Professor MathTheBeautiful, thank you for a short and sweet video/lecture on the Surprising History of Stellar Parallax in Partial Differential Equations. The History of Stellar Parallax is tied to different eras in Classical and Advanced Mathematics.
Copernicus, Book 4, Chapter 16. "How the Parallaxes of the Moon Are Determined" (1522?) discusses Ptolemy's observation of Parallax at Alexandria 150 AD +/-. The concept of PARALLAX has been considered for two (2) millennia.
The source used was Hawking’s “On the Shoulders of Giants” / Nicolaus Copernicus “On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres” Copernicus is amazing in his use of Trigonometry. Thank you for the additional source.
Hello, You use the term believe. Belief is a leap of faith and is the furthest thing from scientific.. 3 quick questions. #1- How is it possible Polaris is said to shift 3/4 of a degree from Earth's daily rotation (since it is slightly off center in alignement) and yet there is no seasonal shift observed in Polaris from Earth's much much larger elliptical orbit path around an off center Sun of over 600 Million Miles? #2- Over the course of our orbit around the Sun, which star has been followed for 1 year to show the 360 degree time lapse (or near time lapse) of its circular parallax journey? Have any stars been followed for a year? #3- Since we are moving with the Sun and never return back to the same position, have we ever noticed diminishing or increasing parallax of all stars as we continually change our position in space?
Also the premise is wrong. If the stars all move together around a motionless Earth we would still see the same parallax. If you put a merry-go-round in the middle of a forest clearing, can you tell if the forest is spinning around you or if the merry-go-round is spinning?
Tarquin The Rotter WRONG. Scientific TKO.. #1- "I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis #2- "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking #3- "If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."- Physicist, Steven Weinberg
Tarquin The Rotter Let's try this again.. In order for relativity to stand whether Earth is moving around the universe or vice versa ALL forces must be accounted for and all motions must be indistinguishable in BOTH models.. If not, relativity is wrong which means the Michelson-Morley experiment has no relativity rebuttal for a virtual null result putting the Earth at rest. So... #1- Relativity is real and both models must work Or #2- Relativity is not real and the Earth is at rest.. This I can back by over 15 quotes from cosmologists and top scientists. You have no rebuttal. Would you like to see Edwin Hubble's quote when he found redshifts all around Earth? How about Max when he saw the microwave radiation all around Earth which was not homogeneous as a bing bang explosion should be? I can shut this all down really fast.
Tarquin The Rotter "The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS." - Einstein (inventor of Relativity which is a pillar of the heliocentric model) Game, set and match...
Tarquin The Rotter Sir you cannot tell the difference which is supposed to be the cornerstone to relativity.. The point of the question was to explain reality on a macro scale.
It has something to do with inertial reference frames.if you are rotating around a pole you will be aware of that, because a constant centripetal force is acting upon you. So you won't think think the pole is rotating around it's axes.
Not in the way some think. A better way to describe the sun-earth system is that both orbit a shared center of mass (which, if we're talking about an isolated earth-sun system would be a point near the sun's surface, I think). It would be entirely incorrect to say the sun revolves around the earth, because the energy of such a system would be much, much larger. Consider just the force requirements of keeping a sun zooming around a stationary earth reference frame... it's Mv^2/r. Then compare that force to that required to keep an earth whizzing around the sun (mv^2/r). Your v's and r's are the same, so we're talking about the same system, but with M/m difference in forces? That's a million-fold difference in forces (or energies for that matter). You'd be describing two completely different systems, not merely the same system with a different choice of reference frame. When you are describing the same system, it makes sense only to do it in such a way that the overall energy is invariant with respect to the chosen reference frame. Otherwise it is being dun rong.
It was completely sensible to assume Earth was an immobile, non-moving celestial sphere in the absence of observed parallax; the problem today is that modern measurements of observed parallax don't appear to make any sense (negative parallax).
Professor MathTheBeautiful, thank you for a short and sweet video/lecture on the Surprising History of Stellar Parallax in Partial Differential Equations. The History of Stellar Parallax is tied to different eras in Classical and Advanced Mathematics.
Copernicus, Book 4, Chapter 16. "How the Parallaxes of the Moon Are Determined" (1522?) discusses Ptolemy's observation of Parallax at Alexandria 150 AD +/-. The concept of PARALLAX has been considered for two (2) millennia.
Thank you for the fantastic reference!
Here's a link to the Copernicus book Tony is referring to: bit.ly/HeavenlySpheresYT
Thank you again for the reference!
The source used was Hawking’s “On the Shoulders of Giants” /
Nicolaus Copernicus “On the Revolutions of Heavenly Spheres”
Copernicus is amazing in his use of Trigonometry.
Thank you for the additional source.
Hello,
You use the term believe. Belief is a leap of faith and is the furthest thing from scientific..
3 quick questions.
#1- How is it possible Polaris is said to shift 3/4 of a degree from Earth's daily rotation (since it is slightly off center in alignement) and yet there is no seasonal shift observed in Polaris from Earth's much much larger elliptical orbit path around an off center Sun of over 600 Million Miles?
#2- Over the course of our orbit around the Sun, which star has been followed for 1 year to show the 360 degree time lapse (or near time lapse) of its circular parallax journey? Have any stars been followed for a year?
#3- Since we are moving with the Sun and never return back to the same position, have we ever noticed diminishing or increasing parallax of all stars as we continually change our position in space?
Also the premise is wrong. If the stars all move together around a motionless Earth we would still see the same parallax.
If you put a merry-go-round in the middle of a forest clearing, can you tell if the forest is spinning around you or if the merry-go-round is spinning?
Tarquin The Rotter
WRONG. Scientific TKO..
#1- "I can construct for you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."- Physicist, George F. R. Ellis
#2- "So which is real, the Ptolemaic or Copernican system? Although it is not uncommon for people to say that Copernicus proved Ptolemy wrong, that is not true...one can use either picture as a model of the universe, for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."- Physicist, Stephen Hawking
#3- "If we were to adopt a frame of reference like Tycho's in which the Earth is at rest, then the distant galaxies would seem to be executing circular turns once a year, and in general relativity this enormous motion would create forces akin to gravitation, which would act on the Sun and planets and give them the motions of the Tychonic theory."- Physicist, Steven Weinberg
Tarquin The Rotter
Let's try this again..
In order for relativity to stand whether Earth is moving around the universe or vice versa ALL forces must be accounted for and all motions must be indistinguishable in BOTH models..
If not, relativity is wrong which means the Michelson-Morley experiment has no relativity rebuttal for a virtual null result putting the Earth at rest.
So...
#1- Relativity is real and both models must work
Or
#2- Relativity is not real and the Earth is at rest..
This I can back by over 15 quotes from cosmologists and top scientists. You have no rebuttal. Would you like to see Edwin Hubble's quote when he found redshifts all around Earth? How about Max when he saw the microwave radiation all around Earth which was not homogeneous as a bing bang explosion should be?
I can shut this all down really fast.
Tarquin The Rotter
"The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either CS could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different CS." - Einstein (inventor of Relativity which is a pillar of the heliocentric model)
Game, set and match...
Tarquin The Rotter
Sir you cannot tell the difference which is supposed to be the cornerstone to relativity..
The point of the question was to explain reality on a macro scale.
We are in a local minimum?! Interesting.
Isnt movement all relative though? The earth revolves around the sun AND the sun revolves around the earth.
It has something to do with inertial reference frames.if you are rotating around a pole you will be aware of that, because a constant centripetal force is acting upon you. So you won't think think the pole is rotating around it's axes.
Not in the way some think. A better way to describe the sun-earth system is that both orbit a shared center of mass (which, if we're talking about an isolated earth-sun system would be a point near the sun's surface, I think). It would be entirely incorrect to say the sun revolves around the earth, because the energy of such a system would be much, much larger. Consider just the force requirements of keeping a sun zooming around a stationary earth reference frame... it's Mv^2/r. Then compare that force to that required to keep an earth whizzing around the sun (mv^2/r). Your v's and r's are the same, so we're talking about the same system, but with M/m difference in forces? That's a million-fold difference in forces (or energies for that matter). You'd be describing two completely different systems, not merely the same system with a different choice of reference frame. When you are describing the same system, it makes sense only to do it in such a way that the overall energy is invariant with respect to the chosen reference frame. Otherwise it is being dun rong.
1838!!!!!wowwww
Where are the time lapse videos of stellar parallax? 1838? What a joke.
It was completely sensible to assume Earth was an immobile, non-moving celestial sphere in the absence of observed parallax; the problem today is that modern measurements of observed parallax don't appear to make any sense (negative parallax).