Star Distances
The most common objection so far to the star trail orbit/rotation problem is that of star distances. Critics claim that although Earths rotation is significant enough to produce spherical trails, the 64 times greater distance travelling through space, in whichever direction we are currently claimed to be in, over the same 5 hour or so time frame, is insufficient to detect any movement at all in the orbital path. Quite how they claim this alledged discrepency occurs, we have not been told, but we shall investigate the claim none the less.
How are star distances arrived at?
We are told that the Sun is the closest star to Earth. It looks far larger than the next nearest Star, but we have no way of reaching them physically as yet. So when we see stars, how do we guess whether the star is close to us yet small and dim, or further away yet brighter and larger? Look at the image below.
How are star distances arrived at?
We are told that the Sun is the closest star to Earth. It looks far larger than the next nearest Star, but we have no way of reaching them physically as yet. So when we see stars, how do we guess whether the star is close to us yet small and dim, or further away yet brighter and larger? Look at the image below.
From the above image, we can see that although the right sphere looks slightly larger in the camera view in picture 1, in fact the left sphere is much larger when the scene is viewed from above. If we only see the camera view though, how could we ever know?
Stellar Parallax
The method used to guess the alleged nearer stars distance to us is that of stellar parallax. Like evolutionary folklore, Stellar Parallax relies on several key assumptions for it to work. Assumptions are not facts.
To calculate distant terrestrial objects on Earth we can use trigonometry methods to work out how far something is. For example if we know the straight line distance from A to B, we can use angles pointing to C from these two points to form a virtual triangle to calculate the distance, even if C is inaccessible to us, perhaps across a river. The theory is that if we know the length of one side of our 'space triangle', we can use a similar principle to calculate star distances. The problem is that we don't know our baseline length.
To measure stellar parallax you pick a star that is close to Earth. How you know which is closer to Earth until you measure it, is for you to decide! From this, you take measurements and make comparisons against stars which you believe are further away in the background (again requiring a judgement call). After waiting 6 months (the time for Earth to have supposedly travelled to the opposite extreme of its orbit around the Sun) you make further measurements and comparisons. Using these two sets of results, it should be theoretically possible to calculate the distance to your target star.
Since Copernicus popularised the heliocentric model of the solar system in the 1500s, the search for stellar parallax was on. Following the claim that Earth travels an orbit whose diameter is estimated today to be some 300,000,000km, it was assumed that this distance would be sufficient to view a star, take measurements 6 months apart and calculate some parallaxes. The search went on in vain.
The first time stellar parallax was claimed to be confirmed was in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel using a heliometer. Up until this point, the lack of evidence of stellar parallax was taken as another proof that the Earth does not move. Stellar parallax is extremely difficult to see for mere mortals and the largest example is subtended to an 2cm diameter object 5.3 km away!! Notice the important assumption made though - Stellar Parallax assumes that the Earth orbits the Sun in the first place! If the Earth does not orbit the Sun, the baseline shrinks significantly. Also, the assumption that the background stars have not moved is also relied upon.
The upshot of this mathematical jiggery pokery is that the claimed closest star to us is said to be Proxima Centauri a mere 40,000,000,000,000km away (don't look for it though, it is invisible to the naked eye). With such ridiculously large numbers, it doesn't take a genius to recognise that the angle produced is going to be miniscule. These amazingly small angles are measured in arcsecs. As you know a circle can be divided into 360 degrees. Each degree can then be divided by 60 to produce an arcminute, and each arcminute divided again by 60 to produce an arcsecond! The largest example of stellar parallax is claimed to be 0.78687 arcsecs (+/- 0.0003 arcsecs)!! That is not to say that it is not true, just that there is no chance of actually proving any of it for yourself without some high precision equipment, a perfect setup and conditions. We have to rely on the scientific establishment for this information, it is virtually impossible to verify for yourself.
However there is another factor to build in. Heliocentric folklore speaks of a 'wobble' which the Earth supposedly experiences called the 'Chandler Wobble'. This wobble alone can vary from 0.1 to 0.7 arcseconds - which although again miniscule from our day to day experience, is almost the same as the most impressive evidence for stellar parallax!!
To combat the various effects of Earths supposed movement, the satellite Hipparcos was launched, so again, ordinary folk have to rely on being told what is supposedly true, rather than verifying it for themselves.
And the assumption riddled method of stellar parallax is deemed to be the most accurate way of measuring space distances at the moment! However, believers in Stellar parallax say that the method only 'works' for stars within approx 400 (some sources say 100, a bit of a difference!) light years from Earth.
