[geocentrism] Re: parallax
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 07:23:36 +1000
24 hour later addition, before anybody works for my enlightenment, I saw the
light..
My confidence has been hit, if not my faith in geocentrism. But I was wrong ..
again yesterday in the post below. ..
No diagrams, I awoke at midnight with a true visual and was so annoyed at my
self, if it wasn't so cold I would have been here alerting you then.
If Parallax is real, then yes the stars have to be centred on the sun.. just
as all have agreed. for it to be identical in the geocentric system..
But this is destructive news to many of my pet anomalies, even my version of
the aether theory, aether wind, doppler, is threatened. a great deal of
revisionism is necessary. . details later after I deal with the 2 hours of
other mail..
I'm hoping I'm wrong again again ..
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 3:15 PM
Subject: [geocentrism] parallax
I almost forgot these few words on parallax.. Its years since we last
discussed this subject on this list, and I thought resolved it yet here we go
again.
Not complaining because this new argument was presented by both sides, that
the stars have to be centred on the sun for parallax to be identical in both
systems..
Before I specifically detail my concerns with this, I will first present my
basic concept of parallax which the technician learned.. and you all can have
the opportunity to tell me if I am wrong.
Parallax was first presented to me as parallax error, In a lesson on meters
and how to read them correctly. Because the scale was behind the moving
pointer we were shown that to read the meter correctly and avoid parallax error
the eye had to be directly in the same line as the moving pointer and the scale
mark being read. To this end the meter face scale had a small mirror. All that
was necessary was to keep the pointer in line with its reflection to get a
precise reading.
This error is quite significant, and it would be the same error if one moved
the meter to the left or right, as it was if one moved the head. Purely a
relative positions phenomena.
With out any complication, isn't that parallax?
Two proximate stars in the distance, one closer. From the summer side of the
sun the further star will be seen to the right of the closer. From the winter
side of the sun it will be seen on the left side of the closer..
Straight common sense for a heliocentric orbiting world. .. But if the world
was fixed, and all the stars moved across the sky, as it appears to us the
observer, from my angle this parallax movement (error) will be identical.. The
meter was moved instead of my head!!!!
I can imagine that a central position relative to a triangulation with the
sun may effect the deviation angles off centre, but this can be computed from
knowledge of the phase difference in the sun and stars angular speed. relative
to a fixed longitude on the world. Where does this need for centering the
universe on the sun instead of the world, come from???
Curious. Thats my basic understanding.. I will now go draw some geometry and
figure it out. ...
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Regner Trampedach
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, May 25, 2008 10:56 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Inertia
No worries, Paul, sorry for the wait.
Regner
Paul Deema wrote:
Regner T
A timely post!
I was beginning to wilt under the Goebbels gambit from Allen re
gravity/inertia and inertia/distant_stars. Thank you for restoring my
confidence in physics and my limited understanding of same.
Paul D
----- Original Message ----
From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 23 May, 2008 4:54:26 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Inertia
I am afraid I don't have the time to dig up all the relevant posts and
reply
to them individually. This post, however, should address many issues
raised over the concept of inertia in a range of threads in this forum.
In Philip Madsen's post, 10/05/2008 he correctly points out the difference
between "equivalence" and "equality". That is an important distinction.
In physics and astronomy we don't have a habit of redefining words, as
opposed to, say, in politics...
a) Gravity and inertia are not the same.
b) Gravitational mass and inertial mass, do seem to be the same (no
observations have contradicted this, to date).
c) Inertia cannot be caused by gravity from the distant stars - no matter
how
far away or how the are distributed. The gravitational force from the
distant stars is minuscule compared to all the other forces we are
subject
to - do the math!
If the Universe (on large scales) has a smooth matter distribution,
the
gravity from all directions will cancel each other. It is obviously
not
completely uniform, so let's explore the other extreme: Only stars
from
one direction, say, a cone of 30° opening angle contribute any
gravity.
The pull from all those stars, back to the beginning of time, would be
a million-million times feebler than gravity from Earth. If the
Universe
is only 6000 years old (and gravity travels at the speed of light)
the pull
from those stars would be yet another factor of a million times
feebler.
And there is of course the problem about direction. How can the
distant
stars know which way we are trying to move a body, and then counter-
act that motion with a gravitational pull in the opposite direction.
It can't
make sense, whichever way you look at it.
d) Maybe I need to point out that forces are vectors and they are
additive.
That means, that if you have two forces of equal magnitude but
opposite
direction, the nett-force will be exactly zero. And the behaviour of
an
object in that zero nett-force field does not depend in the slightest
on how
that zero came about; whether it be from no forces at all, or from
huge,
but opposing forces. Only the (vector-)sum matters.
e) If gravity created inertial mass, we would be able to predict the mass
of
objects from the law of gravity - we can't! We can only observe and
use
Newton's 2nd law (F = m*a) and maybe the law of gravity or others, to
infer the mass.
f) There has been other philosophical theories about the distant stars
"somehow"
giving rise to inertia, but no successful physical theory that I am
aware of.
g) The best current candidate for a inertial field, is the Higg's field,
mediated by
the Higg's boson - but there are, of course, competing theories. The
Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, opening later this year, should be
able to
detect the Higg's boson if it exists. And the Higg's field would be a
local
field, not depending on the totality of stars in the Universe.
h) Lastly, but very important: We know how inertia works, and not knowing
why, doesn't really change that. Claiming that classical mechanics
doesn't work
because we don't know where inertia comes from, is therefore nothing
but
obstruction and obfuscation from the issues at hand. Finding out what
gives
rise to inertia is a separate and obviously very interesting question.
I have tried to address most of the inertial issues that have surfaced in
this forum
lately (I predict that Allen will disagree - I must be a psychic...) and
the verbosity
(I apologize) is due to an attempt at catching some of the most glaring
objections
that could arise.
Regner
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008
8:56 AM
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.1/1464 - Release Date: 5/24/2008
8:56 AM
Other related posts:
