[geocentrism] Re: Stellar Parallax/Regner
- From: Bernie Brauer <bbrauer777@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 16:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Mach's philosophy of science Ernst Mach developed a philosophy of science
which was influential in the 19th and 20th centuries. Mach held that scientific
laws are summaries of experimental events, constructed for the purpose of human
comprehension of complex data. Thus scientific laws have more to do with the
mind than with reality as it exists apart from the mind. Some quotations from
Mach's writings will illustrate his philosophy. These selections are taken from
his essay The Economical Nature of Physical Inquiry, excerpted by Kockelmans.
The goal which it [physical science] has set itself is the simplest and most
economical abstract expression of facts.
When the human mind, with its limited powers, attempts to mirror in itself
the rich life of the world, of which it itself is only a small part, and which
it can never hope to exhaust, it has every reason for proceeding economically.
In reality, the law always contains less than the fact itself, because it
does not reproduce the fact as a whole but only in that aspect of it which is
important for us, the rest being intentionally or from necessity omitted.
Allen Daves <allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: "In other words,
stellar parallax is an observable phenomenon that is repeatable, rather than
being experimental or statistical errors in measurement."
Now that is science! However, chalking things up to anomalies because they
don¢t fit your ideas is nothing more then performing evaluations based on your
"fath" in what you think you already know. True science or rather facts
evaluated in a logical fame work demand that those "anomalies" alter you
theories particularly when the anomalies are reproducible and demonstratable
but your theories are not without invoking your conclusions of the data in that
data analysis! ....When science is unwilling to make those changes and for no
more reason then it would "change the whole world view" and at that in the same
way that Galileo did., then "science" is no longer science. When it's ability
to interpret data lie not in LOE (logic, observation & experiance) but in
simple stated philosophical reasons, then science becomes nothing more then
pure religion. For anyone who doubts religion plays a part in science first
ignores that fact that its conclusions are based on interpretations
that are not reproducible in spite of observations to the contrary that are
reproducible and second have obviously never read Earnst Mach's the Science of
Mechanics or even payed attention to the rants in "dogma" of "modern Science".
It is a great mistake that is often touted as given but only merely assumed
that scientific world views follow the observations and experience framed in
logic. In fact the history of modern science clearly shows that all though they
make great pretense to such, just the opposite is the reality. It is and was
always the changes in world views that preceded first. Latter those changes in
world views are what would and did force changes in interpretations and
methodologies that brought about today¢s existing paradigms of the Sciences.
----- Original Message ----
From: Neville Jones <njones@xxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 12:52:32 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Stellar Parallax/Regner
Jack's response is correct. Regner and I disagree over whether God enters
the realm of science, but we can both live with the other's point of view, I'm
sure.
I also do not think that Regner's current silence has much to do with the
postings being 'junk'.
As regards stellar parallax, my own comments from the conclusion of
http://www.geocentricuniverse.com/page26.htm
are:
It is an indisputable fact that stellar 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.
At this the geocentrists usually rest their case, claiming that the adoption
of a heliocentric philosophy is just as much a matter of faith as the adoption
of a geocentric philosophy. However, this invocation of faith is unnecessary
and unjustified, for if it were such a simple choice between the World going
around the Sun, or some stars moving slightly in order to conveniently give the
appearance of the World going around the Sun, then the heliocentrists would
have a point of strong probability (as opposed to a point of proof) in their
favour, and geocentrism would indeed become more faith than science.
Contrariwise it is worthwhile noting that credibility as regards the sizes of
the Sun and Moon discs producing the observed solar eclipse effect that we
marvel at sits more comfortably with the intelligent design position that
geocentrism tends to imply, rather than with the heliocentrists and their claim
of "coincidence."
The phenomenon of stellar parallax is not what we have been generally led to
believe, because in exactly the same way that Eddington "proved" Einstein's
General Theory of Relativity in 1919 by rejecting, omitting or deleting 60% of
his measurement data on the bending of starlight, so modern astrophysics
maintains the misconception that parallax "proves" the Kopernikan philosophy of
the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire
dataset of negative parallax measurements.
The ESA, unlike Eddington before them, have kept and filed data values which
do not fit in with the ruling model of the universe, and should be commended
for so doing, but nevertheless they do seem to dismiss a significant proportion
of their measurements rather glibly. Of course, they do say that these may
arise due to measurement error, but the number and symmetrical distribution of
these values would tend to deny this as being anything other than an exception
to the rule.
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 various times over a period of twelve months 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.
When the full picture is revealed and considered, therefore, it is clearly
geocentrism that has the potential to fully and adequately account for the
hundreds of thousands of negative parallax observations that have now been
recorded, although it is acknowledged that a detailed explanation is not
currently available.
Neville.
-----Original Message-----
From: jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thu, 22 May 2008 12:33:53 +0100
Philip,
Thank you for your comments.
Regner will have to accept that this forum, according to its creator Neville,
does embrace theology where Neville feels it is applicable. I did once suggest
,when Regner came aboard, that we stick to 'science' and leave the theology to
another forum. But the problem is what do we offer Regner as an alternative? I
still say that our best stance with MS scientists is to simply show the holes
in their science and get them to accept that it is a hole. How they deal with
it is up to them - we can offer philiosophical answers if they want to listen.
Regarding stellar prarallax the observations in either scenario do appear to
be the same in so far as they are not an argument for heliocentrism. It is not
offered as an argument for geocentrism either because, as you say, the stars
would have to rotate as well as the sun. Regarding it being used as a proof,
this was offered to me by the University of Cambrige Astronomy Department.
Maybe they merely fobbed me off since 'nobody in their right mind believes that
the sun goes round the earth'. Perhaps I will send this diagram, with
additional labeling, to Cambridge Uni. Asrto. Dept. and see what they say.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism list
Regner I worry how you can enter discussions with the diversity of junk mail
presented, but I guess a few filtered words like Catholic, Bible and God and
Jew and ... might help if you have a filter.. The problem is people do not
keep subjects within the subject line.. I try.
Well Jack, I can get what the original intended, this time round.. It
startles a little at first because the diagrams look so similar, and it is
necessary to actually identify the bodies S and E which have their roles
reversed.
But is it a manipulative trick? If the sun moves around the earth, then also
the stars N and F every day.
Thus looking at the bottom pic, when the sun is at the top, marked July, the
stars N and F should be vertically above, and likewise in January, vertically
below.. because they also rotate around the earth with the sun, less the
annual increment.. or plus I'm not that good at astronomy.
I feel that the viewing angles might still fulfill the requirements, as the
bottom diagram is trying to show, but How?
Regner who has a mind tuned to planetary motions, should be able to answer,
if this is so.. and if my memory is true, I think he did say or acknowledge
that parallax would not distinguish or prove either system..
thanks.. Philip.
---------------------------------
Receive Notifications of Incoming Messages
Easily monitor multiple email accounts & access them with a click. Visit
www.inbox.com/notifier and check it out!
Other related posts:
