Can someone explain to me how we know that planets are closer to us than stars?

Question

how about how fast planets move across the night sky compared to the amount of time a star moves the same distance? (examples on earth will help) thanks guys

Answer 1

Take a walk in a foot ball field, then deploy several flags randomly in the field. Then walk away from the flags, so the nearest flag is 10 meters from you and the farthest is 100 meters. Then you can move to any direction for about 10-20 meters, you will see that nearer flags will have faster imaginary movement than farther flags.

The same technique is used in astronomical scale by comparing the position of space objects in our sight in different time of the year. For example you measure the position in January and July, then do some math to calculate the degree differential.

Then you multiply 1 astronomical unit (distance between Earth and Sun) with the co-secant value of the degree differential (or divide with sinus value).

By the way there are planets which lies farther than some stars, because they orbit other stars, so they are called extrasolar planets.

Just think of planets like city, and star like country. London is a city but it is farther from Washington than a country like Canada.

Hope this helps.

Answer 2

We certainly perceive that planets move faster across the sky than the stars move, and this is a possible indication of less distance from our point of perception on earth. Because ancient humans also noticed this difference in motion between planets and stars, they called these relatively fast moving bodies "planets," meaning "wanderers."

However, today we know with certainty that the planets are closer than stars because characteristics of every planet in the solar system have been thoroughly observed both by sophisticated earth telescopes, the Hubble Space Telescope, and numerous visiting space probes to all planets from many nations. We have seen the mountains of Mars and sulphur dioxide shrouds of Venus in telescope images, but even the most sophisticated telescope image cannot, because of distance, present a star as little more than a rather small point of light with no features other than color.

Also, no human has yet set foot on a planet other than earth, but our emissaries in the form of robots and other machines have visited all and explored some. On the other hand, no human presence has yet been extended to the stars either in the actual or in the representative manner of robotic and space craft visits. This absence of stellar exploration is precisely because the distance to the stars is so great as to require multiple human lifetimes for one trip and impossible amounts of fuel for propulsion, using the only means of travel currently available. These current propulsion sources work for the planets, but the fact that they are inadequate for travel even to the nearest star tells us quite categorically that the planets are closer to earth than are the stars. To travel to the nearest star which is four light years away from us, Proxima Centauri, actually a double star which takes turns with its partner in being nearest to us, would require generations of humans to complete the trip as well as impossibly prodigious amounts of fuel. Since the current "speed limit" in our universe is 186,000 miles per second, the speed of light, a trip to even our nearest star would require more resources than are currently available. This is not to say that interstellar travel will never be possible, but currently the greater distance of the stars is proven by the fact that interstellar travel is impossible whereas planetary missions have become rather routine.

Answer 3

Well it depends on the planet and star, but obviously if a planet is visible with a telescope and you can see it passing in front of stars, then there you go.

Answer 4

i might want to have a not user-friendly time "explaining" astrology by ability of any clinical ability, because this is better of a personal perception device than a idea that makes predictions. although, astrological predictions depending upon the area of moon and stars on the time of delivery and for this reason for the era of one's existence, might want to then have some invitation of credence. on condition that enormous bodies impression the area time curvature, all incident EM fields might want to be "lensed" by ability of those gravitational pertubations. hence, the EM fields incident upon each and each of the body/spirit on the different fringe of the lens might want to have replaced, albeit infinitesimally. As gravity is an inverse dice power "container" with appreciate to distance, the moon somewhat overpowers all different heavenly bodies in result. because the moon also has a gravitational container in a lot closer proximity to Earth, the Electromagentic lensing result also overpowers the tiny results of distant stars. Sol, our solar, is likewise without question, the biggest body in words of EM fields. attempting to scientifically clarify Astrology as both the residual gravitational result or by ability of distinctive feature of the EM fields of the planets and stars isn't available with the aid of large distance between Earth and those aspects, especially as compared to the Moon.

Answer 5

stars dissapear behind planets

Answer 6

Because planets are pulled by gravity to those stars so they move more.

Answer 7

Because we can see them with a telescope on earth.

Answer 8

is your brother nearer than your friend.