On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing 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

You are right Paul I am a extremely stupid person and do not deserve your supreme and honorable attention and hope that you will forgive my mother for producing such a stupid and ignorant person in the mean time I will read every "dang" textbook that I can get a hold of so that I can be a dang smart as you if it could be possible but if you could give me some suggestions as to the which dang textbook that it could become an authentic dangerous since if that were the case then I could start the first big dang -ous theory of parallax where the singularity of the dang would expand into the universe and with time-space with the addition of the dang I could make some tang since I read it some where in a textbook that tang and dang would make you smart and not stupid and I could be smart as dang Paul. Dang-erous right I could.

You are the greatest physicists that every lived and are kicking there butts!!!

https://www.polygon.com/star-wars/22807822/new-star-wars-movies-tv-books

May the force be with you.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> > -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?

Don't snip the answer to ask the same question once again,

Jan

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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?

Don't ask questions to which you already know the answers,

Jan

On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 11:54:07 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing 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
> You are right Paul I am a extremely stupid person and do not deserve your supreme and honorable attention and hope that you will forgive my mother for producing such a stupid and ignorant person in the mean time I will read every "dang" textbook that I can get a hold of so that I can be a dang smart as you if it could be possible but if you could give me some suggestions as to the which dang textbook that it could become an authentic dangerous since if that were the case then I could start the first big dang -ous theory of parallax where the singularity of the dang would expand into the universe and with time-space with the addition of the dang I could make some tang since I read it some where in a textbook that tang and dang would make you smart and not stupid and I could be smart as dang Paul. Dang-erous right I could.

I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words. I myself am no smarter than the average college graduate but I do not make claims about things that I do not fully understand to begin with because that would only show my ignorance of the subject matter. Apparently you do not subscribe to my way of thinking and instead choose to spout bullshit about things that you know absolutely nothing about!

Learning about parallax is as easy as Googling up the word and reading the resulting articles...

https://www.google.com/search?q=understanding+astronomical+parallax&sxsrf=APq-WBs4ZIb_-JyrW77MshFy3S6isFJinA%3A1646878763579&ei=K2ApYqnxIryvqtsPlv2g-Ag

I invested thousands of hours of study in all things astronomical when attending my university, and unless and until you do the same amount of study you may not really be able to speak of these things with much authority...

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 11:54:07 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 2:34:18 PM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com:
> > >
> > > > 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
> > You are right Paul I am a extremely stupid person and do not deserve
> > your supreme and honorable attention and hope that you will forgive my
> > mother for producing such a stupid and ignorant person in the mean time
> > I will read every "dang" textbook that I can get a hold of so that I can
> > be a dang smart as you if it could be possible but if you could give me
> > some suggestions as to the which dang textbook that it could become an
> > authentic dangerous since if that were the case then I could start the
> > first big dang -ous theory of parallax where the singularity of the dang
> > would expand into the universe and with time-space with the addition of
> > the dang I could make some tang since I read it some where in a textbook
> > that tang and dang would make you smart and not stupid and I could be
> > smart as dang Paul. Dang-erous right I could.
> >
> I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject
> matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words. I myself am no
> smarter than the average college graduate but I do not make claims about
> things that I do not fully understand to begin with because that would
> only show my ignorance of the subject matter. Apparently you do not
> subscribe to my way of thinking and instead choose to spout bullshit about
> things that you know absolutely nothing about!

Yes. It looks as if the two of them don't have any first hand experience
with actually using a telescope.
(like those legendary cardinals that Galileo had to put up with)

In particular, what they don't understand is the difference
between resolving power and pointing accuracy.

The resolving power determines how big the circle of light
produced by a star star is going to be.
The pointing accuracy is determined by how accurately
you can position a cross hair on it.

All nothing new of course: those people who determined their time
from star transits at Greenwich Observatory
knew this hundreds of years ago.

The GAIA satellite in particular measures positions and parallaxes
in the microarcsecond range by passing the stellar images
through a very fine grid of cross wires in front of the photodetectors,
(which is effectively a gigapixel sensor)

In all, one of the results is a 3D map of our stellar environment,
containing more than a billion stars with accurately known distances,

Jan

You cannot use the earth's orbital path as the parallax reference distance since parallax requires a straight path where the outward direction of the observer does not changes since the direction of the observer changes .9 degrees for every day yet the minimum angular determination of the Hubble is 10^-5 degrees. Therefore, an observer on the earth cannot parallax any of the stars since the maximum parallax reference distance would be 100 miles, two points on the surface of the earth which proves modern astronomy is fictional.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> You cannot use the earth's orbital path as the parallax reference distance

I don't doubt for a moment that YOU cannot.

> since parallax requires a straight path where the outward direction of the
> observer does not changes since the direction of the observer changes .9
> degrees for every day

There is no such requirement on the measurement of the parallax.
That is just your invention. Everybody else knows better.

> yet the minimum angular determination of the Hubble
> is 10^-5 degrees.

Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.
Do try to understand the difference between resolving power
and pointing accuracy.
FYI, the Hubble has a pointing accuracy of 7 milliarcseconds,
so it can measure stellar positions to at least that accuracy.
(actually better)

> Therefore, an observer on the earth cannot parallax any
> of the stars since the maximum parallax reference distance would be 100
> miles, two points on the surface of the earth which proves modern
> astronomy is fictional.

Just curious:
You are denying that the GAIA satellite exists too?
You do admit to the existence of the Hubble?
And the ISS?

Jan

Op 10-mrt.-2022 om 03:35 schreef Paul Alsing:
> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 11:54:07 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing 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
>> You are right Paul I am a extremely stupid person and do not deserve your supreme and honorable attention and hope that you will forgive my mother for producing such a stupid and ignorant person in the mean time I will read every "dang" textbook that I can get a hold of so that I can be a dang smart as you if it could be possible but if you could give me some suggestions as to the which dang textbook that it could become an authentic dangerous since if that were the case then I could start the first big dang -ous theory of parallax where the singularity of the dang would expand into the universe and with time-space with the addition of the dang I could make some tang since I read it some where in a textbook that tang and dang would make you smart and not stupid and I could be smart as dang Paul. Dang-erous right I could.
>
> I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words.

Anyone who is ignorant of some subject matter and pontificates
about it, is stupid. On this forum, for all practical purposes,
there is effectively no difference between the two words whatsoever.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> wrote:
> Op 10-mrt.-2022 om 03:35 schreef Paul Alsing:
>> On Wednesday, March 9, 2022 at 11:54:07 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, March 8, 2022 at 9:45:34 PM UTC-8, Paul Alsing 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
>>> You are right Paul I am a extremely stupid person and do not deserve
>>> your supreme and honorable attention and hope that you will forgive my
>>> mother for producing such a stupid and ignorant person in the mean time
>>> I will read every "dang" textbook that I can get a hold of so that I
>>> can be a dang smart as you if it could be possible but if you could
>>> give me some suggestions as to the which dang textbook that it could
>>> become an authentic dangerous since if that were the case then I could
>>> start the first big dang -ous theory of parallax where the singularity
>>> of the dang would expand into the universe and with time-space with the
>>> addition of the dang I could make some tang since I read it some where
>>> in a textbook that tang and dang would make you smart and not stupid
>>> and I could be smart as dang Paul. Dang-erous right I could.
>>
>> I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject
>> matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words.
>
> Anyone who is ignorant of some subject matter and pontificates
> about it, is stupid. On this forum, for all practical purposes,
> there is effectively no difference between the two words whatsoever.

There is no shame in being ignorant of a subject. Plus it’s easily fixed.
But people ignorant on a subject usually keep their mouths shut about the
subject. That’s a sign of wisdom. Stupid=unwise+ignorant+loud.

>
> Dirk Vdm
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

> Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.

After six month Bessel would not be facing the said star. It would be similar to riding a merry-go-round where after traversing half way around you would not be facing the same objects. Now even for a single day the earth's orbit would result in the parallax viewing angle to change by .9 degrees yet you would have to be detecting a 10^-5 degree difference of the angle to determine the distance to a 4.22 ly star and since you do not recognize the problem I personally do not see how astronomers could make any adjustments but even if they did make the necessary adjustments in the angle to compensate for the circular path the adjustment would probably be larger then the uncertainty of the mechanical change in the telescope's viewing angle. The .1 resolution of the Hubble means that you can detect a change of angle of a star up to 10^-5 degree and more. A change of angle of 10^-6 degree cannot be measured by the Hubble. Also, you cannot use the earth's orbital path around the Sun as the parallax reference distance since the distance does not represent a straight path that only alters the initial parallax angle because of the distance propagated. In Bessel case, the curved path of the earth is causing the most angular change that you see not to comprehend which is very curious indeed and there are many requires in parallax which you are ignoring or just plain cannot understand but I believe it's more like conditioning or your nagging wife tell you not to say or think anything original that might get you in trouble at work. The parallax measurement is limited to approximately 1,000 miles with a 10 mile parallax reference distance yet astronomer are using parallax to determine star that are 4,000 ly from the earth. Also, the GAIA satellite telescope---so What? Its just another telescope which does not solve the parallax problem since the earth is orbiting the Sun on a circular path.

>
> Jan

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 2:46:52 PM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:

> There is no shame in being ignorant of a subject. Plus it’s easily fixed.
> But people ignorant on a subject usually keep their mouths shut about the
> subject. That’s a sign of wisdom. Stupid=unwise+ignorant+loud.
>

>
> --
> Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Is that why you are so silent lately. It has been soo nice and quite. Thanks I hope you are not too sore and will heal your ego and lick your wounds with Mike. How does it feel to be made to shut the fuck up? Got youz butt kick. I would shut up too if I got my butt kick around the block and everyone was laughing at me. I miss your humor more than anything.

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 10-mrt.-2022 om 03:35 schreef Paul Alsing:

> > I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words.

> Anyone who is ignorant of some subject matter and pontificates
> about it, is stupid. On this forum, for all practical purposes,
> there is effectively no difference between the two words whatsoever.

Well, there you go. I was trying to be PC, but stupid is as stupid does...

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 4:54:49 PM UTC-8, thor stoneman wrote:
> > Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.
> After six month Bessel would not be facing the said star. It would be similar to riding a merry-go-round where after traversing half way around you would not be facing the same objects. Now even for a single day the earth's orbit would result in the parallax viewing angle to change by .9 degrees yet you would have to be detecting a 10^-5 degree difference of the angle to determine the distance to a 4.22 ly star and since you do not recognize the problem I personally do not see how astronomers could make any adjustments but even if they did make the necessary adjustments in the angle to compensate for the circular path the adjustment would probably be larger then the uncertainty of the mechanical change in the telescope's viewing angle. The .1 resolution of the Hubble means that you can detect a change of angle of a star up to 10^-5 degree and more. A change of angle of 10^-6 degree cannot be measured by the Hubble. Also, you cannot use the earth's orbital path around the Sun as the parallax reference distance since the distance does not represent a straight path that only alters the initial parallax angle because of the distance propagated. In Bessel case, the curved path of the earth is causing the most angular change that you see not to comprehend which is very curious indeed and there are many requires in parallax which you are ignoring or just plain cannot understand but I believe it's more like conditioning or your nagging wife tell you not to say or think anything original that might get you in trouble at work. The parallax measurement is limited to approximately 1,000 miles with a 10 mile parallax reference distance yet astronomer are using parallax to determine star that are 4,000 ly from the earth. Also, the GAIA satellite telescope---so What? Its just another telescope which does not solve the parallax problem since the earth is orbiting the Sun on a circular path.

I do believe that you have been storing your cranial calculator in its rectal storage facility for far too long...

On 3/10/2022 9:23 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 10-mrt.-2022 om 03:35 schreef Paul Alsing:
>
>>> I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words.
>
>> Anyone who is ignorant of some subject matter and pontificates
>> about it, is stupid. On this forum, for all practical purposes,
>> there is effectively no difference between the two words whatsoever.
>
> Well, there you go. I was trying to be PC, but stupid is as stupid does...

Ignorance is curable, with education. Stupidity is forever. Carl/Thor
are stupid.

thor stoneman <consequently7990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.
>
> After six month Bessel would not be facing the said star.

You have already been told that 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
from where Bessel observed it.
In case you neeed 'circumpolar' explained:
It means that it is visible all year round.
All that changes is that Bessel would have had to look at it
at different times of the night, in different seasons.
BTW, anybody who has regularly looked at the night sky
knows this, starting with those Babylonians 4 000 years ago.

> It would be
> similar to riding a merry-go-round where after traversing half way around
> you would not be facing the same objects.

That's why you look up.
The zenith above your merry go round is always visible.
(with a circle around it)

Jan

Op 11-mrt.-2022 om 03:23 schreef Paul Alsing:
> On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Op 10-mrt.-2022 om 03:35 schreef Paul Alsing:
>
>>> I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words.
>
>> Anyone who is ignorant of some subject matter and pontificates
>> about it, is stupid. On this forum, for all practical purposes,
>> there is effectively no difference between the two words whatsoever.
>
> Well, there you go. I was trying to be PC, but stupid is as stupid does...

Your PC does you credit :-)

Dirk Vdm

On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 10:25:01 PM UTC-8, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 3/10/2022 9:23 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > On Thursday, March 10, 2022 at 1:58:31 PM UTC-8, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> >> Op 10-mrt.-2022 om 03:35 schreef Paul Alsing:
> >
> >>> I didn't say you were stupid, I said you were ignorant of the subject matter, and there is a huge difference between the 2 words.
> >
> >> Anyone who is ignorant of some subject matter and pontificates
> >> about it, is stupid. On this forum, for all practical purposes,
> >> there is effectively no difference between the two words whatsoever.
> >
> > Well, there you go. I was trying to be PC, but stupid is as stupid does....
> Ignorance is curable, with education. Stupidity is forever. Carl/Thor
> are stupid.
--------------------------------

If I am so positively ignorant and stupid what does it make you since you cannot explain how the ISS can be seen during the day or at night since when press for an answer you would not answer or did I ban you yet you have suggest on countless occasions that you have seen the ISS at night which I must say is a complete fabrication. I once meet is little boy in the grocery story that made a fabrication about being a baseball pitcher was that you and your mom? I have a question to ask you, a personal question so you do not have to answer and by the way tell Bodkin that he is not banned anymore since I have lifted all bans for now. Now back to the question I had, I was wondering do you think that you are an ethical and honest person good enough to be around small children and if I was right would he tell me that the ISS was in fact a fabrication and please do you have any bias regarding the subject or are you bias free since young people and children should not be around people that like to make up thing. Also, I heard Biden is banning Russian
Бра-топ lingerie. What you going to ware at night? Dirty old thinks?
..

On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 12:59:33 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.
> >
> > After six month Bessel would not be facing the said star.
> You have already been told that 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
> from where Bessel observed it.
> In case you neeed 'circumpolar' explained:
> It means that it is visible all year round.
> All that changes is that Bessel would have had to look at it
> at different times of the night, in different seasons.
> BTW, anybody who has regularly looked at the night sky
> knows this, starting with those Babylonians 4 000 years ago.
> > It would be
> > similar to riding a merry-go-round where after traversing half way around
> > you would not be facing the same objects.
> That's why you look up.
> The zenith above your merry go round is always visible.
> (with a circle around it)
>
> Jan

What about the other stars? -----------------------------The North Star is not measured by parallax but the variation of the star's intensity. The only problem is that this intensity of all the stars do not vary (the variation of the star's intensity is caused by the observer) just as all the positions of the stars are constant (celestial maps) and is caused by the observer. I hope that will displace that bone in your head and you might sprout some new hair follicles since you can empty everything about astronomer out which I would recommended a high speed drill or a chicken de-bonner.

J. J. Lodder your arguments are similar to that of the Russians.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 12:59:33 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.
> > >
> > > After six month Bessel would not be facing the said star.
> > You have already been told that 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
> > from where Bessel observed it.
> > In case you neeed 'circumpolar' explained:
> > It means that it is visible all year round.
> > All that changes is that Bessel would have had to look at it
> > at different times of the night, in different seasons.
> > BTW, anybody who has regularly looked at the night sky
> > knows this, starting with those Babylonians 4 000 years ago.
> > > It would be
> > > similar to riding a merry-go-round where after traversing half way around
> > > you would not be facing the same objects.
> > That's why you look up.
> > The zenith above your merry go round is always visible.
> > (with a circle around it)
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> What about the other stars?

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>

On Friday, 11 March 2022 at 23:00:42 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 11, 2022 at 12:59:33 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > thor stoneman <consequen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Yet Bessel already determined the first parallax with a 6" telescope.
> > > >
> > > > After six month Bessel would not be facing the said star.
> > > You have already been told that 61 Cygni is circumpolar,
> > > from where Bessel observed it.
> > > In case you neeed 'circumpolar' explained:
> > > It means that it is visible all year round.
> > > All that changes is that Bessel would have had to look at it
> > > at different times of the night, in different seasons.
> > > BTW, anybody who has regularly looked at the night sky
> > > knows this, starting with those Babylonians 4 000 years ago.
> > > > It would be
> > > > similar to riding a merry-go-round where after traversing half way around
> > > > you would not be facing the same objects.
> > > That's why you look up.
> > > The zenith above your merry go round is always visible.
> > > (with a circle around it)
> > >
> > > Jan
> >
> >
> > What about the other stars?
> Their distances can nowadays be established from their observed paralax.

And time can be measured with modern, professionally
made clocks. It's t'=t in TAI, t'=t in GPS, t'=t in UTC.
Good bye, The Shit.

> 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?

On Saturday, March 12, 2022 at 9:33:28 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@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 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 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...

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

> 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...

The resolution and the parallax are inverted. The resolution is one measurement that can determine the size of the star. Parallax determines the distance to the star. The resolution of the telescope tells you if you can determine the change in the angle of the measurement after 6 months by inverting the situation.