On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > and stars cannot be resolved,
> > no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.
> >
> > Jan
>

If you cannot resolve the star, how do you determine the distance to the star?

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 12:08:33 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > > and stars cannot be resolved,

> > > Jan
> >

That is absolutely correct. Therefore, astronomer do not know if a star is far away or just plain dim.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > and stars cannot be resolved,
> > no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.
> >
> > Jan
>
> The purpose of parallax is to resolve the star to determine the distance
> to the star.

Yes, you misunderstood what 'resolution' is.
No need to keep repeating your mistakes,

Jan

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 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.

But they do. By now the distances to about a billion stars have been
measured from their parallax. Their spectra are also known.
See under GAIA satellite.
This is more than enough information
to know 'if a star is far away or just plain dim',

Jan

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > > and stars cannot be resolved,
> > > no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > The purpose of parallax is to resolve the star to determine the distance
> > to the star.
> Yes, you misunderstood what 'resolution' is.
> No need to keep repeating your mistakes,
>
> Jan

The angular resolving power (or resolution) of a telescope is the smallest angle between close objects that can be seen clearly to be separate.

Resolution can also be applied to angles that are be determine which is important aspect of science to expand ones ability to uses part of a angular resolution and applying it to parallax. Abstract thinking is an important part of science.

But the resolution problem is minuscule compared to the 180 degree merry-go-round problem.

Also, J. J. Lodder, do you believe in facts and truth?

Plus, we invent new words and theories to describe new effects and since parallax is avoiding the truth then new terms have to be created and the resolution of points and angles are very similar and can be used reversely when one or small groups opens their collective minds, if one or the collective are concerned about the truth which is certainly that you are and can keep your attention to the facts and not to forget about the assassination of the facts and truth which is prevalent in astrometry and bias should be weighed.

Since the ISS photographs are laughable.

At least that is my response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xg0c6fd8PCk

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 1:07:21 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman
<consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > > and stars cannot be resolved,
> > > no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> > The purpose of parallax is to resolve the star to determine the distance
> > to the star.

> Yes, you misunderstood what 'resolution' is.
> No need to keep repeating your mistakes,
>
> Jan

Think (if that is possible to the reader) that in normal resolution the point of the triangle is the observer and the two points of resolution are at the distance object. Another resolution would be where the point is the distance star and the two points that form the earth's orbital diameter used in parallax are the two points. Certainly, this is a large distance but relative to the distance to the star it is small. Consequently, this inverted resolution is used to determine the parallax distance to the star which upon closer inspection is not possible since the Hubble has a resolution of .1 arcsec but the merry-go-around problem is much more obvious since the observe is no longer facing the star.

Great job Thor you a kicking butt!

>
> But they do. By now the distances to about a billion stars have been
> measured from their parallax. Their spectra are also known.
> See under GAIA satellite.
> This is more than enough information
> to know 'if a star is far away or just plain dim',
>
> Jan

What are they using for the parallax reference distance---the earth's orbital diameter----which is three order less then the distance to a 9,000 ly star---are you to dense to understand?

Please tell us how you Parallax the distance to a 9,000 ly star----------------------you cannot or will not because you are lying about everything.

henceforth----------- the discussion is over.

Astronomy is plain dim.

Please Jan do you post here anymore....you nauseate me.

Congratulation 1039 views!!!!

https://www.123rf.com/photo_22086158_happy-cheerful-family-mother-and-baby-kissing-laughing-and-hugging-isolated-on-white-background.html

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-09-03/comedy-wildlife-photography-awards-2021-finalists/100432524

On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 2:34:18 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:

> Great job Thor you a kicking butt!

It is pretty clear to me that you and Thor are the same person because it is almost impossible that 2 people here on this forum could be so ignorant regarding this subject matter, and simultaneously present the exact same stupid argument!

Read a dang textbook!

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > > and stars cannot be resolved,
> > > no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
>
>
> If you cannot resolve the star, how do you determine the distance to the star?

You measure its parallax.
This doen not involve resolving it,
only measuring its position in the sky over a year.

Do you understand that it is possible to measure the position of a star
to much greater accuracy than the resolving power of your telescope?

Or that you can measure where the centre of a saucer is
to much greater accuracy than the diameter of that saucer?

Jan

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > But they do. By now the distances to about a billion stars have been
> > measured from their parallax. Their spectra are also known.
> > See under GAIA satellite.
> > This is more than enough information
> > to know 'if a star is far away or just plain dim',
> >
> > Jan
>
> What are they using for the parallax reference distance---the earth's
> orbital diameter----

Yes.

> which is three order less then the distance to a 9,000 ly star---are you
> to dense to understand?

-You- should understand that the GAIA satellite is capable
of measuring stellar positions with accuracies
that are nearly in the microarcsecond range.
So parallaxes of tens of microarcseconds. Get it: -micro-

> Please tell us how you Parallax the distance to a 9,000 ly
> star----------------------you cannot or will not because you are lying
> about everything.

Simple geometry,

Jan

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 2:34:18 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Great job Thor you a kicking butt!
>
> It is pretty clear to me that you and Thor are the same person because it
> is almost impossible that 2 people here on this forum could be so ignorant
> regarding this subject matter, and simultaneously present the exact same
> stupid argument!
>
> Read a dang textbook!

Yes, but who is sock and who is puppet?

Jan

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> But the resolution problem is minuscule compared to the 180 degree
> merry-go-round problem.

That is a non-existent problem of your invention,
and one that exists only in your limited imagination.
It doesn't even exist for stars in the plane of the ecliptic.

To explain: take a fairground merry go round.
Get in, take your iPhone. Make a movie, while going round,
looking outwards.
Single shots from the camera will cover about 90 degrees.

Someone with some geometrical competence
(a trained photo analyst for example)
will be able to make a map of the entire surroundings of the roundabout,
by comparing successive stills from the movie.
(because the fields of successive stills overlap)
There is never a need to look back over your shoulder.

BTW, this is just what the GAIA satellite has been doing.
It sits permanently near the second Lagrange point L2.
(in a lissajous orbit)
So it moves with the Earth around the Sun, once a year.
It can (and does) map all stars in the entire sky,
and measures their parallax, and hence their distances.

For about a billion stars, so far.
You are completely clueless about how much
you are trying to be in denial of,
(petabytes of data)

Jan

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 12:42:30 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 11:52:07 AM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > > > Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
> > > > and stars cannot be resolved,
> > > > no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.
> > > >
> > > > Jan
> > >
> >
> >
> > If you cannot resolve the star, how do you determine the distance to the star?
> You measure its parallax.
> This doen not involve resolving it,
> only measuring its position in the sky over a year.
>
> Do you understand that it is possible to measure the position of a star
> to much greater accuracy than the resolving power of your telescope?
>
> Or that you can measure where the centre of a saucer is
> to much greater accuracy than the diameter of that saucer?
>
> Jan

> -You- should understand that the GAIA satellite is capable
> of measuring stellar positions with accuracies
> that are nearly in the microarcsecond range.
> So parallaxes of tens of microarcseconds. Get it: -micro-
> > Please tell us how you Parallax the distance to a 9,000 ly
> > star----------------------you cannot or will not because you are lying
> > about everything.
> Simple geometry,
>
> Jan

What is the parallax reference distance?

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 4:26:26 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But the resolution problem is minuscule compared to the 180 degree
> > merry-go-round problem.
> That is a non-existent problem of your invention,

After propagating half way around a merry-go-round, does the scenery change or stay the same?