[geocentrism] Re: New web page
- From: "Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:37:52 +0000 (GMT)
Paul Deema <paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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?
No, it isn't. It is simply using the data which has not been deliberately
truncated.
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 ...
No. The stars can, and almost certainly do, behave in a similar manner to the
"planets" (note that a "planet" as we understand it is not mentioned in the
Bible). The behaviour of the planets is exhibited via the retrograde motion
effect and the (similar) motion of the stars would be exhibited through
parallax.
(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.
Simply because we observe both positive and negative parallax, so the
negative parallax stars cannot be "infinitely" far away.
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]
Corrected. Thank you for pointing it out.
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.
Geo = intelligent design; Helio = random 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.
Yes. Reworded. Thank you.
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.
You are just stating the obvious, ie. the mainstream position.
If the universe is geocentric, then the observations will still agree because
that is what we see.
No. This does not follow, since the negative values can be accommodated
rather than dismissed as "errors."
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
I do not know the distances, so I cannot consider your suggestion.
Neville.
---------------------------------
The all-new Yahoo! Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from
your Internet provider.
Other related posts:
