[geocentrism] Re: Negative parallaxes

  • From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2007 13:38:43 -0400

Robert,

Thank you. A fine contribution. I would be very interested in the Doppler
shift distribution that you propose, especially as MS already describes
redshift as a "statistical" phenomenon.

Also, if you decide to write something up on these negative parallaxes for
your own site, then I would like to link to it if that's okay? (May I
suggest a change of colours, though, just to make it more obvious when you
are commenting and when you are quoting?)

Neville.


Robert Bennett <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx> wrote:

        Neville,

        Neville,



        I will eventually research and write up any anomalies I find in the 
stellar
motions as catalogued: proper motion, aberration, parallax and Doppler
shift.

        Go ahead and start the research ? don?t wait for me.  My agenda is 
filling
up with more books, articles and projects, so it may be a while before I get
back to this.

        To keep the analysis unbiased, we should each use different star 
catalogs
for the raw data? I will be using CDS III/239.



        I have no Web site yet, just a file server. In any case you are always 
free
to link up, w/o a permission request.



        Robert





        -----Original Message-----
        From: geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:geocentrism-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Dr. Neville Jones
        Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 3:19 PM
        To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Negative parallaxes



        Robert,



        Thank you. A fine contribution. I would be very interested in the 
Doppler
shift distribution that you propose, especially as MS already describes
redshift as a "statistical" phenomenon.



        Also, if you decide to write something up on these negative parallaxes 
for
your own site, then I would like to link to it if that's okay? (May I
suggest a change of colours, though, just to make it more obvious when you
are commenting and when you are quoting?)



        Neville.





        I struggled to understand how parallax could be negative, in terms of 
its
angular definition.  So I did some surfing.

        Even astronomers themselves don?t trust negative parallax (or HIP) :



        ?

Other related posts: