The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: shootingstar on December 30, 2018, 09:24:20 AM
-
As someone who has been fascinated by astronomy and physics for a large part of my life I find the Stars page of FE wiki quite heavy reading. That being the case I should think that a lot of people with an interest in FET but less of a scientific mind would also find it somewhat confusing.
So I wonder if someone with the know how could perhaps simplify it a bit and also explain how the gradual change in star positions due to precession is explained in FET. For example in 50,000 years or so, Polaris will no longer be the 'Pole Star' but Vega will instead.
Also this talk about the Sun circling the Earth in the way that FET talks about concerns me because we know it doesn't. The common barycentre is actually located at a point in space which lies within the volume of the Sun itself. FE people seem to think that changing nature and make the Sun orbit the Earth is acceptable in order to make it fit in with the theory they believe in rather than adapting their theory accordingly.
-
As someone who has been fascinated by astronomy and physics for a large part of my life I find the Stars page of FE wiki quite heavy reading. That being the case I should think that a lot of people with an interest in FET but less of a scientific mind would also find it somewhat confusing.
So I wonder if someone with the know how could perhaps simplify it a bit and also explain how the gradual change in star positions due to precession is explained in FET. For example in 50,000 years or so, Polaris will no longer be the 'Pole Star' but Vega will instead.
Also this talk about the Sun circling the Earth in the way that FET talks about concerns me because we know it doesn't. The common barycentre is actually located at a point in space which lies within the volume of the Sun itself. FE people seem to think that changing nature and make the Sun orbit the Earth is acceptable in order to make it fit in with the theory they believe in rather than adapting their theory accordingly.
It's useful to separate at least two things, namely (i) observations and (ii) explanations or models. An example of the first is that the sun rises and sets every day. An example of the second is the FE model that has the sun circling above a flat earth. (Other examples of the second are the Ptolemaic model of a celestial sphere circling an earth at the centre of the universe, or the Copernican theory of earth and planets circling round sun etc, but never mind).
Some way in between, but I will include under (i) are accounts of what the current mainstream scientific model states. These need to be both accurate and clear. I agree with you that these are rarely clear, moreover sometimes they are not accurate.
It's not a problem if the wiki gives its own interpretations of the observable facts, and that's the whole point. But it should be giving accurate and clear depictions of mainstream science.
Do you have examples of such depictions that fall from that standard, i.e. which are either inaccurate or unclear?
-
The Stars page is here (https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars). It appears to have been started (https://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=Stars&action=history) by someone called Daniel (Shenton?). It opens ‘The sun, moon, and stars are all rotating around a central point over the North Pole.’ It’s not clear whether that means they appear to rotate, or whether they actually rotate in this way. They don’t in fact appear to rotate that way, so presumably the opening sentence is describing how FE models the observations.
It then says the cause of this rotation ‘is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attraction - an imaginary point of shared attraction’, and that ‘each star in a cluster is attracted to one another through gravitational vectors. Formation is created through gravitational capture’. That’s broadly clear except we are lacking an explanation of why the whole system doesn’t collapse onto the common centre. We might conjecture Newtonian mechanics, but FE doesn’t like this.
Note that in this revision (https://wiki.tfes.org/index.php?title=Stars&diff=592&oldid=591) on 7 March 2012, Tom removed the statement implying that the model was ‘completely compliant with the Newtonian system’.
[EDIT] On the other hand, there is this strange statement
The stars maintain their movement over the years through Newton's first law: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
This accepts Newtonian mechanics, but if Newtonian mechanics is correct, the rest of the stuff is incorrect. E.g. Newtonian mechanics doesn't say that circular motion is the most stable and perfect. Quite the opposite.
-
I think it widely enough known these days that the east to west motion of the sky that we see is due to the west to east direction of the rotating Earth. The seasons provide evidence of the axial tilt of the Earth and the movement of the Sun against the stars through the year provides evidence of the Earth orbiting the Sun.
The Ptolemaic model that you speak of was built on his interpretation of the motion of the heavens as he saw it. At the time he would have had no way of knowing the true reasons for the motions and so he would have had no reason to doubt his own observations. Gradually a better understanding developed and it became apparent that a simpler and more reliable way of explaining observed phenomenon in the sky could be made if the Earth was replaced by the Sun at the centre of the 'Universe'. This heliocentric model, first theorised by Aristarchus and later backed up by Copernicus was finally supported by observational evidence from the early 17th century onwards.
The point is that mainstream science continues to develop and build on accumulated knowledge and discoveries. Contrary to the popular view of FE supporters scientists are not inclined towards faking things or misfeeding wrong information to the public. FET just seems to be fixed in the past and based largely on old interpretations that we know are wrong.
-
is a vast cornucopia of stellar systems orbiting around its center of attractio
That I would take it is how FET defines a galaxy.
-
I think it widely enough known these days that the east to west motion of the sky that we see is due to the west to east direction of the rotating Earth. The seasons provide evidence of the axial tilt of the Earth and the movement of the Sun against the stars through the year provides evidence of the Earth orbiting the Sun.
The Ptolemaic model that you speak of was built on his interpretation of the motion of the heavens as he saw it. At the time he would have had no way of knowing the true reasons for the motions and so he would have had no reason to doubt his own observations. Gradually a better understanding developed and it became apparent that a simpler and more reliable way of explaining observed phenomenon in the sky could be made if the Earth was replaced by the Sun at the centre of the 'Universe'. This heliocentric model, first theorised by Aristarchus and later backed up by Copernicus was finally supported by observational evidence from the early 17th century onwards.
The point is that mainstream science continues to develop and build on accumulated knowledge and discoveries. Contrary to the popular view of FE supporters scientists are not inclined towards faking things or misfeeding wrong information to the public. FET just seems to be fixed in the past and based largely on old interpretations that we know are wrong.
Right, but this point will get you nowhere here. Best to focus on statements that verifiably misinterpret mainstream science, or which are demonstrably unclear.
Note there's a sort of rule here that if you make statements like 'mainstream science is correct' or 'FET is incorrect' when completely unsupported, you are liable to get warnings from the mods. It is perfectly OK to say 'mainstream science is correct here because of X', however.
-
The Ptolemaic model that you speak of was built on his interpretation of the motion of the heavens as he saw it.
Sure, but I come back to my point that we shouldn't say stuff like 'mainstream science is correct'. Rather, mainstream science offers the best explanation for what we observe, where 'best' means the most simple or economical. Ptolemy's explanation works, if you put in enough epicycles, but it is far from simple. Newton's explanation, which is incredibly simple once you get past the maths, is elegant and economical, and Science prefers that.
The FE belief has no model at all, as far as I can see, but that's a separate question.
-
Further to that mainstream science also offers a lot of evidence which can be consistently verified, demonstrated and used to correctly predict future events. Science does not get things right all the time and doesn't have all the answers. That is what makes it what it is. Scientists like simplicity and the current laws of physics as we understand them provides that simplicity which applies equally not just here on Earth but everywhere in the Universe.
The Steady State Theory was put foward as a possibly alternative to the Big Bang. However the Steady State Theory couldn't account for the CMB whereas the Big Bang Theory predicted both its existence and the wavelength/temperature at which it was found. When the CMB was discovered in the 1960s exactly in accordance with prediction the SST was discarded.
-
I think the stars page should be deleted and rewritten at some point, mainly with evidence that the stars are close by.
There also needs to be less mention of a free-floating Newtonian multiple system, since it contradicts some of our other points about the n-body problems.
-
I think the stars page should be deleted and rewritten at some point, mainly with evidence that the stars are close by.
What's the evidence for stars being close by?
-
Off the top of my head:
- The Airey's Failure experiment which shows that the stars are moving, not the earth
- Some stars seen to occasionally float in front of the moon (see recent transparent moon thread)
- Lack of parallax
- The content of Kings Dethroned book which mainly focuses on the incorrect assumptions of astronomy and the distance to the celestial bodies
Each of these articles is a project and every sentence and claim requires research and justification. Unfortunately there are only a few interested in contributing.
-
Off the top of my head:
- The Airey's Failure experiment which shows that the stars are moving, not the earth
- Some stars seen to occasionally float in front of the moon (see recent transparent moon thread)
- Lack of parallax
- The content of Kings Dethroned book which mainly focuses on the incorrect assumptions of astronomy and the distance to the celestial bodies
Each of these articles is a project and every sentence and claim requires research and justification. Unfortunately there are only a few interested in contributing.
I hear you, that is a lot to suss out. I was just curious as to what the big hitters are.
Airey's failure should be interesting, hotly debated. Rope Sandokan into that one, a favorite of his. And yep, remember the transparent moon thread, not sure where that stands. Lack of Parallax I'm unfamiliar with, but will look into it. And yeah, not so sure about Kings Dethroned. We've gone through that to some degree and if memory serves, it's pretty fringe without much if any substantiation to his reasoning. But you can sort out that one.
-
Off the top of my head:
- The Airey's Failure experiment which shows that the stars are moving, not the earth
One persons 'failure' does not prove anything right or wrong. Newton didn't belief that the colours he saw when passing sunlight through a glass prism were due to the nature of light itself
- Some stars seen to occasionally float in front of the moon (see recent transparent moon thread)
No they don't. Satellites do though
- Lack of parallax
Wrong... Parallaxes have been measured for many stars, especially those 20 light years or closer
- The content of Kings Dethroned book which mainly focuses on the incorrect assumptions of astronomy and the distance to the celestial bodies
No idea about his but it sounds like one of your commonly used references from ancient times.
Each of these articles is a project and every sentence and claim requires research and justification. Unfortunately there are only a few interested in contributing.
-
I am still not sure what the motive is for the FET. I have long been aware of the notion of flat Earth theories but I until recently I just assumed that such thoughts belonged back in the days gone by when no one really knew any better. I was quite intrigued when I found out that there are still people around in the developed world who still carry these beliefs with them.
So that led me to wonder whether the motive behind that was simply to rebel against certain sections of society or something else. Certainly many of the statements that FE believers come up with, and this is just a personal view, can only be described as ridiculous.
Evidence of us living on large globe is clearly presented to us for anyone who cares to watch the skies over a period of time. Of course how you interpret what you see is another matter. You can either make your own interpretations based on what you see or form a judgement first and then try and make what you see fit in with that judgement. Whichever is easier is most likely to be correct.
-
- Lack of parallax
That's interesting, as historically the lack of parallax was the reason astronomers thought the stars were a very very long way away.
This book is a fascinating read
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Parallax-Measure-Alan-W-Hirshfeld/dp/0716737116
-
Precisely. Parallax angles are always small and astronomers use the widest baseline possible which is the Earths orbit. That in itself will cause FE believers a problem because they don't believe the Earth moves in space. Beyond the parallax limit other methods are used such as period/luminosity plotting in the case of Cepheid variables.
-
- Lack of parallax
This is a weird one because it's wrong in so many ways. Well, 2 really.
Firstly, a lack of significant parallax would indicate distant stars, not close ones.
I have said on here multiple times that were the sun, moon and stars as close as you suppose then you could easily measure the distance using parallax with viewers taking observations at different locations.
Secondly, although the parallax is small, there is some and it is used to determine the distance of some stars
https://www.space.com/30417-parallax.html
-
I have said on here multiple times that were the sun, moon and stars as close as you suppose then you could easily measure the distance using parallax with viewers taking observations at different locations.
Or merely by viewers waiting while some constellation rotates around Polaris. When the constellation is above my head and South of Polaris,it will be closer than when it rotates beyond and north of Polaris. We would expect the size of the constellation, measured in angular magnitude, to be smaller when more distant.
Of course this could be caused by light bending such as then the sun moves across the sky with constant magnitude. Perspective causes the sun to decrease in apparent size, but light bending magnifies it again.
The FE model, whatever it is, is far more complex than RE.
-
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.
-
Ha. The URL "heliocentricity-is-dead-there-is-no-stellar-parallax" makes me already excited about the nice, unbiased, scientific content I will find.
It's good confirmation bias, isn't it? :)
I'm reading it. I've got to the bit where he says
"By explaining away the lack of stellar parallax, Copernicus was in fact not in accordance with Occam’s razor, which claims that the simplest solution is usually best."
That made me giggle, as though Occam's Razor was an immutable property of the universe rather than a vague principle which doesn't necessarily always hold.
I'll keep reading.
I don't know what this guy's qualifications are to talk about this by the way, he hasn't provided a single reference so far. I will read on.
Disappointing. I've got to his first reference and it's a dead link...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
"Negative parallax" ..."suggests that there is some unexplained source of error" (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 renders uncertain all deductions from these observations (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)"
Quite the cosmic mystery.
-
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
-
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, 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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...
-
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.
-
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?
-
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?
-
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, from your source on p.1:
You may want to read that source again carefully.
-
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".
-
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"
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
(https://i.imgur.com/EZlzxJc.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/4pWl6AJ.png)
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.
-
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
-
There are numerous stars in the Draco constillation. It's not a single star.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Remind me which star you are talking about and I will check for myself and get back to you.