[geocentrism] Re: For Robert Bennett and stella parallax

  • From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 01 May 2008 12:39:34 +1000

Jack - I'm replying to you through Paul's reply, since Paul was so
helpful as to in-line the figure.
   Please take a careful look at the figures again.
'N' is the actual position in space of the observed star.
'E' is obviously the Earth and 'S' the Sun. The Sun and the
star are fixed in relative distance and direction to each other.
The observer is obviously on the Earth in both cases.
'Au', I believe, refers to the one astronomical unit (AU) average
distance between the Earth and the Sun.

Top plot:
- The Earth 'E' revolves around the Sun 'S'.
- The two lines from 'E' through 'N' show the directions to the
  star, half a year apart. There is obviously a parallax - the angle
  shown as \theta.

Bottom plot:
- Take the Jan. part of the top-plot: the 'E', the 'S', and the 'E'-'N' and
  'S'-'N' lines, and move them down by 1AU so the 'E' is in the centre.
- Take the July part of the top-plot: <same as above> and move them
  up by 1AU so the 'E' is in the centre.
- Result: The exact same situation as above but seen from the Earth's
  perspective.
- And the exact same parallax, \theta.

The bottom plot, however, is NOT equivalent to a geocentric Solar
system, where the stars would be fixed (actually have constant
velocities) with respect to the Earth, and there would be no parallax.

There is nothing secret or Earth-rattling about that bottom plot.

   Regner


Paul Deema wrote:
Philip M
ref your 'highlighted in brown' -- parallax in the heliocentric world is a phenomenon of planetary movement. If you are on the Sun, it isn't moving, so there is no parallax.
If I knew what 'N' and 'F' were, I might be able to figure it out but I don't so I can't.
Paul D


----- Original Message ----
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 4 April, 2008 6:40:19 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: For Robert Bennett and stella parallax

I don't recall it but that is probably because I don't understand it at all..  Here it is again..In particular I did not get the inference of the statement I highlighted in brown.. 
 
Philip.
 

In 1838 astronomical instruments were precise enough for Bessel to first measure a parallax angle for a nearby star after six months of observation.  His interpretive heliocentric diagram is shown below; it is always shown in science books as proof of the Sun’s centricity.

 

And so it is, if one assumes that the Sun is the fixed reference point to begin with.

But this is the fallacy of petitio principii  - begging the question - assuming true what is to be proven. 

 

This modernist ‘tool’ of illogic will find much use later on in the 1800s with the advent of Darwinism, in support of evolutionary reasoning. 

 

Measurements of parallax by a viewer from the Sun would show none, according to modern science.

 

The second geocentric diagram below is a classic original, never shown in mainline science books, never even discussed as a possibility.  So your eyes are two of only a few that have seen it - an equally valid alternative to the heliocentric diagram, including the size of the parallax angle.

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
Sent: Friday, April 04, 2008 6:51 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] For Robert Bennett and stella parallax

Hi Robert,
I was having a sort-out of some of my geocentrism material and came across this which came from you sometime ago. I have attached the relevant page and would ask you to explain the second diagram more fully as it is very intriguing.

Jack
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.5/1356 - Release Date: 2/04/2008 4:14 PM

Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. geocentrism
  3. Archive
  4. 04-2008