Distance Calculations

[GaryN]

but I'd like to know if you have had any more progress on this topic since you last posted?

Hi Nitai,
I let the thread drop as it seemed to be perhaps too contentious for the more serious
areas of the forums.
I am still not willing to accept the distance calculations presented by astronomers, I really
believe they built a model that they just can't let go of now without really getting egg
all over their faces.
The test I was trying to pursue got too time consuming, trying to find charts for the
x-ray variability of Sirius A, to see if it could be correlated, with a time offset,
to x-ray flares from the Sun. We know the planetary ionospheres react instantly, or at
light speed anyway, to flashes or flares even from outside the solar system, so if Sirius A
was a planet and not a star, we should see a pulse we could say was a 'reflection' of solar
activity. As Sirius does not appear to have a surface magnetic field, I suspect it is not
generating its own variability, but is a passive emitter.
Maybe the mods should move this to NIAMI?

[fosborn_]

As Sirius does not appear to have a surface magnetic field, I suspect it is not
generating its own variability, but is a passive emitter.

Wow, a passive emitter at 8.6 LY!
And a magnitude of - 1.4.
That is one hard sell.
How can a passive emitter produce more energy than the transmitter ?

At 8.6 light-years distance, Sirius is one of the nearest stars to us after the sun. (A light year is nearly 6 trillion miles!) In fact it is the nearest star easily visible to the unaided eye from most of the northern hemisphere. Classified by astronomers as an “A” type star, it is much hotter than our sun, with about surface about 17,000 degrees F (the sun is about 10,000 degrees F). With slightly more than twice the mass of the sun and just less than twice its diameter, Sirius still puts out 26 times as much energy.

http://earthsky.org/brightest-stars/sir ... htest-star

[GaryN]

Wow, a passive emitter at 8.6 LY!

And you believe that distance? Can you verify that, or you just trust the experts?
I wish I had your faith in the science they present, it would make life a lot easier,
but when I see something like

The (Sirius) system is between 200 and 300 million years old. It was originally composed of two bright bluish stars. The more massive of these, Sirius B, consumed its resources and became a red giant before shedding its outer layers and collapsing into its current state as a white dwarf around 120 million years ago.

it just riles me. They state this as fact, when it is just a fantasy. We have no idea what
the Sirius system is, how long it has been around, or IMO, how far away it is.

With slightly more than twice the mass of the sun and just less than twice its diameter, Sirius still puts out 26 times as much energy.

But no magnetic field.

The white dwarf, Sirius B, has a mass equal to the mass of the Sun, packed into a diameter that is 90% that of the Earth. The gravity on the surface of Sirius B is 400,000 times that of Earth!

I just can't believe these kinds of figures, and I don't believe in white dwarfs or the
Chandrasekhar limit , but I guess that's my problem, not yours.

[fosborn_]

Me;

Wow, a passive emitter at 8.6 LY!

by GaryN » Fri Jun 24, 2011 3:22 pm
And you believe that distance? Can you verify that, or you just trust the experts?
I wish I had your faith in the science they present, it would make life a lot easier,
but when I see something like

Do I trust the experts to do basic parallax on one of the closest Stars? You mean the math I learned in high school?
It worked for figuring out the planets orbits centuries past. I guess, if it an't broke, don't fix it.

Faith in science? We live in a world of applied science. When you fly in an airplane you have faith in the science that keeps in in the air, why? Personal experience of many a landing you walked away from ( definition of a successful landing ) ? Astronomy can work that way too.

But no magnetic field.

But radiating 26 X our sun's energy, you think its not a star? How many planets get that hot?

[fosborn_]

And you believe that distance? Can you verify that, or you just trust the experts?
I wish I had your faith in the science they present, it would make life a lot easier,
but when I see something like

Belief is not a factor. Confidence is a factor.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksi ... ner00a.pdf

The distance and proper motion of the system were also recently
refined by the Hipparcos satellite observations(ESA 1997).

If it is confirmed by different experiments, then the confidence in distance measurements, increases. I thought that is how science works.
Do you have a better explanation using proven science? ( proven science, as in repeatable experiments confirmed by different repeatable experiments). To me that is confidence, not belief.

