Re: Hawking and distance of stars


<mccoy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1138040508.777262.301350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Lee Jay wrote:
>> m...@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> You CAN NOT be serious. No one is this dumb. What you're saying is
>> that the resolution of the monitor is insufficient to determine the
>> angle. So what? Do you think that's how these angles are measured?
>> With a monitor and a protractor?
>
> No, I was illustrating a point regarding the disapearing angle.

The angle hasn't "disappeared". It's still there, and is well within the
range of the equipment. You are saying in effect, that just because you
can't see a bacterium, it doesn't exist, even though it can be seen through
a microscope.

> The
> further the top of the triangle the less angle you have. In fact, there
> would be no measurable angle.

As Lee just got done pointing out, the measurable angle for a star 100 light
years away (aprox 600,000,000,000,000 miles away) is 66 mili-arc-seconds.
The instruments used by astronomers are able to resolve to 1 milil arc
second. That means that the instruments are 66 times more accurate than
required to resolve that particular angle.


>
>>
>> Let's say I use an actual instrument to measure all angles to an
>> accuracy of 1 milli-arc-second (that's 1/1000 of 1/3600th of a degree).
>> My base distance is the diameter of Earth's orbit or about 93 million
>> miles times 2 (186 million miles or about 300 billion meters). Now
>> let's say my star is 100 light years away. My angle on each side will
>> be about 33 milli-arc-seconds for a total difference of 66
>> milli-arc-seconds. My instrument is accurate to 1 milli-arc-second so
>> tell me why I can't measure those 66 milli-arc-seconds with my
>> instrument? That's like saying I have a tape measure marked off in 1
>> inch segments but I can't use it to measure something 5 1/2 feet long.
>
> I can tell you why you cannot measure the angle.

You can tell us why you wrongly believe you can't measure the angle.

> Because you are
> suggesting is merely an idea, not a hypothesis nor theory because no
> verification is involved.

Do you think that geometry and triginometery change in space?

> It is merely an idea, or a guess that you
> can even attach a point in length to an angle measurable in light
> years.

No, it's a confirmed observation.

> Unless you consider yourself to be a god.

Why would someone need to be a god, when they can just use a telescope?
>
>
>>
>> >From the Wikipedia article you failed to read:
>>
>> "The final Hipparcos Catalogue (120,000 stars with 1 milliarcsec level
>> astrometry) and the final Tycho Catalogue (more than one million stars
>> with 20-30 milliarcsec astrometry and two-colour photometry) were
>> completed in August 1996. The catalogues were published by ESA in June
>> 1997."
>
> Does this actually say something other than pictures were taken and
> ATTEMPTS at measurements?

Yes, it says the measurements were made. No matter how you want to squirm
away, geometry proves you wrong.

DJT

.

Relevant Pages

  • The Philosophical Physicist, Statement No. 3
    ... that of geometry is discussed. ... geometer's angle related. ... And the means of analogy between mathematics ... And when the triangle appears nonstandard ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... >> stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... >> compass or a triangle and try to determine the angle. ... > that the resolution of the monitor is insufficient to determine the ... ATTEMPTS at measurements? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Towards a Formula for Primes
    ... triangle, its perimeter matches that of the triangle. ... So we take the coprime pair 3:2 and get the coprime triple 8:15:17 ... E a point on line appears a two equal triangle angle vertex. ... For ca>Ec as line segment magnitudes segment Ec defines the unit ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Sumito
    ... Do you really think you can learn everything without a teacher? ... The Triangle - have significantly and abruptly improved my game. ... "Angle it out about 45 degrees. ... that, but every time they do a leg takedown, they are doing at least ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
  • Re: Hawking and distance of stars
    ... Let me illustrate this in ... >>> stretch the top up the triangle as long as you want to. ... >>> compass or a triangle and try to determine the angle. ... > ATTEMPTS at measurements? ...
    (talk.origins)