[Tom Bishop]

The author has given us enough information about it to verify the information. Some of the sources linked to are dead now, but learning about negative parallax is a Google search away.

[AATW]

By "the author" you mean a man who says about himself

I’m 42, a high school drop out and autodidact in everything.

and

I aim to raise the level of the conversation out there, which seems rather pertinent. Not with ‘facts’ (these are overrated), but with opinion.

(both from https://migchels.wordpress.com/about/ )

So he has no scientific training and admits he writes opinions and doesn't take much notice of facts because they are "overrated".

The article is him just saying stuff, there's no detail, no backing up of anything he claims. There is only one link to a source in the entire article and it's a broken link.

Dude, seriously? This your source to back up your point?

[Tom Bishop]

I’m 42, a high school drop out and autodidact in everything.

and

I aim to raise the level of the conversation out there, which seems rather pertinent. Not with ‘facts’ (these are overrated), but with opinion.

(both from https://migchels.wordpress.com/about/ )

Sounds like sarcasm and humor to me.

So he has no scientific training and admits he writes opinions and doesn't take much notice of facts because they are "overrated".

The article is him just saying stuff, there's no detail, no backing up of anything he claims. There is only one link to a source in the entire article and it's a broken link.

Dude, seriously? This your source to back up your point?

As I said, verification is a few Google searches away.

[shootingstar]

Some stars do make movements... Movements that are contrary to RET, however.

Which movement would you be talking about there Tom?  The stellar movements w.r.t each other are called proper motions and are caused by the fact that all the stars are ultimately moving in orbits around the galactic core.  For a star about 2/3 of the way out from the galactic centre such as the Sun, that orbit takes about 250 million years. Hence observed proper motions over a human life time are very small indeed. Barnards star holds the speed record in this respect. 

As you probably know the N/S axis of the Milky Way Galaxy takes you along a line from a point in the constellation Coma Berenices then southwards into Sagittarius where the galactic centre is.  Hence the proper motions over time show very small arcs that can be seen to be concentric with the galactic centre.  Comparing the NGP with the NCP we see that the Solar System is orbitting the galactic centre with an inclination that effectively puts it on its side.

I'm sure none of that will interest you but I am just stating known (at least in the astronomy world) facts and there is nothing wrong with that.  How the movements I have described are contrary to RET perhaps you could enlighten me. When observing the motion of the stars in space, the shape and form of the Earth is irrelevenat.  You can treat it as a point source if you so choose.  It is just an observation point in space.

[AATW]

As I said, verification is a few Google searches away.

I found this

http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1943AnDea...4....1L/0000013.000.html

So now what?

[Tom Bishop]

As I said, verification is a few Google searches away.

I found this

http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1943AnDea...4....1L/0000013.000.html

So now what?

If they have to try to try to explain the negative parallaxes as errors or illusions of some sort, it appears that the author from the blog was correct, and that it is a problem.

[Tom Bishop]

An archive.org version of the negative parallax source in the article is here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100826022827/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

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.

[edby]

Learn about parallax here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/migchels.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/heliocentricity-is-dead-there-is-no-stellar-parallax/amp/

Some stars do make movements... Movements that are contrary to RET, however.

Which journal was this published in?

[Tom Bishop]

Learn about parallax here:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/migchels.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/heliocentricity-is-dead-there-is-no-stellar-parallax/amp/

Some stars do make movements... Movements that are contrary to RET, however.

Which journal was this published in?

It was published on a blog by a high school dropout who states that he is publishing opinion with no facual content. Why do you ask?

[JCM]

Before adding more unsupportable notions like close stars don’t you think you should prove the near Sun/Moon system first?  The near Sun/Moon are chasing each other and narrowing and widening their orbits significantly in your wiki.  Except there is a giant problem you keep ignoring....  The Sun/Moon aren’t following the same path, and the Sun/Moon are not speeding up for 6 months and slowing down for 6 months to make those orbits as easily measured from your backyard with little tools.

Then explain the phases of the Moon for a near Sun/Moon race as seen worldwide. 

These two incredibly basic things if your model (any of them) worked to explain this would be shouted loudly as it is actual evidence.

[Tom Bishop]

"Negative parallax" ..."suggests that there is some unexplained source of error"

"Negative parallax renders uncertain all deductions from these observations"

Quite the cosmic mystery.

[edby]

An archive.org version of the negative parallax source in the article is here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20100826022827/http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm

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.

We strongly question whether Dr. Jones really has the credentials he claims.
http://www.clavius.org/bibjones.html

[Tom Bishop]

Edby, astronomers obviously regard negative parallax as a mystery.

I will suggest that you seek to research and discuss the matter rather than looking for character assassination attempts, such as finding a quote where someone questions someone's credentials, which is a rather very poor argument and rebuttal of the content.

[edby]

Edby, astronomers obviously regard negative parallax as a mystery.

I will suggest that you seek to research and discuss the matter rather than looking for character assassination attempts, such as finding  quote where someone questions someone's credentials, which is a rather very poor argument and rebuttal of the content.

I question his credentials, and I always check credentials. If someone writes 'PhD' or mention they were connected to the Clarendon Laboratory, they are doing so to gain authority. If they don't have those credentials, then they are lying, i.e. falsifying credentials. I can find no evidence that this person is what he or she claims to be.

[Tom Bishop]

Edby, astronomers obviously regard negative parallax as a mystery.

I will suggest that you seek to research and discuss the matter rather than looking for character assassination attempts, such as finding  quote where someone questions someone's credentials, which is a rather very poor argument and rebuttal of the content.

I question his credentials, and I always check credentials. If someone writes 'PhD' or mention they were connected to the Clarendon Laboratory, they are doing so to gain authority. If they don't have those credentials, then they are lying, i.e. falsifying credentials. I can find no evidence that this person is what he or she claims to be.

So you are questioning his credentials, which you admit to have no knowledge of, but have no issue otherwise that negative parallax is a mystery to astronomy, as I provided reference in sources above?

[edby]

So you are questioning his credentials, which you have a knowledge of, but have no issue otherwise that negative parallax is a mystery to astronomy, as I provided reference in sources above?

References from the 1880s? I have found one peer reviewed paper on the subject, perhaps you can supply me with some more. I.e. peer reviewed papers in reliable journals.

[edby]

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.

[shootingstar]

Edby, astronomers obviously regard negative parallax as a mystery.

I don't think there is any mystery about parallaxes as such Tom. Basic trigonometry. However angles are necessarily very small and so inevitably the potential for systemmatic errors in measurement is greater as distances increase.  Modern methods of astrometry using a technique we call plate solving with CCD cameras (which can be done by amateurs now) have improved the results significantly. I won't go into the methods because I know that is 'not your thing'. 

As for older texts describing about 'negative parallaxes' and such like, I can well imagine that limitations in instrument accuracy would have led to all sorts of interesting and contradicting results. That would be your thing!

[AATW]

So you are questioning his credentials, which you admit to have no knowledge of, but have no issue otherwise that negative parallax is a mystery to astronomy, as I provided reference in sources above?

I already provided a source which suggested several explanations, one was error but there are other explanations.
You actually think this is some big mystery secretly in astronomy and "they" are hushing it all up in case we discover their terrible secret that they don't know what they're doing?

Can we all agree that pretty much any viewpoint can be found somewhere on the internet?
Just scouring the internet to find someone who says something you agree with isn't helpful, it doesn't move the debate along at all.
The caveat to that is if the someone actually has some credentials which make their opinion worth considering.
Yes yes, I know, appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Just because someone says something and the someone is an expert in a certain field it doesn't make them correct.
But expertise in a certain field gives them more credence than loonies shouting in corners of the internet.
Anyone can write a blog. Unless the person demonstrates some knowledge in the field they are talking about, has some qualifications or some professional experience then it's just someone shouting on a street corner. If that's the first source you came to then it's not giving much weight to your claim. And it's notable that your starting point in this discussion was "lack of parallax", something which would demonstrate distant stars, not close ones. I note you've failed to address that...

[Tom Bishop]

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.