[geocentrism] New web page
- From: Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: Geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2007 09:23:10 +0000 (GMT)
Neville J
1 [Geocentrism evidence 5 - Negative Parallax]
Hipparcos Catalogue, field H11, -55 mas to 772.33 mas.
Tycho Catalogue, field T11, -919 mas to 701.5 mas.
where one 'mas' is 0''.001 (for example, 250 mas = 0''.25).
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
negative parallax content. Isn't this choosing your data to favour your
position?
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 rotate
anti-clockwise continuously faster than your "middle stars" while your "inner
stars" must rotate clockwise continuously more slowly than your "middle stars",
in each case relative to the universe as a whole since you have it rotating
once each sidereal day. Those between the ecliptic and the poles must follow
paths which represent vector sums of these two extremes and dependant on the
celestial latitude. I sure would hate to have to do the sums!
Is this what you intend?
(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.
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]
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.
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.
General comments.
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.
If the universe is geocentric, then the observations will still agree because
that is what we see.
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
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Other related posts:
