On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@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

Using your method, for the first position, the first light ray propagates through the star S and the first reference star S' then------------------- for the second position, after a six month time interval, the light ray propagates through the star S and the second reference star s". In both measurements, the light rays are propagating through the star S that distance is being measured. The problem is that after a six month time interval for a 4.22 ly star S which is the closest star to the earth, the Hubble with a .1 arcsec resolution would not be able to measure any change in the angular position since the angular displacement (after 6 month on a hypothetical straight line path) would be less than 10^-5 degrees; therefore, you would not be able to measure any change in the angle of the said S 4.22 ly star. Plus, after a six month time interval the view of the observer would change 180 degrees which would result in an uncertainty after any readjustment of the telescope (if it even could be possible) of more then 10^-5 degrees which would nullify any measurement. Therefore, no matter how many measurements you make, you are always going through the Star S which limits your measurements to the same result.

On 3/5/2022 4:18 PM, carl eto wrote:
> .
>> 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.

Your recent questions appear to be more concerned with astronomy than
relativity. Perhaps there are better resources to acquire the answers.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> Also, is the Sun in motion?

Yes.

> And if the Sun where in motion why do we not
> have to update celestial maps because of the motion of the Sun?

Stellar maps and almanacs are regularly updated.
They have what is called an Epoch.
For example the currently-used standard epoch "J2000"
is defined by international agreement to be equivalent to:
The Gregorian date January 1, 2000, at 12:00 TT (Terrestrial Time).

This is the date on which they are correct.
They also give the rate of change of the quantities listed,
so you can calculate them for some other date and time.

> And what direction is the Sun propagating?
> And is the North star always the same star?

No.

You can easily find all those answers for yourself.
Why do you want to be spoon fed?

Jan

On Sunday, 6 March 2022 at 11:07:40 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> Stellar maps and almanacs are regularly updated.
> They have what is called an Epoch.
> For example the currently-used standard epoch "J2000"
> is defined by international agreement to be equivalent to:
> The Gregorian date January 1, 2000, at 12:00 TT (Terrestrial Time).

And, of course, they changes when I take them into a train,
as your idiot guru has predicted; doesn't they, poor halfbrain?

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:07:40 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Also, is the Sun in motion?
>
> Yes.
>
> > And if the Sun where in motion why do we not
> > have to update celestial maps because of the motion of the Sun?
>
> Stellar maps and almanacs are regularly updated.
> They have what is called an Epoch.
> For example the currently-used standard epoch "J2000"
> is defined by international agreement to be equivalent to:
> The Gregorian date January 1, 2000, at 12:00 TT (Terrestrial Time).
>
> This is the date on which they are correct.
> They also give the rate of change of the quantities listed,
> so you can calculate them for some other date and time.
>
> > And what direction is the Sun propagating?
> > And is the North star always the same star?
>
> No.
>
> You can easily find all those answers for yourself.
> Why do you want to be spoon fed?
>
> Jan

They determine the time using the position of the star.

Using your method, for the first position, the first light ray propagates through the star S and the first reference star S' then------------------- for the second position, after a six month time interval, the light ray propagates through the star S and the second reference star s". In both measurements, the light rays are propagating through the star S that distance is being measured. The problem is that after a six month time interval for a 4.22 ly star S which is the closest star to the earth, the Hubble with a .1 arcsec resolution would not be able to measure any change in the angular position since the angular displacement (after 6 month on a hypothetical straight line path) would be less than 10^-5 degrees; therefore, you would not be able to measure any change in the angle of the said S 4.22 ly star. Plus, after a six month time interval the view of the observer would change 180 degrees which would result in an uncertainty after any readjustment of the telescope (if it even could be possible) of more then 10^-5 degrees which would nullify any measurement. Therefore, no matter how many measurements you make, you are always going through the Star S which limits your measurements to the same result.

Are you satisfied regarding Parallax the you are in fact incorrect?

That should be stars with an extra s.

On 3/5/2022 6:28 PM, carl eto wrote:
> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> carl eto <carleto4...@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
>
>
>
> Using your method, for the first position, the first light ray propagates through the star S and the first reference star S' then------------------- for the second position, after a six month time interval, the light ray propagates through the star S and the second reference star s". In both measurements, the light rays are propagating through the star S that distance is being measured. The problem is that after a six month time interval for a 4.22 ly star S which is the closest star to the earth, the Hubble with a .1 arcsec resolution would not be able to measure any change in the angular position since the angular displacement (after 6 month on a hypothetical straight line path) would be less than 10^-5 degrees;

The parallax of a 4.22 ly star would be around 0.72 seconds, in the
range of resolution. But resolution isn't necessary, just the position
of the points of lights.

> therefore, you would not be able to measure any change in the angle of the said S 4.22 ly star. Plus, after a six month time interval the view of the observer would change 180 degrees which would result in an uncertainty after any readjustment of the telescope (if it even could be possible) of more then 10^-5 degrees which would nullify any measurement. Therefore, no matter how many measurements you make, you are always going through the Star S which limits your measurements to the same result.

Yet Bessel did it with more primitive equipment.

Since you are saying something is impossible yet it was actually done,
and is done all the time, your "impossible" claim is obviously wrong.
You need to go back and look at your logic and find where you made a
mistake.

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@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
>
>
>
> Using your method, for the first position, the first light ray propagates
>through the star S and the first reference star S'
>then------------------- for the second position, after a six month time
>interval, the light ray propagates through the star S and the second
>reference star s". In both measurements, the light rays are
>propagating through the star S that distance is being measured.
[imaginary problems]

You've lost it completely.
There are no "light rays propagating through star S and star S'",

Jan

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:07:40 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Also, is the Sun in motion?
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > And if the Sun where in motion why do we not
> > > have to update celestial maps because of the motion of the Sun?
> >
> > Stellar maps and almanacs are regularly updated.
> > They have what is called an Epoch.
> > For example the currently-used standard epoch "J2000"
> > is defined by international agreement to be equivalent to:
> > The Gregorian date January 1, 2000, at 12:00 TT (Terrestrial Time).
> >
> > This is the date on which they are correct.
> > They also give the rate of change of the quantities listed,
> > so you can calculate them for some other date and time.
> >
> > > And what direction is the Sun propagating?
> > > And is the North star always the same star?
> >
> > No.
> >
> > You can easily find all those answers for yourself.
> > Why do you want to be spoon fed?
> >
> > Jan
>
>
> They determine the time using the position of the star.

That was long ago. (before 1964)
Since then the time has been determined using atomic clocks,

Jan

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 11:49:35 AM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> carl eto <carleto4...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > carl eto <carleto4...@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
> >
> >
> >
> > Using your method, for the first position, the first light ray propagates
> >through the star S and the first reference star S'
> >then------------------- for the second position, after a six month time
> >interval, the light ray propagates through the star S and the second
> >reference star s". In both measurements, the light rays are
> >propagating through the star S that distance is being measured.
> [imaginary problems]
>
> You've lost it completely.
> There are no "light rays propagating through star S and star S'",
>
> Jan

The problem is that you are never wrong even when you are wrong.

> [imaginary problems]
>
> You've lost it completely.
> There are no "light rays propagating through star S and star S'",
>
> Jan

Yes, because it is an immoral, unethical, and repugnant deception and you could also use the line of sight but it is still an obvious abhorrent duplicity that you are supporting and I know you are an extremely intelligent person that is the most despondent result. If you were not so smart it would not be so atrocious.

Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> On 3/5/2022 6:28 PM, carl eto wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 5, 2022 at 2:21:20 PM UTC-8, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> carl eto <carleto4...@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
> >
> >
> >
> > Using your method, for the first position, the first light ray
> > propagates through the star S and the first reference star S'
> > then------------------- for the second position, after a six month time
> > interval, the light ray propagates through the star S and the second
> > reference star s". In both measurements, the light rays are propagating
> > through the star S that distance is being measured. The problem is that
> > after a six month time interval for a 4.22 ly star S which is the
> > closest star to the earth, the Hubble with a .1 arcsec resolution would
> > not be able to measure any change in the angular position since the
> > angular displacement (after 6 month on a hypothetical straight line
> > path) would be less than 10^-5 degrees;
>
> The parallax of a 4.22 ly star would be around 0.72 seconds, in the
> range of resolution. But resolution isn't necessary, just the position
> of the points of lights.

Right.
This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.
The finite resolution of a telescope causes to the stars to appear as
diffraction patterns, in practice smeared out disks.
What must be measured is the distance
-between the centres of those diffraction disks-.
This can be determined far more accurately than the size of the disks.

For comparison: put two saucers on the floor,
and measure the distance between their centres.
The result can easily be accurate to a millimeter,
despite the saucers themselves being about ten centimeters in size,

Jan

Michael Moroney wrote:

> The parallax of a 4.22 ly star would be around 0.72 seconds, in the
> range of resolution. But resolution isn't necessary, just the position
> of the points of lights.

You deleted the proofs and say it's garbage. Which reinforces the fucking
idiot you are from birth. The ukrainian nazies made forbidden those
languages in schools etc, threatening the villagers. There was a big fuss
with Hungary, which was denying the ukrainian nazis admission to EU.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-nato-hungary-idUSKBN1Y823N
BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Hungary’s foreign minister on Wednesday said Budapest
would block Ukraine’s membership in NATO until Kiev restored the rights
that ethnic Hungarians had before a language law curbed minorities’ access
to education in their mother tongues.

Hungary has clashed with Ukraine over what it says are curbs on the rights
of roughly 150,000 ethnic Hungarians to use their native tongue,
especially in education, after Ukraine passed a law in 2017 restricting
the use of minority languages.

“We ask for no extra rights to Hungarians in Transcarpathia, only those
rights they had before,” Szijjarto told state news agency MTI at the NATO
summit in London.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41565090
Hungary says it will protest to the EU over a new law that limits the
teaching of subjects in languages of Ukraine's ethnic minorities,
including Hungarian.

Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said he would urge foreign
ministers next Monday to revise the EU's partnership deal with the
Ukraine.

The new law makes Ukrainian-language lessons mandatory in secondary
schools.

The Transcarpathia region of western Ukraine is home to about 150,000
ethnic Hungarians.

Hungary Threatens 'Pain' For Ukraine Over Controversial Language Law
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-hungary-language-law-eu-pain/28758760.html

Hungary has pledged to block Ukraine's further integration with Europe
after Kyiv enacted a controversial education law that critics say will
restrict the study of minority languages in schools.

Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on September 26 that the
consequences for Kyiv would be "painful" after Ukrainian President Petro
Poroshenko signed the measure making Ukrainian the required language of
study in state schools from the fifth grade on.

"Hungary will block all steps within the European Union that would
represent a step forward in Ukraine's European integration process,"
Szijjarto said in comments to the Hungarian news agency MTI that were also
posted on the Hungarian government's website.

"We can guarantee that all this will be painful for Ukraine in future,"
Szijjarto added.

Although this is not a political forum I too will violate this
group's charter by commenting. Language issues have beguiled Hungary for
a long time. A proper study of the circumstances and conditions leading
to the outbreak of WW1 shows that Hungary imposed her language on
captured and occupied "nations" requiring Hungarian as the only official
and acceptable language in places like Serbia and Croatia. Now the
demands are reversed, with Hungarians demanding privileges they denied
to others just a little over a century ago.

IMO, if you want to use your native tongue, go to where it is the
national language, otherwise it just isn't important enough to be a
consideration.

In the USA there is no official language. I noticed that signage in
Ukraine is bilingual, Uke and English. We see a lot of accommodation for
the Spanish language here in the USA and it works well. Major chain
supermarkets in predominantly Polish districts in Chicago have signage
in English and Polish.

AFAIC the demands for language accommodation is just an excuse for
causing trouble. When Hungary had a navy the command language was
Croatian because the academy and naval base were in what had been
Croatia. Hungarian regent Horthy couldn't speak proper Hungarian during
his tenure in office because he had a Croatian accent because he had
been an Admiral and spoke exclusively Croatian for such a long time.

It is all plain ordinary crap. Language is for communicating, and
Esperanto is as good as any other language. How long do you suppose it
takes to invent a brand new language and culture?

Minutes, not centuries. "Ancient" languages are no more valuable than
brand new ones.

On 3/6/2022 3:29 PM, Ober Corn wrote:
> Michael Moroney wrote:
>
>> The parallax of a 4.22 ly star would be around 0.72 seconds, in the
>> range of resolution. But resolution isn't necessary, just the position
>> of the points of lights.
>
> You deleted the proofs and say it's garbage. Which reinforces the fucking
> idiot you are from birth. The ukrainian nazies made forbidden those
> languages in schools etc, threatening the villagers. There was a big fuss
> with Hungary, which was denying the ukrainian nazis admission to EU.
>
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ukraine-nato-hungary-idUSKBN1Y823N
> BUDAPEST (Reuters) - Hungary’s foreign minister on Wednesday said Budapest
> would block Ukraine’s membership in NATO until Kiev restored the rights
> that ethnic Hungarians had before a language law curbed minorities’ access
> to education in their mother tongues.
>
> Hungary has clashed with Ukraine over what it says are curbs on the rights
> of roughly 150,000 ethnic Hungarians to use their native tongue,
> especially in education, after Ukraine passed a law in 2017 restricting
> the use of minority languages.
>
> “We ask for no extra rights to Hungarians in Transcarpathia, only those
> rights they had before,” Szijjarto told state news agency MTI at the NATO
> summit in London.
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41565090
> Hungary says it will protest to the EU over a new law that limits the
> teaching of subjects in languages of Ukraine's ethnic minorities,
> including Hungarian.
>
> Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said he would urge foreign
> ministers next Monday to revise the EU's partnership deal with the
> Ukraine.
>
> The new law makes Ukrainian-language lessons mandatory in secondary
> schools.
>
> The Transcarpathia region of western Ukraine is home to about 150,000
> ethnic Hungarians.
>
> Hungary Threatens 'Pain' For Ukraine Over Controversial Language Law
> https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-hungary-language-law-eu-pain/28758760.html
>
> Hungary has pledged to block Ukraine's further integration with Europe
> after Kyiv enacted a controversial education law that critics say will
> restrict the study of minority languages in schools.
>
> Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said on September 26 that the
> consequences for Kyiv would be "painful" after Ukrainian President Petro
> Poroshenko signed the measure making Ukrainian the required language of
> study in state schools from the fifth grade on.
>
> "Hungary will block all steps within the European Union that would
> represent a step forward in Ukraine's European integration process,"
> Szijjarto said in comments to the Hungarian news agency MTI that were also
> posted on the Hungarian government's website.
>
> "We can guarantee that all this will be painful for Ukraine in future,"
> Szijjarto added.

--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:29:40 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:

> > The parallax of a 4.22 ly star would be around 0.72 seconds, in the
> > range of resolution. But resolution isn't necessary, just the position
> > of the points of lights.
> Right.
> This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.
> The finite resolution of a telescope causes to the stars to appear as
> diffraction patterns, in practice smeared out disks.
> What must be measured is the distance
> -between the centres of those diffraction disks-.
> This can be determined far more accurately than the size of the disks.
>
> For comparison: put two saucers on the floor,
> and measure the distance between their centres.
> The result can easily be accurate to a millimeter,
> despite the saucers themselves being about ten centimeters in size,

Modern computer analysis can determine the centers of bright
(but not overexposed) ccd stellar images to within about 1% of the
resolved diameter, which, for terrestrial telescopes in the absence
of adaptive optics, would be mostly dependent on "seeing"
conditions rather than the actual resolving power of the telescope.
Above the atmosphere, of course, the situation is much improved.

Personal note: Back in 1968, I attended the NSF Summer Science
Program then being held at the Thatcher School in Ojai. There,
the project of each team was to identify and compute the orbit of
their assigned (but unidentified) asteroid based on three photographs
of the which the team would take on successive nights. There we
learned to use an astrograph, developed glass photographic plates,
identified the asteroid against background stars, measured the
position of the asteroid against background stars using a Gaertner
measuring engine, identified the background stars with the aid of
Palomar Survey photographs, and ran the analysis on a Bendix
G-15 minicomputer (less than half a ton!).
https://summerscience.org/about/thacher-years-1959-1999/

Shameless plug: Nowadays, the SSP covers more than just
astrophysics, but includes biochemistry and genomics programs.
There are many bright students who would benefit from an
intense immersion in collaborative science research, but whose
parents cannot afford the $4000 tuition. (up from $400 in 1968)
(The actual cost of the program is about $8000/student)
Please explore the SSP website, and if you believe in the benefits
of this program, consider given it your support!
https://summerscience.org/support/

Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, March 6, 2022 at 2:29:40 PM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote:
>
> > > The parallax of a 4.22 ly star would be around 0.72 seconds, in the
> > > range of resolution. But resolution isn't necessary, just the position
> > > of the points of lights.
> > Right.
> > This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.
> > The finite resolution of a telescope causes to the stars to appear as
> > diffraction patterns, in practice smeared out disks.
> > What must be measured is the distance
> > -between the centres of those diffraction disks-.
> > This can be determined far more accurately than the size of the disks.
> >
> > For comparison: put two saucers on the floor,
> > and measure the distance between their centres.
> > The result can easily be accurate to a millimeter,
> > despite the saucers themselves being about ten centimeters in size,
>
> Modern computer analysis can determine the centers of bright
> (but not overexposed) ccd stellar images to within about 1% of the
> resolved diameter, which, for terrestrial telescopes in the absence
> of adaptive optics, would be mostly dependent on "seeing"
> conditions rather than the actual resolving power of the telescope.
> Above the atmosphere, of course, the situation is much improved.

Sure, down to micro-arcseconds, almost.
Distances out to many kiloparsec.

> Personal note: Back in 1968, I attended the NSF Summer Science
> Program then being held at the Thatcher School in Ojai. There,
> the project of each team was to identify and compute the orbit of
> their assigned (but unidentified) asteroid based on three photographs
> of the which the team would take on successive nights. There we
> learned to use an astrograph, developed glass photographic plates,
> identified the asteroid against background stars, measured the
> position of the asteroid against background stars using a Gaertner
> measuring engine, identified the background stars with the aid of
> Palomar Survey photographs, and ran the analysis on a Bendix
> G-15 minicomputer (less than half a ton!).
> https://summerscience.org/about/thacher-years-1959-1999/

That's cheating. Just imagine how hard it must have been on Gauss,
doing it all by hand for the first time.

Jan
(shamelessly unplugged, sorry)

> This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.

> Jan

Astronomy is based on the resolution of a telescope which is the reason the resolution of a telescope is always included when describing or using a telescope. If astronomers did not use the resolution then astronomy would not be a science in any form. Also, regarding the time, if the earth is not orbiting the Sun with a constant velocity how would you determine the time using an atomic clock?

carl eto <carleto4157990662@gmail.com> wrote:

> > This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.
>
>
> > Jan
>
>
> Astronomy is based on the resolution of a telescope which is the reason
> the resolution of a telescope is always included when describing or using
> a telescope.

Complete nonsense. Much of astronomy deals with stars,
and stars cannot be resolved,
no matter what the resolution of your telescope is.

> If astronomers did not use the resolution then astronomy
> would not be a science in any form.

You disagree with all astronomers.

> Also, regarding the time, if the earth
> is not orbiting the Sun with a constant velocity how would you determine
> the time using an atomic clock?

The Earth doesn't.
And for the atomic clock,
you just read what it says on its display
about cycles counted, (easy, only a few gigahertz)

Jan

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
> > This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.
> > Jan
>
>
> Astronomy is based on the resolution of a telescope which is the reason the resolution of a telescope is always included when describing or using a telescope. If astronomers did not use the resolution then astronomy would not be a science in any form. Also, regarding the time, if the earth is not orbiting the Sun with a constant velocity how would you determine the time using an atomic clock?

You are hopelessly clueless... read a dang textbook! You can't just make it up as you go along and hope to fool anyone here.

On Monday, 7 March 2022 at 23:30:06 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:

> And for the atomic clock,
> you just read what it says on its display
> about cycles counted, (easy, only a few gigahertz)

It's only as simple in the moronic delusions of amateurs like
your idiot guru or you; professionals from TAI and GPS know
better how to do it.

On 3/7/2022 11:24 PM, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-8, carleto4...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> This whole resolution thing is just a red herring.
>>> Jan
>>
>>
>> Astronomy is based on the resolution of a telescope which is the reason the resolution of a telescope is always included when describing or using a telescope. If astronomers did not use the resolution then astronomy would not be a science in any form. Also, regarding the time, if the earth is not orbiting the Sun with a constant velocity how would you determine the time using an atomic clock?
>
> You are hopelessly clueless...

That is an insult to those who are really hopelessly clueless.

> read a dang textbook! You can't just make it up as you go along and hope to fool anyone here.

On Monday, March 7, 2022 at 6:44:31 AM UTC-6, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Prokaryotic Capase Homolog <prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:

[snip]
> > ... and ran the analysis on a Bendix
> > G-15 minicomputer (less than half a ton!).
> > https://summerscience.org/about/thacher-years-1959-1999/
> That's cheating. Just imagine how hard it must have been on Gauss,
> doing it all by hand for the first time.
>
> Jan
> (shamelessly unplugged, sorry)

In the mornings, Dr. Richard Chambers gave us a crash course
in celestial mechanics and selected astrophysics topics.
https://baas.aas.org/pub/robert-j-chambers-1930-1995/release/1

Our text for celestial mechanics was the first edition of
Fundamentals of Celestial Mechanics, by JMA Danby.
There we learned about Gauss' method for determining
orbits. And yes, we did do manual orbit calculations with
the aid of Monroe electromechanical calculators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Systems_for_Business#/media/File:BLW_Mechanical_Calculator_(1).jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauss%27s_method

Dr. Chambers' astrophysics lectures were a rather idiosyncratic
mix of discussions of interesting topics. I remember being very
impressed by his analysis of stellar spectra in terms of the
Saha equation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saha_ionization_equation
https://www.quora.com/Using-the-Saha-equation-why-does-conventional-plasma-have-less-density-and-high-temperatures/answer/Thomas-Yee-5
https://www.quora.com/Where-will-I-know-about-the-Saha-equation-properly

In the afternoons, Dr. Catalin Mitescu gave a crash course in
calculus. I was already self-taught in the basics, but compared
with most of the other students I was rather backwards.
https://www.pomona.edu/news/2020/03/24-memoriam-emeritus-professor-physics-and-astronomy-catalin-mitescu

One of our TAs, Ed Krupp, has long been the director of the Griffith
Observatory in Los Angeles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Krupp

The photographs of the ISS taken, at night, are fabrications since the shadow of the earth would prevent the ISS from being illuminated and during sunrise/sunset, the partially illumination of the earth's atmosphere would prevent the viewing or photographing of the ISS from the surface of the earth yet there are numerous photographs and videos of the ISS, represented with an illuminated dote propagating across the horizon, at night, and the ISS photographed during the day!

> 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.