There are still many assumptions that they gloss over. 1. How do we know the radius of the orbit? 2. How do we know what days to make the observations 3. How do we account for the movement of Sol and the star being measured? I would like to see a video describe the initial observations and then how the formulas are derived.
I was also wandering about the third question you've asked!.. earth is moving constantly at a specific rate. But how do we calculate a star with revolution. Like if that mass is moving faster than we thought how people accurately calculate things?
@@scariajoseph5022 one of the “problems” and benefits with the modern world is that we can build on the work of others. The problem is when we don’t explain how the foundation was set, we don’t explain initial observations and show a clear line of deriving data into useful information. This allows us to build bigger and better things but if you asked an astrophysicist (or a student) to map out a clear line of evidence from initial observation I bet they would struggle.
This is sooooooo stupid , earth is flat , the moon and the stars have NO parallax when filming them in time lapse and the moon is "380.000 km away" ... So they say... But no parallax.... Wake up ppl , they are brainwashing our kids
Is such a shame that this channel has been completely abandoned. You could just keep it going with questions asked to experts and give also young astrophysicists some visibility in this way. It was one of the best channels out there on YT.
Im regretting hating math when I was on high school, little did I know that I would love cosmic stuffs and studies so much that it required math to solve almost everything about universe. Now Im trying to learn math again on youtube alone with watching space videos so that I can understand everything.
You are not the only one.....I love cosmic stuff too...but I'm little bit different than you because I don't hate math but I have dyscalculia issue...no matter how many time I learn about math I'm still a failure😭...I can't even do a simple math calculation/task😢
So simple yet so complex on how this is calculated, I never grew up as a math wiz but once college forced me thru calculus and all that jazz, I fell in love with it!
That's Isosceles triangle The two sides are the same So you need just one and you can get it from the angle cuz θ=tan⁻¹x or sin⁻¹x or u can use what u want to where is x is the length of a side
I noticed that they did not mention that the max distance utilizing this parallax angle method in Earth's atmosphere is 0.01 arcsec making the max distance we can measure only 100 parsecs which is 326 light years and .001 arcsec outside earth's atmosphere for a max distance of 1000 parsecs which is 3261 light years. This means any distance given that is more than 3261 light years is only a wild guess. So how do we know the furthest star is 5 billion light years away? We don't we guess based on its luminency, which requires us to assume all stars are the same size and brightness which they definitely aren't.
thats exactly what I was thinking... that there's a limit to the distance we can measure in space. and we haven't covered enough distance between two said triangle points in space in order to calculate such barbaric numbers. Why isn't anyone bringing this to light? its just upsetting
@@tommyg1892 I hate to bring in their religion but evolution is a religion requiring blind faith that nothing and no one created everything given long ages. The reason why they don't want to bring this to light is because they don't want to upset their blind faith that these billions of years might not have any merit at all and that something or dare I say someone created all this cosmos in a very short period of time just like the Bible details. Just something to consider. Our limit of 3261 light years max perfectly coincides with 6000yr limit that the Bible places on the creation of the stars during the 6 days of creation.
Its all mathematical wizzardry man. Also when you do use this method you have to compare the relative position of the star to a stationary object "distant". How do you know if the object youre using as a refference point is actually stationary seeing how you dont know how far it is? How do you know which star has moved?
@@cognitivedissonance4938 A very good point. Astronomers already admit its hard enough to measure a supposed stationary star distance. But they already know all the stars are CONSTANTLY in motion even in our own galaxy. Its like they water everything down and want no one to think critically because they would start questioning their conclusion which is the Big bang made everything from nothing which is scientific nonsense. It truly takes more faith to believe that there isn't a God out there. These long distance assumption of stars come up short.
@@jwing9185 Agreed. The measurement, which is a calculation not a measurement, is founded on the measurement of a previous star. Its all build on top of each other. Also they use the suns distance to triangulate. The suns distance is indirectly derived from the moons distance and if you go far enough youll see that eventually theres some random assumption resting at the bottom that nobody dares even look at...
Knowing the star's distance from earth is one thing, but since the universe is expanding at the rate of 70k/s this distance keeps changing every second. And, the parallax feature could have happened many times before the light reached earth, either in the up/down direction or left/right direction depending on the gravitational bending of light as it passed a star. So if you wanted to travel to that distant star A, you would have to make course corrections each time you passed a star in line with that star A line of sight meaning that the distance from earth to star A is longer than the measured distance.
True, it's not going to be perfectly accurate, but the distance that a star moves in a year is very insignificant compared to the distance between said star and the Sun. So the result is still going to be close enough. You could compare it to the tectonic plates here on Earth. Technically, Europe and the Americas aren't stationary, but we can still determine the distance between them with enough accuracy to serve our needs, since a few centimeters is nothing compared to a few thousand kilometers.
Is your assumtion the distance of the star to 2 observed position on Earth the same? Because if not, we can not calculate the distance from Earth to star. We can not calculate the triangle edges just knowing 1 edge (Earth to Sun) and 3 corners
It’s amazing how you can measure stars considering they are not even in the position they appear to be anymore since the light takes so many hundreds and even thousands of years to travel, we are looking at stars that were there like thousands of years ago. So despite that, you guys can still measure them 😱. Also, the triangle described would have such a small base and such an extreme “height “ that the 2 sides would practically be parallel to each other no matter if you measure from earth or from space. And still! Incredibly you can figure out distance ! Wow! 😯 Of course, we have to also assume that speed of light remained the same throughout all those thousands of years… Thanks to all that we can make theories about the universe. Awesomeness
But isn’t the sun and the star itself moving away from each other between the two measurements ? Is this considered too short a time frame that the distance moved is a rounding error?
That's assuming the stars are swaying during parallax. From earth, the stars do appear to sway... but this can be explained by atmospheric distortion. The seasons increase and decrease the effect of sway. I think its all bullshit. common sense says, way to many error causing factors get star distances. Perhaps they are just 2000 kms away?
@@mossaic13 That's why they use orbital telescopes, to remove the effects of atmospheric distortion. Also this is only one method of calculating distance. There are several others and they all tally. It's definitely not bullshit.
Look up how far away Polaris is and the answer will vary by over 30% depending on the method they use. Polaris which is the most stagnant star can’t even be calculated correctly. Not to mention our solar system is supposedly moving at 500,000 MPH through space ha
I don't quite understand this because if we measure from one point on earth, then that same point, when we are on the exact opposite side of the orbit in a cosmic scale we moved less than 2 centimeters away from where we started. How would that give a accurate reading of the star's distance. I mean when we scale things on earth it's to earth's scale. But we can't calculate on a cosmic scale. Not to mention. We can't count on light speed to be accurate as light can be effected by gravity in space. And if we can't count on that as a absolute... then how can we accurately measure stars. Or am I missing something. I genuinely want to know.
but wouldn't it make measurements inaccurate? as we measure it in 6 month intervals. As most of us know, stars are not stationary objections in space. Do you guys/gals factor the direction the star is heading and the velocity it is traveling as well? *correction from speed to velocity. To some, semantics can be important
They tell us the stars are moving. But are they really? the great pyramids of giza are shaped to the constellation Orion's Belt. The pyramids were built 5000ish years ago? so, where is the parallax in Orion's belt? The stars still match the pyramids. Also, if they use parallax of 6 months, they fail to mention atmospheric distortion. the climate will cause stars to sway and magnify according to moisture in air. Its all based to bullshit. Ask questions.. sharpen your common sense... its is your weapon to smash the propaganda.
@@mossaic13 The pyramids aren't actually related to Orion's belt though. There was a theory about it a while ago, but there's nothing to support it, and it makes no sense. For starters, Orion and other constellations were based on Greek mythology some 2000 years after the ancient Egyptians, so they wouldn't have had an Orion's belt for starters. They had very different consolations of stars based on their own beliefs. Even if it looked somewhat similar as today, the stars making up the belt wouldn't have been significant to the Egyptians. The three stars are not perfectly aligned, one is off slightly, whereas the 3 pyramids at Giza are precisely aligned along their southeast corners. When viewed from the river, the three pyramids line up perfectly across the top of the visible horizon, and they also look equally spaced apart. Also, they were built with corners facing the river. The alignment and position of those pyramids is more likely for the benefit of those travelling down the river from the capital city. The horizon and the sun were a big part of their beliefs to do with life and death, resurrection and such, so it's more likely to do with that than anything.
Proper motion can be measured by measuring angular motion on the celestial sphere over a time interval (a VERY LONG time interval, since most stars proper motions are on the order of 0.1 arcseconds per year). This motion can then be subtracted out of the measured angle, to distill it to just the parallax angle.
Several methods, you can read all about it on this internet. Just look it up. You're on the internet. One method used parallax method, using the transit of Venus. This was 1st done in 1781. And again in 2012. Another method used radio ranging of Venus, and using that known distance to triangulate (using parallax) the Earth-Sun distance (when Venus is in a quarter phase, so it would form a right triangle with the Earth and sun). And other methods as well.
But there is one more factor need to take note. The Size of the star. If the size of the distance star is big, it will look move less. if the size of the near star is small, it will still seem move more. How accurate it can be?
My question is, unrelated to the video is ; Knowing the law of conservation of energy where does gravity get its input. I know because of mass but nothing is lost ... Please help
Because it is not one body applying energy into other object, gravity is a game of two objects attracting each other, the Moon deviates the Earth, less than Earth deviates the Moon, obviously, but has its effect. As you say nothing is lost but in every turn of any orbital object in the universe, the diameter of the orbit decreases and the velocity increases, changing potencial gravity energy into cinematic energy.
To say this scientists coined a term called dark Matter which is the main reason for the disturbances in the fabric of space. But they don't still how it looks
I don't know exactly, but I believe it would be related to the plane of Earths orbit around the Sun. That and the triangle formed must be strictly 90 degrees, so that a particular star's distance can only be measured twice a year at a particular time.
Karsten Singh pretty simple... The further away the star is the less it will move when comparing pictures from Jan and July thus the angle will be smaller. The smaller the angle means the height of triangle will be larger and distance to star greater.
Elliptical orbit can be detected by observing angular size of the Sun during different time of the year, and distance to the Sun can be estimated using right triangle rule.
But what if we are not in a heliocentric system and dont know it? After all, even Einstein doubted. That would mean that the stars and galaxies might be tremendously closer!
I've been using Math my entire life And I truly believed it was pointless, And a major waste of my time Throughout my schooling career. Boy, was I wrong 😅🙆♂️. It turns out Math is life, there's a formula For everything in our Universe.
Valid point, objects are moving around the galaxy at different velocities to each other. Plus like someone mentioned earlier, parallax doesn’t make much sense given all objects are seen as they were in the past and extreme past. So that said object is likely far further away based on light emitted from an object at a finite speed.
@@bullrancher6508 The distance between earth and the sun is 1AU and the angle between the eart, sun&star is 90 degrees, you can math the rest. th-cam.com/video/XUQAIldqPww/w-d-xo.html
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j It's basic trigonometry, the angle can't be anything else but 90 degrees. You require 2 points of observation at opposite ends of earths orbit, those two points are equidistant to the sun, it's the diameter of the orbit which forms the base of the triangle which is a known value. The distance from the earth to the star at the opposite ends of the orbit are identical which means the remaining two sides of the triangle are identical. The rules of trigonometry say if the two sides are equal and you draw a line to the centre of the base (sun) the angle has to be 90 degrees. lco.global/spacebook/distance/parallax-and-distance-measurement/ th-cam.com/video/co7I3c3uA7A/w-d-xo.html
Distance dilates and distance isn't always the same measure and distance hasn't always been the same measure throughout time. Time hasn't always been the same measure throughout time.
I've never seen any Stars Shift and I've been looking at them every night for 50 years. All the constellations have remain fixed since that time. The only thing is the earth moves around our sun and rotation. If this theory is true all the stars would be shifting from there fixed positions. Also in the past earth was the centre of everything and the stars orbited around earth. Were not going backwards again in our thinking are we ? QUESTION EVERYTHING just don't go along with the narrative because its the easy road.
We've many ways to find out things are too small, too big, and too far in the universe. The universe is finite based on my calculation. Since the universe is 13.7 billions years old (Big Bang theory) and nothing goes faster than the speed of light (Albert Einstein's prediction): 13.7 billions years x speed of light = or (13.7 billion years) x (186,282 miles/s) = 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from its source. Let's assume that the universe has been expanding up to the speed of light.
Except that the Universe is expanding everywhere at once and not just away from a single point in space. So in reality the Universe would be much larger.
Plot twist: this is applicable if the star is STATIONARY but since we know the dynamics of galaxies every star has a random movement in its orbit around the black whole in the center of it... And about masses and temperature I think is almost impossible to make even a close estimation since no one is sure how the information of brightness and size gets to us! :|
BS. Why? Because they are all different. Not just distances, but size and energy and brightness and most importantly? You do not know where is the Mirrors.
The parallax effect is extremely small and practically negligible to the naked eye. The methods shown in the video are very well established and commonly used though, so you having an experience of inaccurate teaching doesn't mean there's any contradiction in science.
that explained nothing. how is it measured once they have these two figures, and how are these two figures measured in the first place? nobody personally does these measurements or calculations for themselves, do they? no, they just believe what the textbook says. i do not buy into this. what a weak attempt. it is not possible to know how far away a star is. humans think they know it all, but do not. you may say that i just dont understand, but come back when you have actually crunched those numbers yourself... you cant, because nobody has the equipment, will be the excuse, probably. so why then believe it? to fit in? to avoid ridicule?
