Constabulary in Space

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-03-05 10:10am

I've looked, I've seen- I'm aware of the kind of wonderful people who populate this place. I'm compelled to propose something to you all.

My friend, is an arsehole.

He tells me that his friend in Bolivia has been to the UK and is very sure that the distance between the stars of Orions belt is much greater, as an observer in his home country, than it is in the UK.

Surely this is impossible? (I do intend to ask my Physics tutor tomorrow, but I am already sure it's wrong) I am 99% sure, everything I know about stellar distances and the like ensures me that altitude (of the miniscule scale Earth has to offer) has no effect on how a constellation looks to the observer on the ground?

I am aware that the stars in the constellation are not all the same distance away form us, but the closest, is 500 light years way, Betelgeuse- and that does vary in size and intensity around the year, but that's not the issue- a few miles of altitude difference on earth really musn't effect how the constellation appears?

Just wonder who you think is right, myself, in that all constellations are static, appearing to be the same from any viewpoint on Earth, or my friend, who suggests that they vary in size and shape, like looking at a square from different angles.... (which is what got me doubtful on this in the first place) (I am also aware that people in different hemispheres see different constellations, I am talking about people seeing the same constellation different, which of course is impossible)

Little things like this really jiggle my tits. Yes, I have some, overweight, you know, causes this kind of thing.

with anticipation

Jon

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2004-03-05 10:49am

Ask your friend to compute the Orion vertice angle formed by a triangle with vertices in the geometric center of Orion, Bolívia and London and then draw his own conclusions about how much of an idiot he is.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2004-03-05 11:03am

If he could do that then he would not have been such an idiot in the first place.

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2004-03-05 11:28am

just take him to a place where mountains are on the horizon. Move him 5 feet, and ask him if they look any different. Now explain that that the distance he moved is orders of magnitudes more than the parallax he's talking about. Then smack him.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-03-07 11:23am

Indeed, he really is a cock. I didn't even have to address this further, I've just told him to go stick his head back into his fathers anal passage. I'm a stupid prick for even doubting what was plainly obvious to me in the first place.

Bah !

jenat-lai · Post by **jenat-lai** » 2004-03-07 10:37pm

the largest movement isn't from city to city or continent to continent, but from month to month. 6 months of time will give you a couple thousanths of a degree change in the position of stars as the earth moves through space.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 2004-03-07 10:43pm

Indeed, but that's not something the human eye is going to or has noticed int he last/next 1000 years ?

The relative distance between the stars of a constellation won't change/hasn't changed in thousands of years. (the distance between the stars of orions belt remains the same from our perspective, no matter what time of year it is viewed) my problem was with this guy telling me that altitude, a matter of a few thousand feet, significantly affected how the constellation looked.