Assessment of astronomical numbers like those of Proxima Centauri

  • Context: Stargazing 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cjackson
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the accuracy of astronomical numbers related to Proxima Centauri, including its distance from Earth and the scale of planetary sizes depicted in an image. Participants explore the implications of these numbers and their relevance to interstellar travel and planetary visibility.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away, equating this distance to 24,673,274,438,400 miles, and calculate the time it would take to reach it at the speed of the Sun through the Milky Way.
  • Others challenge the precision of the distance conversion, arguing that the significant digits used are excessive and not justified by the measurement's accuracy.
  • There are inquiries about the accuracy of the planetary sizes in an image, with some participants questioning whether the planets could fit between the Earth and the Moon.
  • Some participants suggest that the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are too far apart to be depicted accurately in the image, while others argue that the relative sizes of the planets are represented correctly.
  • One participant mentions that the planets can be seen together in the sky when they are in opposition, countering claims about visibility based on their orbits.
  • Another participant discusses the relative sizes of Earth, Jupiter, and the Sun, providing rough volume comparisons and noting the sizes of brown dwarfs and neutron stars.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the accuracy of the astronomical numbers and the depiction of planetary sizes. There is no consensus on the precision of the calculations or the validity of the image's scale.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about distances and sizes depend on assumptions regarding measurement precision and definitions of "to scale." The discussion includes unresolved questions about the visibility of planets and the implications of interstellar travel calculations.

cjackson
Messages
38
Reaction score
0
Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. That is 24,673,274,438,400 miles. Going at the speed of the Sun through the Milky Way, 492,150 miles per hour, it would take 5,723 years to get there. In 100 years the Sun has only gone 431,123,400,000 miles, or 7 percent of 1 light year (5,874,589,152,000 miles).



Is the image accurate?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
cjackson said:
Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. That is 24,673,274,438,400 miles. Going at the speed of the Sun through the Milky Way, 492,150 miles per hour, it would take 5,723 years to get there. In 100 years the Sun has only gone 431,123,400,000 miles, or 7 percent of 1 light year (5,874,589,152,000 miles).
OK. What's your point?
 
phinds said:
OK. What's your point?
Apart from that, OP is using way too many significant digits. You cannot say that 4.2 lightyears is 24,673,274,438,400 miles. There just isn’t sufficient precision for 12 significant digits (which would be essentially knowing your length at the precision of an atom...
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Vanadium 50
cjackson said:
Is the image accurate?

Aren't Jupiter and Saturn slightly further apart than that?
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Likes   Reactions: davenn, russ_watters, phinds and 1 other person
phinds said:
OK. What's your point?
My point is wanting to know the accuracy of the numbers in the op.
 
PeroK said:
Aren't Jupiter and Saturn slightly further apart than that?
Yes. But I want to know if the sizes are to scale and if those planets could fit between Earth and Moon.
 
cjackson said:
Yes. But I want to know if the sizes are to scale and if those planets could fit between Earth and Moon.
Well - what are the radii of the planets and the Sun? Wikipedia is a good enough source for straightforward stuff like this, and they usually cite nasa.gov links if you want to check. And how big is each of the planets and the Sun in the image? Do you know how to work out the scale factor?
 
cjackson said:
Proxima Centauri is 4.2 light years away. That is 24,673,274,438,400 miles. Going at the speed of the Sun through the Milky Way, 492,150 miles per hour, it would take 5,723 years to get there. In 100 years the Sun has only gone 431,123,400,000 miles, or 7 percent of 1 light year (5,874,589,152,000 miles).

I'm not sure I see the purpose of this calculation. The Sun and Proxima Centauri are moving relative to each other, but not at the speed you quote. The closest approach is calculated to be 3.1 light years about 27,000 years from now. You can read about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxima_Centauri

You could also calculate how long the Voyager spacecraft would take to reach Proxima Centauri and ponder the immense difficulty of interstellar space travel.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Dragrath
cjackson said:
Yes. But I want to know if the sizes are to scale and if those planets could fit between Earth and Moon.
What do you get when you add up the diameters of those 4 planets and compare the result to the radius of the moon's orbit?
 
  • #10
@cjackson do you not know how to use Google?
 
  • #11
They can't be to scale.

The orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are approx. 400 million miles apart. So there is no vantage point from which both would sho a visible disk at the same time.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: davenn
  • #12
Mikestone said:
They can't be to scale.

The orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are approx. 400 million miles apart. So there is no vantage point from which both would sho a visible disk at the same time.
That's not what "to scale" means here. The fact that all the planets are lined up like that is understood to be bogus. It's the relative sizes that are the point in question.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: davenn and Ibix
  • #13
cjackson said:
Is the image accurate?

Yes, it accurately depicts the relative sizes of the planets and the Sun compared to one another. All of the other planets could fit between the Earth and the Moon, with a bit of room to spare.
 
  • #14
Mikestone said:
The orbits of Jupiter and Saturn are approx. 400 million miles apart. So there is no vantage point from which both would sho a visible disk at the same time.
There certainly is such vantage point, and we're living on it. One simply has to wait until the planets line up in their orbits so that they both are opposite of the Sun on the sky.
And since they're both in opposition as of this month, one can see both showing their full discs if one goes out and looks at the sky tonight.
And if one waits until December of this year, the two planets will even be so close together to fit inside the picture in the opening post - they'll pass each other at approx. 6' of angular separation, which is approx. 1/5th of the width of the disc of the Sun.

What they can't ever be is in front of the Sun as seen from Earth, but as was already explained the picture is just to illustrate the relative (physical, not angular) sizes.
 
  • #15
phinds said:
That's not what "to scale" means here. The fact that all the planets are lined up like that is understood to be bogus. It's the relative sizes that are the point in question.
Sorry. In that case I'd say (I haven't tried to actually measure) that they *are* pretty much to scale.
 
  • #16
star_comp_lg.jpg
largest-star-compared-to-earth.jpg


Earth is about 1/10th the radius of Jupiter. Jupiter is about 1/10th the radius of the Sun. The volumes are 1 million and 1 thousand. That is rounding off. The pictures look about right.

Jupiter is only slightly larger than Saturn. Brown dwarfs and the smallest red dwarfs end up around that size too. More massive brown dwarfs are slightly smaller than Jupiter. More mass just crushes it more.

The star Sirius b would fit inside of Earth's radius. Neutron stars are comparable in size to Manhattan island.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K