carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Their distances can nowadays be established from their observed paralax.
> > (for more than a billion stars, by GAIA)
> > > The North Star is
> > > not measured by parallax but the variation of the star's intensity.
> > Yes, that one too. Its parallax, and hence distance
> > has been measured by the Hipparcos and GAIA satellites.
> > (its parallax is 7.54 ? 0.11 milliarcsecond)
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > --
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris>
>
> How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is three
> order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a
> larger mirror?

Do try to understand that the precision to which you can measure
-the position- of a star is NOT determined by the resolution
of the telescope that you use.

Measuring where the centre of a blob of light is
can be far more accurate than the size of that blob.

Jan

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:47:15 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

> > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?

> You sure are a very slow learner... it has been explained to you several times now that the resolution of the telescope is not important in making this measurement... locating the center of fuzzy stars is all that is necessary to achieve such accuracy...

Parallax determines the distance to the star where the resolution of the telescope tells you if you can determine the change in the angular disp. after 6 months.

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:47:15 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> > > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?
>
> > You sure are a very slow learner... it has been explained to you several times now that the resolution of the telescope is not important in making this measurement... locating the center of fuzzy stars is all that is necessary to achieve such accuracy...

> Parallax determines the distance to the star where the resolution of the telescope tells you if you can determine the change in the angular disp. after 6 months.

No... the resolution ability of the telescope is not important... determining the exact location of the star WRT the background stars *is* important....

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 9:33:28 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > Their distances can nowadays be established from their observed paralax.
> > (for more than a billion stars, by GAIA)
> > > The North Star is
> > > not measured by parallax but the variation of the star's intensity.
> > Yes, that one too. Its parallax, and hence distance
> > has been measured by the Hipparcos and GAIA satellites.
> > (its parallax is 7.54 ą 0.11 milliarcsecond)
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > --
> > <https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Polaris>

> How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?

You have not answered the above question.

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 1:55:24 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:47:15 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > > > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?
> >
> > > You sure are a very slow learner... it has been explained to you several times now that the resolution of the telescope is not important in making this measurement... locating the center of fuzzy stars is all that is necessary to achieve such accuracy...
>
> > Parallax determines the distance to the star where the resolution of the telescope tells you if you can determine the change in the angular disp. after 6 months.

> No... the resolution ability of the telescope is not important... determining thef exact location of the star WRT the background stars *is* important...

Why are all telescope rated with the resolution if the resolution is not important.

--------Maybe you notice that in your ostensible readings. Also, comic books do not count as literacy or scientific reading material unless of course you think batman is real (the cap crusader not the kryptonite guy) but maybe you also went back in time using of course time-space and spoke to Mr. Einstein and he help you formulate your answers which in that case makes you on really smart and handsome guy that the girl and guys have ravishing throughs about and when you are free to think and read about the celestial universe and answer the question you could also transverse to the outer galaxy of the Milky way and take a photograph of the inside of your brain so that the we can determine how many marshmallows stick you would need on your next barbeque in which you could invite Bolkin, Mike and Jan that would be wonderful after it stops raining since all that rain would make you head all soggy and the marshmallow less like to cook to perfection while watch the ISS and the star of the celestial universe come together is a cosmic boom while you are jerking off in a orbital formation with you guests and follow roasters where you could drip melted marshmallows on your interferometers to make them fringe.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 1:55:24 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 1:02:21 PM UTC-8, carleto4...:
> > > On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 11:47:15 AM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > > > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is
> > > three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble
> > > has a larger mirror?
> > >
> > > > You sure are a very slow learner... it has been explained to you
> > > several times now that the resolution of the telescope is not
> > > important in making this measurement... locating the center of fuzzy
> > > stars is all that is necessary to achieve such accuracy...
> > >
> > > Parallax determines the distance to the star where the resolution of
> > > the telescope tells you if you can determine the change in the angular
> > > disp. after 6 months.
>
>
> > No... the resolution ability of the telescope is not important...
> > determining thef exact location of the star WRT the background stars
> > *is* important...
> >
>
> Why are all telescope rated with the resolution if the resolution is not
> important.

Because it is important for other purposes,
such as resolving double stars, or Einstein crosses,
or small craters on the Moon, or.....

Jan

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 9:33:28 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > > Their distances can nowadays be established from their observed paralax.
> > > (for more than a billion stars, by GAIA)
> > > > The North Star is
> > > > not measured by parallax but the variation of the star's intensity.
> > > Yes, that one too. Its parallax, and hence distance
> > > has been measured by the Hipparcos and GAIA satellites.
> > > (its parallax is 7.54 ? 0.11 milliarcsecond)
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > --
> > > <https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Polaris>
>
> > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is
> > three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble
> > has a larger mirror?
>
> You have not answered the above question.

That ±0.11 mas in the above is not 'a resolution'.
It is the standard deviation of the parallax measurement.
(for this star, about 1.3%)

The astrometric accuracy of GAIA is an order of magnitude better.
GAIA can determine stellar positions to about 10 microarcsecond,

Jan

On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 3:49:09 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Because it is important for other purposes,
> such as resolving double stars, or Einstein crosses,
> or small craters on the Moon, or.....
>
> Jan

What about parallax?

On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 4:24:21 PM UTC-7, carl eto wrote:
> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 3:49:09 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Because it is important for other purposes,
> > such as resolving double stars, or Einstein crosses,
> > or small craters on the Moon, or.....
> >
> > Jan
> What about parallax?

If the angular measurement difference was .001 arcsec (after 6 months----assuming the observer was still facing the star and the changed was only infinitesimal and parallax is not some big ass hoax) how would you make a measurement with the Hubble (.1 arcsec)? Please, give us the angular displacement when measuring the distance to alpha centaur 4.22 ly using a 6 month time interval. Give the first date, and the angles within .1 arcsec and the second date and angles which should be around .1 arcsec of the first measurement. Please do not use the north star or stars close to the North star since those stars are trivial because of the earth day motion and the obtuse angle. Also, please say hi to Michael Moroney, Bolkin, and thor stoneman that I miss whipping their collective behinds and that they are no longer banned.. Ha Ha Ha ha. Are you guys and Biden hiding underneath the same model oak desk with those little drawers and pantie hose?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 9:33:28 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> > > Their distances can nowadays be established from their observed paralax.
> > > (for more than a billion stars, by GAIA)
> > > > The North Star is
> > > > not measured by parallax but the variation of the star's intensity.
> > > Yes, that one too. Its parallax, and hence distance
> > > has been measured by the Hipparcos and GAIA satellites.
> > > (its parallax is 7.54 ? 0.11 milliarcsecond)
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > --
> > > <https://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/Polaris>
>
> > How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond which is
> > three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble
> > has a larger mirror?
> >
> You have not answered the above question.

You failed to understand that 'resolution' has many meanings.
See for example:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution>
You are focussing on the optical resolution
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_resolution>

For the case of optically separating a double star
it is the optical resolution that matters.

For astrometry it is the sensor resolution
that determinies the accuracy that you can obtain.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensor#Resolution>

The measurement of the -position- of a star
can be far more accurate than the optical resolution of the telescope,
(as indeed it is, for Hipparcos and GAIA)

Jan

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, March 13, 2022 at 3:49:09 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > Because it is important for other purposes,
> > such as resolving double stars, or Einstein crosses,
> > or small craters on the Moon, or.....
> >
> > Jan
>
> What about parallax?

A parallax measurement is a repeated position measurement. [1]

Jan

[1] Three points are needed to define a circle,
so also an ellipse of known excentricity.
Of course more points are better.

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:

> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?

https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-photo

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:01:40 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> The measurement of the -position- of a star
> can be far more accurate than the optical resolution of the telescope,
> (as indeed it is, for Hipparcos and GAIA)
>
> Jan

Are you saying that the GAIA is not a telescope?

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
>
> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot

I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> >
> > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot

> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!

Your huge ignorance is showing again... did you read the article? Did you not see where the ISS was at an altitude of 450 km at the time of the photo? Is that anywhere near the moon?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:01:40 AM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > The measurement of the -position- of a star
> > can be far more accurate than the optical resolution of the telescope,
> > (as indeed it is, for Hipparcos and GAIA)
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> Are you saying that the GAIA is not a telescope?

