IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New We have measured the distance to over 8000 stars: Parallax.
[link|http://www.bpccs.com/lcas/Articles/telehist.htm|Lake County Astronomical Society]:

The development of large refractors came to an abrupt end with Yerkes [site of the 40" refractor telescope - still the world's largest]. But not all the telescopes of the past have been relegated to serving as museum pieces. Some are still used for important research work where image quality is especially important. In studies of the cosmic distance scale, traditional measurements of the distances to stars are unreliable beyond 100 light years. Trigonometric parallax is the most precise method of measurement, and the rest of the distance scale is built off it. At this scale, angles are very difficult to measure, so the Allegheny Observatory 30-inch Thaw refractor has been fitted with equipment for multichannel astrometric photometry in order to measure parallax to an unprecedented accuracy of 1 milliarcsecond.

The Yerkes 40-inch has done spectroscopic work and photometry, which is the direct measurement of photons to create intensity traces that are used to measure star magnitudes precisely to 0.01 magnitude. The 40-inch has also re-photographed stars that were originally photographed around 1910 to see how much they have moved in the intervening years. By using the same telescope over a long span of years, the image scale remains the same so that the positions of stars can be measured with significantly higher precision.


Emphasis added.

A good summary on the advancement of precision in measuring the distance to stars over time is [link|http://msc.caltech.edu/workshop/2005/presentations/McAlister.pdf|here] (47 page .pdf). See slides 9 and 10 for the basics. The distance falls out of geometry (to get the angle) and Newton's laws (to get the diameter of Earth's orbit). Over 8000 stars have had their parallax measured (as of 1995).

Cheers,
Scott.
New But only indirectly
We've never been there. Absurdly speaking, there could be a big hologram just outside the Oort cloud, and we wouldn't know. More realistically, in deep space light could propagate by different rules than it does here. Therefore our conclusions are based on chains of hypotheses, only some of which we can test.

True, the alternate options seem so absurd that no reasonable person would argue for them. (Which is exactly why I used that example.) However our current theory requires us to believe that the rules we've measured in our incredibly small corner of the universe work in a much larger volume. Who knows [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly|what] unpredicted effects are out there?

Cheers,
Ben

PS Actual parallax calculations are more complex than that paragraph indicates. The biggest confounding factor is stellar aberration, which happens because the motion of the Earth causes light to appear to be coming from an angle. In the same way that raindrops falling straight down do not appear to be falling straight down if you are in a car.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
     time and space story - (boxley) - (26)
         No reason to think you can go backwards - (drewk) - (25)
             General relativity allows backwards time travel - (ben_tilly) - (24)
                 The article addressed that - (drewk) - (23)
                     Point missed - (ben_tilly) - (22)
                         Your faith is touching - (drewk) - (21)
                             The point still stands - (ben_tilly) - (20)
                                 We just place the bar at different points - (drewk) - (19)
                                     You were criticizing general relativity, not string theory - (ben_tilly) - (18)
                                         We have measured the distance to over 8000 stars: Parallax. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                             But only indirectly - (ben_tilly)
                                         Show me where I did that? - (drewk) - (15)
                                             OK... - (ben_tilly) - (14)
                                                 Like I said, we just set the bar at different levels - (drewk) - (13)
                                                     Yet you believe that stars are lighted by fusion and... - (ben_tilly) - (12)
                                                         Now you're telling me what I believe? - (drewk) - (11)
                                                             And I was right, too! - (ben_tilly) - (10)
                                                                 I'll simplify - (drewk) - (9)
                                                                     I'll complexify - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                                                                         I'll simplify some more - (drewk) - (7)
                                                                             I have to read the article to disagree with you? why? -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                                 The specific disagreement he made, yes - (drewk)
                                                                             But.... - (broomberg) - (2)
                                                                                 That'll work, but kind of hard to *perform* that experiment -NT - (drewk) - (1)
                                                                                     It's been done. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             This is getting silly - (ben_tilly)
                                                                             Still, in Bertie's words - - (Ashton)

That takes the cake like the cake stole something.
87 ms