Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #1  
Old May 28, '10, 5:32 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

In the days of Galileo and Keplar, Tycho Brahe rejected heliocentrism primarily because of the complete lack of Stellar Parallax. In the last hundred years or so tiny changes in position of stars have been observed which we are told are Stellar Parallax. The reason these changes in position are so tiny (we are told) is because the stars are trillions of kilometres distant, light years away.

What is also not told to the general public is that half of the stars which exhibit parallax actually exhibit NEGATIVE PARALLAX.

If stellar parallax indicates that a particular star is closer to the main background of stars then negative stellar parallax should indicate that a particular star is further away than the main background of stars.

This however is completely incompatible with the conventional model of astronomy which teaches that the furthest stars exhibit no parallax because of their great distance from the earth. My question therefore is how do we deal with the issue of negative parallax in an open and honest way?

I believe that conventional astronomical community are in open fraud because they completely ignore negative parallax readings, explaining them away as measurement errors, at the same time as they happily use positive parallax readings to “prove” their theories in opposition to geocentrism. That is intellectual skulduggery of the worst kind in my view and is basically a lie. If negative parallax readings are “errors” then what cause do we have to assume that positive parallax readings are not themselves also “errors”.

For further information on this issue please read Dr. Neville Thomas Jones Ph.D., D.I.C., M.Sc.(Phys), M.Sc.(Comp), B.Sc.(Hons) which also has some useful diagrams.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm
  #2  
Old May 28, '10, 5:55 pm
tjm190 tjm190 is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: July 18, 2009
Posts: 2,878
Religion: Dissident Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Parallax- You look measure the angle from a point on Th Earth's surface, wait til we're on the opposite side of the orbit, and then do it again. You now have an angle, a side, and another angle of a triangle so you can determine the other two sides- the distance to that star.
Where does this business of negative come in? Can stars shift with a 'negative' displacement?
Furthermore, Brahe was completely open to the conclusion that stars were too far away to have parallax.
  #3  
Old May 28, '10, 6:58 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Physically, how can negative parallax exist? An object at infinity will have zero parallax, all closer objects will have positive parallax (maybe too small to measure).

Besides, what does this have to do with geocentrism? Whether the earth moves relative to the stars, or the stars move relative to the earth, the parallax will be the same.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #4  
Old May 28, '10, 7:30 pm
pnewton's Avatar
pnewton pnewton is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 33,988
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Does this also prove that the Earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle?

First, negative movement is not a logical possibility. Negative numbers are only a statistical result of inaccurate measures.

http://www.shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11381

Second, as pointed out, what is moving where is not shown by parallax. Only relative movement is shown.

Finally, as my first question alluded to, even when we find scientific theories to be inaccurate or invalid, it does not "prove" another theory. Since the article is ignorant of the definition of "proof", it is difficult to take them seriously.
__________________
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in." - Jesus

Nooo!! I didn't mean it!
  #5  
Old May 28, '10, 9:58 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton View Post
Does this also prove that the Earth is sitting on the back of a giant turtle?

First, negative movement is not a logical possibility. Negative numbers are only a statistical result of inaccurate measures.

http://www.shatters.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=11381

Second, as pointed out, what is moving where is not shown by parallax. Only relative movement is shown.

Finally, as my first question alluded to, even when we find scientific theories to be inaccurate or invalid, it does not "prove" another theory. Since the article is ignorant of the definition of "proof", it is difficult to take them seriously.
Your turtle comment is simply an ad hominen attack.
Do you think I am a fool do you who believes that the earth sits on the back of a turtle?

It seems that you do not clearly understand the issue here.
If negative movement is not logically possible as you are suggesting and the negative parallax measurements are inaccurate then why do you not also conclude that the positive parallax measurements are also innaccurate? As the attached link showed. The distribution of positive and negative parallax measurements in the Tycho catalogue is equal with 25% negative parallax readings, 29% positive parallax readings and the remainder showing effectively no parallax. Also the magnitude of the readings were equal between negative and positive.

If it is impossible as you suggest in a stellar parallax scenario for negative readings to be recorded without error then we must conclude one of two things.
1. The equipment is faulty and is unable to record changes in star positions accurately and reliably; or
2. That the movements of the stars which are recorded are not actually proof of parallax at all but are simply proof that the stars themselves are moving.

As for whether or not this constitutes proof of Geocentrism. What I think it proves is that heliocentrism/acentrism is not supported by the observable facts and that Geocentrism is therefore the overwhelmingly most probable scenario.
  #6  
Old May 28, '10, 10:03 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
Physically, how can negative parallax exist? An object at infinity will have zero parallax, all closer objects will have positive parallax (maybe too small to measure).
Exactly. So therefore if negative parallax is an impossibility for objects at infinity, it proves therefore that what is being recorded is not a parallax reading at all but an actual movement in the position of the star.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VociMike View Post
Besides, what does this have to do with geocentrism? Whether the earth moves relative to the stars, or the stars move relative to the earth, the parallax will be the same.
I truly can't believe anyone could ask this question. Obviously I am contending that the stars are moving relative to us which is otherwise to say that the earth is NOT moving. Which is the whole point of the Geocentric argument.
  #7  
Old May 28, '10, 10:10 pm
VociMike VociMike is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2004
Posts: 8,730
Religion: Catholic (revert)
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Exactly. So therefore if negative parallax is an impossibility for objects at infinity, it proves therefore that what is being recorded is not a parallax reading at all but an actual movement in the position of the star.
Moving in what fashion? Straight line motion? Does geocentrism require that the stars move in straight line motion?

Quote:
I truly can't believe anyone could ask this question.
Sure you can.
__________________
"The Catholic Church is the only thing which saves a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

G.K. Chesterton
  #8  
Old May 28, '10, 10:16 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjm190 View Post
Where does this business of negative come in? Can stars shift with a 'negative' displacement?
Didn't you read the link. Negative parallax is recorded as frequently as positive parallax by the European Space Agency Hipparcos Satellite.

Have a look at this forum. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9185322AA7gwL2
Poor astronomy student struggling with negative parallax and wondering what to do with it.
Answer provided to struggle student. "Just ignore it, its an error".
JUST IGNORE IT?????????? IS that Science ???????

Just throw out the stars says the Astrophysics professor. Ironic. This is exactly what Copernicus did when he invented the concept of a solar system. He threw out the stars because they just don't fit into a heliocentric model.
  #9  
Old May 28, '10, 10:36 pm
pnewton's Avatar
pnewton pnewton is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 33,988
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
Your turtle comment is simply an ad hominen attack.
Do you think I am a fool do you who believes that the earth sits on the back of a turtle?

It seems that you do not clearly understand the issue here.
And I think you have no idea what an ad hominem attack is. I did not say one word about you. I was commenting on the argument and the ridiculous conclusion that it proved geocentrism. I think the only thing we see is evidence (not proof) that parallax measurements can be inaccurate in some cases. From your Yahoo link:

Quote:
If the answer is negative then the parallax angle is smaller than the errors in the astrometry - so the number is meaningless.
Such evidence does no more to prove geocentrism than it proves that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle.

If you think this statement is an ad hominem, then feel free to report it.
__________________
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in." - Jesus

Nooo!! I didn't mean it!
  #10  
Old May 28, '10, 11:07 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton View Post
And I think you have no idea what an ad hominem attack is. I did not say one word about you. I was commenting on the argument and the ridiculous conclusion that it proved geocentrism. I think the only thing we see is evidence (not proof) that parallax measurements can be inaccurate in some cases. From your Yahoo link:



Such evidence does no more to prove geocentrism than it proves that the Earth is on the back of a giant turtle.

If you think this statement is an ad hominem, then feel free to report it.
Alright then fair enought. Perhaps it was not strictly ad hominem, but it was a mocking comment designed to heap disdain and scorn upon the argument which I was raising. Which is by extension a negative reflection on the person who is raising and supporting the argument. All I ask is a fair crack of the whip. If I am wrong, then show me where I am wrong.

You provided this quote "If the answer is negative then the parallax angle is smaller than the errors in the astrometry - so the number is meaningless."

However this is simply not true. The negative numbers are just as large as the positive numbers and just as evenly distributed. Therefore if the "errors in the astrometry" are so great as to render all the negative measurements as meaningless then they should also render all the positive measurements as being meaningless as well. In which case there is no stellar parallax AT ALL. And if there is no stellar parallax then it can only be because THE EARTH IS STATIONERY.

You are going to have to provide a better analysis and explanation to counter my argument.
  #11  
Old May 28, '10, 11:32 pm
pnewton's Avatar
pnewton pnewton is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 33,988
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
The negative numbers are just as large as the positive numbers and just as evenly distributed.
I am trying to determine if this is true. So far, I have yet to see this substantiated. Your initial link does not reference any evidence.
__________________
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in." - Jesus

Nooo!! I didn't mean it!
  #12  
Old May 29, '10, 3:06 am
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton View Post
I am trying to determine if this is true. So far, I have yet to see this substantiated. Your initial link does not reference any evidence.
It references the Hipparcos database itself. http://www.rssd.esa.int/hipparcos_sc...MultiSearch.pl

Make sure you select the Tycho main catalog. Then search for a range of 500 > 700 mas. You will get about 30 stars. Now search the range of -700 > -500 and you will get about 45 stars. If you search from -900 > -700 you will actually find 2 stars. So there are actually more and larger negative parallax readings than there are positive parallax readings.
  #13  
Old May 29, '10, 3:21 am
Thing Thing is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: February 14, 2008
Posts: 2,478
Question Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

What is negative parallax? Does it mean that stars are moving during the measurement process and canceling out an expected parallax measurment? What about the other 'positive' parallax readings? How do they fit into a 'negative' parallax scenario?
__________________
We should silence anyone who opposes the right to freedom of speech. - Sir Boyle Roche
  #14  
Old May 29, '10, 3:44 pm
pnewton's Avatar
pnewton pnewton is offline
Forum Elder
 
Join Date: June 1, 2004
Posts: 33,988
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by excubitor View Post
So there are actually more and larger negative parallax readings than there are positive parallax readings.
No there are not. This conclusion shows that you are looking for data you like and rejecting other data. The catalogue contains 1,050,000 stars. Of these 580,000 are positive, or about 56%. No doubt the author of this paper searched for some parameter that would give him the reading he wanted. He also stuck with the catalogue he liked and discounted the Hipparcos as biased, as it did not give him the data he wanted.

There is not doubt as astronomers attempt to measure deeper and deeper sections of space, that they are trying to massage information out of very minute data changes. The argument might be made that we do not have the technology to accurate measure stars that distance. However, if coin a coin was flipped a million times and the odds of heads approached 56% as opposed to 50%, I would be convinced that the coin was not evenly balanced, or there was some other variable.

This so-called proof is insignificant to anyone who is not already a confirmed geocentrist and contains very poor science.
__________________
"Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in." - Jesus

Nooo!! I didn't mean it!
  #15  
Old May 29, '10, 4:28 pm
excubitor excubitor is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: October 4, 2009
Posts: 693
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Negative Stellar Parallax - Proof of Geocentrism and a smaller universe

Quote:
Originally Posted by pnewton View Post
No there are not. This conclusion shows that you are looking for data you like and rejecting other data. The catalogue contains 1,050,000 stars. Of these 580,000 are positive, or about 56%. No doubt the author of this paper searched for some parameter that would give him the reading he wanted. He also stuck with the catalogue he liked and discounted the Hipparcos as biased, as it did not give him the data he wanted.

There is not doubt as astronomers attempt to measure deeper and deeper sections of space, that they are trying to massage information out of very minute data changes. The argument might be made that we do not have the technology to accurate measure stars that distance. However, if coin a coin was flipped a million times and the odds of heads approached 56% as opposed to 50%, I would be convinced that the coin was not evenly balanced, or there was some other variable.

This so-called proof is insignificant to anyone who is not already a confirmed geocentrist and contains very poor science.
Quite incredible. Sounds like you are burying your head in the sand and pretending that the negative parallax readings do not exist.
Therefore it is you who is rejecting the data that does not fit into your preconceived heliocentric viewpoints.
Please explain why negative parallax readings are recorded. If you are qualified to judge what is good and what is bad science then you should have no trouble doing so.

As for the Hipparcos catalogue not containing the negative parallax readings, its very clear to me that the only reason why this would be the case is that we are not looking at raw measurements in this catalogue but are looking at deconvoluted data. What other explanation can account for the massive discrepancies between the measurements in the Hipparcos and Tycho catalogues? You tell me seeing you know what is good and what is bad science.

To get some feel for how Science deconvolutes data then please read this incredibly involved paper from harvard. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1995A&A...304...61L.
Unfortunately this paper will not let me cut and paste. But on Page 61 in the abstract it confirms that the data has been deconvoluted (fudged) for the Hipparcos catalogue.

The whole article basically discusses how much astronomers can cook the books by removing the negative parallax readings whilst still maintaining a credible scientific appearance. They use very scientific and technical jargon to obscure what is actually going on. In this case deconvolution of data is simply a scientific way of saying "fudging the data".

Have you heard of the saying "Lies, damn lies and statistics". Well the same holds true for scientific data. You can't rely on it because you do not know how it has been fudged. This kind of tampering with data has been going on since Copernicus was a boy. Its going on today in spectacular manner with the global warming debacle.

Again. Put on your good scientist hat please and explain to me the following
1. Why does the Tycho catalogue have 44% negative parallax readings whereas the Hipparcos catalogue has hardly any.

2. Why are there more and larger negative parallax readings in the Tycho catalogue than there are positive ones.

3. How it is possible according to the conventional model of astronomy for negative parallax readings to be recorded.

4. Why is it necessary for the people at harvard and scientists around the world to spend thousands of man days coming up with complex formulas of deconvolution to manipulate the negative parallax readings of the Tycho catalogue

That should be no trouble for you seeing you know how to do good science.
Closed Thread

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Apologetics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6648CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: njlisa
6273Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: hazcompat
5216Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4330Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3295For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2829Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Tis Bearself
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 2:37 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.