Godlike Productions - Discussion Forum
Users Online Now: 2,255 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 550,767
Pageviews Today: 918,600Threads Today: 312Posts Today: 5,492
10:47 AM


Back to Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
Back to Thread
REPORT COPYRIGHT VIOLATION IN REPLY
Message Subject Stellar Aberration and Stellar Parallax: Here Endeth the Lesson
Poster Handle Anonymous Coward
Post Content
First of all, imagine standing in front of a parked car, that is a block away, on an empty street.

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.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 45020590


clappa
 
Please verify you're human:




Reason for copyright violation:







GLP