Re: [asa] Space compression

From: <mlucid@aol.com>
Date: Tue Oct 30 2007 - 01:00:13 EDT

 Poor use of the word, parallax.? Perhaps "angular displacement" works better for you?
 
-Mike (Friend of ASA)

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
To: mlucid@aol.com
Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 10:12 pm
Subject: Re: [asa] Space compression

Unfortunately, this is confusing to the people Jim is hoping to reach.? Parallax gets a little complicated as it normally addresses the angle seen by a moving observer, not a stationary one.? The beauty of 1987a is that it is a direct measurement that is understood on a high school trigonometry level.? No consideration must be given to Earth's orbiting motion.
  
?
  
Unfortunately, it is not all that easy to explain how binary stars reveal distance.? The listener will get lost sooner than we would like.?
  
?
  
There are few quick answers that we can throw that they can catch comfortably, whether they want them or not.? The?130 billion galaxies observable by the HST to break the 6000 lyr. radius limit, and the daily measurements of Earth's rotational rate variation that should break any grip on a Geocentric and immovable Earth viewpoint.
  
?
  
George A.
 
 

mlucid@aol.com wrote:
  
Parallax (triangulation) only works if you already know the size of the object you are looking at.? But we can establish these ranges of size in stages.? For local stars it is a relatively easy task based on examinations of close-proximity binary star systems (rotating about each other) that include a Sol class star for confident comparison of the relative sizes of the different classes of stars.? From there we can calibrate the Galaxy size and extrapolate galaxy cluster size etc for a rough estimate of regional sizes from parallax alone.

But we can also calibrate the Doppler effect (red shift) from local binary systems by comparing the rise and fall of the effect as the stars of known size rotate towards and away from us.? And since we are talking
 about a conceptual disagreement between YEC and physics of over a factor of a million, true precision is moot for the argument.? The size of the universe is almost impossible to confuse as being only 5,000 light years in? diameter. The age, however can be fairly easily manipulated as older or younger by varying the speed of ligth as Gordon points out. But there are additional problems in the Doppler record when you begin to try to vary light speed a million fold.?

-Mike (Friend of ASA)

  
On Sun, 28 Oct 2007, George Cooper wrote:?
?
> 2) Supernova 1987a in the nearby Magellanic dwarf galaxy has a visibile > expanding shell. Simple trigonometry demonstrates that it is ~ 168,000 lyrs > distance. Simple trig makes
 this measurement independent of the speed of > light.?
?
This should mean light years based on the speed of light at the time of the supernova. A YEC might claim that light used to be a lot slower than it is now thus explaining why the angle subtended by the shell is so small. However I think that this would create new problems for them. Isn't this the opposite of what they might want to explain away the red shift? This is a question for a physicist to answer.?
?
Gordon Brown (ASA member)?
?
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with?
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.?

  
  

  Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail!

 

________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 30 01:01:31 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Oct 30 2007 - 01:01:31 EDT