thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> The viewers viewing angle has changed 90 degree. Is that to difficult to
> comprehend?

No, easy. You have fallen flat on your face.
Can happen, don't worry,

Jan

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The viewers viewing angle has changed 90 degree. Is that to difficult to
> > comprehend?
> No, easy. You have fallen flat on your face.
> Can happen, don't worry,
>
> Jan

When you are on a merry-go-round and go halve way around, you will not be facing the same direction which is the same that would happen to an observer after propagating the distance of the earth orbital diameter in a six month time interval.

MIT, Harvard, Stanford and Berkeley physics students and professors are all lost in space.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > The viewers viewing angle has changed 90 degree. Is that to difficult to
> > > comprehend?
> > No, easy. You have fallen flat on your face.
> > Can happen, don't worry,
> >
> > Jan
>
> When you are on a merry-go-round and go halve way around, you will not be
> facing the same direction which is the same that would happen to an
> observer after propagating the distance of the earth orbital diameter in a
> six month time interval.

That's why Bessel looked 'up'.
FYI, 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
from where Bessel measured its parallax,

Jan

On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:41:46 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > The viewers viewing angle has changed 90 degree. Is that to difficult to
> > > > comprehend?
> > > No, easy. You have fallen flat on your face.
> > > Can happen, don't worry,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > When you are on a merry-go-round and go halve way around, you will not be
> > facing the same direction which is the same that would happen to an
> > observer after propagating the distance of the earth orbital diameter in a
> > six month time interval.
> That's why Bessel looked 'up'.
> FYI, 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
> from where Bessel measured its parallax,
>
> Jan

The choose of the star does not alter the fact that the observer directional view has changed 180 degrees after a six month time interval that corresponds to the earth's orbital diameter yet a 10-5 degree change in angle of the star's angular position is ostensibly being measured.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:41:46 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thursday, March 3, 2022 at 1:20:34 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The viewers viewing angle has changed 90 degree. Is that to
> > > > > difficult to comprehend?
> > > > No, easy. You have fallen flat on your face.
> > > > Can happen, don't worry,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > When you are on a merry-go-round and go halve way around, you will not be
> > > facing the same direction which is the same that would happen to an
> > > observer after propagating the distance of the earth orbital diameter in a
> > > six month time interval.
> > That's why Bessel looked 'up'.
> > FYI, 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
> > from where Bessel measured its parallax,
> >
> > Jan
>
> The choose of the star does not alter the fact that the observer
> directional view has changed 180 degrees after a six month time interval
> that corresponds to the earth's orbital diameter.

Correct. Look at the big dipper for example, in summer and winter,
and in the early evening and in the early morning.

> yet a 10-5 degree change in angle of the star's angular position is
> ostensibly being measured.

Correct, and not 'ostensibly'.
What is measured is the position of the star
--with respect to reference stars-- ,

Jan

> What is measured is the position of the star
> --with respect to reference stars-- ,
>
> Jan

Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.

Is this the best Harvard can do?

..

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> > What is measured is the position of the star
> > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> >
> > Jan
>
> Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.

DO find out how parallax is really measured,

Jan

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:29:19 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What is measured is the position of the star
> > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> >
> > Jan
> Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.

Your ignorance concerning parallax is astounding. Can't you just look this up and learn something correctly for a change?

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-6, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What is measured is the position of the star
> > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> >
> > Jan
> Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.

STUPID!

You can't do it that way, with only a single star. There is no way
that you could point a telescope with sufficient accuracy.

What you do is measure the position of a nearby star using
faraway background stars as reference

http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/new-horizons-parallax-measurements-proxima-centauri-wolf-359-08533.html

https://www.coe.edu/faculty-staff/james-wetzel/astronomy/parallax
https://www.coe.edu/application/files/7715/5010/9655/paranim-2.gif

On 3/4/2022 3:29 PM, carl eto wrote:
>
>
>> What is measured is the position of the star
>> --with respect to reference stars-- ,
>>
>> Jan
>
> Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.

No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its position
to these references.

On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > What is measured is the position of the star
> > > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> DO find out how parallax is really measured,
>
> Jan

One star.-------------https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/teachers/attachments/parallax.html

At Harvard, are they teaching there graduate students to be incompetent?

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:03:55 AM UTC-8, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 2:29:19 PM UTC-6, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > What is measured is the position of the star
> > > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > >
> > > Jan
> > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> STUPID!
>
> You can't do it that way, with only a single star. There is no way
> that you could point a telescope with sufficient accuracy.
>
> What you do is measure the position of a nearby star using
> faraway background stars as reference
>
> http://www.sci-news.com/astronomy/new-horizons-parallax-measurements-proxima-centauri-wolf-359-08533.html
>
> https://www.coe.edu/faculty-staff/james-wetzel/astronomy/parallax
> https://www.coe.edu/application/files/7715/5010/9655/paranim-2.gif

All the stars of the celestial universe are stationary (celestial maps).

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/4/2022 3:29 PM, carl eto wrote:
> >
> >
> >> What is measured is the position of the star
> >> --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> >>
> >> Jan
> >
> > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
> ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
> parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its position
> to these references.

Your argument is moot since after 6 months the observer is facing the opposite direction.

carl eto wrote:

>> >> Jan
>> >
>> > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
>> No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
>> ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
>> parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its
>> position to these references.
>
> Your argument is moot since after 6 months the observer is facing the
> opposite direction.

you can't change directions, opposite, traveling relativistic speeds.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:11:37 AM UTC-8, Darin Herr wrote:
> carl eto wrote:
>
> >> >> Jan
> >> >
> >> > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> >> No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
> >> ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
> >> parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its
> >> position to these references.
> >
> > Your argument is moot since after 6 months the observer is facing the
> > opposite direction.
> you can't change directions, opposite, traveling relativistic speeds

Image being on a merry-go-around, after going half way around you would be facing the opposite direction and 30 km/s is not a relativistic velocity.

Are you a Berkeley or Caltech Grad?

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:53:41 AM UTC-8, carl eto wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 9:11:37 AM UTC-8, Darin Herr wrote:
> > carl eto wrote:
> >
> > >> >> Jan
> > >> >
> > >> > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > >> No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
> > >> ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
> > >> parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its
> > >> position to these references.
> > >
> > > Your argument is moot since after 6 months the observer is facing the
> > > opposite direction.
> > you can't change directions, opposite, traveling relativistic speeds
> Image being on a merry-go-around, after going half way around you would be facing the opposite direction and 30 km/s is not a relativistic velocity.
>
>
> Are you a Berkeley or Caltech Grad?

Imagine, another Harvard Graduate.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > What is measured is the position of the star
> > > > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > DO find out how parallax is really measured,
> >
> > Jan
>
> One star.-------------
<https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/teachers/attachments/parallax.html>

You are confusing the formal definition
with the way it can actually be measured.
In other words, you are clueless about reality.

Again: DO find out how parallax is really measured,

Jan

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 3/4/2022 3:29 PM, carl eto wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> What is measured is the position of the star
> > >> --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > >>
> > >> Jan
> > >
> > > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
> > ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
> > parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its position
> > to these references.
>
> Your argument is moot since after 6 months the observer is facing the
> opposite direction.

Is it really beyond you to understand
that the universe is three-dimensional?

Jan

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 5:37:41 AM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > > On 3/4/2022 3:29 PM, carl eto wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >> What is measured is the position of the star
> > > >> --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > > >>
> > > >> Jan
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > > No, the position of the star is compared to the "background" stars,
> > > ideally at a near-infinite distance so would show zero parallax. The
> > > parallax of the star in question is determined by comparing its position
> > > to these references.
> >
> > Your argument is moot since after 6 months the observer is facing the
> > opposite direction.
> Is it really beyond you to understand
> that the universe is three-dimensional?
>
> Jan

Astronomer do not know if a star is far away or just plain dim.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What is measured is the position of the star
> > > > > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > > DO find out how parallax is really measured,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > One star.-------------
> <https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/teachers/attachments/parallax.html>
> You are confusing the formal definition
> with the way it can actually be measured.
> In other words, you are clueless about reality.
>
> Again: DO find out how parallax is really measured,
>
> Jan

After propagating the distance equal to the earth orbital diameter, the observer angle would change 180 degrees which nullifies the parallax method.

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > What is measured is the position of the star
> > > > > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jan
> > > >
> > > > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > > DO find out how parallax is really measured,
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > One star.-------------
> <https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/teachers/attachments/parallax.html>
> You are confusing the formal definition
> with the way it can actually be measured.
> In other words, you are clueless about reality.
>
> Again: DO find out how parallax is really measured,
>
> Jan

Do the stars of celestial maps change positions? Example, does the arm of the Big dipper get smaller or larger or does the shape of the Sirius constellation change?

Also, is the Sun in motion? And if the Sun where in motion why do we not have to update celestial maps because of the motion of the Sun? And what direction is the Sun propagating? And is the North star always the same star?

..
> Correct, and not 'ostensibly'.
> What is measured is the position of the star
> --with respect to reference stars-- ,
>
> Jan

How can you measure the star if you cannot see the star, after 6 month since the earth's orbital path would change the observers view by 180 degrees.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 12:25:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Friday, March 4, 2022 at 12:45:13 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > What is measured is the position of the star
> > > > > > --with respect to reference stars-- ,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jan
> > > > >
> > > > > Incorrect -------only a single star is being used.
> > > > DO find out how parallax is really measured,
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> > > One star.-------------
> > <https://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/teachers/attachments/parallax.html>
> > You are confusing the formal definition
> > with the way it can actually be measured.
> > In other words, you are clueless about reality.
> >
> > Again: DO find out how parallax is really measured,
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> After propagating the distance equal to the earth orbital diameter, the
> observer angle would change 180 degrees which nullifies the parallax
> method.

Again: DO find out how parallax is really measured.
Again: Space is three dimensional.
You can look 'up', out of the plane of the ecliptic.
Again: Bessel determined the parallax for a star that is circumpolar,
so visible the whole year round, (for him)
Again: Bessel measured the apparent position of his star,
so its right ascension and declination
by referring to the positions of fixed neigbour stars.
Again: By measuring that position many times over the course of a year
you can measure the parallax, hence the distance.

Do you understand the meaning of ecliptic, circumpolar,
right ascension and declination, or do you need those explained?

Jan

On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:05:01 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:

> Do the stars of celestial maps change positions? Example, does the arm of the Big dipper get smaller or larger or does the shape of the Sirius constellation change?

Absolutely! Look up "proper motion" of the stars, and watch this...

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/503383/watch-big-dipper-it-moves-through-time-and-space