@Arion Hill if one is unable to take these measurements for assurance of accuracy, then i really see no point in doing the math that would follow. people put just as much blind faith in science and scientist, as some do in religion or god. what i dont like about science is that they try and push theories as fact. those who believe are so sure, but that is because most people just want to be part of the group. they wont stand alone for fear of being mocked or laughed at. that is why the peer review is a flawed system. there should be more of a focus on disproving some of the nonsense that they try and talk about. yikes is right. true progress cannot come from these people. everything seems to be for all the wrong reasons.... money and fame, and awards, rather than truth and understanding.
This has to be the most idiotic explanation EVER! People wake up! They have no idea so they are coming up with just ridiculous "explanations" that has nothing to do with science.
This is a pretty basic explanation of the actual methods used. Parallax is an observable thing and trigonometry is one of the most well established and understood forms of geometry. Which part exactly do you think has nothing to do with science?
@@guttedmonkey in fact everything has to do with science....so that we must put questions like this: 1. from what oracle do they now how the star's luminosity is changing in the time of that year of observation? 2. How do they know the exact movement of that star relative to ours? 3. Are they so shore that the light isn't even a bit reflected in its path at one moment of observation and by this the information from it isn't accurate?? And these can be only a few out many other problems!!!!
@@popra432 they know the exact position of the stars relative to all the other stars not just our own by ... observing them. This is about observation. What would you think is reflecting the light? Giant invisible space mirrors? None of your questions really make sense. Gaia has been creating an extremely accurate and incredible 3d map of the milky way since 2013. You, not understanding it or doubting its accuracy is of no interest to the people involved.
@@guttedmonkey yeah right like they bull shitting about gigant black wholes that they say are bigger than our entire solar system but they are only 20 billion solar masses... Yet along to make a black hole the size of our sun requires a minimum of 1 billion solar masses, so one made out of 20 billion doesn't reach even mercury orbit! 😅🙄
Loved to hear that you are an Indian origin
INDIAN ROOT 🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳
How do you know that?
Chakrawarti- is an Indian word ,
For whole who have to become emperor among kings .
Emperor (Chakravarti)
@@nareshbambhroliya6985 yeah , i get that now
There are still many assumptions that they gloss over.
1. How do we know the radius of the orbit?
2. How do we know what days to make the observations
3. How do we account for the movement of Sol and the star being measured?
I would like to see a video describe the initial observations and then how the formulas are derived.
I was also wandering about the third question you've asked!.. earth is moving constantly at a specific rate. But how do we calculate a star with revolution. Like if that mass is moving faster than we thought how people accurately calculate things?
@@scariajoseph5022 one of the “problems” and benefits with the modern world is that we can build on the work of others. The problem is when we don’t explain how the foundation was set, we don’t explain initial observations and show a clear line of deriving data into useful information. This allows us to build bigger and better things but if you asked an astrophysicist (or a student) to map out a clear line of evidence from initial observation I bet they would struggle.
It's a two minute video, what did you expect, you can't condense everything about the subject into that timeframe...
This is sooooooo stupid , earth is flat , the moon and the stars have NO parallax when filming them in time lapse and the moon is "380.000 km away" ... So they say... But no parallax.... Wake up ppl , they are brainwashing our kids
Is such a shame that this channel has been completely abandoned. You could just keep it going with questions asked to experts and give also young astrophysicists some visibility in this way.
It was one of the best channels out there on YT.
Wow this was the last video that they uploaded. This was the first video that actually made more sense to me on the topic of star distances.
Im regretting hating math when I was on high school, little did I know that I would love cosmic stuffs and studies so much that it required math to solve almost everything about universe. Now Im trying to learn math again on youtube alone with watching space videos so that I can understand everything.
You are not the only one.....I love cosmic stuff too...but I'm little bit different than you because I don't hate math but I have dyscalculia issue...no matter how many time I learn about math I'm still a failure😭...I can't even do a simple math calculation/task😢
So simple yet so complex on how this is calculated, I never grew up as a math wiz but once college forced me thru calculus and all that jazz, I fell in love with it!
سَنُرِيهِمْ آيَاتِنَا فِي الْآفَاقِ وَفِي أَنفُسِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَهُمْ أَنَّهُ الْحَقُّ ۗ أَوَلَمْ يَكْفِ بِرَبِّكَ أَنَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ شَهِيدٌ (53)
@@hassanalawad9201 The most great, the most merciful
Great explanation, wonderful animation! Well done!
This is how a young person can begin to see the power in math.
Yeah, now I feel bad for not taking Trig cus it was too hard
Just a triangle , one most tough measurements uses such simple answer
I have never been shocked more than this
just wait until you learn about the hercules corona borealis great wall
@@smashmazing9515 yeah bro!😂
Ok do i need the sides of the triangle to calculate
That's Isosceles triangle
The two sides are the same
So you need just one and you can get it from the angle cuz
θ=tan⁻¹x or sin⁻¹x or u can use what u want to
where is x is the length of a side
Awesome! Thank you!
That's a very well explained the topic thanks for this video
Please make more video like this
lowly triangle
I noticed that they did not mention that the max distance utilizing this parallax angle method in Earth's atmosphere is 0.01 arcsec making the max distance we can measure only 100 parsecs which is 326 light years and .001 arcsec outside earth's atmosphere for a max distance of 1000 parsecs which is 3261 light years. This means any distance given that is more than 3261 light years is only a wild guess. So how do we know the furthest star is 5 billion light years away? We don't we guess based on its luminency, which requires us to assume all stars are the same size and brightness which they definitely aren't.
thats exactly what I was thinking... that there's a limit to the distance we can measure in space. and we haven't covered enough distance between two said triangle points in space in order to calculate such barbaric numbers. Why isn't anyone bringing this to light? its just upsetting
@@tommyg1892 I hate to bring in their religion but evolution is a religion requiring blind faith that nothing and no one created everything given long ages. The reason why they don't want to bring this to light is because they don't want to upset their blind faith that these billions of years might not have any merit at all and that something or dare I say someone created all this cosmos in a very short period of time just like the Bible details.
Just something to consider. Our limit of 3261 light years max perfectly coincides with 6000yr limit that the Bible places on the creation of the stars during the 6 days of creation.
Its all mathematical wizzardry man. Also when you do use this method you have to compare the relative position of the star to a stationary object "distant". How do you know if the object youre using as a refference point is actually stationary seeing how you dont know how far it is? How do you know which star has moved?
@@cognitivedissonance4938 A very good point. Astronomers already admit its hard enough to measure a supposed stationary star distance. But they already know all the stars are CONSTANTLY in motion even in our own galaxy.
Its like they water everything down and want no one to think critically because they would start questioning their conclusion which is the Big bang made everything from nothing which is scientific nonsense. It truly takes more faith to believe that there isn't a God out there. These long distance assumption of stars come up short.
@@jwing9185 Agreed. The measurement, which is a calculation not a measurement, is founded on the measurement of a previous star. Its all build on top of each other. Also they use the suns distance to triangulate. The suns distance is indirectly derived from the moons distance and if you go far enough youll see that eventually theres some random assumption resting at the bottom that nobody dares even look at...
I subscribe to your channel it is so good✨✨ and, to be honest, you deserve more
Good work mam
Knowing the star's distance from earth is one thing, but since the universe is expanding at the rate of 70k/s this distance keeps changing every second. And, the parallax feature could have happened many times before the light reached earth, either in the up/down direction or left/right direction depending on the gravitational bending of light as it passed a star. So if you wanted to travel to that distant star A, you would have to make course corrections each time you passed a star in line with that star A line of sight meaning that the distance from earth to star A is longer than the measured distance.
Okay i get the two angles are the earth at different months (orbit sides) but how did we get the third angle?
Parallax might works if the object is stationary...but if everything is moving at different speedss than its no longer accurate??
True, it's not going to be perfectly accurate, but the distance that a star moves in a year is very insignificant compared to the distance between said star and the Sun. So the result is still going to be close enough. You could compare it to the tectonic plates here on Earth. Technically, Europe and the Americas aren't stationary, but we can still determine the distance between them with enough accuracy to serve our needs, since a few centimeters is nothing compared to a few thousand kilometers.
@@tezz2698 The sun alone is traveling .5 MILLION miles per hour! Trivial? That’s just silly. They’re clearly full of crap.
@@randont 5 million miles per hour relative to what? Also 5 million is nothing when the distance is measured in trillions.
true
Thank u
Is your assumtion the distance of the star to 2 observed position on Earth the same? Because if not, we can not calculate the distance from Earth to star. We can not calculate the triangle edges just knowing 1 edge (Earth to Sun) and 3 corners
It’s amazing how you can measure stars considering they are not even in the position they appear to be anymore since the light takes so many hundreds and even thousands of years to travel, we are looking at stars that were there like thousands of years ago. So despite that, you guys can still measure them 😱.
