Re: Hawking and distance of stars


<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137965236.816768.129110@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> 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?

I wasn't aware that I was going beyond what Hawking 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.

You can verify it quite easily. As I showed above, even grade school kids
can do it.

> The fact is, the problem is that geometry is only applicable if
> verification is possible.

Which, of course, it is.

> Since known surveying equipment has been
> certified and tested by onsite verification, we know those instruments
> of triangulation to be valid.

So, why doesn't the same values of triangulation work for longer distances?

> In one years time the earth has moved
> from one end of the solar system to the other.

No, it has not, only from one position in it's orbit to another.

> But Alpha Centauri is
> LIGHT YEARS away, in the guess of astronomers.

No, it's the measured function of it's parallax.

> 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.

You can, if you use triginometry.

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

LOL, your "explanation" you offered before was wrong then, and it's wrong
now.

>
> Please stop allowing this.

Please attempt to learn something about mathmatics.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages