Parallax

On Apr 5, 8:27 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

oups.com...





Don't forget as well, the amount of work required in measuring. This
is
another reason why the astronomers of c. 100 years ago did things the way
I
described.

--
MikeDworetsky

Mike,

I once gave a talk to our club about stellar distance
measurements and although I had the principles in
order I was pretty fuzzy on the actual techniques.

Do any computational notes survive from those
studies? That would add a nice icing on this cake.

Regards,
Ben

We have the original plate log books, but not the actual measurement notes
(at least, if we do, I have no idea where they might be). The plates were
impressed with a precise reseau of crosses for measuring on a machine that
has only a few mm of travel distance on the precision screw. But the plate
could be moved around. The astronomer would measure x,y relative to the
sharply defined crosses. A star withparallaxwould show a distinct shift
in separation of images compared to a distant background star. The
measurements could have been done differentially.

The method of dependences (getting several RA and Dec determinations from
x,y measurements of the unknown and three comparison stars) could also have
been used, and any differential motion detected that way could be used
directly to computeparallax.

Sure is getting noisy in this thread.

--MikeDworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Apr 5, 11:09 am, "Ben" wrote:
On Apr 5, 8:27 am, "MikeDworetsky"
wrote:



"Ben" wrote in message

roups.com...

Don't forget as well, the amount of work required in measuring. This
is
another reason why the astronomers of c. 100 years ago did things the way
I
described.

--
MikeDworetsky

Mike,

I once gave a talk to our club about stellar distance
measurements and although I had the principles in
order I was pretty fuzzy on the actual techniques.

Do any computational notes survive from those
studies? That would add a nice icing on this cake.

Regards,
Ben

We have the original plate log books, but not the actual measurement notes
(at least, if we do, I have no idea where they might be). The plates were
impressed with a precise reseau of crosses for measuring on a machine that
has only a few mm of travel distance on the precision screw. But the plate
could be moved around. The astronomer would measure x,y relative to the
sharply defined crosses. A star withparallaxwould show a distinct shift
in separation of images compared to a distant background star. The
measurements could have been done differentially.

The method of dependences (getting several RA and Dec determinations from
x,y measurements of the unknown and three comparison stars) could also have
been used, and any differential motion detected that way could be used
directly to computeparallax.

Sure is getting noisy in this thread.

--MikeDworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mike,

Thank you for the insights. I think this would
make a fine student project if for no other reason
than to aquaint them with the historical image
of Astronomy.

Ben

Mike Dworetsky wrote:
Sure is getting noisy in this thread.

Just had a look at the thread and seen what you mean (didn't see it
before -- my killfile is working properly -- YAY!). Perhaps the source
of noise could be invited to go to http://tinyurl.com/yprehw (and press
7).

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

On Apr 5, 2:27 pm, "Mike Dworetsky"
wrote:
"Ben" wrote in message

oups.com...





Don't forget as well, the amount of work required in measuring. This
is
another reason why the astronomers of c. 100 years ago did things the way
I
described.

--
Mike Dworetsky

Mike,

I once gave a talk to our club about stellar distance
measurements and although I had the principles in
order I was pretty fuzzy on the actual techniques.

Do any computational notes survive from those
studies? That would add a nice icing on this cake.

Regards,
Ben

We have the original plate log books, but not the actual measurement notes
(at least, if we do, I have no idea where they might be). The plates were
impressed with a precise reseau of crosses for measuring on a machine that
has only a few mm of travel distance on the precision screw. But the plate
could be moved around. The astronomer would measure x,y relative to the
sharply defined crosses. A star with parallax would show a distinct shift
in separation of images compared to a distant background star. The
measurements could have been done differentially.

The method of dependences (getting several RA and Dec determinations from
x,y measurements of the unknown and three comparison stars) could also have
been used, and any differential motion detected that way could be used
directly to compute parallax.

Sure is getting noisy in this thread.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Day in and day out you have reports pouring in on climate change or
rather climate imbalances while the world still does not have an
accurate astronomical explanation for global climate and cyclical
hemispherical weather patterns (seasons).Astronomy should be at the
forefront insofar as global climate explanations depend on the motions
of the Earth around our central star yet you creatures,enamored by the
late 17th century observational convenience of the Ra/Dec system,still
retain a pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt for explaining the
seasons.

The single greatest problem is not global warming,it is the
intellectual and intutive intelligence brought to bear on the
situation and many have jumped on the CO2 bandwagon without giving
the astronomical considerations the slightest thought.The enormous
modification to replace the pseudo-dynamic of variable axial tilt with
the change in the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary (SR/OS)
over the course of a year is crucial to splitting global climate from
hemispherical weather patterns (seasons).

The neccessity of recognising the Earth's motions in isolation to
provide accurate working principles for climatology are being cut to
pieces by celestial sphere astrologers only interested in the
observational convenience making you lot the biggest human obstacle to
appreciating where astronomy and climatology mesh among other things.

The change in the SR/OS boundary against rotational orientation is a
major modification of the original Copernican reasoning for the
seasons ,that there is nobody availible to recognise why those
modifications are neccessary is due to the awful mutations to
heliocentric reasoning centering on Flamsteed/Newton/Bradley.

The importance of the modification prevents me from explicitly stating
what I most certainly feel for the laziness,the deceit and all the
wasted effort for people who only want magnification and nothing
else.Have your clear skies and your modification and show everyone
your pretty pictures but right now humanity needs astronomers who can
handle the motions of the Earth around the Sun and at least try to
explain global climate and the seasons using the change in the SR/OS -

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...easonearth.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...easonearth.png

On Apr 5, 6:15 pm, Stephen Tonkin
wrote:
Mike Dworetsky wrote:
Sure is getting noisy in this thread.

Just had a look at the thread and seen what you mean (didn't see it
before -- my killfile is working properly -- YAY!). Perhaps the source
of noise could be invited to go tohttp://tinyurl.com/yprehw(and press
7).

Best,
Stephen

Remove footfrommouth to reply

--
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ Stephen Tonkin | ATM Resources; Astro-Tutorials; Astro Books +
+ (N51.162 E0.995) | http://astunit.com +
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

I look at what happened in the late 17th century as more accurate
clocks and telescopes emerged in displacing structural/timekeeping
astronomy with astronomy as an exercise in magnification and all
wrapped up in the observational convenience of celestial sphere
geometry.

I look at the contemporary explanations for the seasons in an era
where climatology is becoming more important and have yet to see the
slightest move in the direction of modifying the original Copernican
reasoning based on the pseudo-dynamic of variable inclination -

http://www.astronomy.org/programs/seasons/index.html

With not enough sense to observe actual images of the Earth from space
and determine that the solar radiation/orbital shadow boundary (SR/OS)
alters against rotational orientation or forcing the Earth to follow
an orbital path perdendicular to the central solar diameter,the
counter-productive axial tilt pseudo-dynamic still is proposed as a
mechanism for the seasons.

I do not care what you think of me but I can square the axial
orientation of the Earth to Polaris with the annual orbital motion
which causes the SR/OS boundary to cause global climate and
hemispherical weather patterns (seasons)

Did any of you help humanity understand global climate via the motions
of the Eatrth around the Sun ?. No you did not and as people who only
care about magnification you present an obstacle far greater than
global warming.It is the ability to speak with authority while not
being able to modify basic astronomical concepts which are required
for 21st century purposes.

This is not about showing where the 17th century numbskulls jumped the
tracks,this is showing where the original heliocentric reasoning is
required for 21st century purposes such as climatology.There is no
taunting here,just a display to show you that it is neccessary to
untangle artificial reasoning of the powdered wigs of the 17th century
from the productive working principles of the heliocentric
astronomers.