The white dwarf, Sirius B, has a mass equal to the mass of the Sun, packed into a diameter that is 90% that of the Earth. The gravity on the surface of Sirius B is 400,000 times that of Earth!

Well, its not like they built a rabbit out of snow.

motionone.jpg

I may not care for idea much, but it is hard to come up with another equally compelling explanation. It looks small, its gravitational motion influencing the bigger object, it must be dense.
(I cut this from a comparison to the X ray image image.)

SiriusAB_sm.JPG

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education ... types.html

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksi ... ner00a.pdf

. It is from
the study of this apparent fast motion through the sky, first noted
by Halley, that the existence of the famous white dwarf companion, Sirius -B, has been predicted by Bessel (1844), making
of Sirius-B one of the first example of dark matter body whose
existence has been inferred from its gravitational action only.
Sirius-B was finally discovered in the early days when the first
modern refractor was put into service in Massachusetts (USA)
(for an historical review see Brecher 1979, Hetherington 1980,
Wesemael and Fontaine 1982). A

Highlights by Frank

[GaryN]

But radiating 26 X our sun's energy, you think its not a star? How many planets get that hot?

The temperatures of stars are determined by their spectra. A detailed comparison can be made between the spectral lines appearing in the spectrum of a star and the energy levels of those spectral lines as measured in the laboratory. This determines the energy state of the atoms in the atmosphere of the star, which is related to its temperature.

Tycho Brahe noted a star that changed in color over a fairly short period:
"At first its light was white and extremely bright; it then became yellowish, afterwards
a ruddy color, and finished with a pale livid color"
So was it the temperature of the 'star' that changed, or was it the voltage level
of a planetary ionosphere, causing different elements to glow at different
frequencies and intensities?
Sirius A was also reported to have changed color over the centuries, even long
before the telescope was invented. It was reported as redder than Mars, all the
way through to ocean blue. Its nuclear furnace was on the fritz, or it was being
subject to charge level variations?
Just wondering....

I may not care for idea much, but it is hard to come up with another equally compelling explanation. It looks small, its gravitational motion influencing the bigger object, it must be dense.

Or could the same motion be of EM origin? Maybe we need to divide by 10^39 to see
how much Sir.B weighs (I know it wouldn't be that simple Frank, but you get the
idea?)

[fosborn_]

So was it the temperature of the 'star' that changed, or was it the voltage level
of a planetary ionosphere, causing different elements to glow at different
frequencies and intensities?
Sirius A was also reported to have changed color over the centuries, even long
before the telescope was invented. It was reported as redder than Mars, all the
way through to ocean blue. Its nuclear furnace was on the fritz, or it was being
subject to charge level variations?
Just wondering....

At the parallax distance we speak of, we wouldn't see the light of a Sirius A planet, you speak of.
Concerning the color change of Sirius A, I don't have any issues with the EU explanation.
And the fact of the predicted existence of Sirius B using gravity, shows it is the most influential and detectable force, in that system at the present.
And again with the parallax distance confirmed by the Hiprcos satellite observations, your distance doubts concerning Sirius A, seem unwarranted.

http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksi ... ner00a.pdf
The distance and proper motion of the system were also recently
refined by the Hipparcos satellite observations(ESA 1997).

[GaryN]

At the parallax distance we speak of, we wouldn't see the light of a Sirius A planet,
you speak of.

True, if you are talking about photons, but if the light is a planewave
or quasi-planewave from an ionised shell around a planet, it is our ionosphere
that results in the photons we see at the Earths surface. And for space based
'scopes, the clever optics.

And again with the parallax distance confirmed by the Hiprcos satellite observations, your distance doubts concerning Sirius A, seem unwarranted.

My doubts are not unwarranted if you accept that magnetism can affect light, or the
known properties of light, in numerous ways.The recent finding of the magnetic bubbles
or froth at the edge of the solar system may be just a hint that there are numerous
shells around the solar system each capable of changing, even to a very small degree,
the behaviour of EM radiation. There are also dielectric boundary layer effects on plane
waves, but taking a quick look at the math involved with just a normally incident,
linearly polarised monochromatic planewave, I quickly decided I don't even want to go near
that subject, so don't ask for any figures! The combined effect though, could lead to a considerable lensing, throwing off calculations for objects far and near.The jury is still
out, as far as I am concerned, and could be for some time in this distance measurement trial.
Am I making any sense, to anyone?

[Sparky]

GaryN , "Am I making any sense, to anyone?"

yes....i don't trust much of the data that we are receiving, for reasons that you have put forth...have no faith at all in consensus conclusions reached from it....maybe parallax is accurate for cosmic distance calculations, but it is like all of the other methods, mostly untestable, therefore, unscientific.

[fosborn_]

GaryN » True, if you are talking about photons, but if the light is a planewave
or quasi-planewave from an ionised shell around a planet, it is our ionosphere
that results in the photons we see at the Earths surface. And for space based
'scopes, the clever optics.

You have never demonstrated how that could work. Do you have any examples to show how it works ?

If this is so, why isn't Sirius B not brighter in our atmosphere than Sirius A. It outshines Sirius A in X rays.

siriuscomp.jpg

Why does Hubble match the ground level in comparative visible light ?

siriushubble.jpg

SiriusAB_sm.JPG

GaryN » My doubts are not unwarrantedif you accept that magnetism can affect light, or the
known properties of light, in numerous ways.

At such short stellar distances (8.6 LY), we are talking about? No I don't accept Sirius has any serious error affecting its parallax measurement. Hiprcos satellite observations are another confirmation unaffected by earths atmosphere. Sirius A is going to be the most error resistant object to check because of its relative proximity as well as Alpha Alpha Centauri. These affects if they are even possible, would have little if any affect.

The Gaussian effect you refer to earlier in this thread is only demonstrated as a galactic lens effect. So we are not even close to that level in discussing Sirius A.

[Sparky]

GaryN, "My doubts are not unwarranted if you accept that magnetism can affect light, or the known properties of light, in numerous ways."

I tried to find the redshift of sirius A, but could not...there is a gravitation redshift for sirius B, but it is expressed in a way other than z....why can't i find a redshift for SA?

[GaryN]

I tried to find the redshift of sirius A, but could not...there is a gravitation redshift for sirius B, but it is expressed in a way other than z....why can't i find a redshift for SA?

Did someone say it was receding? I don't think so. If A is a planet with its moon, I think it will be part
of a local group of objects within the Oort cloud EM influence, and quite happy where it is.

[Sparky]

thanks, i thought that every sun and planet had a red or blue shift from gravity, relative movement, expansion of time/space, or some combo...if you happen to run across a redshift for S A i would appreciate knowing what has been found...thanks...

[fosborn_]

I tried to find the redshift of sirius A, but could not...there is a gravitation redshift for sirius B, but it is expressed in a way other than z....why can't i find a redshift for SA?

Did someone say it was receding? I don't think so. If A is a planet with its moon, I think it will be part
of a local group of objects within the Oort cloud EM influence, and quite happy where it is.

Only 8.7 light years from the Earth, Sirius is the fifth nearest star to us. Except for Alpha Centaur, it is the closest of all the stars we can see with our naked eye. The vastness of space is dramatically illustrated by the fact that even such a nearby star is 550,000 times more distant than our sun. Sirius is a member of a moving group of stars often called the Ursa Major stream, with members scattered all over the sky

http://www.souledout.org/cosmology/high ... yhost.html
Isn't that cluster moving towards the galactic center ( accepted galactic center, that is )?
My highlights.

Maybe the local radial motion overwhelms any possible measurement of the motion in reference to our sun?

[GaryN]

Sirius is a member of a moving group of stars often called the Ursa Major stream, with members scattered all over the sky.

Well I learned something today, thanks Frank! Scattered all over the sky is interesting
though. Could it be that they are in a belt surrounding the solar system, or the Oort
sphere?

Hiprcos satellite observations are another confirmation unaffected by earths atmosphere.

But how many shells, or double layers, dielectric boundary layers between here and
even the nearest 'star'? Too many unknowns still for me to trust even the shorter
distance calculations. Maybe Sir A is a planet just a few light days away? Siriusly!