It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
They are right, a change in right ascension of slightly more than 3 arcminutes in 24 years is far too great for an object 24,000 light years away. But there is a problem. The "astronomers" got their 1984 data from The MOST Galactic Centre Survey - II. New results on published supernova remnants and G2.4 + 1.4. The description of the table they used:
Así pues tenemos dos posiciones estelares de G1.9+0.3 perfectamente diferenciadas en el transcurso de 24 años:
a. 1984 - RA 17h 45m 37s, Dec. -27:09
b. 2008 - RA 17h 48m 45s, Dec. -27:10
articles.adsabs.harvard.edu...
Table 1. This table lists (1) The Galactic cooridinates, (2) and (3) the right ascension and declination for epoch and equinox B1950.0
The MOST observations are not at high enough resolution to detect significant changes in the size or mophology of G1.9+0.3 with time.
arxiv.org...
Twenty years of observations with the Molonglo Observatory Synthesis Telescope show that the young supernova remnant G1.9+0.3 has increased in brightness by 1.22 ± 0.24 0.16 per cent yr−1 between 1998 and 2007
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by SunnyDee
I feel like this starviewer team has been covered here before and found to be lacking.
Here is a link
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My question is, found lacking by who? There's not a single topic on this board that's not found lacking by someone.
So this is your conclusion after reading all 22 pages?
When we previewed this article to the Starviewer Team, we asked them to send us a rebuttal. We think we have focused on the Achillies Heel of their assertions. We waited for an answer and received the following statement, which was translated for us:
1.-Some self-motivated International committee of astronomers, by their own innitiative, are presently calculating the exact orbit for the Brown Dwarf Sagitarius-Oort-Kuiper perturbation, using the StarViewerTeam's work sheets based on Lissauer, Murray and Matese's original drafts. A final report, will be published by Feb 2010.
2.-There are huge scientific evidences concerning to the fact that Cosmic causes and Brown Dwarf are the real causes of Climate change. On July the 10th, Dr.Paul Clark, published on Science.com an article concerning to this matter, and almost 700 scientists signed the minority Report on climate change.
It appears the evidence is inferential and based on mathematics. So we must wait until February. I give this a validity rating (from 1 to 10) of 4.
UPDATE FEBRUARY 19, 2010: -- We patiently waited and monitored the StarViewer Team's web site for the "proof" that claimed would be forthcoming. Needless to say, it never materialized. Also, the initial popularity of their claim appears to have been nothing more than a way to attract a large viewership. The web site now is full of ridiculous claims, including some satirical stories taken from "the onion" (a very funny site) which the SV Team promoted as "real." There is no mention of the mathematical validation that was expected with regards to the G1.9 object. Perhaps the validation disproved their theory... perhaps it was never going to be validated by anyone... I think it is safe to take this theory of object G1.9 being a brown dwarf down to ZERO possibility!
Originally posted by Phage
It found that G1.9 fits the profile of a young supernova remnant.
"No other object in the galaxy has properties like this," Reynolds said. "This find is extremely important for learning more about how some stars explode and what happens in the aftermath."
Besides being the record holder for youngest supernova, the object is of considerable interest for other reasons. The high expansion velocities and extreme particle energies that have been generated are unprecedented and should stimulate deeper studies of the object with Chandra and the Very Large Array.
"No other object in the galaxy has properties like this," Reynolds said. "This find is extremely important for learning more about how some stars explode and what happens in the aftermath."
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Originally posted by SunnyDee
I feel like this starviewer team has been covered here before and found to be lacking.
Here is a link
www.abovetopsecret.com...
My question is, found lacking by who? There's not a single topic on this board that's not found lacking by someone.
So this is your conclusion after reading all 22 pages?
Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by SunnyDee
Well, here's their website, but unfortunately it's only in Spanish:
starviewerteam.org...
'm sorry, but any astronomer who couldn't tell the difference between a "mystery heavenly body" that's as close as 50 billion miles from Earth and a galaxy should be drummed out of the business.
Can ANYONE give me the names of these "newly discovered galaxies" that were originally thought to be in our solar system?
Anyone?
Don't you consider it strange that this "hypothetical" mystery object has MANY names while the newly-discovered "distant galaxies" have NONE?
It's easy to post snippets of articles that support your beliefs, but does anyone think for themselves?
But it still doesn't answer my question: how is it that "hypothetical" objects in our solar system are named, but newly-discovered "distant galaxies" aren't?
Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by GoldenFleece
I see you are back to being a fraud. Phage already showed you this information in another thread.