Message from @jeremy
Discord ID: 633497704399372297
I don't think we can really measure the distance to stars
That's based on measurements
U need to know the size of something or the distance to it to find out the one measurem t u don’t have
the measurements that are made, I might not doubt their accuracy... but it's the models used that I question
@jeremy ya, that's not true
You can do it with two angles and a distance
stellar paralax? fine, I can accept that. But the hubble law is founded on assumptions
The red shift thing?
yep
Ya I gotta read about that
I think it's corraborated in another way
Like the size of the objects has certain things going on
If I cut a circle out of cardboard go@in a field and u don’t know how far away I am I can tell the size of the circle ?
Yes,
U can tell ?
Wanna know how?
I doubt u could
But go ahead
I can tell you
Go tell me
I can stand in one spot and zero out my pointer , targeting the object
Ok
Then walk 45 ft to the right, and read my pointers new angle
Ur pointer ?
Yes a device that tells me the angle I'm pointing
I have a right triangle then
And angle and a side of the triangle, boom I can calc the distance
Then I can measure the angular size of the object
Then calc its actual size
This device
@RogueReflector as I mentioned before, there are two sources of redshift: The most obvious source of redshift is doppler (including time dilation due to special relativity); the less obvious source of redshift is gravitational, which depends on gravitational potential (confirmed through the Harvard Tower Experiment, and similarly repeated experiments).
Is a sextant ?
@jeremy nah a theodolite is better
Hmmm
For the Hubble Law (and the hubble constant) to be valid, gravitational redshift needs to be decoupled from doppler (redshift due to motion)
@SunRazor I see. I don't knowuch about that
Ok
So u got ur sextant or theodolite u do this with the moon and the sun
@jeremy simple geometry
U come up with some valid numbers ?