Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 13:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
"In other words, stellar parallax is an observable phenomenon that is repeatable, rather than being experimental or statistical errors in measurement."
Now that is science! However, chalking things up to anomalies because they donʼt fit your ideas is nothing more then performing evaluations based on your "fath" in what you think you already know. True science or rather facts evaluated in a logical fame work demand that those "anomalies" alter you theories particularly when the anomalies are reproducible and demonstratable but your theories are not without invoking your conclusions of the data in that data analysis! ....When science is unwilling to make those changes and for no more reason then it would "change the whole world view" and at that in the same way that Galileo did., then "science" is no longer science. When it's ability to interpret data lie not in LOE (logic, observation & experiance) but in simple stated philosophical reasons, then science becomes nothing more then pure religion. For anyone who doubts religion plays a part in science first ignores that fact that its conclusions are based on interpretations that are not reproducible in spite of observations to the contrary that are reproducible and second have obviously never read Earnst Mach's the Science of Mechanics or even payed attention to the rants in "dogma" of "modern Science". It is a great mistake that is often touted as given but only merely assumed that scientific world views follow the observations and experience framed in logic. In fact the history of modern science clearly shows that all though they make great pretense to such, just the opposite is the reality. It is and was always the changes in world views that preceded first. Latter those changes in world views are what would and did force changes in interpretations and methodologies that brought about todayʼs existing paradigms of the Sciences.
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
Jack's response is correct. Regner and I disagree over whether God enters the realm of science, but we can both live with the other's point of view, I'm sure.I also do not think that Regner's current silence has much to do with the postings being 'junk'.
As regards stellar parallax, my own comments from the conclusion of
It is an indisputable fact that stellar parallax, like the phases of Venus, has been widely cited as "proof" that the World orbits the Sun. This is unfortunate, since the phenomenon proves no such thing. The only thing it does prove is that either the World is moving with respect to the stars, or that the stars are moving with respect to the World.
At this the geocentrists usually rest their case, claiming that the adoption of a heliocentric philosophy is just as much a matter of faith as the adoption of a geocentric philosophy. However, this invocation of faith is unnecessary and unjustified, for if it were such a simple choice between the World going around the Sun, or some stars moving slightly in order to conveniently give the appearance of the World going around the Sun, then the heliocentrists would have a point of strong probability (as opposed to a point of proof) in their favour, and geocentrism would indeed become more faith than science. Contrariwise it is worthwhile noting that credibility as regards the sizes of the Sun and Moon discs producing the observed solar eclipse effect that we marvel at sits more comfortably with the intelligent design position that geocentrism tends to imply, rather than with the heliocentrists and their claim of "coincidence."
The phenomenon of stellar parallax is not what we have been generally led to believe, because in exactly the same way that Eddington "proved" Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 1919 by rejecting, omitting or deleting 60% of his measurement data on the bending of starlight, so modern astrophysics maintains the misconception that parallax "proves" the Kopernikan philosophy of the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire dataset of negative parallax measurements.
The ESA, unlike Eddington before them, have kept and filed data values which do not fit in with the ruling model of the universe, and should be commended for so doing, but nevertheless they do seem to dismiss a significant proportion of their measurements rather glibly. Of course, they do say that these may arise due to measurement error, but the number and symmetrical distribution of these values would tend to deny this as being anything other than an exception to the rule.
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 various times over a period of twelve months 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.
When the full picture is revealed and considered, therefore, it is clearly geocentrism that has the potential to fully and adequately account for the hundreds of thousands of negative parallax observations that have now been recorded, although it is acknowledged that a detailed explanation is not currently available.