No, Where do you get that idea?
GAIA has two built in telescopes, with a common focal plane.
These are used to measure stellar positions.
(to an accuracy that is far greater than its optical resolution)

Jan

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:22:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > Are you saying that the GAIA is not a telescope?
> No, Where do you get that idea?
> GAIA has two built in telescopes, with a common focal plane.
> These are used to measure stellar positions.
> (to an accuracy that is far greater than its optical resolution)
>
> Jan
Then please when you have time to spare answer this question that you seem to be reticence to answer.

How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond (which you have stated) which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> > >
> > > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
>
> > I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
> Your huge ignorance is showing again... did you read the article? Did you not see where the ISS was at an altitude of 450 km at the time of the photo? Is that anywhere near the moon?

Then it looks photoshoped since you cannot possibly focus the ISS and the Moon's surface in the same picture.

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 2:22:56 PM UTC-7, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> > Are you saying that the GAIA is not a telescope?
> No, Where do you get that idea?
> GAIA has two built in telescopes, with a common focal plane.
> These are used to measure stellar positions.
> (to an accuracy that is far greater than its optical resolution)
>
> Jan

Say you are looking at a star with the Hubble and the star moves 1 arcsec which you would be able to detect with the Hubble (if the Hubble really existed) but if the the celestial objected moved .0001 arcsec you would not be able to detect the displacement. Your argumental methods are similar to the ones Hitler used to justify the Holocausts. Where you use one trivial example to justify the whole (top: merry-go-around) and now you are blatantly misrepresenting science since your other attempts have failed.

On 3/14/2022 6:01 PM, carl eto wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>>>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
>>>>
>>>> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
>>
>>> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
>> Your huge ignorance is showing again... did you read the article? Did you not see where the ISS was at an altitude of 450 km at the time of the photo? Is that anywhere near the moon?
>
> Then it looks photoshoped since you cannot possibly focus the ISS and the Moon's surface in the same picture.

Actually yes you can.

Please see: https://photographylife.com/what-is-depth-of-field

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 3:59:34 PM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> How can the GAIA have a resolution of .1 millarcsecond (which you have stated) which is three order more powerful than the Hubble (.1 arcsec) when the Hubble has a larger mirror?

https://public.nrao.edu/ask/which-telescope-better-higher-resolution-hubble-or-vlba/

Hubble has a resolution of 0.03 arcsec... please write this down so you don't forget it...

On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 4:01:33 PM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> > > >
> > > > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> >
> > > I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!

> > Your huge ignorance is showing again... did you read the article? Did you not see where the ISS was at an altitude of 450 km at the time of the photo? Is that anywhere near the moon?

> Then it looks photoshoped since you cannot possibly focus the ISS and the Moon's surface in the same picture.

Unbelievable ignorance for you! I suppose that photography is yet another thing that you know absolutely nothing about! Really, I have a mud fence in the back yard that has a higher IQ than you do!

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:45:40 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 11:15:35 AM UTC-7, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...:
> > > >
> > > > > Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
> > > >
> > > > https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
> >
> > > I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!
> > Your huge ignorance is showing again... did you read the article? Did
> > you not see where the ISS was at an altitude of 450 km at the time of
> > the photo? Is that anywhere near the moon?
> >
> Then it looks photoshoped since you cannot possibly focus the ISS and the
> Moon's surface in the same picture.

They are both 'at infinity', as far as your camera is concerned,
(distance much larger than focal length)

In a previous posting I wondered
if you had ever looked through a telescope.
Now I am beginning to wonder if you have ever worked with a real camera.
(with a lens, with a focussing ring, so not just some phone)

Jan

On 3/14/2022 2:15 PM, carl eto wrote:
> On Monday, March 14, 2022 at 10:30:46 AM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 1:45:04 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Have you seen photos of the ISS taken from the earth?
>>
>> https://mashable.com/article/space-station-moon-transit-phot
>
>
> I did not know that the ISS is orbiting the MOON!

Why did you conclude that? The image is a (beautiful!) picture of the
ISS in front of the moon. Which is exactly what you'd expect if the ISS
was orbiting the earth (not moon) but transiting in front of the moon.