More distant Stars
If a star is believed to be further away than 400 (or 100) light years, then the stars brightness or magnitude is assumed to indicate its distance. Apparently, the colour of the 'accurately' (ahem) stellar parallax measured stars can then be used to calibrate stars further than the parallax method will allow. An astronomer will determine the colour spectrum of a distant star and assign an absolute magnitude (actual brightness) to it. The stars magnitude is imagined for what it would look like from 10 parsecs (another ridiculously large distance where 1 parsec equals 3.26 light years) or 32.6 light years. They compare this imagined absolute magnitude (actual brightness) to how the star appears to be on Earth (the apparent magnitude) and use this difference to assign a distance. So we have more assumptions built on a foundation of assumptions!
As you can see, the evidence for vast stellar distances is like a house of cards, built on assumptions rather than facts.
If you have any questions or comments, please email us
Stellar Parallax
The method used to guess the alleged nearer stars distance to us is that of stellar parallax. Like evolutionary folklore, Stellar Parallax relies on several key assumptions for it to work. Assumptions are not facts.
To calculate distant terrestrial objects on Earth we can use trigonometry methods to work out how far something is. For example if we know the straight line distance from A to B, we can use angles pointing to C from these two points to form a virtual triangle to calculate the distance, even if C is inaccessible to us, perhaps across a river. The theory is that if we know the length of one side of our 'space triangle', we can use a similar principle to calculate star distances. The problem is that we don't know our baseline length.
To measure stellar parallax you pick a star that is close to Earth. How you know which is closer to Earth until you measure it, is for you to decide! From this, you take measurements and make comparisons against stars which you believe are further away in the background (again requiring a judgement call). After waiting 6 months (the time for Earth to have supposedly travelled to the opposite extreme of its orbit around the Sun) you make further measurements and comparisons. Using these two sets of results, it should be theoretically possible to calculate the distance to your target star.
Since Copernicus popularised the heliocentric model of the solar system in the 1500s, the search for stellar parallax was on. Following the claim that Earth travels an orbit whose diameter is estimated today to be some 300,000,000km, it was assumed that this distance would be sufficient to view a star, take measurements 6 months apart and calculate some parallaxes. The search went on in vain.
The first time stellar parallax was claimed to be confirmed was in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel using a heliometer. Up until this point, the lack of evidence of stellar parallax was taken as another proof that the Earth does not move. Stellar parallax is extremely difficult to see for mere mortals and the largest example is subtended to an 2cm diameter object 5.3 km away!! Notice the important assumption made though - Stellar Parallax assumes that the Earth orbits the Sun in the first place! If the Earth does not orbit the Sun, the baseline shrinks significantly. Also, the assumption that the background stars have not moved is also relied upon.
The upshot of this mathematical jiggery pokery is that the claimed closest star to us is said to be Proxima Centauri a mere 40,000,000,000,000km away (don't look for it though, it is invisible to the naked eye). With such ridiculously large numbers, it doesn't take a genius to recognise that the angle produced is going to be miniscule. These amazingly small angles are measured in arcsecs. As you know a circle can be divided into 360 degrees. Each degree can then be divided by 60 to produce an arcminute, and each arcminute divided again by 60 to produce an arcsecond! The largest example of stellar parallax is claimed to be 0.78687 arcsecs (+/- 0.0003 arcsecs)!! That is not to say that it is not true, just that there is no chance of actually proving any of it for yourself without some high precision equipment, a perfect setup and conditions. We have to rely on the scientific establishment for this information, it is virtually impossible to verify for yourself.
However there is another factor to build in. Heliocentric folklore speaks of a 'wobble' which the Earth supposedly experiences called the 'Chandler Wobble'. This wobble alone can vary from 0.1 to 0.7 arcseconds - which although again miniscule from our day to day experience, is almost the same as the most impressive evidence for stellar parallax!!
To combat the various effects of Earths supposed movement, the satellite Hipparcos was launched, so again, ordinary folk have to rely on being told what is supposedly true, rather than verifying it for themselves.
And the assumption riddled method of stellar parallax is deemed to be the most accurate way of measuring space distances at the moment! However, believers in Stellar parallax say that the method only 'works' for stars within approx 400 (some sources say 100, a bit of a difference!) light years from Earth.
More distant Stars
If a star is believed to be further away than 400 (or 100) light years, then the stars brightness or magnitude is assumed to indicate its distance. Apparently, the colour of the 'accurately' (ahem) stellar parallax measured stars can then be used to calibrate stars further than the parallax method will allow. An astronomer will determine the colour spectrum of a distant star and assign an absolute magnitude (actual brightness) to it. The stars magnitude is imagined for what it would look like from 10 parsecs (another ridiculously large distance where 1 parsec equals 3.26 light years) or 32.6 light years. They compare this imagined absolute magnitude (actual brightness) to how the star appears to be on Earth (the apparent magnitude) and use this difference to assign a distance. So we have more assumptions built on a foundation of assumptions!
As you can see, the evidence for vast stellar distances is like a house of cards, built on assumptions rather than facts.
If you have any questions or comments, please email us