IAmAPhysicsGuy t1_j4jydnx wrote
If you were a passenger on a merry-go-round, would you be able to work out your position based on the movement or location of the other riders? Or when you look around and see other people on a different ride or a ferris wheel?
Your brain can calculate distance because of the parallax that you get from having two eyes. Or you can see that people look smaller when they are further away (assuming you are familiar with the average size of a person). You can also hear sounds change pitch as you move towards or away from them.
Imagine these same principles applying to different positions in orbit around the Sun throughout the year, type 1A supernovae, and red / blue shift of light, and you can begin to map images of stars and galaxies pretty well.
We can see that we are in a spiral shaped galaxy, and that we are not in a globular galaxy. Our spiral galaxy has arms with varying density, and we can also determine that we are in an area that is relatively less dense, meaning that we are between arms. We also can look towards the center of our galaxy and measure our distance from the middle
chechomsky t1_j4lhozv wrote
Our galactic “year” (time it takes for the sun to revolve around the center of the galaxy) is 230 million earth years. Is there enough rotation (I assume about 50 years of data) for us to use parallax to get a sense of our location?
TwentyninthDigitOfPi t1_j4ljh2a wrote
The parallax isn't from the solar system's rotation around the galaxy, it's from Earth's rotation around the sun.
cantonic t1_j4mb9mn wrote
They will look at a star when the earth is on one side of the sun, then look at the same star when the earth is on the other side of the sun, 6 months later. The change in position is about 180 million miles. How the position of the star has changed in that 6 months gives them enough information to calculate how far away the star is.
[deleted] t1_j4md3yn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4lturf wrote
[removed]
Ordoshsen t1_j4kck6e wrote
> Your brain can calculate distance because of the parallax that you get from having two eyes.
This only works for stars that are very close to us, not for most of the stars we see.
> Or you can see that people look smaller when they are further away (assuming you are familiar with the average size of a person).
If you use average size you're going to have a large error. You need to know how large the star actually is to determine how far it is. You can't just assume all stars are the same on average because we know that's not the case. Also I assume you're actually talking about apparent and absolute magnitude here.
I'll just add that this can be part of the puzzle when using dynamic paralax, but it doesn't work as you have worded it.
> Imagine these same principles applying to different positions in orbit around the Sun throughout the year
Yes, parallax works like that. But you will see no change in brightness of a star on our orbit.
> type 1A supernovae, and red / blue shift of light
Both of these are used for measuring distances to other galaxies. You can tell how far a Ia supernova (standard candle) has occured. But if you happen to see one from our own galaxy, you just know there was one binary star there but generally we just look at a bunch of galaxies and hope to see one there. But you probably didn't even know there was a star there before so you can't use that to measure stars you actually knew about.
red blue shift can tell you distance only of galaxies outside our neighborhood. You can't use it for measuring distance of stars that are next to us.
mojowind t1_j4kmzg3 wrote
The Gaia satellite is able to measure parallax with an unprecedented precision. Parallax is possible for the thousands that can be seen with the naked eye, and potentially any star in the Milky Way which we have a line of sight view.
[deleted] t1_j4luxj7 wrote
[deleted]
craigiest t1_j4lccoh wrote
Are you just nitpicking details or are you arguing that the answerer is wrong in principle and that we don’t now the size of the Galaxy or our place in it?
Ordoshsen t1_j4pebpg wrote
We do know the size. And I was wrong with how well we can measure the parallax. But other than the parallax the explanation was still mostly incorrect as far as I can tell.
[deleted] t1_j4kkexi wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4kwxby wrote
[removed]
BrooklynVariety t1_j4lv0vy wrote
Shame you are getting downvoted, these are mostly good points.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments