Re: Hawking and distance of stars


Dana Tweedy wrote:
> <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 only way to verify is to take a spaceship to Alpha Centauri. Your
suggestion is illogical. We can't achieve triangulation. If you went
from one end of the solar system to the other end and tried to
determine triangulation of Alpha Centauri, you couldn't do it because
it is light years away. You could triangulate Pluto and the rest of
the planets. But Alpha Centauri is much too far away.


>
> > 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?

Because triangulation cannot be achieved. Let me illustrate this in
simple terms. Supposing you had a monitor on top of your computer that
measures vertically, specified in light years, 10.5 light years long.
Say that you can create a triangle on your computer, and with a cursor
stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. Then, as you
proceed to stretch the triangle upwards, you notice the higher you go
the straighter the lines become. Not long thereafter, even before your
triangle leaves the earth's atmosphere, you begin noticing that both
verticle lines of the triangle appear to be straight. You then take a
compass or a triangle and try to determine the angle. You find out
that you can't do it. The lines appear to be straight vertically.

Here's another example. If you take a video camera and start taping at
the wide-angle setting you notice that everything seems to be stable
through the eye piece or LCD. No jittery camera movements when looking
at the eye piece. But then, when you start zooming in on the long lens
the more you zoom the more hand shake you notice. So you get out a
tripod to stabilize the camera and get rid of handshake. Half way on
the zoom with tripod you notice that face of the person that you are
viewing distantly is now stable because of the tripod. But then you
zoom further in and you now have the eyes in line, but now you notice
more shaking. Even the pulse in your veins are registering. And
when you zoom into the cell structures of the eyes you find you can no
long see any stability even with that tripod. And it gets worse when
you try to zoom into the cell structure and worse on the atomic level.
Now you can't see anything even if that person were able to stand
perfectly still. you also notice that you can't even point the lens at
what you want to without backing out the zoom and moving in again.
What is occuring here is that what appears to be a straight line is
actually less of a straight line the longer the line is. No doubt
about it, but many people who own property do not own a perfect square
piece of land because the lines aren't perfectly lined up. The zoom
lens illustrates that imperfections show up with zoom/distance.

Now let me get back to the triangle illustration. First of all, when
you have a triangle with appears to have an infinite verticle top, one
that is too far away to see, a person who spots it may think it to be a
rectangle or a set of two lines that reach far into space. You can't
tell if it's a triangle or not. As a consequence the shorter the base
the greater margin of error you have when you try to measure angles.
Because the lines do not appear to be angles, they appear to go
straight up.
The less angle there is the greater the margin of error. It will get
to the point where angle will not have fixed numbers but rather
approximate numbers. The approximate numbers will have a huge margin
for error. That would be like taking surveying equipment and
attempting to measure the distance of a telephone pole by moving your
tripod 1 inch from your starting point.

JM


>
> > 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

  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >>> stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... The lines appear to be straight vertically. ... >>> the more you zoom the more hand shake you notice. ... >>> tripod to stabilize the camera and get rid of handshake. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >> stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... The lines appear to be straight vertically. ... >> the more you zoom the more hand shake you notice. ... >> tripod to stabilize the camera and get rid of handshake. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >>> stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... The lines appear to be straight vertically. ... >>> the more you zoom the more hand shake you notice. ... >>> The less angle there is the greater the margin of error. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... Light years away is still a measurable distance. ... > stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... > compass or a triangle and try to determine the angle. ... > the more you zoom the more hand shake you notice. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... > stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... The lines appear to be straight vertically. ... > the more you zoom the more hand shake you notice. ... > tripod to stabilize the camera and get rid of handshake. ...
    (talk.origins)