Stellar Aberration and Stellar Parallax: Here Endeth the Lesson | |
Phil Plait User ID: 31848316 United States 08/21/2013 12:26 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Disastro User ID: 45047234 Canada 08/21/2013 01:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Children of the Atom User ID: 20257839 United States 08/21/2013 01:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | STELLAR PARALLAX Quoting: FreakObserver As the earth moves, the stars appear to shift positions relative to one another as the position of the earth changed. As shown in Figure 2-12, the angle between two stars, as seen from the earth, appears to change as the earth moved in its orbit. This effect is known as stellar parallax. :parallax2: :parallax1: From the time of Aristotle the absence of any observable stellar parallax had served as a major barrier against the acceptance of the heliocentric theory. The argument that the stars were too far away to exhibit parallax was hardly a convincing one; it was inconceivable that the universe could be so large. The most astute naked-eye observers from Hipparchus to Tycho Brahe were unable to find a single star that exhibited a measurable parallax, and even the invention of the telescope did not improve the situation. Eventually, however, stellar parallax was observed. The first unequivocal measurements were reported in rapid succession by Friedrich Struve in 1837, Friedrich Bessel in 1838, and Thomas Henderson in 1839. By that time there were not many supporters of the geocentric theory, so the discovery was somewhat anticlimactic. STELLAR ABERRATION Actually, the most convincing piece of evidence for the revolution of the earth was discovered in 1729, only two years after Newton's death, and more than a hundred years before stellar parallax was finally observed. In 1727 two English astronomers, Samuel Molyneux and James Bradley, made a series of observations of the position of the star Eltanin, in an attempt to measure the parallax of this star. They found that the star did indeed appear to move in a small circle with respect to the more distant stars over a period of a year. They realized, however, that the motion was not stellar parallax, since their observations showed that the star had its maximum shift in position at the time of year when it should exhibit no parallax at all. Observations of several other stars showed similar results. The two men found that all of these stars moved in circles of 20.5" in radius, regardless of their distances. In 1728 Molyneux died, and Bradley was left to figure out the puzzle alone. A year later he announced his solution: the apparent shift in the position of a star is due to the motion of the earth with respect to the light coming from that star. Bradley called this effect stellar aberration. Stellar aberration is very similar to the common phenomenon that we observe when driving in a car in a rainstorm. When the car is stationary, the rain appears to be falling vertically, but when the car is moving, the rain appears to be falling toward the car at an angle. The rain is, of course, not really falling at an angle; it only appears that way because the car is moving toward the raindrops as they are falling. Thus there is an apparent change in the direction from which the rain is seen to come because of the motion of the observer. :raintube1: The same analysis applies to light traveling down a telescope tube. If the telescope is on a moving earth, the telescope must be tilted in the direction of motion in order to receive the light from a star that is overhead. Consequently, the starlight appears to be coming from a direction that is not the true direction of the star (Figure 5-12a). :stellarabb1: Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration has to be considered extremely strong evidence for the heliocentric theory - for if the earth did not move with respect to the stars, there would be no stellar aberration. If one is to deny the earth's motion in the light of this discovery, one must make some rather peculiar assumptions about the behavior of light - or else propose that all stars are acted on by a force that makes them travel in elliptical paths once a year. The Nature of Physics, Peter J. Brancazio (1975) Hmmm... I think his response may be... To which we really all know it means... :thassabutthurt: |
Dr. Astro Senior Forum Moderator User ID: 2308326 United States 08/21/2013 01:27 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | STELLAR PARALLAX Quoting: FreakObserver As the earth moves, the stars appear to shift positions relative to one another as the position of the earth changed. As shown in Figure 2-12, the angle between two stars, as seen from the earth, appears to change as the earth moved in its orbit. This effect is known as stellar parallax. :parallax2: :parallax1: From the time of Aristotle the absence of any observable stellar parallax had served as a major barrier against the acceptance of the heliocentric theory. The argument that the stars were too far away to exhibit parallax was hardly a convincing one; it was inconceivable that the universe could be so large. The most astute naked-eye observers from Hipparchus to Tycho Brahe were unable to find a single star that exhibited a measurable parallax, and even the invention of the telescope did not improve the situation. Eventually, however, stellar parallax was observed. The first unequivocal measurements were reported in rapid succession by Friedrich Struve in 1837, Friedrich Bessel in 1838, and Thomas Henderson in 1839. By that time there were not many supporters of the geocentric theory, so the discovery was somewhat anticlimactic. STELLAR ABERRATION Actually, the most convincing piece of evidence for the revolution of the earth was discovered in 1729, only two years after Newton's death, and more than a hundred years before stellar parallax was finally observed. In 1727 two English astronomers, Samuel Molyneux and James Bradley, made a series of observations of the position of the star Eltanin, in an attempt to measure the parallax of this star. They found that the star did indeed appear to move in a small circle with respect to the more distant stars over a period of a year. They realized, however, that the motion was not stellar parallax, since their observations showed that the star had its maximum shift in position at the time of year when it should exhibit no parallax at all. Observations of several other stars showed similar results. The two men found that all of these stars moved in circles of 20.5" in radius, regardless of their distances. In 1728 Molyneux died, and Bradley was left to figure out the puzzle alone. A year later he announced his solution: the apparent shift in the position of a star is due to the motion of the earth with respect to the light coming from that star. Bradley called this effect stellar aberration. Stellar aberration is very similar to the common phenomenon that we observe when driving in a car in a rainstorm. When the car is stationary, the rain appears to be falling vertically, but when the car is moving, the rain appears to be falling toward the car at an angle. The rain is, of course, not really falling at an angle; it only appears that way because the car is moving toward the raindrops as they are falling. Thus there is an apparent change in the direction from which the rain is seen to come because of the motion of the observer. :raintube1: The same analysis applies to light traveling down a telescope tube. If the telescope is on a moving earth, the telescope must be tilted in the direction of motion in order to receive the light from a star that is overhead. Consequently, the starlight appears to be coming from a direction that is not the true direction of the star (Figure 5-12a). :stellarabb1: Bradley's discovery of stellar aberration has to be considered extremely strong evidence for the heliocentric theory - for if the earth did not move with respect to the stars, there would be no stellar aberration. If one is to deny the earth's motion in the light of this discovery, one must make some rather peculiar assumptions about the behavior of light - or else propose that all stars are acted on by a force that makes them travel in elliptical paths once a year. The Nature of Physics, Peter J. Brancazio (1975) Hmmm... I think his response may be... To which we really all know it means... :thassabutthurt: Who? |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45501122 Israel 08/21/2013 01:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
pray_Italy User ID: 45499414 Italy 08/21/2013 01:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I KNOW where this is going....... YEAH, finally... Just make sure you post the video here too: Thread: can anyone explain this vid on ISON?WTF (Page 28) |
Disastro User ID: 1511420 Canada 08/21/2013 11:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Hydra User ID: 45536218 Germany 08/22/2013 05:01 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Has Malcolm Bowden also a video where he explains the apparent orbit of asteroid Cruithne in relation to Earth or meteor streams? No? - You know why? - Because it disproves Geocentrism. . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
Hypertiger User ID: 42750318 Canada 08/22/2013 10:46 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45020590 United States 08/22/2013 11:04 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Now, take one step to the side. You can now see a little bit of the side of the car. Take another step, and you can see more of the side of the car. Etc. That is parallax. The amount of the side of the car you can see, is determined by the amount of the steps you take to the side. Now, ask yourself, how far to the side would you have to step, to see the entire side of the car at a 45 degree angle, if you were a block away? Answer - a lot. You'd have to cross the street, at the very least. That's why the 120 degree angle of the Hubble photos of ISON CANNOT be attributed to parallax. ISON is currently over 200 million miles away. The Hubble telescope moved half the diameter of the Earth, around 4,000 miles, over a period of only a few hours, to take the photos. That's like taking one - and only one -step to the side, and yet somehow seeing the car suddenly stick out at a 45 degree angle. It's impossible. Unless... the car is moving. Spinning. Turning. Then your one step doesn't matter, compared to the movement of the car, does it? So "parallax" is still applicable - but irrelevent. That's how Dr. Astro is lying while telling the truth. Parallax exists, but it cannot explain the AMOUNT of turning of the ISON object. Not can it explain how a single point of light becomes a line, then a dot, then a line again. But look at the car again. If it starts out at an angle, you see it's long. Then, it turns and faces you, and it's just a small car front. Then it keeps turning, and it's long again. Just like the ISON photos. To be clear, I am not saying there is no parallax going on. What I am saying is that parallax is not NEARLY adequate enough an explanation to see the AMOUNT of angular movement the ISON photos show. That's why I think we're either seeing: A) A LINEAR object inside ISON's coma that is spinning or spiraling (remember that Star Trek movie where the long UFO came to talk to the whales? Like that shape), or B) A spherical object that is jinking around inside of ISON's coma, drawing shapes like you would with a sparkler at night. Because otherwise, "parallax" CANNOT explain the AMOUNT of movement we see, IMHO. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 7922198 United States 08/22/2013 11:10 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
optimum judgment User ID: 24021617 United Kingdom 08/22/2013 11:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
DVCMCM User ID: 38180304 Italy 08/22/2013 11:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45521605 Brazil 08/22/2013 11:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | First of all, imagine standing in front of a parked car, that is a block away, on an empty street. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45020590 Now, take one step to the side. You can now see a little bit of the side of the car. Take another step, and you can see more of the side of the car. Etc. That is parallax. The amount of the side of the car you can see, is determined by the amount of the steps you take to the side. Now, ask yourself, how far to the side would you have to step, to see the entire side of the car at a 45 degree angle, if you were a block away? Answer - a lot. You'd have to cross the street, at the very least. That's why the 120 degree angle of the Hubble photos of ISON CANNOT be attributed to parallax. ISON is currently over 200 million miles away. The Hubble telescope moved half the diameter of the Earth, around 4,000 miles, over a period of only a few hours, to take the photos. That's like taking one - and only one -step to the side, and yet somehow seeing the car suddenly stick out at a 45 degree angle. It's impossible. Unless... the car is moving. Spinning. Turning. Then your one step doesn't matter, compared to the movement of the car, does it? So "parallax" is still applicable - but irrelevent. That's how Dr. Astro is lying while telling the truth. Parallax exists, but it cannot explain the AMOUNT of turning of the ISON object. Not can it explain how a single point of light becomes a line, then a dot, then a line again. But look at the car again. If it starts out at an angle, you see it's long. Then, it turns and faces you, and it's just a small car front. Then it keeps turning, and it's long again. Just like the ISON photos. To be clear, I am not saying there is no parallax going on. What I am saying is that parallax is not NEARLY adequate enough an explanation to see the AMOUNT of angular movement the ISON photos show. That's why I think we're either seeing: A) A LINEAR object inside ISON's coma that is spinning or spiraling (remember that Star Trek movie where the long UFO came to talk to the whales? Like that shape), or B) A spherical object that is jinking around inside of ISON's coma, drawing shapes like you would with a sparkler at night. Because otherwise, "parallax" CANNOT explain the AMOUNT of movement we see, IMHO. |
YaRight User ID: 45573633 United States 08/22/2013 11:42 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 23353917 United States 08/22/2013 12:08 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 43088908 United States 08/22/2013 12:27 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24280557 United States 08/22/2013 12:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24280557 United States 08/22/2013 12:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 24280557 United States 08/22/2013 12:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4499989 United States 08/22/2013 12:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | You know what I love about stuff like this? I love the fact that "we the people" are figuring out stuff on our own and do NOT need the government's help. We need more of this stuff. It would be great if we could set aside a lot of the bias, opinions, etc. and start to work together to develop our own groups, organizations and experts to figure out what's really going on. The power of the people. We spend all our time and effort trying to get the government to do the right thing when the truth is, we don't need them. If we do it on our own, we can essentially make them obsolete. Great job OP! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 8333117 Canada 08/22/2013 01:04 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 45365905 Brazil 08/22/2013 01:16 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | When will they realize that astroass is a fraud! Not tired of remembering the asteroid beginning of the year, and in accordance with our fake PHD nothing would happen! Almost six cities were decimated! Can expect that the comet ison guard big secrets that surely astroshill not imagine! How much time he spends TRYING rebut the various opinions of the writer here! I am a doctor in my country and post graduate in intensive care, I have a few minutes just to access the forum. The rest of my days are crowded and do not have time for anything! |
