[quote="pnewton, post:14, topic:199954"]
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. 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.
Why are there more and larger negative parallax readings in the Tycho catalogue than there are positive ones.
How it is possible according to the conventional model of astronomy for negative parallax readings to be recorded.
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.