[geocentrism] Re: Negative stellar parallax
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 15:04:28 +0000 (GMT)
Regner T
May I bother you a moment? I'm having a problem with this para -
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.
I would have predicted circles due to parallax to be manifested at the ecliptic
poles -- not the celestial poles. Your straight lines on the ecliptic equator
strengthens this view.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November, 2007 12:34:34 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Negative stellar parallax
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
Make the switch to the world's best email. Get the new Yahoo!7 Mail now.
www.yahoo7.com.au/worldsbestemail
Other related posts:
