Talk:Cosmic distance ladder
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
 | The contents of theExtragalactic distance scale page weremerged intoCosmic distance ladder. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please seeits history; for the discussion at that location, seeits talk page. |
| The contents of theStandard candle page weremerged intoCosmic distance ladder. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please seeits history; for the discussion at that location, seeits talk page. |
 | Tip: Anchors arecase-sensitive in most browsers. This article containsbroken links to one or more targetanchors:
The anchors may have been removed, renamed, or are no longer valid. Please fix them by following the link above, checking thepage history of the target pages, or updating the links. Remove this template after the problem is fixed |Report an error |
There's strong overlap between the two subjects, but a lot of hammering out is needed to get that done. This ("CDL") page is stronger for the near-distance things. The other article ("EDS") is more like a laundry list at this point, and is more aimed at the extragalactic distances in particular. Ideally I think the two could be merged to a rather large article ... but to do it properly would make an article so large as to be a candidate for splitting. I think both articles can be fleshed out a bit more prior to a reconsideration of the merger. At this time I voteagainst the proposed merger with a "not at this time, but later" qualifier: both articles should be edited so as to make such a merger seamless in the future.BSVulturis (talk)15:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a section called "clarification" because I think the article was a bit obscure for people with no idea of the concept at all. It still needs work and I wrote it largely from the top of my head, plus I'm no astronomer so itneeds to be reviewed by a pro!
212.153.56.25413:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the baseline is normally 2 AU rather than 1 AU. The baseline is the diameter of the Earth's orbit (not the radius), doubling the baseline and doubling the angle that must be measured and thus doubling precision. But I'm not confident enough to change the text.
I do believe there's a need for this article. Good effort. --Chris Jefferies (talk)01:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My check list for inclusion:
—RJH (talk)16:50, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fine academic article, but heaven forbid if someone unfamiliar with astronomy wants to understand how distances are measured. Could someone please make this article a little more friendly, or perhaps introduce an article for laymen like "list of methods for measuring astronomical distances" or something similar. Thanks.76.212.144.130 (talk)10:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC) Sandy[reply]
i am lay, and the article is simple.m2p31.151.163.74 (talk)11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
| Method | Uncertainty for Single Galaxy (mag) | Distance toVirgo Cluster (Mpc) | Range (Mpc) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cepheids | 0.16 | 15 - 25 | 29 |
| Novae | 0.4 | 21.1 ± 3.9 | 20 |
| Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function | 0.3 | 15.4 ± 1.1 | 50 |
| Globular Cluster Luminosity Function | 0.4 | 18.8 ± 3.8 | 50 |
| Surface Brightness Fluctuations | 0.3 | 15.9 ± 0.9 | 50 |
| D - σ relation | 0.5 | 16.8 ± 2.4 | > 100 |
| Type Ia Supernovae | 0.10 | 19.4 ± 5.0 | > 1000 |
[Note: table created by—Precedingunsigned comment added by86.88.102.93 (talk)20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)][reply]
I think a plot of this should be included.Could anybody tell me why is there a difference between the Magnitude vs redshift plots of the following links?
-Bottom of (the plot before the last one)http://www.rqgravity.net/Supernova -Page 7 ofhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9812473.
Thanks!--190.188.3.11 (talk)04:17, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram given is very similar to the diagram given on page 80 of the article "The Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function", by Robin Ciardullo in L. Stanghellini et al. (eds.) "ESO Astrophysics Symposia, pages 79-90" DOI 10.1007/11604792_10, Springer-Verlag, 2006. There are some differences (the use of colors is novel, and the ordering is somewhat different). But I am concerned that this may be bordering on copyright violation. A more elaborated diagram of the same sort is on page 284 of Richard de Grijs, "An Introduction to Distance Measurement in Astronomy" (which is where I found the reference to Ciardullo). I think that I am obligated to remove this diagram.
it's your job to rob wikipedia of content and you call it "obliged"?31.151.163.74 (talk)11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this would be considered original research, but it seems to me that the title concept here is more broadly applicable than to just astronomy. The concept of using what you know to learn something you otherwise could not have known without it is applicable to virtually all of science. That's what enables more and more advancement with each successive discovery. Perhaps the introduction could say something to this effect?76.103.93.154 (talk)21:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the amount of assumptions that are made to calculate parallax. This is dumb. And everyone who read this article is probably less intelligent after reading it. First assuming the distance of the first cluster, then basing all new calculations of the sweeping assumptions of the first. When the difference is so unbelievable negligible that pretty much everyone has to trust hubble, the flying trash can in the sky. Plus, the entry itself admits to problems with their own assumptions. Do minor defects in a lens count? How can a defect not compound after hundred billion quintillion billion miles? Doesn't light bend too? What about obstructions? How do we even know the first measurement of the closest cluster of stars is correct?
None of this makes any sense and anyone who thinks it does is lying to themselves.— Precedingunsigned comment added by75.215.184.56 (talk)05:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there is plenty that makes no sense, for example theories about stellar formations change,but the article ignores that in some ways, and this sn1a is a different measure now from ten years ago, and probably from ten years in the future,so it is more like educated guesses, still a lot more helpful than nothing at all.otoh eg. a defect in a lens is necessarilly compensated by your next telescope or allignment,so your comment is not very sensible either.31.151.163.74 (talk)11:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new section for standard sirens requires additional information. I added it with reference to the article but it may need further updates to better explain the theory and math behind the idea. This is definitively outside my range of knowledge and leave it those who have a better understanding of physics and astronomy.Operator873CONNECT20:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have fleshed out the section. If it looks adequate now, then the notice in the page requesting more work on it can be removed. --BFSchutz (talk)15:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main diagram at the top of the article uses light blue boxes and light purple boxes. They look identical to many people with color blindness. The colors should be changed to make it easier to differentiate.74.73.149.104 (talk)02:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
