Thanks for restoring my post.
simonshack » 19 Apr 2018, 23:13 wrote:
I know, my writing style may seem overly-simplistic to you - but let us stay clear, focused & simple as we discuss about this. No need to stray into any "galactic considerations" - such as the distribution of stars in space. Observation tell us that 50% of the stars move one way - and 50% move the opposite way. Period. Can the Copernican model explain this? Nope. Can the TYCHOS model explain this? Yes.
I am aware that what I wrote doesn't disprove your model.
I think it is important to scrutinize everything you write in your book. As you know, people that don't like to question the ideas they learned will use any excuse to refrain from doing so. They will use any weakness in your book as an excuse to stop reading and dismiss the whole model. And your model deserves to be judged on its merits.
So I will continue to focus on everything.
To be clear, I don't find your writing style over-simplistic. You could call that statement I reacted to " the distribution of the stellar parallaxes (positive / negative/ and zero) will indeed be expected to be as they are, in fact, observed" over-simplistic. But I think it is probably an incorrect statement and I have shown why. It could even be seen as a result of confirmation bias. Much of conventional science shows where this leads to if you don't avoid that...
Your new post where you only explain the proportion the positive and negative parallaxes is better.
Regarding your quote from Robert G. Aitken:
You use this also in your book and compare the 26% figure that is mentioned there with the 25% of negative parallax values listed today in ESA’s Hipparcos catalogues.
But that is not a good comparison:
As is stated the 26% includes all stars with zero parallax, all the stars with negative parallax and all the stars with positive parallax less than or equal than their probable error.
While the 25% for the Hipparcos catalogue only include the stars with negative parallaxes. At least that is what I think because I don't know what is meant exactly by the "assumed zero parallax" category.
I followed the link you provided
in your book to find the source of those percentages. I think it is this.
Over 1 million objects are listed in the Tycho Main Catalogue, and they state: "The trigonometric
parallax is expressed in units of milliarcsec. The estimated parallax is given for every star, even if it
appears to be insignificant or negative (which may arise when the true parallax is smaller than its
25% have negative parallax, 29% positive parallax and 46% assumed zero parallax.
Tests were done to see if the stars moving across the instrument slit were directionally different in
the northern celestial hemisphere to what they were in the southern celestial hemisphere. Of the
non-zero-parallax stars in the northern celestial hemisphere, 45% of them had a negative parallax,
and in the southern celestial hemisphere, 46% of non-zero objects had a negative parallax.
Could this very symmetrical distribution be a naturally occurring phenomenon?
Didn't you predict that stars with positive parallax would mostly be situated in the southern celestial hemisphere and the stars with negative parallax in the northern celestial hemisphere?
BTW, the copernican model can't explain this either. But the old Tychosian model (without the PVP orbit) can: we would expect something like this if all the parallax was caused by the rotation of the earth.
However, I think this can't be explained properly without examining the individual parallax measurements in detail:
-How, where and when were the observations made exactly?
-How was the parallax calculated? Was the movement of the earth as predicted by the Copernican model used as a factor in the calculation?
I am looking forward to our talk on Skype.