[edby]

Claiming that all observations which prove your theory wrong are incorrect errors and that all observations which prove your theory correct is evidence of stellar parralax as predicted by your theory sounds exaclty like what the authors from the previous links were complaining about.

There is a whole science of data error. You look at the standard deviation of all errors, positive and negative, and work out the probability of a given exception falling within the bounds of probability, or being a genuine outlier.

You recall the data on lighthouses. I did some more statistical work and found a very high margin of error in Findlay's results, particularly those outside England. You then ask the probability that the outlying values are statistically expected, or whether the indicate a fundamental flaw in the theory.

All measurement aiming at a very high precision will be subject to data error, precisely because of their high precision. Does that make sense?

[Bad Puppy]

There is this from 1943, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1943AnDea...4....1L which says that essentially there is no mystery about negative parallax.

I have a more recent paper which I am checking out now, but which states much the same thing, i.e. statistical error. Remember we are measuring incredibly small angles here, which could not be detected before instruments used by Bessel.

That is the same paper that AATW posted. Claiming that all observations which prove your theory wrong are incorrect errors, and that all observations which prove your theory correct is evidence of stellar parralax as predicted by your theory, sounds exaclty like what the authors from the previous links were complaining about.

Tom, isn't that what you do with any evidence that proves FET wrong?

[Tom Bishop]

Edby, from your source on p.1:

"a large negative parallax may be just as real as an equal positive parallax"

Author admits that there are large negative parallaxes. If those are all errors, then he seems to be casting doubt on the whole practice altogether.

The argument of "astronomy is wrong" doesn't seem like it will take you anywhere in this discussion, to further your side at least.

[edby]

Edby, from your source on p.1:

You may want to read that source again carefully.

[Tom Bishop]

Edby, from your source on p.1:

You may want to read that source again carefully.

I did. I saw the words "large negative parallax".

[AATW]

Edby, from your source on p.1:

You may want to read that source again carefully.

I did. I saw the words "large negative parallax".

You seem to have missed the words

"Essentially there is no mystery about negative parallaxes"

[Tom Bishop]

Edby, from your source on p.1:

You may want to read that source again carefully.

I did. I saw the words "large negative parallax".

You seem to have missed the words

"Essentially there is no mystery about negative parallaxes"

If you are rejecting anything that disagrees with your theory, why should there be?

[edby]

If you are rejecting anything that disagrees with your theory, why should there be?

You still need to read the source more carefully, and follow what is being said.

[AATW]

If you are rejecting anything that disagrees with your theory, why should there be?

Pretty poor attempt at trolling.
Your claim is that negative parallax is an issue for astronomy, you said it was a “mystery”. Your source is the Internet equivalent of a crazy person shouting on a street corner...

Edby and myself have provided a more credible source - as it’s in an actual professional astronomy publication -which explains negative parallax and why it is not a mystery.

If you don’t understand the explanation then I’ll add that to the list, but just pointing out an article about negative parallax contains the words “negative parallax” adds nothing to this discussion.

[Tom Bishop]

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





The above astronomer says that astronomers tend to jump to subjective instrumental errors at the drop of hat. He points out and declares that y Draconis has a large negative parallax and aberration that is impossible to accept, and that this was found and verified by others, by "however and whomever treated the outcome".

Where are these errors coming from? Why do other astronomers see the large errors too?

The astronomer goes on to defend the theory of the tools as essentially perfect.

[stack]

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

The above astronomer says that astronomers tend to jump to subjective instrumental errors at the drop of hat. He points out and declares that y Draconis has a large negative parallax and aberration that is impossible to accept, and that this was found and verified by others, by "however and whomever treated the outcome".

Where are these errors coming from? Why do other astronomers see the large errors too?

The astronomer goes on to defend the theory of the tools as essentially perfect.

Maybe we have better instrumrnts than they did 120 or so years ago.

Here's an interesting article on Draconis parallax history:

"Seeing Earth’s Orbit in the Stars: Parallax and Aberration"

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.2061

[Tom Bishop]

There are numerous stars in the Draco constillation. It's not a single star.

[stack]

There are numerous stars in the Draco constillation. It's not a single star.

From what I've read, there are three stars in the Draco constellation. y Draconis, aka Gamma Draconis, is the brightest of the three. I think all of these references are in regard to Gamma Draconis.

[Tom Bishop]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stars_in_Draco

It seems that there are a lot of draconis stars.

However, you are correct tht both sources are talking about gamma draconis.

[shootingstar]

From what I've read, there are three stars in the Draco constellation. y Draconis, aka Gamma Draconis, is the brightest of the three. I think all of these references are in regard to Gamma Draconis.

Clearly you guys don't know the night sky very well.  Draco is quite a large constellation that winds itself around the NP of the sky between Ursa Minor, Cepheus and even through to the borders of Hercules.

[stack]

From what I've read, there are three stars in the Draco constellation. y Draconis, aka Gamma Draconis, is the brightest of the three. I think all of these references are in regard to Gamma Draconis.

Clearly you guys don't know the night sky very well.  Draco is quite a large constellation that winds itself around the NP of the sky between Ursa Minor, Cepheus and even through to the borders of Hercules.

Clearly, and I agree with your assessment. The point I was fumbling to make is that these negative parallax references we're tossing about are seemingly specific to Gamma Draconis, not the constellation. So to examine the notion that Tom has that negative parallax does something to prove something, we've landed, metaphorically, on Gamma Draconis.

[shootingstar]

My assessment of this negative parallax that we seem to be getting a bit obsessed by is almost certainly down to systematic errors and human errors. These occurred in the past because the equipment used back then made it very difficult indeed to measure the very small changes in position that we see in parallax measurement even when using opposite sides of the Earths orbit which is the widest baseline we have.  That in itself implies that the stars are all very distant indeed.

You cannot have a real 'negative' angle other than to say +355 degrees is the equivalent of -5 degrees if you get my drift.  In terms of parallax measurement we would be talking in terms of seconds or even fractions of seconds of arc. That is approaching the diffraction limit of resolution for most amateur telescopes and not easy to measure at all especially when you add atmospheric turbulence into the mix.  So go back to the last century or even before and it would be even harder.

I talk about this purely from the point of observational astronomy as that is all I can do. I know that is rarely compatible with the FE hypothesis point of view.  Hopefully some of the info I present is useful in part at least.

[Tom Bishop]

My assessment of this negative parallax that we seem to be getting a bit obsessed by is almost certainly down to systematic errors and human errors.

Then why do multiple different astronomers observe large negative parallax with the same star, as mentioned above?

[shootingstar]

Remind me which star you are talking about and I will check for myself and get back to you.