Razorbackkid User ID: 39548908 United States 08/22/2013 01:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 40487804 United States 08/22/2013 01:30 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
74444 User ID: 74444 United States 08/22/2013 01:41 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | First of all, imagine standing in front of a parked car, that is a block away, on an empty street. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45020590 Now, take one step to the side. You can now see a little bit of the side of the car. Take another step, and you can see more of the side of the car. Etc. That is parallax. The amount of the side of the car you can see, is determined by the amount of the steps you take to the side. Now, ask yourself, how far to the side would you have to step, to see the entire side of the car at a 45 degree angle, if you were a block away? Answer - a lot. You'd have to cross the street, at the very least. That's why the 120 degree angle of the Hubble photos of ISON CANNOT be attributed to parallax. ISON is currently over 200 million miles away. The Hubble telescope moved half the diameter of the Earth, around 4,000 miles, over a period of only a few hours, to take the photos. That's like taking one - and only one -step to the side, and yet somehow seeing the car suddenly stick out at a 45 degree angle. It's impossible. Unless... the car is moving. Spinning. Turning. Then your one step doesn't matter, compared to the movement of the car, does it? So "parallax" is still applicable - but irrelevent. That's how Dr. Astro is lying while telling the truth. Parallax exists, but it cannot explain the AMOUNT of turning of the ISON object. Not can it explain how a single point of light becomes a line, then a dot, then a line again. But look at the car again. If it starts out at an angle, you see it's long. Then, it turns and faces you, and it's just a small car front. Then it keeps turning, and it's long again. Just like the ISON photos. To be clear, I am not saying there is no parallax going on. What I am saying is that parallax is not NEARLY adequate enough an explanation to see the AMOUNT of angular movement the ISON photos show. That's why I think we're either seeing: A) A LINEAR object inside ISON's coma that is spinning or spiraling (remember that Star Trek movie where the long UFO came to talk to the whales? Like that shape), or B) A spherical object that is jinking around inside of ISON's coma, drawing shapes like you would with a sparkler at night. Because otherwise, "parallax" CANNOT explain the AMOUNT of movement we see, IMHO. Well, your opinion is just that. Interestingly, those who seem to practice this for a living, or talented amateurs like Astro disagree with your opinion. Do you have any *evidence* that parallax isn't enough to explain the amount of movement? And what amount of movement WOULD it explain? Oh, and what *evidence* could possibly change your opinion? And, when Astro turns out to be right, will you give him a Green Karma a week for ten weeks? |
Morganite User ID: 12261184 United States 08/22/2013 01:54 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1416300 United States 08/22/2013 02:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Hydra User ID: 45536218 Germany 08/22/2013 03:07 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | When will they realize that astroass is a fraud! Not tired of remembering the asteroid beginning of the year, and in accordance with our fake PHD nothing would happen! Almost six cities were decimated! Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45365905 Can expect that the comet ison guard big secrets that surely astroshill not imagine! How much time he spends TRYING rebut the various opinions of the writer here! I am a doctor in my country and post graduate in intensive care, I have a few minutes just to access the forum. The rest of my days are crowded and do not have time for anything! Any proof, that it was the asteroid Dr. Astro said it would not hit Earth? No, Brasilian crackpot, it was a different asteroid coming from a totally different direction. Any proof, that almost six cities were decimated? Again no, Brasilian crackpot. . :ase26122019: Annular Solar Eclipse - December 26, 2019 - Kannur, Kerala, India |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 41235284 United States 08/22/2013 03:24 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |