# [geocentrism] Re: New web page

• To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
• Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:23:47 +1000

```ITS A MATTER OF SCALE. (and perhaps an electrical universe)

Neville and Paul.
In trying to follow your discussion I get lost in the emensity of space. For
some reason, and I suspect that it is because it is empty space that MS cannot
accept the heavy universe rotating around the weightless centre of our
miserable little "planet". They have all this mathmatical magic of explaining
how our universe is some great landscape of individual star systems like our
solar system rotating around some other central zero mass centre, or
alternatively some massive super gravity centre. Especially are they horrified
at the concept of this heavy sun of ours having a planetary motion around this
world.

I do not see how math alone can prove any reality. It can of course support any
given assumed reality, which is theoretical.  So what if this universe was
governed more by electrical forces than Newtonian?

Isn't it just a matter of scale?

So that I can bring this discussion down to the level of us non-mathmatical
types, may I propose a different model. Sorry Neville, I am not trying to
belittle all of your fine work, but those diagrams and those equations about
parallex etc are just too complex for me, so I am trying to apply what I think
you are attempting to prove to a simpler system. a system that most would not
deny is easier to perceive, and is really a model of the universe, if you can
accept it is just a matter of scale.

Most will agree that within certain assumed theoretical limitations our world
is made up of atoms, which have nearly all the mass at the nucleus, called
protons, surrounded by a variey of orbiting "weightless?" electrons..  We can
and do look on these as mini-planetary systems. I am not certain of the
veracity, but it has been written that between the atoms of all the molecules
within our earthly matter, there is an emensity of space, equivalent in
proportion to the total masses of electrons and protons, as exists between
outer space and the total mass of our sun systems. In other words an inner mini
universe not unlike our maxi outer universe, excepting we are quietly confident
this inner universe is electrical in nature.. (governed by the laws of charge
rather than newtonian gravity)

All you need do now is place yourself on a single world at the centre of your
new universe, and gaze at the heavens, and wonder at the emensity of space, and
wonder how that heavy sun could possibly incircle your little world. You would
see all those parallaxes too.  And if you could see right out to the surface of
this 'planet' which is as they say rotating at 360 degrees a day, you would
know according to Newton, that it would be physically impossible for such a
mass at such velocities.  Hmmm. ..  Do you get the picture?  What is stopping
all those inner masses flying out to the periphery, as heliocentrists suggest
must happen to the sun, if it was doing a 24hr trip around the earth.  MS will
say that this inner micro "universe" is an electrical universe. Charge keeps
everything in place. Correct.

Just as an electrical linesman who connects himself to the 215,000Volt line to
enable him to work on a highly charged component cannot feel this charge,
likewise you wont suspect you are charged. Your friend Newton will steal an
idea and formulate a theory based upon mass and gravity rather than charge, and
make all things fit.

And that may be how we barked up the wrong tree. Maybe our universe is just
another gigantic "solid" ball ....like I said, a matter of scale..

Philip.
Disclaimer..  This model explanation is in no way to be taken as contradictory
to any previous epistles from myself re a rotating aether as being a
manifestation of the fourth dimension of space, but rather ancilliary to it.
LOL.
plm

----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 5:37 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: New web page

Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In this discussion we shall refer exclusively to the Tycho Main Catalogue,
because this has far more entries than the Hipparcos Catalogue and because
these entries allow for a much more symmetrical distribution of parallax about
the zero value.

[Paul D - comment]

The way I read this, it seems you are using the table with the greatest
position?

No, it isn't. It is simply using the data which has not been deliberately
truncated.

2 [Geocentrism evidence 5 - Negative Parallax]
In the Geostationary model of the universe, these negative parallax values
are not only easy to explain, in terms of a shell of stars, referred to as the
stellatum (see Fig. 2), rotating diurnally about the World, but also are to be
perhaps expected, given that a Geostationary universe does not require such
enormous distances to the stars.

[Paul D - comment]

If this is true then your "outer stars" which are on the ecliptic must
gradually speed up for six months then slow down for six months while your
"inner stars" must conversly slow down for six months followed by six months of
speeding up, in each case relative to your "middle stars". For those stars at
or near the celestial poles however, your "outer stars" must ...

No. The stars can, and almost certainly do, behave in a similar manner to
the "planets" (note that a "planet" as we understand it is not mentioned in the
Bible). The behaviour of the planets is exhibited via the retrograde motion
effect and the (similar) motion of the stars would be exhibited through
parallax.

(In the examples given above, the reference point -- the middle stars --
can be moved closer and further without destroying the argument).

I don't see why a geostationary universe is necessarily smaller, but even
if it was so, I don't see that it must support your contention.

Simply because we observe both positive and negative parallax, so the
negative parallax stars cannot be "infinitely" far away.

3 [Geocentrism evidence 5 - Negative Parallax]
In Fig. 3, 46% of all stars are located between the limits indicted (sic)
...

[Paul D - comment]
[Spelling error]

Corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.

4 [Geocentrism evidence 5 - Negative Parallax]
Contrariwise it is worthwhile noting that credibility sits more comfortably
with the Geocentrists regarding the sizes of the Moon and Sun discs producing
the solar eclipse effect that we all enjoy, than with the heliocentrists and
their claim of "coincidence."

[Paul D - comment]
Geo/Helio -- what's the difference? They must each subtend the (approx)
same angle ie ratios of diameter to distance, and there must be Moon in front,
Sun behind ie coincidence.

Geo = intelligent design; Helio = random coincidence.

5 [Geocentrism evidence 5 - Negative Parallax] Furthermore, although
angular parallax measurements are small (the largest positive value gives an
angle ACB, in Fig. 1, on the order of only 0.7 of an arcsecond), the effect is
known to be genuine by way of photographic plates taken at yearly intervals
which clearly show the same slight movement of some stars with respect to the
background star field. In other words, stellar parallax is an observable
phenomenon that is repeatable, rather than being experimental or statistical
errors in measurement.

[Paul D - comment]
Surely you mean "... over a twelve month period... ". If you take a
measurement at yearly intervals, you will deduce no parallax.

Yes. Reworded. Thank you.

If you assume an ascentric universe and you discover conveniently placed
'infinately distant' reference objects, then all parallax will be positive. (I
exclude proper motion here). If observations return both positive and negative,
then a measurement error can be safely deduced. Since the distances are very
large ie parallax below 1 milliarcsec (mas), it is immediately obvious that as
the real parallax decreases, its ratio to the measurement error (essentially a
constant) increases thus at some distance the measured parallax will be equally
divided between positive and negative. Well before this distance, confidence in
the measurements must decline markedly.

You are just stating the obvious, ie. the mainstream position.

If the universe is geocentric, then the observations will still agree
because that is what we see.

No. This does not follow, since the negative values can be accommodated
rather than dismissed as "errors."

I would have more confidence in your statements if you were to produce for
us, two curves correlating observed positive parallax with distance to object
in question and another for the negative parallax case. This should then be
duplicated for the Hipparcus data.

Paul D

I do not know the distances, so I cannot consider your suggestion.

Neville.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------