Nobody can prove the non-existance of something. <br />I am a skeptic, but I prefer to dismiss based on inconsistencies rather than tabloid origin. <br /><br />It will show up in 9 years at 9:15 AM. <br /><br />That implies a timing error of 15 minutes. Over 9 years this represents an accuracy of 1 part in 300,000, or .0003%. <br /><br />To achieve this error in the arrival window, the errors of distance and speed, added, must be less than or equal to .0003%.<br /><br />At 9 light years, by parallax, we might get a 10% error in distance. (1)<br /><br />Speed measurements are far easier since Chandra has an Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer with excellent sensitivity and resolution, but if the distance measurements are poor by a factor of 30,000, (.10 divided by .0003) no amount of accuracy in speed will help.<br /><br />Also difficult, is determining the direction of travel. It is 53 trillion miles away, and only 10 million miles wide. Since it will hit the Earth, the velocity angle error must be less than one part in 5 million of the circle, or .25 arc second. Since they have had only six months to look at it against the background stars, they must have located it within an accuracy of .25 arc sec divided by the 20 six month periods before it arrives or .01 arc second, but Chandra's absolute angular resolution is only .6 arc second (2), or 60 times poorer than required.<br /><br />Bill <br /><br />1)
http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit1/distances.html<br />2)<br />
http://chandra.harvard.edu/ <br />Look under Scientific User Support, Calibration<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p> </div>
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram