The Flat Earth Wiki
The Flat Earth Wiki
Log in

Difference between revisions of "Stellar Parallax"

From The Flat Earth Wiki
m (Reverted edits by 107.167.244.83 (talk) to last revision by Tom Bishop)
Tag: Rollback
 
(19 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The heliocentric model of the Earth's revolution around the sun predicts a phenomenon called '''Stellar parallax,''' the apparent shift of position of any nearby star (or other object) against the background of distant objects. Due to the annual motion of the earth around the Sun, the stars should change position slightly. It has been found that some stars exhibit zero parallax, while other stars exhibit positive or negative parallax of about equal distribution. Stars which exhibit ''negative parallax'' travel in a direction contradictory to heliocentrism, and are usually dismissed as "errors".
+
The heliocentric model of the Earth's revolution around the sun predicts a phenomenon called '''stellar parallax,''' the apparent shift of position of any nearby star (or other object) against the background of distant objects. Due to the annual motion of the earth around the Sun, the stars should change position slightly. It has been found that some stars exhibit zero parallax, while other stars exhibit positive or negative parallax of about equal distribution. Stars which exhibit ''negative parallax'' travel in a direction contradictory to heliocentrism, and are usually dismissed as "errors".
  
 
==Negative Parallax==
 
==Negative Parallax==
  
 
'''Reality Reviewed: Negative Parallax'''<br>
 
'''Reality Reviewed: Negative Parallax'''<br>
Neville Thomas Jones ([https://web.archive.org/web/20031113155858/http://www.erionline.co.uk/Profile%20Dr%20Neville%20Jones.htm bio])<br>
+
By Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.  ([https://web.archive.org/web/20031113155858/http://www.erionline.co.uk/Profile%20Dr%20Neville%20Jones.htm bio])<br>
 
[http://web.archive.org/web/20100826022827/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm Full Link Text]
 
[http://web.archive.org/web/20100826022827/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm Full Link Text]
  
Line 44: Line 44:
  
 
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.}}
 
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.}}
 +
 +
==Historical Quotes==
 +
 +
1879 - [https://books.google.com/books?id=yEpKAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA63&dq=negative+parallax&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsnovd6NHfAhVHYK0KHeyoBUA4KBDoATAJegQIARAx#v=onepage&q=negative%20parallax&f=false "Negative parallax renders uncertain all deductions from these observations"] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220107222530/https://books.google.com/books?id=yEpKAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA63&dq=negative+parallax&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjsnovd6NHfAhVHYK0KHeyoBUA4KBDoATAJegQIARAx#v=onepage&q=negative%2520parallax&f=false Archive])
 +
 +
1890 - [https://books.google.com/books?id=CbY0AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA7-PA10&lpg=RA7-PA10&dq=negative+parallax+unexplained&source=bl&ots=Pmj0Ai3Qeo&sig=RZQtLocGWCfdIiczq0UY98PkVyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjr5_-ztHfAhVIba0KHeEKB-MQ6AEwDXoECBYQAQ#v=onepage&q=negative%20parallax%20unexplained&f=false "Negative parallax ...suggests that there is some unexplained source of error"] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220107222533/https://books.google.com/books?id=CbY0AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA7-PA10&lpg=RA7-PA10&dq=negative+parallax+unexplained&source=bl&ots=Pmj0Ai3Qeo&sig=RZQtLocGWCfdIiczq0UY98PkVyc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjjr5_-ztHfAhVIba0KHeEKB-MQ6AEwDXoECBYQAQ#v=onepage&q=negative%2520parallax%2520unexplained&f=false Archive])
 +
 +
1902 - [https://books.google.com/books?id=b2l8cO4wpL4C&pg=PA63&dq=%22a+large+negative+parallax+of%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzguuE49LfAhUQQq0KHTO_CCYQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=true "In the case of the series now under discussion, for example, however and by whomever treated the outcome has always been a large negative parallax of y Draconis, and an aberration-constant impossible to accept."] ([https://web.archive.org/web/20220107222537/https://books.google.com/books?id=b2l8cO4wpL4C&pg=PA63&dq=%2522a+large+negative+parallax+of%2522&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzguuE49LfAhUQQq0KHTO_CCYQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q&f=true Archive])
 +
 +
==Further Reading==
 +
 +
*'''[https://www.tychos.info/chapter-36/ The Tychos Book: Chapter 36 — The Mystery of Negative Stellar Parallax]''' ([https://web.archive.org/web/20210406180616/https://www.tychos.info/chapter-36/ Archive])<br><br>
 +
 +
[[Category:Cosmos]]
 +
[[Category:Stars]]
 +
[[Category:Parallax]]

Latest revision as of 17:23, 15 October 2022

The heliocentric model of the Earth's revolution around the sun predicts a phenomenon called stellar parallax, the apparent shift of position of any nearby star (or other object) against the background of distant objects. Due to the annual motion of the earth around the Sun, the stars should change position slightly. It has been found that some stars exhibit zero parallax, while other stars exhibit positive or negative parallax of about equal distribution. Stars which exhibit negative parallax travel in a direction contradictory to heliocentrism, and are usually dismissed as "errors".

Negative Parallax

Reality Reviewed: Negative Parallax
By Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D. (bio)
Full Link Text

  “ A careful examination of photographic plates that have been exposed to the same region of sky, but at times that are a few months apart, will reveal the fact that some stars have shifted their position with respect to the 'background' stars. Such stars are assumed to be closer to us than the (effectively) infinitely far away 'background' stars, and the effect is naturally given the name of stellar parallax.

~

Negative Parallax

There are 1,058,332 objects in the Tycho Main Catalogue, and these have a median astrometric precision of 7 mas for visual magnitude 9 and below, increasing through 25 mas for visual magnitude 10-11.

Using the ESA's parameter entry table [5], we selected field three (parallax) and specified a range of -919 (min) to -20 (max) mas, over the entire dataset. This produced 262,100 records of negative parallax objects, or 25% of the total.

Next we selected the positive parallax objects via a minimum value of 20 mas and a maximum of 701.5 mas. This resulted in 310,758 records, or 29% of the total.

The remaining 46% of the Tycho Main Catalogue entries can be assumed to possess zero parallax, within the precision of (0 ± 20) mas.

Section 2.2 Contents of the Tycho Catalogue [6] makes the following statement regarding Field T11, "The trigonometric parallax, π, is expressed in units of milliarcsec. The estimated parallax is given for every star, even if it appears to be insignificant or negative (which may arise when the true parallax is smaller than its error)."

A further test was conducted, to see if the stars moving across the astrometric instrument slit were directionally different in the northern celestial hemisphere to what they were in the southern celestial hemisphere. In this case, as well as the parallax field, the declination field was also selected. Of the non-zero-parallax stars in the northern celestial hemisphere (0°N ≤ δ ≤ 90°N), 45% of them had a negative parallax, and in the southern celestial hemisphere (0°S ≤ δ ≤ 90°S), 46% of non-zero objects had a negative parallax. So here again is a very symmetrical distribution that would be typical of a naturally occurring phenomenon.

~

In Fig. 3, 46% of all stars are located between the limits indicated by the two dotted lines on either side of the mean (the centre point of the stellatum thickness), and from Fig. 2 we see that this would imply 27% of stellatum stars would be closer to us (and thus display positive parallax) and 27% would be further away than the majority (and thus display negative parallax). I.e., 46% are middle stars (as termed in Fig. 2), 27% are inner stars (c.f. 29% from the Tycho Main Catalogue), and 27% are outer stars (c.f. 25% from the Tycho Main Catalogue).

~

Conclusion

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. ”

Historical Quotes

1879 - "Negative parallax renders uncertain all deductions from these observations" (Archive)

1890 - "Negative parallax ...suggests that there is some unexplained source of error" (Archive)

1902 - "In the case of the series now under discussion, for example, however and by whomever treated the outcome has always been a large negative parallax of y Draconis, and an aberration-constant impossible to accept." (Archive)

Further Reading