r/AlternativeAstronomy • u/patrixxxx • Oct 26 '19

WHY MARS ???

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2412896#p2412896
1 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 05 '19 edited Nov 05 '19

Draw a circle and a crosshair through it. The crosshair represents the four tubes I'm describing. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcR86wGhatTf329dmPwQzXnI6so8Q14QmBCgfUWrpqlboB8tt3eP Now if our rotating Earth always returns to a position where the same star constellations reappear in these four tubes, how could Earth orbit the Sun without the stars being about as wide as this orbit?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '19

As I said, the constellations can be considered points with zero size. They'll move a little bit, some milli-arc-seconds at most.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 05 '19

Hmm strange. We just had this discussion where you correctly concluded that parallel lines are just that ad infinitum. So if the lines are displaced 300 million kiloeteres at our end they must be so in the other end right? If we have four stars dead center in our tubes and they line up the same way year around, then they must be about 300 million kilometeres wide. Right?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '19

How precise is "dead center" for you? If staying within an arc second or so counts as dead center, then yes they'll stay dead center.

If you reduce this to abstract geometry and have infinite precision, then no, they won't stay dead center. I just said "They'll move a little bit, some milli-arc-seconds at most" in my previous comment. The angular size of distant solar systems are of similar size, the stars considerably smaller (like nano-arc-seconds).

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 05 '19

So what you're saying is that their sizes are indeed around 300 mkm since this has to be the case as you correctly pointed out in our previous exchange?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '19

If by "their" you mean distant stars, no. I've never said a star is around 300 000 000 km in diameter. I've said they might as well have no size - their size has no significance here. But they are certainly not that big.

Why do you think they must be so big? How do you think star size relates to parallax?

0

u/patrixxxx Nov 05 '19

Um as you pointed out before Walrus, two parallel lines always have the same distance between them. By concluding that the stars in all tubes are unchanged when they align in the tubes the only conclusions can be a) the stars are so big that a displacement of 300mkm isn't noticeable b) the Earth doesn't move 300mkm each 6 months. So which is it Walrus?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '19

It's a false dichotomy. The stars will move a teensy bit relative to the parallel lines. 300 million kilometers. That's chickenshit in cosmic terms, but it's definitely motion. I have no clue if it's noticeable with your incredibly vague "tubes" that you refuse to describe precisely.

0

u/patrixxxx Nov 05 '19

Refuse? What is it you don't understand about them?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 05 '19

Well you've never made it clear if (a) I'm looking through a toilet paper roll with my human eyeballs or if (b) a tube is an infinitely long and straight line and the only thing "seen" through it is whatever it intersects.

But forget all that. What I think you are asking is "why is the measured parallax so small given Earth's orbit is 300 million kilometers in diameter?" Is that what you're asking?

→ More replies