On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 1:36:24 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:

> The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power (resolution) of the telescope.

This is wrong. Terribly wrong.

You cannot determine the change in the position of the star without proper power of the telescope.

This is also very wrong. You can see the change in position with an inexpensive telescope.

Also, what is the reference parallax distance that you are using to determining the parallax distance? Also, the closest star is 4.22 ly. So the reference distance has to be in the same order. Do you have a reference distance..? No you do not so modern astronomy is based on your nonsense.

You are babbling nonsense. You have no clue about parallax. My dog knows more about parallax than you do and he has been dead for several years.

....Go find another hobby, this one is way too difficult for you...

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:25:23 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > > Isn't it time that you find out for yourself,
> > > > -before- you spout lots of nonsense about it?
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > This includes how Parallax is done. Please Jan don't get sick or bite your
> > > dick.
> > [snip repeats of nonsense]
> >
> > So you haven't understood it at all.
> > Hint, the resolution of the telescope is irrelevant
> > for measuring parallax,
> > (which is about measuring -stellar positions-)
> >
> > Jan
>
> The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power
> (resolution) of the telescope.

Yes, that is your mistake. No point in repeating it again and again.
[snip derived errors]

To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
to better than arcsecond accuracy.

Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
so the distance between them is easily resolved,
even with a small telescope,

Jan

Den 01.03.2022 12:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:25:23 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 11:44:15 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Isn't it time that you find out for yourself,
>>>>> -before- you spout lots of nonsense about it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> This includes how Parallax is done. Please Jan don't get sick or bite your
>>>> dick.
>>> [snip repeats of nonsense]
>>>
>>> So you haven't understood it at all.
>>> Hint, the resolution of the telescope is irrelevant
>>> for measuring parallax,
>>> (which is about measuring -stellar positions-)
>>>
>>> Jan
>>
>> The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power
>> (resolution) of the telescope.
>
> Yes, that is your mistake. No point in repeating it again and again.
> [snip derived errors]
>
> To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
> to better than arcsecond accuracy.
>
> Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
> so the distance between them is easily resolved,
> even with a small telescope,
>
> Jan
>

If the parallax of a star is 1 arcsec, then the distance to the star
is 1 parsec. No star is that close , so the resolution has to be _much_
better than 1 arcsec to measure the distance to even the closest stars.

Hipparcos (HIgh Precision PARallax COllecting Satellite) has
measured the distance to 118,200 stars.
The precision is ≈ 1 mas (milli-arcsecond), which means that
it has measured distances up to 1000 parsec = 3260 light years.

https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/hipparcos.html

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
> to better than arcsecond accuracy.
>
> Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
> so the distance between them is easily resolved,
> even with a small telescope,
>
> Jan

----------------------------------------------------------------------

When you are determining the parallax distance you are only using one single Star. The power to resolve the star is the resolution to measure the change in the angle of the said single star at two different positions which was used to determine the height of Mt Everest.

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 4:29:37 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> If the parallax of a star is 1 arcsec, then the distance to the star
> is 1 parsec. No star is that close , so the resolution has to be _much_
> better than 1 arcsec to measure the distance to even the closest stars.
>
> Hipparcos (HIgh Precision PARallax COllecting Satellite) has
> measured the distance to 118,200 stars.
> The precision is ≈ 1 mas (milli-arcsecond), which means that
> it has measured distances up to 1000 parsec = 3260 light years.
>
> https://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/W3Browse/all/hipparcos.html
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

My God. What is the parallax reference distance are you using? The maximum vertical parallax distance that you can measure from the surface of the earth is Mt. Everest.

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 6:47:42 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 1:36:24 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power (resolution) of the telescope.
> This is wrong. Terribly wrong.
> You cannot determine the change in the position of the star without proper power of the telescope.
> This is also very wrong. You can see the change in position with an inexpensive telescope.
> Also, what is the reference parallax distance that you are using to determining the parallax distance? Also, the closest star is 4.22 ly. So the reference distance has to be in the same order. Do you have a reference distance.? No you do not so modern astronomy is based on your nonsense.
> You are babbling nonsense. You have no clue about parallax. My dog knows more about parallax than you do and he has been dead for several years.
>
> ...Go find another hobby, this one is way too difficult for you...

The maximum vertical parallax distance that you can measure from the surface of the earth is the height of Mt. Everest. If you can measure the distance to a 4.22 ly star then please tell me the parallax reference distance you are using and how you obtain that value.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 3:10:56 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> > To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
> > to better than arcsecond accuracy.
> >
> > Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
> > so the distance between them is easily resolved,
> > even with a small telescope,
> >
> > Jan
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When you are determining the parallax distance you are only using one
> single Star.

Your mistake. Look again at how it is really done,

Jan

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 01.03.2022 12:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:25:23 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
[-]
> >>> [snip repeats of nonsense]
> >>>
> >>> So you haven't understood it at all.
> >>> Hint, the resolution of the telescope is irrelevant
> >>> for measuring parallax,
> >>> (which is about measuring -stellar positions-)
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>
> >> The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power
> >> (resolution) of the telescope.
> >
> > Yes, that is your mistake. No point in repeating it again and again.
> > [snip derived errors]
> >
> > To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
> > to better than arcsecond accuracy.
> >
> > Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
> > so the distance between them is easily resolved,
> > even with a small telescope,
> >
> > Jan
> >
>
> If the parallax of a star is 1 arcsec, then the distance to the star
> is 1 parsec. No star is that close , so the resolution has to be _much_
> better than 1 arcsec to measure the distance to even the closest stars.

Not quite, but almost. You missed my: 'better than'?
Bessel succeeded in measuring stellar distances [1]
to about a tenth of an arcsecond, which is good enough
to determine the distances of the nearest stars,

Jan

[1] And for the easily confused here:
we are talking about angular distances between stars in the sky,
as seen from Earth, (measured in arcseconds)
and distances of stars from the Earth. (measured in lightyears)

On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 6:47:42 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:

> You cannot determine the change in the position of the star without proper power of the telescope.

This is also very wrong. You can see the change in position with an inexpensive telescope.

Using a 100 mile parallax reference distance, the change in the star positions cannot be measure with any kind of telescope. It would be similar to seeing an electron orbiting an atom using a optical microscope. Example, I was at the grocery store and a 7 year old boy had an adult size rawling baseball glove that he was wearing while standing in line with his mother.

I jokingly said "isn't that glove kinda for big for you"

He angerly turns to me and says.

"When I was 13 I was a pitcher on a baseball team"

I was flabbergasted and was left speechless but his mother who was a sweet lady told the boy it was not true what he was saying. The little boy said it with so much conviction and anger that it was hilarious. An other example, a 7 year old extremely cute little girl with big brown eye was walking and holding a nude Barbie doll by the legs upside down, on a university campus on the week end, so I tried to tug it away from her since I was walking behind them and she look at me and was really mad. Later after walking back she sees me and points at me, clutching her Barbie with all her might, and tells her extremely pretty mother that I was the one that was trying to steal her Barbie. I told her that Barbie wanted to wear a nice dress and have her hair combed and she glared at me. I told the beautiful mother that when she get tired of the doll that she should save it and put it in a box somewhere save. The mother started to cry.

and she said thank you while sobbing.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 6:47:42 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 1:36:24 PM UTC-8, carleto4...:
> > >
> > > The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power
> > > (resolution) of the telescope.
> > This is wrong. Terribly wrong. You cannot determine the change in the
> > position of the star without proper power of the telescope. This is also
> > very wrong. You can see the change in position with an inexpensive
> > telescope. Also, what is the reference parallax distance that you are
> > using to determining the parallax distance? Also, the closest star is
> > 4.22 ly. So the reference distance has to be in the same order. Do you
> > have a reference distance.? No you do not so modern astronomy is based
> > on your nonsense. You are babbling nonsense. You have no clue about
> > parallax. My dog knows more about parallax than you do and he has been
> > dead for several years.
> >
> > ...Go find another hobby, this one is way too difficult for you...
>
>
> The maximum vertical parallax distance that you can measure from the
> surface of the earth is the height of Mt. Everest. If you can measure the
> distance to a 4.22 ly star then please tell me the parallax reference
> distance you are using and how you obtain that value.

The baseline is the diameter of the orbit of the Earth.
It was first determined by Ole Romer,
by observing the satellites of Jupiter.
The value is about 1000 lightseconds,

Jan

Den 01.03.2022 22:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>
>> Den 01.03.2022 12:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
>>> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:25:23 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> [-]
>>>>> [snip repeats of nonsense]
>>>>>
>>>>> So you haven't understood it at all.
>>>>> Hint, the resolution of the telescope is irrelevant
>>>>> for measuring parallax,
>>>>> (which is about measuring -stellar positions-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan
>>>>
>>>> The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power
>>>> (resolution) of the telescope.
>>>
>>> Yes, that is your mistake. No point in repeating it again and again.
>>> [snip derived errors]
>>>
>>> To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
>>> to better than arcsecond accuracy.
>>>
>>> Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
>>> so the distance between them is easily resolved,
>>> even with a small telescope,
>>>
>>> Jan
>>>
>>
>> If the parallax of a star is 1 arcsec, then the distance to the star
>> is 1 parsec. No star is that close , so the resolution has to be _much_
>> better than 1 arcsec to measure the distance to even the closest stars.
>
> Not quite, but almost. You missed my: 'better than'?
> Bessel succeeded in measuring stellar distances [1]
> to about a tenth of an arcsecond, which is good enough
> to determine the distances of the nearest stars,

I wasn't aware that you were talking about Bessel.

But Bessel measured the parallax of 61 Cygni to be 0.314",
equivalent to 3.18 parsecs or 11.3 ly. This is only 10% from
the correct value, so the resolution must be considerable
better than 0.3". But since a resolution of 0.1" is about
the best you can achieve with a telescope on Earth, it
sounds reasonable that this was his resolution. He has
probably increased the precision by averaging several
measurements. He obviously made several measurements
as the parallax changed with time.

Don't make a big deal of this, I didn't say you were
wrong, I only thought "better than arcsecond accuracy"
was a bit understatement of the required precision.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:

> Den 01.03.2022 22:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> > Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
> >
> >> Den 01.03.2022 12:10, skrev J. J. Lodder:
> >>> carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Sunday, February 27, 2022 at 2:25:23 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > [-]
> >>>>> [snip repeats of nonsense]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So you haven't understood it at all.
> >>>>> Hint, the resolution of the telescope is irrelevant
> >>>>> for measuring parallax,
> >>>>> (which is about measuring -stellar positions-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jan
> >>>>
> >>>> The position of the stars forms an angle that is limited to the power
> >>>> (resolution) of the telescope.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that is your mistake. No point in repeating it again and again.
> >>> [snip derived errors]
> >>>
> >>> To establish parallax you measure distances between stars
> >>> to better than arcsecond accuracy.
> >>>
> >>> Those stars are much farther apart than an arcsecond,
> >>> so the distance between them is easily resolved,
> >>> even with a small telescope,
> >>>
> >>> Jan
> >>>
> >>
> >> If the parallax of a star is 1 arcsec, then the distance to the star
> >> is 1 parsec. No star is that close , so the resolution has to be _much_
> >> better than 1 arcsec to measure the distance to even the closest stars.
> >
> > Not quite, but almost. You missed my: 'better than'?
> > Bessel succeeded in measuring stellar distances [1]
> > to about a tenth of an arcsecond, which is good enough
> > to determine the distances of the nearest stars,
>
> I wasn't aware that you were talking about Bessel.

Just the obvious example.

> But Bessel measured the parallax of 61 Cygni to be 0.314",
> equivalent to 3.18 parsecs or 11.3 ly. This is only 10% from
> the correct value, so the resolution must be considerable
> better than 0.3".

Physics talk: in this context 'better than'
means an order of magnitude better than.

> But since a resolution of 0.1" is about
> the best you can achieve with a telescope on Earth, it
> sounds reasonable that this was his resolution.

Bessel certainly couldn't do that,
because he used a small telescope. (6", that is 150 mm)
But you missed my point: Unlike what some nutters here
are saying all the time the resolution of the telescpe is irrelevant.
It is just a red herring.
What must be measured is the distance between stars.
(that is the distance -between the centres of their images-.)
The size of those images is of secondary concern.

> He has probably increased the precision by averaging several measurements.
> He obviously made several measurements as the parallax changed with time.

What Bessel must have done is regularly measuring the distance
of 61 Cygni to a number of nearby reference stars
in the field of his telescope, to find its track wrt them.
He had to split off the proper motion to find the parallax.
(guess he will have done a Fourier analysis)

BTW, Bessel's use of a small, low resolution telescope
was actually an advantage, because it allowed a wider field of view,
hence more reference stars,

Jan

On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 1:24:04 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:

The baseline is the diameter of the orbit of the Earth.

Jan

Parallax requires a straight path. The earth's orbital diameter is not straight. It is curved.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 1:24:04 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>
> The baseline is the diameter of the orbit of the Earth.
>
> Jan
>
> Parallax requires a straight path. The earth's orbital diameter is not
> straight. It is curved.

By 'eto's axiom' which you have just invented on the spot?
In reality observing a parallax only requires two standpoints,
(you use more, but that's only for improved accuracy)

Jan

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:09:03 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 1:24:04 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >
> > The baseline is the diameter of the orbit of the Earth.
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > Parallax requires a straight path. The earth's orbital diameter is not
> > straight. It is curved.
> By 'eto's axiom' which you have just invented on the spot?
> In reality observing a parallax only requires two standpoints,
> (you use more, but that's only for improved accuracy)
>
> Ja

What is the distance between the "two standpoints".

You have said the distance is the earth's orbital diameter but the curve path results the the observer angle of observation to be altered.

90 degrees

And the minimum resolution of the hubble is .1 arcsec or 2.7778e-5 degrees

So the observer's angle changes by 90 degree and you are attempting to measure and angular displacement of 10^-5 degrees. Please.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 3:09:03 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, March 1, 2022 at 1:24:04 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > >
> > > The baseline is the diameter of the orbit of the Earth.
> > >
> > > Jan
> > >
> > > Parallax requires a straight path. The earth's orbital diameter is not
> > > straight. It is curved.
> > By 'eto's axiom' which you have just invented on the spot?
> > In reality observing a parallax only requires two standpoints,
> > (you use more, but that's only for improved accuracy)
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> What is the distance between the "two standpoints".

The orbit of the Earth around the sun is accurately known.
You can calculate where the Earth is at any time, [1]

Jan

[1] Beware: It involves horribly difficult mathematics
that only the most advanced mathematicians
and of course also high school students can understand,
such as sines and cosines.

The viewers viewing angle has changed 90 degree. Is that to difficult to comprehend? Are you getting vertigo and feeling insignificant? Since all of astronomy is based on this Parallax. ha ha ha. How incredibly empty astronomy and physics is. Everything and I mean everything in astronomy is shit.

You cannot determine the height of Mt. Everest.

Much less a 4.22 ly star.

It's all this incredible guessing. Random guessing and calling it a science.