Re: Hawking and distance of stars


<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138037857.667012.123430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
snipping

>> 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.

Why? Does trigonometry and geometry somehow stop working in space?

> Your
> suggestion is illogical. We can't achieve triangulation.

Why not?

> 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.

Irrelevant. Light years away is still a measurable distance.


> You could triangulate Pluto and the rest of
> the planets. But Alpha Centauri is much too far away.

As has been explained to you many times over, it's not a problem for
suitably precice astronomical instruments to measure the parallax of stars
out to thousands of light years. Your objections are simply ridiculous.



>
>
>>
>> > 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.

Why not?

> 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.

Again, you are demonstrating you have absolutely no idea what you are
talking about. The lines may "appear straight", but in fact they do have
an angle. With a precise enough measuring tool, I can measure that angle,
and caluclate the distance. It's simple geometry.

>
> 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.

That is why astronmers don't use hand held video cameras to calculate
distances. You still miss the point that interstellar distances can be,
and are easily calculated by simple geometry.

>
> 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.

You can with the right instruments.

> As a consequence the shorter the base
> the greater margin of error you have when you try to measure angles.

Which is again, why you need precise instuments.

> Because the lines do not appear to be angles, they appear to go
> straight up.

Yet, despite appearances, they still actually have an angle, one that can be
measured, and the distance calculated.

> The less angle there is the greater the margin of error.

Unless your instruments are more precise.

> It will get
> to the point where angle will not have fixed numbers but rather
> approximate numbers.

Even approximate numbers can give you readings that are useful. What does
it matter if the distance is off by a few thousand kilometers, when
measuring a 100 light years?

The approximate numbers will have a huge margin
> for error.

Not if your instruments are sufficiently precise.

> 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.

It can still be done, and with only a very small margin of error.

Note the material ignored below


DJT


>
>>
>> > 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: Zoom and magnify relation
    ... My video camera shows me the current zoom factor ... you could do it accurately) to a FL gives a good idea of lens coverage ... it 44mm...;-) To find the angle of coverage of a lens with this ... a right triangle can be made by drawing a vertical line ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Questions about diamond distance.
    ... diamond "declared" distance? ... DIAMOND DISTANCE a distance flight of at least 500 kilometres. ... just one-up the 300K and do a 500K triangle or out-and-return. ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)
  • 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: Questions about diamond distance.
    ... diamond "declared" distance? ... The diamond badge consists of three components: ... DIAMOND DISTANCE a distance flight of at least 500 kilometres. ... just one-up the 300K and do a 500K triangle or out-and-return. ...
    (rec.aviation.soaring)
  • Re: Finding closest Triangle to a point
    ... a convex mesh is such that all its polygons are contained in the boundary of the convex hull formed by the vertices of the mesh. ... This also simplifies the evaluation of the potential function to a simple distance calculation between points. ... the answer to the question "which is the closest triangle to a point?" ...
    (comp.graphics.algorithms)