[geocentrism] Re: Negative stellar parallax
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 23:34:34 +1100
Dear Jack,
There is still no circular reasoning.
1) HC predicts that stars should display parallaxes over the course of a year.
2) We see such parallaxes - this supports HC - it doesn't prove it!
3) I have not used parallax to prove HC - but, still - it's a good support :-)
4) Proper motions are along straight lines in space and with constant speed.
5) Parallax displays itself as an ellipse with the eccentricity (oblateness)
determined by the ecliptic (not the celestial) latitude of the star. At
the celestial poles the paralactic motion over a year, will describe a
circle - at the ecliptic equator a star will go back and forth along
a straight line.
6) combine the straight-lined proper motions with the ellipses of parallax
and you get what we observe for the real stars. And it is fairly trivial
to disentangle the two, to get both the distance and the proper motion.
7) In GC we would only expect the straight-lined proper motions.
It is up to you guys to explain parallaxes in GC.
I'll have a look at Neville's parallax paper, when I get the time.
Circular reasoning would be if, HC is true because parallax is true, AND
parallax is true because HC is true. That is not the case. Parallaxes are
true because they are observed, AND HC does not depend on parallaxes alone.
Regards,
Regner
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Quoting Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Dear Regner,
> But it is circular reasoning, you use parallax as your proof of
> heliocentricity - you get parallax from heliocentricity. How do you define
> 'proper motion' as opposed to apparent motion? What would you expect from a
> geocentric model?
>
> Jack
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Regner Trampedach" <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, November 16, 2007 11:49 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Negative stellar parallax
>
>
> > No - that is entirely wrong.
> > For closer stars, their proper motions can swamp the parallax signal of
> > half a year; some will get larger parallaxes, som will get negative
> > parallaxes, some will not change. It's random, and depends on the
> > orientation
> > and magnitude of the proper motion, relative to the parallax signal.
> > BUT you don't have to CHOOSE which stars to "believe". You just observe
> > them for more than a year, and you can find both their parallax and their
> > proper motion. Observe for several years and you'll get higher precision.
> > There is no circular reasoning here.
> >
> > Regner
>
>
Other related posts:
