Dave L wrote:
Dr. Neville Jones seems to be a bit challenged re statistics. Actually
negative parallax is an inevitable consequence of measuring small angles.
Sufficiently distant stars will, on average, have a parallax near zero,
and the inevitable statistical scatter will produce negative parallaxes.
How this works is especially apparent when comparing the results from
Hipparcos to ground-based parallax measurements.
That the stars themselves are moving is an amusing concept, but utterly
alien to fact. Stars of the same spectral/luminosity class show an obvious
clear correlation between brightness and parallax. This correlates well
with two completely independent methods of measuring stellar distance,
based respectively on eclipsing binary stars and pulsating variables.
These 'pulsation parallaxes' are
determined by measuring the radial
velocity of the stellar surface from high-resolution spectra, combined
with measurements of the brightness of the star in optical and IR
passbands. This is in fact my specialty -- I can guarantee that I know a
great deal more about it than Dr. Jones does. If he were active in my
field, I'd be aware of it.
Regards
Dave L
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Bernie Brauer wrote:
> Dave,
>
> But, for instance, you didn't even look at the Negative Parallax paper that was sent to you. Because that answered your point number two.
> -----------------------
> Geocentrism Evidence 5 - Negative Parallax - by Dr. Neville T. Jones, PhD
>
> "... it is an indisputable fact that sellar 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."
>
> "... so modern astrophysics maintains the misconception that parallax 'proves' the Kopernican philosophy of the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire dataset of negative parallax measurements."
>
> "... such vast distances [ to the stars ] were originally borne of paradigm-supporting necessity and although they may appear to be confirmed by trigonometric parallax calculations, it should be remembered that this technique is itself based upon the heliocentric assumption that it is used to support."
>
> More: http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page26.htm
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dave L wrote:
> Bernie
>
> I am an expert.
>
> Regards
>
> Dave L
>
>
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Bernie Brauer wrote:
>
> > Dave,
> >
> > Why don't you ask Dr. Neville T. Jones, PhD if you can join his
> > Geocentrism Discussion Group and then get all your questions answered by experts?
> > I'll c/c this to Neville and you can look at his website at
> > www.geocentricuniverse.com . but I think the discussion group is on "vacation"
> > from about August 7 to September 7.
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> > Bernie
> >
> > Dave L wrote:
> >
> > Sir
> >
> > It was with some astonishment that I read your e-mail to Isobel B.
> > Your website is even more staggering in its resolute refusal to pay any
> > attention to several centuries of scientific discovery. I commend to your
> > attention:
> >
>
> 1) The aberration of starlight -- 18th century demonstration of a moving
> > Earth.
> >
> > 2) The annual stellar parallax of all nearby stars.
> >
> > 3) The accurately charted paths of numerous space probes which have
> > visited all 8 planets in the solar system.
> >
> > 4) The total impossibility of reconciling your bizarre 'spiral orbit'
> > system with the moon's motion -- now known to within centimeters.
> >
> > 5) Radar echoes from the planets, demonstrating their true distances and
> > the scale of the solar system.
> >
> > 6) Radial velocity measurements of stars, clearly showing the rotational
> > velocity of the Earth.
> >
> > The Old Testament is a collection of ancient Hebrew sacred writings, none
> > of which was written to be read by literal-minded Westerners as though it
>
> were a modern science text. Do you also believe the Earth has four
> > corners (Rev. 7:1, etc.)?
> >
> > David L
Shape Yahoo! in your own image.
Join our Network Research Panel today!