Also, the triangle described would have such a small base and such an extreme “height “ that the 2 sides would practically be parallel to each other no matter if you measure from earth or from space. And still! Incredibly you can figure out distance ! Wow! 😯
Of course, we have to also assume that speed of light remained the same throughout all those thousands of years…
Thanks to all that we can make theories about the universe.
Awesomeness
You just completely flawed Astronomy. But we love the cartoons though, it helps us respect nature! 😃😃😃
But isn’t the sun and the star itself moving away from each other between the two measurements ? Is this considered too short a time frame that the distance moved is a rounding error?
So we’re able to know how far away it is based on the star’s movement relative to us? How accurate is this measurement?
That's assuming the stars are swaying during parallax. From earth, the stars do appear to sway... but this can be explained by atmospheric distortion. The seasons increase and decrease the effect of sway. I think its all bullshit. common sense says, way to many error causing factors get star distances. Perhaps they are just 2000 kms away?
@@mossaic13 That's why they use orbital telescopes, to remove the effects of atmospheric distortion. Also this is only one method of calculating distance. There are several others and they all tally. It's definitely not bullshit.
Look up how far away Polaris is and the answer will vary by over 30% depending on the method they use. Polaris which is the most stagnant star can’t even be calculated correctly. Not to mention our solar system is supposedly moving at 500,000 MPH through space ha
It's all BS
I don't quite understand this because if we measure from one point on earth, then that same point, when we are on the exact opposite side of the orbit in a cosmic scale we moved less than 2 centimeters away from where we started. How would that give a accurate reading of the star's distance. I mean when we scale things on earth it's to earth's scale. But we can't calculate on a cosmic scale. Not to mention. We can't count on light speed to be accurate as light can be effected by gravity in space. And if we can't count on that as a absolute... then how can we accurately measure stars. Or am I missing something. I genuinely want to know.
but wouldn't it make measurements inaccurate? as we measure it in 6 month intervals. As most of us know, stars are not stationary objections in space. Do you guys/gals factor the direction the star is heading and the velocity it is traveling as well?
*correction from speed to velocity. To some, semantics can be important
They tell us the stars are moving. But are they really? the great pyramids of giza are shaped to the constellation Orion's Belt. The pyramids were built 5000ish years ago? so, where is the parallax in Orion's belt? The stars still match the pyramids. Also, if they use parallax of 6 months, they fail to mention atmospheric distortion. the climate will cause stars to sway and magnify according to moisture in air. Its all based to bullshit. Ask questions.. sharpen your common sense... its is your weapon to smash the propaganda.
@@mossaic13 The pyramids aren't actually related to Orion's belt though. There was a theory about it a while ago, but there's nothing to support it, and it makes no sense.
For starters, Orion and other constellations were based on Greek mythology some 2000 years after the ancient Egyptians, so they wouldn't have had an Orion's belt for starters.
They had very different consolations of stars based on their own beliefs. Even if it looked somewhat similar as today, the stars making up the belt wouldn't have been significant to the Egyptians.
The three stars are not perfectly aligned, one is off slightly, whereas the 3 pyramids at Giza are precisely aligned along their southeast corners.
When viewed from the river, the three pyramids line up perfectly across the top of the visible horizon, and they also look equally spaced apart. Also, they were built with corners facing the river.
The alignment and position of those pyramids is more likely for the benefit of those travelling down the river from the capital city. The horizon and the sun were a big part of their beliefs to do with life and death, resurrection and such, so it's more likely to do with that than anything.
Proper motion can be measured by measuring angular motion on the celestial sphere over a time interval (a VERY LONG time interval, since most stars proper motions are on the order of 0.1 arcseconds per year).
This motion can then be subtracted out of the measured angle, to distill it to just the parallax angle.
Who are you?? god?? Damn bruh we workin’ with what we got!
@@mossaic13 Tell us you wear tinfoil hats without telling us.
Loser.
how did they come up with the base (the diameter of earths orbit)?
Several methods, you can read all about it on this internet. Just look it up. You're on the internet.
One method used parallax method, using the transit of Venus. This was 1st done in 1781. And again in 2012.
Another method used radio ranging of Venus, and using that known distance to triangulate (using parallax) the Earth-Sun distance (when Venus is in a quarter phase, so it would form a right triangle with the Earth and sun).
And other methods as well.
@@beta_cygni1950 I did look it up right after I made that post over a month ago and you are correct...
@@cottonfiber6480 Cool.
I figured you would, considering....
But there is one more factor need to take note. The Size of the star.
If the size of the distance star is big, it will look move less. if the size of the near star is small, it will still seem move more. How accurate it can be?
Wrong. The size of the star is completely insignificant compared to the distance.
I don't think you understand the concept of Parralax.
@@beta_cygni1950I don't think you understand how to spell Parallax😅
My question is, unrelated to the video is ; Knowing the law of conservation of energy where does gravity get its input. I know because of mass but nothing is lost ... Please help
Because it is not one body applying energy into other object, gravity is a game of two objects attracting each other, the Moon deviates the Earth, less than Earth deviates the Moon, obviously, but has its effect. As you say nothing is lost but in every turn of any orbital object in the universe, the diameter of the orbit decreases and the velocity increases, changing potencial gravity energy into cinematic energy.
To say this scientists coined a term called dark Matter which is the main reason for the disturbances in the fabric of space.
But they don't still how it looks
You guys still uploading
What if light beam moves due to gravitational force. Isnt this affect the measures? Assuming light didnt got affected allover 400 bilion bilion miles!
I cant understand that angle i mean how we would find that please tell me
I don't know exactly, but I believe it would be related to the plane of Earths orbit around the Sun. That and the triangle formed must be strictly 90 degrees, so that a particular star's distance can only be measured twice a year at a particular time.
Please make more videos!
If you only know the base of the triangle how can you find its hight
With the angle, I'm pretty sure
But how do you find that angle
Karsten Singh pretty simple... The further away the star is the less it will move when comparing pictures from Jan and July thus the angle will be smaller. The smaller the angle means the height of triangle will be larger and distance to star greater.
Using angle
Did they use this system to measure the size of Uranus :-)
How did they measure the earth's elliptical track around the sun ? and the distance between earth and sun ?
Elliptical orbit can be detected by observing angular size of the Sun during different time of the year, and distance to the Sun can be estimated using right triangle rule.
Arclength=distance*angle?
Yeah
S=l (theta)
But what if we are not in a heliocentric system and dont know it? After all, even Einstein doubted. That would mean that the stars and galaxies might be tremendously closer!
Elaborate
@@benjaminkok1945 I dare not.
Then the parallax would be even greater. "After all, even Einstein doubted." No, he didn't.
You think they call her Debo for short?
I've been using Math my entire life
And I truly believed it was pointless,
And a major waste of my time
Throughout my schooling career.
Boy, was I wrong 😅🙆♂️.
It turns out Math is life, there's a formula
For everything in our Universe.
But the stars move too, how do you measure when you know the stars aren't stationary
Valid point, objects are moving around the galaxy at different velocities to each other. Plus like someone mentioned earlier, parallax doesn’t make much sense given all objects are seen as they were in the past and extreme past. So that said object is likely far further away based on light emitted from an object at a finite speed.
Why did they just stop?
Was thinking the same?
1:17 can someone explain to me how the angle is calculated
My question is how do i fins the distance by the triangle i need the sides i think but theyre far different
th-cam.com/video/XUQAIldqPww/w-d-xo.html
@@bullrancher6508 The distance between earth and the sun is 1AU and the angle between the eart, sun&star is 90 degrees, you can math the rest.
th-cam.com/video/XUQAIldqPww/w-d-xo.html
@@rztrzt but why? how do we know that the angle is 90 degrees?
if that is known, wouldnt we only need to calculate 1 other angle instead of 2?
@@user-wq9mw2xz3j It's basic trigonometry, the angle can't be anything else but 90 degrees. You require 2 points of observation at opposite ends of earths orbit, those two points are equidistant to the sun, it's the diameter of the orbit which forms the base of the triangle which is a known value. The distance from the earth to the star at the opposite ends of the orbit are identical which means the remaining two sides of the triangle are identical. The rules of trigonometry say if the two sides are equal and you draw a line to the centre of the base (sun) the angle has to be 90 degrees.
lco.global/spacebook/distance/parallax-and-distance-measurement/
th-cam.com/video/co7I3c3uA7A/w-d-xo.html
So when u gonna explain it?
Distance dilates and distance isn't always the same measure and distance hasn't always been the same measure throughout time. Time hasn't always been the same measure throughout time.
I've never seen any Stars Shift and I've been looking at them every night for 50 years. All the constellations have remain fixed since that time. The only thing is the earth moves around our sun and rotation. If this theory is true all the stars would be shifting from there fixed positions.
Also in the past earth was the centre of everything and the stars orbited around earth. Were not going backwards again in our thinking are we ?
QUESTION EVERYTHING just don't go along with the narrative because its the easy road.
We've many ways to find out things are too small, too big, and too far in the universe. The universe is finite based on my calculation. Since the universe is 13.7 billions years old (Big Bang theory) and nothing goes faster than the speed of light (Albert Einstein's prediction):
13.7 billions years x speed of light = or
(13.7 billion years) x (186,282 miles/s) = 80,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles from its source.
Let's assume that the universe has been expanding up to the speed of light.
Except that the Universe is expanding everywhere at once and not just away from a single point in space. So in reality the Universe would be much larger.
Wait, isn't the closest star to Earth the Sun? At like 8 light minutes?
Witchcraft!
good video, but please get a better mic
Plot twist: this is applicable if the star is STATIONARY but since we know the dynamics of galaxies every star has a random movement in its orbit around the black whole in the center of it... And about masses and temperature I think is almost impossible to make even a close estimation since no one is sure how the information of brightness and size gets to us! :|
I LOVE TRIANGLES!!!!!
I love your sisters triangle
@@90210dk1 I'm calling the cops
@@78anurag 💀
BS. Why? Because they are all different. Not just distances, but size and energy and brightness and most importantly?
You do not know where is the Mirrors.
Who can be sure that your telescope is not looking at a mirror?
You can't even tell if those lights are really there or not. If you can create a ceiling with stars. So do they?
When talking about shit like this. They all choose to not believe because it make them feel useless.
Nonsense you can't measure how far the moon is . Let alone a star.
I was taught when I was young that there was no Parallax because of the vast distance between the Stars. what a contradiction!!!!!
When you was young you was also thought that Santa Clause is real person...
The parallax effect is extremely small and practically negligible to the naked eye. The methods shown in the video are very well established and commonly used though, so you having an experience of inaccurate teaching doesn't mean there's any contradiction in science.
The earth is not round lol
Correct. Its an oblate sphereoid.
Devaki chakravarthi...
Horrible sound quality :(
another way to debunk a non-space believers silly claims
that explained nothing. how is it measured once they have these two figures, and how are these two figures measured in the first place? nobody personally does these measurements or calculations for themselves, do they? no, they just believe what the textbook says. i do not buy into this. what a weak attempt. it is not possible to know how far away a star is. humans think they know it all, but do not. you may say that i just dont understand, but come back when you have actually crunched those numbers yourself... you cant, because nobody has the equipment, will be the excuse, probably. so why then believe it? to fit in? to avoid ridicule?
@Arion Hill if one is unable to take these measurements for assurance of accuracy, then i really see no point in doing the math that would follow. people put just as much blind faith in science and scientist, as some do in religion or god. what i dont like about science is that they try and push theories as fact. those who believe are so sure, but that is because most people just want to be part of the group. they wont stand alone for fear of being mocked or laughed at. that is why the peer review is a flawed system. there should be more of a focus on disproving some of the nonsense that they try and talk about. yikes is right. true progress cannot come from these people. everything seems to be for all the wrong reasons.... money and fame, and awards, rather than truth and understanding.
This channel already dead?
Another dead 💀 channel
This has to be the most idiotic explanation EVER! People wake up! They have no idea so they are coming up with just ridiculous "explanations" that has nothing to do with science.
We are all awake here except you, what are you on about?
This is a pretty basic explanation of the actual methods used. Parallax is an observable thing and trigonometry is one of the most well established and understood forms of geometry. Which part exactly do you think has nothing to do with science?
@@guttedmonkey in fact everything has to do with science....so that we must put questions like this: 1. from what oracle do they now how the star's luminosity is changing in the time of that year of observation? 2. How do they know the exact movement of that star relative to ours? 3. Are they so shore that the light isn't even a bit reflected in its path at one moment of observation and by this the information from it isn't accurate?? And these can be only a few out many other problems!!!!
@@popra432 they know the exact position of the stars relative to all the other stars not just our own by ... observing them. This is about observation. What would you think is reflecting the light? Giant invisible space mirrors? None of your questions really make sense. Gaia has been creating an extremely accurate and incredible 3d map of the milky way since 2013. You, not understanding it or doubting its accuracy is of no interest to the people involved.
@@guttedmonkey yeah right like they bull shitting about gigant black wholes that they say are bigger than our entire solar system but they are only 20 billion solar masses... Yet along to make a black hole the size of our sun requires a minimum of 1 billion solar masses, so one made out of 20 billion doesn't reach even mercury orbit! 😅🙄
Pure bullshit.