Useless Trivia - 1st one to answer gets to ask

Partial correct answers so far:

DaveinOlyWA was correct that Han Solo incorrectly used the word "parsec" as a measure of time. Dave was warm on his guess about the definition of parsec.

thedutchtouch is correct that a parsec is equivalent to roughly 3.3 light years. Neither has yet given the answer for what a parsec is (as opposed to what it's equivalent to), but dutch also had a small part of the definition with "one arcsecond." Combine their partial answers and you get a lot closer to the definition!

And as for the second of the two ways in which Han Solo incorrectly used the term, both Dave and Dutch's partial answers hint at how Han Solo's use of the term is out of place.

 

A parsec is the distance to an object that seen from the Earth displays a parallax of one second of arc.

That is, an object that appears to move one second of arc against the so-called "fixed" background stars as the Earth moves through half its orbit (six months).

I have no idea how the Star Wars characters misused the term, but since sci-fi writers are seldom scientists, sci-fi is generally full of stupid mistakes.

 

Daniel has the correct definition! parsec = parallax-second. Parallax allows precise (if you ignore atmospheric effects) trigonometric calculations of distance to astronomical objects (i.e. stars).

To clear it up a little for people who maybe don't know what a parallax angle is or an arc-second:

The distance between the earth and the sun is referred to as 1 Astronomical Unit (AU).

One arc-second is 1/60 of an arc minute, which is 1/60 of a degree, which is 1/360 of a full circle. That's a very small angle.

As a point of reference, the moon subtends an angle of (appears to be as wide as) 0.54 degrees in the sky (32 arc-minutes, or 1,944 arc-seconds). So 1/1,944 of the apparent size of the moon is an arc-second.

Now to put the definition another way that I think is easier to visualize: A parsec is the distance at which 1 AU subtends an angle of 1 arc-second. So you have to be 3.3 light-years away from earth for the distance between the earth and the sun to occupy 1 arc-second in your field of view. No known star is closer to us than 1 parsec, so no known star has a parallax of more than 1 arc-second.

As for Han Solo being wrong, sci-fi writers, in order to continue to qualify as science fiction writers, I think should at least get some of the science right! Aside from using a parsec as a unit of time, the bigger mistake in the use of the term starts here:

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."

A parsec is based on units of measure that are specific to our solar system. A degree (ever notice that the earth's revolution around the sun is divided by days into roughly 360 degrees?), and an AU. And even in the terms used by thedutchtouch, it doesn't work because light-years of course are based on earth years. Light speed is an acceptable constant though, so when Solo says the Millenium Falcon will "make .5 past lightspeed," he's in the clear (as long as you believe it's possible to exceed the speed of light).

How's that for Trivial? Go Daniel.

 

Actually, a parsec is the distance at which two AUs subtend a second of arc, because the Earth's orbit is two AUs wide. But I like your way of phrasing it better than my own.

I'll try to come up with a trivia later today. It's time to exercise now. I'm late because of a long phone call I was not expecting.

 

That's what I told the meter maid at 11:32 a.m. as she was writing me a ticket for parking in a "no parking after 11:30 a.m." spot.

She was unmoved.

 

Well my post was getting long and I didn't want to correct you since you were so very close to the right answer, but it's 1 AU, and here's why: in order to triangulate distance, you need a right triangle. The triangle between the imaginary star in question and the two extreme positions of the earth can be thought of as 2 right triangles with the sun sitting at the corner of both. The distance between earth and sun is known, and we know one of the angles, 90 degrees... from our 2 observations 6 months apart we can get the parallax angle... which, in order to make it a right triangle, and hence useful for triangulation, is half of the observed angle. Now with those 3 pieces of information we can figure the length of the other 2 sides of the triangle, which gives us the distance.

 

But as the Earth travels for 6 months it creates a base of 2 AU. It is just as easy to calculate the dimensions of an isosceles (sp?) triangle as a right triangle. For any triangle you only need two sides and the angle between, or two angles and the side between. In this case, you know one side (2 AU) and the angles on either side of it (179 degrees, 44 minutes, 44.5 seconds)

I've been too busy today to think of a trivia, so I'll throw it open to anyone who has one to offer.

 

My daughter Misty plays the triangle in her school band; she is very talented. It takes a lot of math to count out all those measures and stuff . I have to help her count it all out so I do kinda get what y'all are talking about.

 

ok, try this one.

Using lines of longitude (without the aid of maps or globes) which of the United States is the farthest East???:juggle:

 

That would be Alaska. Its extreme northerly latitude lets it cross a lot of longitude lines.

 

Ha ha Daniel, now you have to ask 2 trivia questions! (BTW, wasn't that farthest-east question asked on this thread previously?)

And while I'm not an astronomer, I'm pretty sure parsec is defined by 1 AU, not 2. Here are a couple links that I think back up my understanding of it:
Parallax of one arc second - Hutchinson encyclopedia article about Parallax of one arc second
Parsec - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

entirely correct

 

Ichabod: Apparently you are correct. But that does not make sense. A star that "moves" two seconds of arc against the background stars as the Earth makes its orbit around the sun is said to have a parallax of one second!

Okay, here's a much-too-easy trivia, since my last bunch got no takers:

What famous cross-dresser got a lot of folks up in arms during the Hundred Years War?

And a bonus question: Explain briefly why many historians deny that there ever was a Hundred Years War.

 

Come on, folks. This one is EASY!!!

 

AT first I thought it was a man, then I realized it could only be Joan of Arc.

 

Thank you, Toothy. Joan of Arc it is! She got special permission from the king to dress in men's clothing, including armor, raised an army and inspired the French against the English invaders. In the end, however, dressing as a man was one of the charges the Brits brought against her when the king of France betrayed her. They also accused her of witchcraft. She had been captured in battle by an independent warlord, who put her up for sale to the highest bidder. The king of France claimed poverty, and sat still while the English bought her, had a "trial" and burned her at the stake. The French, however, remained motivated, and finally drove the brits out of France, more or less.

The so-called hundred years war was actually a series of separate wars, with periods of peace between, and didn't even last for 100 years.

Joan, by the way, had first gone to the local priests with her story of voices telling her to lead the French to victoy. She went through all the "proper" channels, and the whole French church heirarchy ruled that her voices were from god, not the devil, and that she was not a witch. The Brits were sour because she had beaten them in some battles, so when they got hold of her they framed her on false charges. Except the cross-dressing part, which she was guilty of, but she had had permission for that, so never broke any laws.

Your turn to ask a question, Toothy.

 

In the United States, what are the names of the Great Lakes? All six of them, according to an act of congress.

 

erie huron superior michigan champlain ontario

 

champlain? hmmm, lived in MI and didnt know that one

 

correct:

The President of the United States signed Senate Bill 927 and it became Public Law 105-160 on March 6, 1998. Therefore, Lake Champlain is now the sixth Great Lake.
Additional note: Due to the wording in the law, "The term `Great Lakes' includes Lake Champlain," and its location in the "definitions" section of the law may indicate that Lake Champlain is not really designated as a Great Lake but only for the purposes of this act.
Lake Champlain, located on the border of Vermont and New York and entending a few miles into Canada, is on the verge of greatness. Senate Bill 927, which reauthorizes the Sea Grant program, has been passed by the Senate and is expected to be signed by the President within the next few days. The bill not only provides funds for educational purposes but it also officially designates Lake Champlain as the sixth Great Lake.