the universe and space....?

Mech,

I wrote above: "I thought the base was less than the diameter of the earth (i.e. less than 12 hours worth of rotation)."

So I computed it! It's much less.

Assuming the average time for one orbit of the sun by the earth is an average of 365.25 days per year and estimating for the equivalent circular orbit,

TS = 365.25 days per year x 24 hours per day x 3600 seconds per hour = 31,557,600 time-seconds per year.

R = Mean radius of earth's orbit about the sun= 1.495985 x 10^13 cm.

C = Circumference of earth's orbit about the sun = 2 x pi x R = 9.399550972 x 10^13 cm = 584,061,019.4 miles.

S = Speed of earth around sun = C/TS = 18.51 miles per second

AS = 360 degrees per circle x 3600 seconds per degree = 1,296,000 angle-seconds per orbit of the earth around the sun.

TS/AS = 31,557,600 / 1,296,000 = 24.35 time-seconds per angle-second.

P = Base of Parsec gauge = (TS/AS) x S = 24.35 x 18.51 = 451 miles per angle second.

0 Replies

Ican, I read it as "Heliocentric".

The base of the triangle will be equal to the radius of the orbit of the Earth. This is the separations of the locations of Earth that Earth will travel in 1/4 year, not the distance actually traveled. About 90 million miles for the base. Since the apex of the triangle will be one second that will really get us out there, then by definition each leg will be one parsec long.

Considering that Earth is traveling orbitally about sixteen KMS, more or less the phase of the moon, more or less the location of Jupiter and the solar systems orbit of the Milky Way, the light is more or less straight and that the speed of light varies with the masses involved, And probably by the distance covered, and the fact that the viewed object is also moving, it makes a parsec pretty much of a guess also.

Actually I wanted to know (visualize) a parsec. Kind of like visualizing the 2>64 grains of corn that we did a couple of years ago.

The bridge part was just to keep you interested Smile

. I had some doubts before as to whether or not it was actually possible to assume that when somebody says that something is one or two parsecs away it actually was.

This is kind of an outgrowth of my trying to visualize orbital motions in four dimensions (perhaps five if we assume a speed for gravity:not an acceleration due to:)

I suspect an error of way less than one percent in the position of a standard candle as determined by parallax would be enough to stop the Universe from expanding at all but I haven't figured that out yet.

As you may have gathered, all this has to do with my suspicion that the "Steady State" Universe agrees more with observations than the other ones. More probable that is. Very Happy

Probably

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican, I read it as "Heliocentric".

I've edited my previous post several times to simplify the calculation. However, I've assumed in all versions that the apex of the parsec guage was located

Quote:

heliocentric

(i.e., at the center of the sun).

akaMechsmith wrote:

The base of the triangle will be equal to the radius of the orbit of the Earth. This is the separations of the locations of Earth that Earth will travel in 1/4 year, not the distance actually traveled.

I don't understand. Confused

The circumference of the eart's orbit around the sun is C = approximately, 584,061,019 miles. Then the mean radius of the earth's orbit is R = C / (2 x (pi)) = 92,956,198 miles.

92,956,198 / 584,061,019 = 0.159 which is less than one-sixth (i.e., 1/6.284) not one-quarter of the earth's orbit around the sun. So the straight line distance between points will also be less than one-sixth the total of the straight line (i.e., total cord line) distances, not the actually traveled orbital distances.

akaMechsmith wrote:

About 90 million miles for the base. Since the apex of the triangle will be one second that will really get us out there, then by definition each leg will be one parsec long.

If the apex of your parsec guage is located at the center of the sun, then the number of degrees in the apex will necessarily be about 1/6 of 360 degrees or 57.3 degrees. But 57.3 degrees is 206,265 times 1 second of angle. So it still seems to me that the actual distance of the base of your guage is approximately 451 miles (please see calculation in my previous post). But the base of your parsec guage is 1/206,265 of the radius of the earth's orbit about the sun and a parsec = 206,265 times the radius of the earth's orbit around the sun, which agrees with my college dictionary's definition of a parsec. It claims a parsec = 206,265 x the radius of the earth's orbit around the sun.

Net then: a parsec = 206,265^2 x 451 miles (the length of the base of my version of your parsec guage) = about 19.2 trillion miles, which also agrees with my college dictionary's definition of a parsec.

What am I missing? Confused

So please help me out here.

akaMechsmith wrote:

Actually I wanted to know (visualize) a parsec. Kind of like visualizing the 2>64 grains of corn that we did a couple of years ago.

... I had some doubts before as to whether or not it was actually possible to assume that when somebody says that something is one or two parsecs away it actually was.

This is kind of an outgrowth of my trying to visualize orbital motions in four dimensions (perhaps five if we assume a speed for gravity:not an acceleration due to:)

I suspect an error of way less than one percent in the position of a standard candle as determined by parallax would be enough to stop the Universe from expanding at all but I haven't figured that out yet.

As you may have gathered, all this has to do with my suspicion that the "Steady State" Universe [more probably] agrees more with observations than the other ones.

I guess that these issues you raise here in this last quote from your post are no less valid in my model of your parsec guage than they are in your model. However, I want to understand your model regardless.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

BoGoWo, Re time.
The best (IMO) evidence that time actually exists is found in discussions of cosmic (gamma or shorter) rays (particles). A gamma ray only survives in our spacetime a small fraction of a second. Yet the things have been noticed emanating from supernovas hundreds, if not thousands of light years away. How did something that decays in a second last hundreds of years in space?

The theory, and it seems tenable so far, is that they are traveling relative to spacetime so fast that time does not exist for them. All other particles that we know of, are less energetic and slower. The slower particles, photons (longer wave lengths) all shift ie, lose energy (frequency lengthens) in space time.

Mech;

re the above:

Do you not have photos of long dead relatives, that you look at from time to time wondering about the lives that they led many years ago?

Those pictures, and those lives are apparent today, not in time, but in distance from today, back into when the universe was arranged in a very slightly less dispersed manner.
And the photos are no different from the gamma ray 'images' that survive through space(time?) of the long 'dead' gamma rays.

0 Replies

Thats a nice thought but however our dead relatives no longer have any of the kind of energies that we call "life force".

The Cosmic particles however seem to have all that they were born with hundreds or thousands of years ago. Thousands or millions of years ago.

OR else (perhaps) they were "born" at even higher energies and have red shifted to the wave lengths that we see today.

But this doesn't seem most likely to me, for the simple reason that there is a "mechanical" limit to the energies that a particle will (can) contain.
That scenario would work if the energies of a supernova or a black hole were sufficient to break matter up into quantum particles. So far nobody that I know of has hypothesized that outside of a "Big Bang" but IMO it may be worth some thoughts. So now we will have to see if some of the various quarks and other "sub atomic debris" will decay into cosmic particles, thence into the electromagnetic radiation that we call light. And and also see if we can generate them in a supernova or something similar.

That would shoot the "time is a real dimension" theories all to pot. At least as far as the cosmic particles interactions with space time is concerned.

There are other theories that also seem to show that time is real but I won't get into them now. I talk too much sometimes. M

0 Replies

Ican, I am assuming, (till I know better) that the three points of the triangle are located thusly.

One point at the center of the sun

One point at Earths orbit

One point located at the point in space where a line drawn from the other two points intersect at an angle of one second.

What are you missing???--- I think that one of us has the triangle backwards. An Isoceles triangle, if I remember right has two equal sides and two equal angles. If the apex was "heliocentric" then each leg could be of unlimited length but if the base of the triangle is the radius of Earths orbit then the point of intersection is very neatly located.

This would be the Euclidean Postulate(?) referring to two triangles. Matching Angle-Side-Angel are equal to each other.

Thats how you have helped me to visualize a parsec. I think. Smile

0 Replies

Not "One point at the center of the sun", Mech; but two points in earth orbit, preferrably annual (thus largest possible base).
We could not sight from the centre of the sun, unless there has been a space launch with criteria of which i am unaware. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Bogwo, Are you pretty sure of that?

I know its equivalents but I am still trying to figure out how to make one.

So is a leg of a triangle with two points at the extremes of Earths orbit and the apex measureing one arc second one parsec.

What I'm trying to do is visualize one.

0 Replies

Bogowo, P.S., We don't have to sight from the center of the sun. All we would have to do is know where it is.

0 Replies

Mech, here is a diagram to help you visualize a parsec:

http://www.marsacademy.com/amazsp/a32.htm

0 Replies

Thanks Terry, I was kind of praying-hoping that you'd show up.

May we say then;

A parsec is defined as the length of the hypoteneuse of a right triangle with a base of one AU, one angle of which is one second of arc?

I was Confused

as to which leg was defined as such.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Ican, I am assuming, (till I know better) that the three points of the triangle are located thusly.

One point at the center of the sun

One point at Earths orbit

One point located at the point in space where a line drawn from the other two points intersect at an angle of one second.

Ok, now I understand. The mystery is solved! I employed a different but also valid definition of a parsec. Here's the picture I meant to communicate --

One point, S, at the center of the sun.

One point, E, at the center of the earth.

One point, O, on the earth's orbit.

akamechsmith wrote:

if the base of the triangle is the radius of Earths orbit then the point of intersection is very neatly located.

You are correct. Your guage model works, if (as you implied) S--E is the base and O represents the point in space one parsec distant from both S and E. In that case, the angle between O--S and O--E would be 1 second and the length of both O--S and O--E would be one parsec or 206,265 times S--E.

HERE'S HOW MY GUAGE PRODUCES THE SAME RESULT AS YOURS

Both of the legs, S--E and S--O extend from S, the apex of my isoceles triangle. E--O is the base. The length of S--E = the length of S--O. The lengths of S--E and S--O equal the radius of the earth's orbit which allegedly = 92,911,164.75 miles. The angle between S--E and S--O equals 1 second.

The circumference of a circle, whose radius is = S--E = S--O = 92,911,164.75 miles, is equal to 583,778,065.2 miles.

There are 360 x 60 x 60 = 1,296,000 one-second angles in a circle. So, 583,778,065.2 miles divided by 1,296,000 one-second angles = E--O = 450.446038 miles = 450.45 miles.

A parsec = 3.26 times the distance that light is alleged to travel in one year = 3.26 x 186,282.4231 miles per second x 365.25 days per year x 24 hours per day x 3600 seconds per hour = 19,164,321,400,000 miles.

The length of a parsec (19,164,321,400,000 miles) divided by the alleged radius of the earth's orbit (92,911,164.75 miles) = the factor F = 206,265 .

Also, the length of E--O = a parsec / (F x F) = 19,164,321,400,000 /(206,265 x 206,265) = 450.4456148 = 450.45.

So, in summary F x F x the length of E--O = a parsec.

In your guage S--E is the base and Om is your point in space. So F x S--E = S--Om = E--Om = a parsec.

Note: From a source other than my college dictionary, the lengths S--E and S--O in my model = 1.495985 x 10^13 centimeters / (2.54 centimeters per inch x 12 inches per foot x 5280 feet per mile) = 92,956,198.3 miles. I cannot explain why there is the difference [92,956,198.3 - 92,911,164.75 = 45,033.5517 miles]. Possibly, the actual size of the radius of the earth's orbit is less important to the definition of a parsec than is the seemingly arbitrary relationship: parsec / 206,265 = the alleged radius of earth's orbit. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Ican I certainly don't KNOW where the discrepancy is either but that is one illustration of the errors and approximations (along with a "cosmological constant) that when they are worked out may well result in the disappearence of the "Universal Expansion".

Your discrepancy, which may result in an error of some 7,118,275 or so miles per parsec may not seem like much. Multiply that error out by the number of parsecs in OOU and we may well find that the universe is "steady state'. Along with several other errors and approximations.

This is the idea (project) that is running around in the back of my head now. To quantify the errors. (identify the build up of tolerances) That is after I get the wave length of light vis-a-vis time and gravity worked out.l You may have noticed that its taking a little longer than I thought it would Laughing

. I finally think that I have a handle on it though. Time does figure into it Exclamation

.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Your discrepancy, which may result in an error of some 7,118,275 or so miles per parsec may not seem like much. Multiply that error out by the number of parsecs in OOU and we may well find that the universe is "steady state'. Along with several other errors and approximations.

Thinking a little more about this unit of measure called a parsec, I remember an analogy which seems relevant.

Originally, the definition of the meter was that the polar circumference of the earth was arbitrarily defined to be 40,000,000 meters or 24,854.85 miles, and that definition determined the length of the meter. But the first and defining calculations of that circumference were subsequently discovered to be in error too late for the length of a meter on earth to be worth the trouble of changing it. The meter's length is now known not to be such that exactly 40,000,000 of them actually equals the polar circumference of the earth. However, since the standard meter was an arbitrarily defined unit of length/distance, and not changed with that discovery, the validity of scientific observations and inferences using it as a unit of measure are uneffected. This is true even though the actual polar circumference of the earth is not exactly 40,000,000 meters. Other than the calculation of the length of this circumference in standard meters, nothing else need be changed.

This is likewise true for the parsec. It is an arbitrarily defined unit of length/distance just like the meter. Yes, the legs of an isoceles triangle with an apex angle of one second will be 206,265 times the length of the triangle's base, no matter what the actual length of the base is. But even if it were subsequently discovered that the radius of the earth's orbit (the base in your guage model) were different than currently computed, it wouldn't change the validity of scientific observations and inferences using the parsec as a unit of measure as long as the parsec's length were not subsequently changed. This is true even though the base of your guage may not exactly equal the actual radius of the earth's orbit. Other than the calculation of the length of this radius in standard meters or in fractional parsecs, nothing else need be changed.

0 Replies

Ican, Terry, Don't miss

A2K

Science and Mathematics,

"How do we know that the universe has not existed forever"

0 Replies

Ican, The difficulty arises when we need to hire a guy to stand one parsec out and hold the surveyers pole. Or determine if the universe is actually expanding.

We determine where he is to stand by the point of intersection of the lines.
If he's seven million miles off he is going to be one unhappy camper.

With the meter it's not too bad. I can run down to Gaithersburg MD to the Bureau of Standards and check my stick against theirs. They check their stick against some yeller light and all is right with the world.

But we can only check a parsec by some arbitrary scale which may be a few percent off to begin with,

In other words, There is a whole lot more guessing going on than those who are guessing even guess. Sad

. I guess we've noticed that before!

I have noticed this phenomenon in religions also. Surprised

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

We determine where he is to stand by the point of intersection of the lines.

Not any longer! Shocked

Now we proceed on faith that the mean radius of the earth's orbit is constant and equal to that which was derived from both previous observations and trigonometric calculations made from the earth.

akaMechsmith wrote:

If he's seven million miles off he is going to be one unhappy camper.

A parsec = 3.26 light years = 19,164,321,400,000 miles = 206,265 x 92,911,164.75 miles , regardless of the actual mean radius of the earth's orbit. This is true even if the actual mean radius of the earth's orbit = 92,956,198.3 miles, or has changed to say 100,000,000 miles while we have been traveling through or with space. The guy with the pole will stand in the place calculated by others as happy a camper as he can be (also happy because of her/his opportunity to enjoy space travel :wink: ). This is true, because the actual mean radius of the earth's orbit is now irrelevant to the officially adopted standard for calculating where s/he should actually stand.

akaMechsmith wrote:

But we can only check a parsec by some arbitrary scale which may be a few percent off to begin with.

True, but so what if it is off a few per cent as I discussed hereinabove. The real problem is as you have previously characterized it several times. We cannot confirm that the standard length of a statute mile/kilometer (and therefore a parsec) is invariant throughout all space. No matter what the Bureau of Standards says, the standard statute mile/kilometer may shrink or expand depending on the intensity of the gravitational field, or on the intensity of the acceleration/deceleration of that gravitational field, within which the particular statute mile exists.

akaMechsmith wrote:

In other words, There is a whole lot more guessing going on than those who are guessing even guess. . I guess we've noticed that before! I have noticed this phenomenon in religions also.

I think many interpretations of science by scientists (not only layman) are a religion too: that is, a system of beliefs based on faith. Shocked

When a scientist speculates that it is possible that the universe is infinite, (or that it is finite), it is possible that s/he is wrong. In fact, it is possible that he does not know what is or is not possible. The best he can do is estimate the probability that what he can observe and infer from what he can observe is true, and leave the religious fantasies about what is and is not possible for that possible day, if any, when he can probably know what is actually possible.

0 Replies

Don't know about you, Ican but I've learned a lot. It's at the point now where I can safely say I have learned so much that I KNOW almost nothing. Confused

My interest in the parsec was partly to show that we cannot use any standard of measurement to show whether or not the Universe is expanding. I am not too sure if even my carpenters steel tape would work.

I prefer to believe that it is not. This dispenses with the need to believe in a "Big Bang", and at my age I am trying to simplify things as much as possible. Very Happy

0 Replies

could it be Mech; that things that are 'constant', and 'predictable' are becoming a comfort, and the ultimate itteration of this, the 'deity' of 'reliability', so to speak, is the "Steady State Universe".
[and we thought ican was seeking to find a 'god']

perhaps the BB would be invisible to one whose head was buried in the "sands of time"! :wink:

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

[and we thought ican was seeking to find a 'god']

Hell's bells, Bo! I found my God.

My God is the universe and my universe is God.

Now, all I have to prove for certain is that my universe exists. Then I will have proved for certain that God exists for me.

See, nothing to it. Laughing

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know