[geocentrism] Re: Negative parallaxes
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Apr 2007 08:08:33 +1000
May I just ask what are pertinent to me a couple of questions re doppler
shift.
To be able to evaluate anything from doppler shift three things need to be
known with certainty.
1. The original stationary frequency of the EMR source.
2. The actual direction and motion of the source
3. The actual direction and motion of the observer.
I cannot understand how any person on earth can establish what the original
frequency spectrum of the far away star is, given that they do not know if what
is being observed is moving or static relative to us the observer let alone the
direction of this movement.
Add to this the presumed motions of our observation post, the earth, which may
or may not be true.
How certain can we be of the accuracy of classifications given to stars, based
upon measurements of of our own sun, given the uncertainty of the three basic
requirements shown above, and considering also that stars as does our sun vary
over time.
Even with the help of observed binary star systems the doppler shift proves
there is a rotation, but it can only provide an average of the frequency
spectrum which is not the true frequency, unless the system was static relative
to our own star, which of course is impossible to know.
Of what use is doppler shift in cosmology ? Isn't it just another case of
assumptions, like big brother Bang?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Robert Bennett
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 3:38 AM
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.
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) :
.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.26/746 - Release Date: 4/04/2007
1:09 PM
Other related posts:
