Sunday, 17 August 2014

A Geocentric Observation on 68 Cygni - with Parallax, Stellar Size, Distance, and Evolution

I found a link to the article on 68 Cygni on the main page of wikipedia today. I am not going to assume it has been vandalised, I am assuming no one had a particular interest in doing so. You may think I had and did before quoting, but that would be a false assumption, though if you honestly made it, you would not know that. Two quotes from wiki and one info from elsewhere, I give links below article, but here goes about 68 Cygni, it is a star:

68 Cygni* is a star in the constellation Cygnus. According to the star's measured parallax of 0.70 milliarcseconds, it is located approximately 1,400 parsecs (4,600 ly) distant, although such low parallax values are subject to low precision, and thus with the error taken into account, the star could be anywhere from 1,080 parsecs (3,500 ly) to 2,130 parsecs (6,900 ly) distant.

Measured parallax of 0.70 milliarcseconds. Hm? !

Reminds me a bit of alpha Centauri's 0.76 arcseconds, except for the word "milli", which in such compounds means "one thousandth of".

Saying that an angle as small as 1 (or even just 0.70) milliarcseconds has been measured at all, stretches belief. But saying that it has been measured as a parallax is not just unbelievable. It is ridiculous considering that parallax is measured by comparison to other stars' supposedly mostly non-parallactic position (i e the other stars are not considered to have a visible, measurable, parallax at all).

If 0.9 arcseconds (one thousand times greater an angle than for 68 Cygni) NEGATIVE parallax** exists, and it does in one star catalogue, there are some explanations one can consider. Three mainly. Error without a reason. Error with a reason. No error - and thus no parallax.

1) Error without a reason definitely totally rules out accurate measuring of 0.70 milliarcseconds.

2) Error with a reason also does it, because the reason would be that - as said - the 0.9 arcseconds negative parallax are measured against the background of other stars having (in average) zero parallax. This means the stars with zero parallax would have at least 0.9 arcseconds positive parallax and the one with 0.9 arcseconds negative parallax would have either no parallax at all or possibly even a positive one (and in that case the other stars have more than 0.9 arcseconds positive parallax). But if so, then the 0.76 arcseconds for alpha Centauri are in fact 0.9 + 0.76 + x arcseconds parallax in the absolute, demoted to an inaccurate measuring of 0.76 arcseconds only, through other stars having in average 0.9 + x arcseconds positive parallax. Alpha Centauri would not be 4 lightyears away as indicated by 0.76 arcseconds, but nearer as indicated by 1.66 arcseconds or more. In this relativistic measuring of small angles of relative instability of star positions, it is also impossible to say that 68 Cygni has a parallax of 0.70 milliarcseconds. It would rather have a parallax of 0.9007 arcseconds or more (and therefore be closer than 4 lightyears), considering that the 0.9 arcseconds NEGATIVE parallax is an error through other stars moving in medium 0.9 arcseconds positively. This of course supposing earth is moving and parallax is parallax and then there is no negative parallax.

3) No error means the 0.9 arcseconds NEGATIVE parallax are really 0.9 arcseconds moving inverse direction of sun in direction to zodiak. And that cannot happen parallactically as obverse of real movement of earth. That can only happen if angels are dancing with the stars - and parallax is no parallax. In that case, of course, it is theoretically possible the 0.70 milliarcseconds of 68 Cygni are accurately measured, though unlikely, but they would not be parallactic anyway and would not tell us anything of the distance to 68 Cygni. And thus, 68 Cygni may in fact be much closer and in fact also much smaller than the sun, unlike what astronomers are saying.

Since I looked up the phrase "blue giant", I have a little bonus.

"Evolution only applies to biology, to origin of different [varieties and] species from common ancestor" ... er, no. Look at this little section*** about blue giants:

Stars found in the blue giant region of the HR diagram can be in very different stages of their lives, but all are evolved stars that have largely exhausted their core hydrogen supplies.

In the simplest case, a hot luminous star begins to expand as its core hydrogen is exhausted, and first becomes a blue subgiant then a blue giant, becoming both cooler and more luminous. Intermediate mass stars will continue to expand and cool until they become red giants. Massive stars also continue to expand as hydrogen shell burning progresses, but they do so at approximately constant luminosity and move horizontally across the HR diagram. In this way they can quickly pass through blue giant, bright blue giant, blue supergiant, and yellow supergiant classes, until they become red supergiants. ...

And it goes on. However, you may have noted already the words "all are evolved stars". And I leave you to guess the heading for the particular section.

Kent Hovind is perfectly right and honest that in secular scientific culture "evolution" has more than one sense, and one of them is stellar evolution. He is no less right that so far we have not seen 68 Cygni evolve into a red supergiant. So stellar evolution is one of the kinds of evolution that is not observed.°

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sunday after Assumption Feast
of the Blessed Virgin Mary

* Wikipedia : 68 Cygni

** Catholic Forums : Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

*** Wikipedia : Blue Giant

° It seems the star Sirius may have changed colour though.

No comments:

Post a Comment