.
It seems like a fairly straightforward experiment, presuming flares on the
nearest stars are being logged. Maybe the reason why nobody will take up
my proposal is that it is not a multi-billion dollar, decades long project
employing hundreds of scientists. Must think bigger...
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

kalensar
Posts: 109
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:28 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by kalensar » Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:57 pm

Having read and enjoyed Revolution in Astronomy, I'll point out that Bahram was explaining that there is a HUGE possibility that the Objects we see in our night sky are not light years away at all. His point of reference from his studies was showing that these objects, Sirius included, are more likely Light Hours and Light Days away. All this without the evidence presented by Halton Arp (Arp's case solidifying the destruction of a main cornerstone of the Big Bang).

Katiri's approach was in the area of Classical, optical astronomy. He later adds in the basics of infrared and UV astronomy to help get across the main problem of modern cosmology which is using only partial information to justify blackholes in an optical sense. Bahram's approach was a teaching in viewing an object through the entire spectrum.

His beginning approach was teaching exactly how far a famous telescope can see when compared to the naked eye. His final nail in the coffin is exactly how far the light from the sun travels before it becomes invisible to our eye based off the Wattage of the Sun. Basically, Bahram Katiri blows apart the congealed mass of 20th Century Cosmology mathematics by using the basic mathematics from which it grew, namely the Inverse Square Law application of Light.

In my honest opinion, Katiri's case is just as solid as Plasma Universe and they shake hands very well with each other.

As Thornhill said, "The Universe is smaller and of unknown age," when referencing Electric Universe fundamentals. Revolution in Astronomy only confirms this view, but there are major divergences in thinking presented between the two ideas. I found Katiri made more sense in the end, but that did not take away anything from Plasma Universe mechanics. In fact, it only enhances the subject.

Katiri presented that Galactic Cores are more like our Sun than anything else. All galactic cores( not satellite galaxies like the Magellanic Clouds) share the color of the Sun without exception, are extreme sources of visible light, heat and UV output, and that they are Single Sources of these energies. Katiri surmised that galaxies are more likely monstrous solar systems, and,to my amazement, I could argue that he was Correct.

Millennium
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by Millennium » Tue Oct 18, 2011 8:28 pm

Any other recent authors, researchers who have come up with differing scales for our local region, say out to the diameter of the Orion Spur? Particularly critics of, and correctors to, the Hipparcos Astrometry? My research and discoveries of the last two decades has led me to see a factor of 2 to 4 downsizing of the covert institutional physics scale of the Sirius-UMa Stream and Ursa Major Moving Group 'stellar-spheres', and I have worked up a series of illustrations today which will clearly detail CORRECT methodology for Stellar Parallax distance determinations.

Hope to have the illustrations rendered, and the associated algebra sketched out more fully (and proofed) in a day or two for sharing here.

Meanwhile here is a recent graph showing a ('Local') "Hipparcos Velocity Profile of 6,000 Stars in the Solar Neighborhood, with Solar Velocity (Circled Dot) near the center." [Will have to check the source journal article again, as I assume the Sun should be at dead center 0,0 -- as I assume these are local velocities with respect to the Sun. (But perhaps the Velocities are with respect to Sirus, or some center for the Sirius-UMa Stream motion.)]

['Nonlocal', Galactic, velocities would be in the hundreds of km/sec, compared to these tens of km/sec 'Local' velocities.]

Image

from "Local Stellar Velocity Distribution" ...

http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-3881/119 ... .text.html

Millennium
Posts: 80
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 8:52 am

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by Millennium » Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:26 pm

I worked through the Parallax Imaging geometries, and the algebra,
and the numbers today -- and did a lot of googling/researching --
and got the answer very simplified it seems.

didn't find ANY google references to "Stellar Parallax Calculus", nor
"Astrometric Calculus" -- a new field? -- never before committed to 'math'? --
but did find two recent textbooks which I put on order ...

Astrometry of Fundamental Catalogues, 2000 ... http://books.google.com/books/about/Ast ... J4AUJvfqoC

Fundamentals of Astrometry, 2004 ... http://books.google.com/books?id=0Srje- ... milarbooks

expect to be back tomorrow to load illustrations, discussion, and numbers!

User avatar
RayTomes
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by RayTomes » Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:41 am

Hi Millenium

You state "413,000 Year Human Development Cycle" in the first post. I have not heard of this before, but it is worth mentioning that in addition to the commonly mentioned Milankovitch cycles (i.e. cycles of Earth orbital and axis fluctuations) of ~23,000 years, 41,000 years and 100,000 years there is a component at around 400,000 years also. Long term calculations of Earth's orbital eccentricity show that the component averaging 405,000 years is very steady and can be used to date geological formations for the last 23 million years.

In the range of a few (light) years (that is light years wavelengths and years cycles periods) upwards, the most common figures in (light) years are: 4.44, 5.93, 7.12, 8.88, 9.6, 11.1, 11.8 which are reported by Edward R Dewey as cycles periods and also found as common distances between nearby stars which I take to be on the nodes of standing waves. For shorter distances we can expect 2.96, 1.97, 1.48, 0.99, 0.66 and 0.33 (light) years also. Obviously not many stars are this close, but we might expect some sort of presence such as brown dwarfs or even planet sized objects at these distances.

Going from the solar system upwards, the dominant wave/cycle periods are 3, 6, 80 and 160 (light) minutes (or 0.35, 0.7, 4.9 and 9.8 AU) which are the planetary formation waves. I expect there to be some further concentration at near 60 and 120 AU.

At larger than stellar scales (related to giant stars) 89 light years and probably multiples of that. Also there are features in galaxy spiral arms with scales of 2300 and 4600 light years which are periods found in climate and in outer planet realignments also.

Regards
Ray
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog

tholden
Posts: 934
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 6:02 pm

Re: Court of the 'Knights Parallax'

Unread post by tholden » Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:49 am

Millennium wrote:haku Electric All,

... and my researches, analysis and writings regarding our recent approximately 413,000 Year Human Development Cycle .....
Gunnar Heinsohn puts the origin of modern man on this planet no further back than around 4000 years ago starting from now:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =10&t=5069

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests