Re: Hawking and distance of stars


Dana Tweedy wrote:
> <mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1137956266.939400.21120@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > It's interesting that Hawking states that the distance of distant
> > galaxies could not be known at one time because of the lack of
> > parallax. Yet, he claims that because the luminosity of nearby stars
> > and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance of distant
> > galaxies could be known through their luminosity.
> >
> > The problem with this idea is that the parallax of nearby stars cannot
> > be known.
>
> As has been explained to you numerous times, the parallax of nearby stars is
> easily calculated. See:
>
> http://www.astronomy.com/ASY/CS/forums/274087/PrintPost.aspx
> http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/p1/parallax.asp
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/parallax.html
>
> Even grade school science students can do this:
> http://www.usc.edu/CSSF/History/2004/Projects/S1511.pdf#search='parallax%20calculation'

In what way does anything you've cited gone beyond what Hawking has
said? It hasn't. Placing in a bunch of geometry and mathematics doesn't
do anything in the way of solving any problem, unless you can verify.
The fact is, the problem is that geometry is only applicable if
verification is possible. Since known surveying equipment has been
certified and tested by onsite verification, we know those instruments
of triangulation to be valid. In one years time the earth has moved
from one end of the solar system to the other. But Alpha Centauri is
LIGHT YEARS away, in the guess of astronomers. You thereby can't use
triangulation involving years measurement of the earth from one end of
the solar system to the other and expect that to somehow determine
something that is supposed light years away.

This has been explained to you many times yet it goes into one ear and
out the other.

Please stop allowing this.

JM



>
>
> DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >>> stars and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance ... >>> of distant galaxies could be known through their luminosity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... he claims that because the luminosity of nearby stars ... >and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance of distant ... >galaxies could be known through their luminosity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >>> It's interesting that Hawking states that the distance of distant ... >>> and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance of distant ... >>> galaxies could be known through their luminosity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >>> It's interesting that Hawking states that the distance of distant ... >>> and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance of distant ... >>> galaxies could be known through their luminosity. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... he claims that because the luminosity of nearby stars ... >and that their parallax could be known, thereby the distance of distant ... >galaxies could be known through their luminosity. ...
    (talk.origins)