Paul, Thank you for your comments. I have just taken this page down, because the ancient stellatum concept does not work (I realised this in bed last night). The page therefore needs rewriting and I will refer to your comments when doing this. I will use the opportunity to explain why the stellatum does not work, so the diagram was not a complete waste of time. Neville. Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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 --------------------------------- The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider.