Distance Calculations

[Aardwolf]

Aardwolf wrote:

For example, objects 3253-693-1, 2853-306-1 & 4828-1651-1 have parallaxes of -799.8, -904.4 & -919.1 respectively, which means if they actually moved in the correct direction compared to their backgrounds, would all be closer than Alpha Centauri at 742.

Sorry your objects still not listed. You got a line number to reference them too?

I made the query you suggested and your objects should have been listed. They weren't in the list.
So I have doubts they exist.
Are they in that list and have you typed the accurate ID name that the list uses?

And just how many of those negative parallax stars with good proper motion were their? Are you going to answer or dont you like the answer?

Because you said;

Right, you have to have good proper motion for it to work. So those don't have good proper motion measurements, it didn't work.

So come on tell us, how many negative parallax stars had good proper measurement? You set up the conditions so tell us the answer of the research.

[Aardwolf]

As Fosborn_ is struggling to find them, the 3 large negative parallax stars I mentioned are from the TYCHO2 catalogue. For some reason SIMBAD ignores the parallax data from these objects but they can be found on VizieR or if you query the TYCHO/HIPPARCOS catalogues directly searching parallax <-700 on either. You will also see the proper motion and parallax errors if you doubt the veracity of the measurements.

For these and thousands of other objects, even when you take the errors into consideration (and the errors won't all be in the same direction so some negative parallax measurements may be even more negative), it is evident that there is something fundamentaly wrong with using parallax to determine distance. If the mainstream wishes to retain the parallax measurement as correct, then they must accept that what they believe to be distant background objects must, in thousands of cases, actually be foreground objects.

[fosborn_]

As Fosborn_ is struggling to find them, the 3 large negative parallax stars I mentioned are from the TYCHO2 catalogue. For some reason SIMBAD ignores the parallax data from these objects but they can be found on VizieR or if you query the TYCHO/HIPPARCOS catalogues directly searching parallax <-700 on either. You will also see the proper motion and parallax errors if you doubt the veracity of the measurements.

For these and thousands of other objects, even when you take the errors into consideration (and the errors won't all be in the same direction so some negative parallax measurements may be even more negative), it is evident that there is something fundamentaly wrong with using parallax to determine distance. If the mainstream wishes to retain the parallax measurement as correct, then they must accept that what they believe to be distant background objects must, in thousands of cases, actually be foreground objects.

To save everyone another wild goose chase, you might post the exact names listed in the catalogs you refer to.

[Aardwolf]

As Fosborn_ is struggling to find them, the 3 large negative parallax stars I mentioned are from the TYCHO2 catalogue. For some reason SIMBAD ignores the parallax data from these objects but they can be found on VizieR or if you query the TYCHO/HIPPARCOS catalogues directly searching parallax <-700 on either. You will also see the proper motion and parallax errors if you doubt the veracity of the measurements.

For these and thousands of other objects, even when you take the errors into consideration (and the errors won't all be in the same direction so some negative parallax measurements may be even more negative), it is evident that there is something fundamentaly wrong with using parallax to determine distance. If the mainstream wishes to retain the parallax measurement as correct, then they must accept that what they believe to be distant background objects must, in thousands of cases, actually be foreground objects.

To save everyone another wild goose chase, you might post the exact names listed in the catalogs you refer to.

I gave you the TYCHO catalogue numbers. I guess its still too difficult for you.

1) Go to the following link: http://apm5.ast.cam.ac.uk/hipp/tycho.html
2) Paste the catalogue number into the box called "Target Name".
3) Change the "Use of name" drop down box to "Tycho identifier".
4) Click the "Submit Query" button at the bottom.

Once you have ascertained their existance maybe you would kindly explain why 3,975 (92.9%) out of the 4,277 negative parallax stars from the previous discussions have the "best" proper motion quality, which is contrary to your previous statement below;

Right, you have to have good proper motion for it to work. So those don't have good proper motion measurements, it didn't work.
Parallax still works with the good measurement. 20000 @ 10% accuracy, 50000 @ 20%. They didn't hide anything, a sign of good science.

The 3,975 had good proper motion calculation so by your definition their parallax measurement works fine.

As I keep saying, and you apparently agree by default, the negative parallax measurement are not errors, they are correct. The error is in the theory.

[GaryN]

The error is in the theory.

That is the only logical conclusion I can reach too, Aardwolf.