Distance to the Stars

[Laurie61]

I found this recently and thought it interesting - 

The importance of star distances

The distance to the stars is one of the most important elements in the science of astronomy. Just about everything we know (or think we know) about the stars has distance as its foundation.  Without a valid yardstick for measuring their remoteness, our knowledge of the universe would be severely limited. In the following I am going to try to convince you that everything we thought we knew about star distances is wrong, and that the stars are much nearer than we thought

http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Distance-to-the-stars.htm

[Calculon]

Leaving aside the formatting and dramatic italics I'm not sure I buy this at all. For starters he has issues with the correlation of absolute magnitude and distance from the solar system - surely this is a selection effect? At larger distances you don't see the fainter stars, and at closer distances we have a much smaller sample of stars from which to drawn on, so it isn't immediately surprising that we happen to live near predominantly faint stars - would he be happier if we (purely by coincidence) happened to live near a particularly bright star?

I feel it would also aid the author greatly if he were to actually develop his contentions rather than to simply assert that "this cannot be"! 

[Kropster]

The proper place to have this accepted would be a reputable scientific journal.

If it passes peer review and gets published, then you can be fairly certain this is valid.... otherwise, it has no credibilty from a scientific point of view.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

The basis of measurements is triangulation. The Hipparcos satellite measured parallaxes of stars with unprecedented accuracy, and shows the earlier measurements to be roughly right. The distance to the nearest star is just 8 light minutes, and the next lies about 4.2 light years away (Proxima Centauri). The web page referred to is a clear case of pseudo science.

[Dave Lloyd]

Looks like Calculon is spot on. Reading the article (skimming actually) it does appear they are basing almost their whole argument on asymmetric brightness distribution.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Proper surveys in astronomy always try to correct for selection effects. I am collaborating with researchers working on a survey in Fornax, and this cluster is chosen because its relative proximity means we can sample intrinsically faint dwarf galaxies without selection bias.

One reason why we are predominantly surrounded by faint stars is that stellar evolution theory predicts that they are far more common, even if all sizes form with equal likelihood. Bright stars burn up, and blow up much more quickly than faint ones. In reality big stars are also expected to form in smaller numbers than small stars. Populations of stars in clusters confirm this

[ollypenrice]

It's interesting that the author should conclude with phrase, 'Don't trouble me with the facts, my mind is made up.' The professional astronomical community might say the same to him, if it had time.

He really should learn, though, that trying to sell his ideas through personal and psychological comments really does make him sound infantile.

Olly

[Zakalwe]

An awful lot of words and very little in the way of calculations.

[Owmuchonomy]

Hum. I gave up after the second paragraph where luminosity (of a black body) has been confused with brightness (flux).

[ollypenrice]

The agreement between relativistic time dilation and the observed duration of Type 1a supernovae suggests, to me, that even at cosmological distances our estimates can't be all that far out.

Olly

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Type 1a supernovae are under some scrutiny, as they might not be quite as standard as we thought. I do not expect major revisions of distances, but they might be big enough to upset some cosmological models

[ollypenrice]

Type 1a supernovae are under some scrutiny, as they might not be quite as standard as we thought. I do not expect major revisions of distances, but they might be big enough to upset some cosmological models

Interesting. This has always been the risk!

Olly

[Calculon]

Type 1a supernovae are under some scrutiny, as they might not be quite as standard as we thought. I do not expect major revisions of distances, but they might be big enough to upset some cosmological models

This is interesting and news to me - do you have a source of reference for this I could look at?

[RT65CB-SWL]

Anyone clicked 'Return to the Main Page"...

...it's called: "Reinventing the Universe".

[barkis]

Trying to fit all the pieces into a 46 Billion Light Year sized jigsaw puzzle, is 

rather difficult. There will be a constant search for missing pieces by whoever is trying to piece it together,

and make a coherent  picture.  But then I know nothing.

Ron.