[geocentrism] Re: parallax
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 17:47:14 +1000
Thank you Jack! For reinforcing my NON-CAPITULATION. I was agreeing with GWW
who were the first to propose and accept that parallax needed to have the stars
circling the sun..
You have asked about negative parallax.. Before I ask what that is, I would
respond to this, because it is a most important question.
"You must also consider why would God make the sun the centre and not the
Earth. "
He didn't! And I did not say He did. The sun circles the centre , the earth.
The sun takes with it the planets . And that solar system as a unit circles
Gods centre the world. Just as Pluto has moons circling it, together circling
the sun then circles the world. Doesn't it then seem likely that the whole
universe, being less important to God than His world of Created men, second
only to the Angels, should be made to circle the sun, thereby making it an
inferior satellite (as a system) to the real centre.
And Jack think about this, thereby still having this entire universe circling
the earth as a sub system. Isn't that an amazing thought, when we are
confronted with a scientific contradiction that the world is a minor planet of
a minor star in a minor wing of a spiral galaxy?
Now , yes I was bold and shouting , as in Glory be to God on High, but I would
like you to come back with what you see as meant by negative parallax.. I would
like to consider it. will be here for an hour or so its my tea time your
brekkie..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 5:02 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
Philip,
I state once again 'what about negative parallax'? How does this fit in to
your virtual capitulation to centering on the sum rather than on the Earth? You
must also consider why would God make the sun the centre and not the Earth.
This is what I meant when I said to Paul that geocentrism makes more sense -
remember what you said about PhD's?
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 1:39 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
This critical questioning hmm maybe rant, is for the geos. It may be too
long for the Helios..
Applying angles of view from a static earth I acknowledged the parallax
error would not occur from the centre of a radius viewer rotating with the
stars, assuming them to be so rotating fixed to the radial.
However as the observer was not at the centre of the earth, but at the
surface, I deduced that parallax error would show up due to the change in
observation relative to the diameter of the earth .. And this error would be
much much less than that due to the solar orbit. So I must accept that the
stars must centre on the sun for the parallax to be identical to the
heliocentric view, because such would cause the stars, (my meter face) to move
out of the radius line a distance equivalent to the diameter of the earth/solar
orbit..
This is dissappointing in that it seems like shifting the goal posts to
accomodate what heliocentrism asserts as proof of their cause. But for me it is
just one more learning experience.
As for arguing the case "against" or "for" as raised elsewhere, I always
believe in arguing my case from within the conventional classical scientific
position, not from without.(as I learned it anyway) I have been entrenched
there. Hence some consternation at times from my allies on the geo side. BUT.
How could I as a Protestant argue against Catholicism if I had not studied and
understood Catholicism as a Catholic. Its like talking in English to a Chinaman.
Back to parallax, and my new alignment of the stars.
First of all when we spoke of geocentrism, we had to explain the enormous
inertial problems involved with a star system universe gyrating around us at
many light speeds approaching infinity, in a reasonably close and steady
circlur motion. A daily event.
We got around that reasonably by bringing in an aether , which for all
practical purposes near the speed of light is a solid, in which are imbedded
the stars and galaxys.
Has anybody considered what the dynamics now proposed by putting the stars
centring on the sun creates? Let me enumerate a few that came to mind.
Gyrates: I like that term as it absolves me from worrying about rotating or
translating though it is important to keep in mind for appearances. .
The sun gyrates around us a diametric distance of 180 million miles every
day. Now if you attach a large wheel having an annual rotation, to the sun
which becomes the hub, this whole wheel now gyrates around the earth with the
sun. Think of the out of balance such a motion makes? I suppose if we have the
aether handling the first it should be able to handle this but,
When we had all centred on the earth we allowed a different angular
rotation to the sun to allow for stars annual change of position. Did we not
say the sun like the moon slipped behind. The moment we changed our stance and
put the stars on a different wheel, it becomes a different relationship. A
phase difference between two wheel centres. All done to maintain appearances.
It fixes parallax, doppler/redshift, and even the worry I had about deep space
probes time delay/doppler in radio communication..
Now how does the aether get affected by this new set up?
Let the aether remain centred on the earth. We said or assumed that it
rotated with the sidereal rotation. If we leave it here, then I see little
problems. We now have this massive wheel on a hub called SUN hurtling with this
aether a distance of 180 million miles diameter every day, with the planets and
stars orbiting the sun at a slower annual rate. How should this change of
relative motion of the aether and stars effect our understanding? .
Has anything really changed? Well I am maybe in need of correcting, but it
seems that now we will have the stars fixed in angular position with the
aether, but moving more radially to and from the earth through the aether ,
over a period of a year. a distance approximating 180 million miles.. (hence
doppler/red shift?)
Am I right? back to you. anybody. We still got a case?
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2008 7:23 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: parallax
24 hour later addition, before anybody works for my enlightenment, I saw
the light..
My confidence has been hit, if not my faith in geocentrism. But I was
wrong .. again yesterday in the post below. ..
No diagrams, I awoke at midnight with a true visual and was so annoyed at
my self, if it wasn't so cold I would have been here alerting you then.
If Parallax is real, then yes the stars have to be centred on the sun..
just as all have agreed. for it to be identical in the geocentric system..
But this is destructive news to many of my pet anomalies, even my version
of the aether theory, aether wind, doppler, is threatened. a great deal of
revisionism is necessary. . details later after I deal with the 2 hours of
other mail..
I'm hoping I'm wrong again again ..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] parallax
I almost forgot these few words on parallax.. Its years since we last
discussed this subject on this list, and I thought resolved it yet here we go
again.
Not complaining because this new argument was presented by both sides,
that the stars have to be centred on the sun for parallax to be identical in
both systems..
Before I specifically detail my concerns with this, I will first
present my basic concept of parallax which the technician learned.. and you
all can have the opportunity to tell me if I am wrong.
Parallax was first presented to me as parallax error, In a lesson on
meters and how to read them correctly. Because the scale was behind the moving
pointer we were shown that to read the meter correctly and avoid parallax error
the eye had to be directly in the same line as the moving pointer and the scale
mark being read. To this end the meter face scale had a small mirror. All that
was necessary was to keep the pointer in line with its reflection to get a
precise reading.
This error is quite significant, and it would be the same error if one
moved the meter to the left or right, as it was if one moved the head. Purely a
relative positions phenomena.
With out any complication, isn't that parallax?
Two proximate stars in the distance, one closer. From the summer side
of the sun the further star will be seen to the right of the closer. From the
winter side of the sun it will be seen on the left side of the closer..
Straight common sense for a heliocentric orbiting world. .. But if the
world was fixed, and all the stars moved across the sky, as it appears to us
the observer, from my angle this parallax movement (error) will be identical..
The meter was moved instead of my head!!!!
I can imagine that a central position relative to a triangulation with
the sun may effect the deviation angles off centre, but this can be computed
from knowledge of the phase difference in the sun and stars angular speed.
relative to a fixed longitude on the world. Where does this need for centering
the universe on the sun instead of the world, come from???
Curious. Thats my basic understanding.. I will now go draw some
geometry and figure it out. ...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Inertia
No worries, Paul, sorry for the wait.
Regner
Paul Deema wrote:
Regner T
A timely post!
I was beginning to wilt under the Goebbels gambit from Allen re
gravity/inertia and inertia/distant_stars. Thank you for restoring my
confidence in physics and my limited understanding of same.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 23 May, 2008 4:54:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Inertia
I am afraid I don't have the time to dig up all the relevant posts
and reply
to them individually. This post, however, should address many issues
raised over the concept of inertia in a range of threads in this
forum.
In Philip Madsen's post, 10/05/2008 he correctly points out the
difference
between "equivalence" and "equality". That is an important
distinction.
In physics and astronomy we don't have a habit of redefining words,
as
opposed to, say, in politics...
a) Gravity and inertia are not the same.
b) Gravitational mass and inertial mass, do seem to be the same (no
observations have contradicted this, to date).
c) Inertia cannot be caused by gravity from the distant stars - no
matter how
far away or how the are distributed. The gravitational force
from the
distant stars is minuscule compared to all the other forces we
are subject
to - do the math!
If the Universe (on large scales) has a smooth matter
distribution, the
gravity from all directions will cancel each other. It is
obviously not
completely uniform, so let's explore the other extreme: Only
stars from
one direction, say, a cone of 30° opening angle contribute any
gravity.
The pull from all those stars, back to the beginning of time,
would be
a million-million times feebler than gravity from Earth. If the
Universe
is only 6000 years old (and gravity travels at the speed of
light) the pull
from those stars would be yet another factor of a million times
feebler.
And there is of course the problem about direction. How can
the distant
stars know which way we are trying to move a body, and then
counter-
act that motion with a gravitational pull in the opposite
direction. It can't
make sense, whichever way you look at it.
d) Maybe I need to point out that forces are vectors and they are
additive.
That means, that if you have two forces of equal magnitude but
opposite
direction, the nett-force will be exactly zero. And the
behaviour of an
object in that zero nett-force field does not depend in the
slightest on how
that zero came about; whether it be from no forces at all, or
from huge,
but opposing forces. Only the (vector-)sum matters.
e) If gravity created inertial mass, we would be able to predict
the mass of
objects from the law of gravity - we can't! We can only observe
and use
Newton's 2nd law (F = m*a) and maybe the law of gravity or
others, to
infer the mass.
f) There has been other philosophical theories about the distant
stars "somehow"
giving rise to inertia, but no successful physical theory that
I am aware of.
g) The best current candidate for a inertial field, is the Higg's
field, mediated by
the Higg's boson - but there are, of course, competing
theories. The Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, opening later this year, should
be able to
detect the Higg's boson if it exists. And the Higg's field
would be a local
field, not depending on the totality of stars in the Universe.
h) Lastly, but very important: We know how inertia works, and not
knowing
why, doesn't really change that. Claiming that classical
mechanics doesn't work
because we don't know where inertia comes from, is therefore
nothing but
obstruction and obfuscation from the issues at hand. Finding
out what gives
rise to inertia is a separate and obviously very interesting
question.
I have tried to address most of the inertial issues that have
surfaced in this forum
lately (I predict that Allen will disagree - I must be a
psychic...) and the verbosity
(I apologize) is due to an attempt at catching some of the most
glaring objections
that could arise.
Regner
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date:
5/24/2008 8:56 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date:
5/24/2008 8:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date:
5/24/2008 8:56 AM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1468 - Release Date: 26/05/2008
15:23
Other related posts:
