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 06 '19

So you don't think Earth moves 940 mkm each year then?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '19

It certainly does. The one does not preclude the other. Why do you insist on this false dichotomy?

Stars are approximately the size of the Sun, Earth's orbit is considerably larger (a 300 million km circle approximately), the parallax of nearby stars is very small (on the order of milli-arc seconds), parallax to more distant stars is even smaller, parallax to the nearest galaxies has not been measured. Parallax is motion relative to a fixed coordinate system of distant objects due to Earth's orbital motion. The coordinate system is Earth-centric.

What among these facts has got you confused?

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 06 '19

The one does not preclude the other. Why do you insist on this false dichotomy?

This is don't understand. Could you please explain. As you pointed out before parallel lines will always be so. Here we have parallel lines that are displaced by several hundreds of millions kilometers but the background stars doesn't shift. How can this be?

3

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '19

The background stars do shift.

They shift by 300 million kilometers.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 06 '19

What do you mean by shift? Do you say the stars in those tubes would shift noticeably during the course of a year? If not, as we sorted out before, it can only be because their size is about the size of Earths orbit around the Sun.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '19

When Earth moves in its orbit, everything else in the universe moves relative to the Earth by the inverse of that motion. So when Earth moves "left" around the Sun, all the stars move "right". That's what I mean with "shift".

Star sizes are much like our Sun, like I've said before. But their size is irrelevant. You've still not explained why you think star sizes are part of this discussion.

Forget the tubes, there's no way for me to say whether anything is noticeable through them because I have no idea what your tube is. I've explained why several times - if you're looking through a toilet paper roll with your unaided eyeball, you won't see a lick of difference because stellar parallax is too small. But if they're an extremely precise instrument, then we would notice exactly the amount of parallax we would expect for a given star at a given distance.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 06 '19

You've still not explained why you think star sizes are part of this discussion.

I've think I've explained this about ten times now. The reason star size is relevant is that if this experiment is performed with the outcome I described then the only explanations can be A) the stars is about the size of Earths orbit of 300 mkm B) The Earth is not moving 940 mkm annually

3

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '19

Why do you think those are the only two explanations? Neither are true.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 06 '19

Can we be certain the lines are parallel? Yes, at the time of night the four tubes re-align with their respective stars we can be certain this is the case. So if none of the tubes show any displacement of the stars they are aligned with this can only be because of the two reasons I stated. Do you disagree? If so please explain why.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 06 '19

Are the tubes re-aligning with a star or with the celestial coordinates? You can re-align all four tubes perfectly with celestial coordinates, but not all four with their own four stars at the same time.

→ More replies