MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Barnard's Star (Astrophysics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Of course it makes not a damn bit of difference so far as Barnard's Star is concerned but Dan makes a good general point. An amusing local application are road signs saying "T-junction 133 yards ahead" when clearly a metric measure had been translated.

It's worse than that because the inaccuracy of the number has been obscured. After all, if the speed of light is supposed to be an absolute, what's it doing moving at a rate at which we cannot measure with any accuracy?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

The speed of light is (supposed to be) constant (in any particular medium) to any observer (ie at any velocity), and has been measured very accurately.

That is not to say that we can measure the speed of any star very accurately - in that case we are looking at the frequency of the light we are receiving and, using multiple assumptions, estimating the speed based on the doppler effect.

Neither is Newton called into question as Barnard's star is obviously not moving in our direction due to our sun's gravity (which in any case is miniscule over the distances we are talking about: if the sun is a dot one hundreth of an inch diameter, our solar system is our outstretched arms, and the next nearest star to us is 4 miles away, and Barnard is further than that).
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Then what, Brian, is the source of Barnard's movement? If it is the general whirl of the Milky Way then we ought to be affected likewise. If it is some other nearby gravity source, we ought to be able to see it.

But what precisely does "coming towards us" mean? Leading up to closest approach (or whatever they call it) of Mars to us, would astronomers breathlessly report, "Mars is coming towards us"? And one other thing, if Barnard was on a curve would they be able to tell this apart from a straight line in the few years we have been observing its progress? And if not, should we put great faith in their claims of knowing where it is heading?
Send private message
Brian Ambrose



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Well, I come back to my original question: is Barnard really moving at all? If it's based on its light being blue-shifted, then I don't believe it.

On the assumption that Barnard's movement is real, someone obviously gave it a big kick some time in the past. I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with gravity (otherwise wouldn't we also be heading where it is, but faster?).

Mars is known to be in orbit and so doesn't merit mention in terms of 'coming towards us' - there's nothing to get excited about. Barnard on the other hand is (apparently) very unusual as it's not doing what stars are generally supposed to do (which is, stay where they are, on human timescales at least).

I don't know enough about it to comment on the accuracy of its exact trajectory - maybe someone can tell us how its speed and trajectory are known.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Barnard on the other hand is (apparently) very unusual as it's not doing what stars are generally supposed to do (which is, stay where they are, on human timescales at least).

Yes, this is the bit that got my attention. Why on earth haven't the Velikovskians got hold of this?
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
On a matter of information, is colour-shifting so accurate as to get kilometres-per-second down to a decimal place?

No, it is not.

Halton Arp has conclusively disproved the concept of Doppler Shift (Red Shift) as a means of determining velocity. In his book Seeing Red he blows the cover on this schoolboy howler. Red Shift is a product of AGE. The brightest Red Shifted objects are the YOUNGEST. Red Shift can't be used to determine velocity of motion. The universe is not expanding and this cornerstone of Big Bang Cosmology, this spurious piece of mathematical legerdemain should have been consigned to the rubbish bin of history decades ago.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Barnard on the other hand is (apparently) very unusual as it's not doing what stars are generally supposed to do (which is, stay where they are, on human timescales at least).

Yes, this is the bit that got my attention. Why on earth haven't the Velikovskians got hold of this?

We/ they have but you just don't hear about it unless you go looking for it. You see, Velikovsky interpreted the evidence correctly. He just got the chronology wrong. This is understandable because of his a priori belief in a synchronicity with Biblical events and Egyptian history. He wasn't to know that pre-Babylonian Biblical history was centred in West Arabia and Yemen.

He got the planets right, the effects right and the reasons right. He was just out by around 8,000 years.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brian wrote:
Barnard on the other hand is (apparently) very unusual as it's not doing what stars are generally supposed to do (which is, stay where they are, on human timescales at least).

It might be appropriate here Bri to define human timescale. If you're talking about recorded history then you have to decide whose record is more accurate and how long ago you are prepared to look for the evidence of catastrophism.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick wrote:
I ask because it appears to call Newton into question if it passes so close to us yet ends up somewhere else. What has Polaris got gravitationally-speaking that Sol hasn't?

Newton has nothing to do with it seeing his Gravitational equations are pretty much meaningless outside this planet, and even that is debatable.

But future astronomers are going to be awfully embarrassed when it is steered into the Solar System by 'unknown force' and promptly takes up position somewhere between Jupiter and Neptune. They will be even more shocked when its red corona dims to reveal a series of synchronously rotating planets which have been there undetected.

The fact that for centuries they have been probing and studying four such systems in their own Solar System will be totally missed by them.
Send private message
admin
Librarian


View user's profile
Reply with quote

If you were wondering why Barnard's Star is of such all-consuming interest to Applied Epistemologists you should go to the New Concepts section, The AEL Goes AudioVisual.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Are there any other stars which have been observed zooming along, over a period of years, whose positions have changed in relation to earth's? Surely Barnard's can't be the only position-changing star to have caught astronomers' attention, though its speed is undoubtedly eye-catching. Has anyone said what BS is orbiting?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Has anyone said what BS is orbiting?

In theory everything in the galaxy is orbiting the Galactic Centre, but more importantly, "How parallel to our orbit is Barnard's Star's orbit?" In Newtonian theory of ever-according-orbits, coming so close to us this time round, but missing, should presage the next time round when it will join us.
Send private message
Komorikid


In: Gold Coast, Australia
View user's profile
Reply with quote

In theory everything in the galaxy is orbiting the Galactic Centre, but more importantly, "How parallel to our orbit is Barnard's Star's orbit?" In Newtonian theory of ever-according-orbits, coming so close to us this time round, but missing, should presage the next time round when it will join us.

In reality stars in a Galaxy don't orbit the centre as such. Each star is moving in an ever increasing spiral trajectory along the spiral arm as the arms themselves spin. Stars in Galaxies violate the standard laws of rotation; something orthodoxy is yet to explain (within the strict limits of a gravitation only paradigm).

It probably has something to do with the fact that they can't explain why Galaxies have binary spiral arms; again a violation of the gravity paradigm.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2

Jump to:  
Page 2 of 2

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group