Parallax

  • 24 Replies
  • 4131 Views
?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Parallax
« on: May 05, 2011, 11:35:21 AM »
How does Flat Earth explain the existence of a parallax in certain stars?  The discovery of a parallax amongst certain stars is what led to a wider acceptance of the Heliocentric model.  Also what is the reason for retrograde motion amongst the planets in FE theory?  Both of these rely heavily upon our understanding of orbits and movements of the earth.   

Re: Parallax
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2011, 02:27:24 PM »
Parallax can also be used to measure the distance between the earth and the moon.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2011, 02:36:21 PM »
I checked the Wiki and it explains why the stars rotate around Polaris (the north star),  but I could not find a page that explained the parallax.  Also, the north star changes over time (It was different during the time of the ancient Egyptians) due to the tilt of the earths axis slowly rotating.  This will eventually leave us with a south star and no north star.  How does flat earth explain this?

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Parallax
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2011, 03:47:28 PM »
I checked the Wiki and it explains why the stars rotate around Polaris (the north star),  but I could not find a page that explained the parallax.  Also, the north star changes over time (It was different during the time of the ancient Egyptians) due to the tilt of the earths axis slowly rotating.  This will eventually leave us with a south star and no north star.  How does flat earth explain this?

Did you go back in time and take pictures of what Polaris looked like thousands of years ago?

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2011, 04:40:19 PM »
I checked the Wiki and it explains why the stars rotate around Polaris (the north star),  but I could not find a page that explained the parallax.  Also, the north star changes over time (It was different during the time of the ancient Egyptians) due to the tilt of the earths axis slowly rotating.  This will eventually leave us with a south star and no north star.  How does flat earth explain this?

Did you go back in time and take pictures of what Polaris looked like thousands of years ago?

No but if you do a little research you will find that the great pyramids of Egypt are pointed at the north star, but they are not pointed at Polaris, they are aligned with Thuban, because at the time of construction that was the north star.

Even if you do not believe that, the question still remains as to why some stars exhibit parallax movements while others do not.  An even more puzzling question is one that is best answered via the heliocentric model, my question regarding retrograde motion of the planets. 

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2011, 04:45:54 PM »
The planets exhibit retrograde motion because they orbit the sun. I'm not sure why this is a hang up for you.
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

Re: Parallax
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2011, 04:57:01 PM »
how do the planets orbit the sun, and if they do, why doesn't the earth, and what holds them in orbit? I thought the FE folk didn't beleive in gravity? and isn't the sun 32 miles wide? that's not big enough to trap planets  ???

Re: Parallax
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2011, 04:58:28 PM »
how do the planets orbit the sun, and if they do, why doesn't the earth, and what holds them in orbit? I thought the FE folk didn't beleive in gravity? and isn't the sun 32 miles wide? that's not big enough to trap planets  ???

Too cool for FAQs eh?

Re: Parallax
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2011, 05:07:36 PM »
I'm sorry, but I have read the faq section, but all the reference material is hundreds of years old, I am seeking modern experiments and evidence so I can shut my damm brothers up once and fo rall, but the faqs just state different things, it doesn't explain anything, that's why I am asking you, the enlightened brotherhood to help me on my own fe journey!

Re: Parallax
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2011, 05:11:25 PM »
I'm sorry, but I have read the faq section, but all the reference material is hundreds of years old, I am seeking modern experiments and evidence so I can shut my damm brothers up once and fo rall, but the faqs just state different things, it doesn't explain anything, that's why I am asking you, the enlightened brotherhood to help me on my own fe journey!

Tell them to join!

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2011, 05:18:05 PM »
The planets exhibit retrograde motion because they orbit the sun. I'm not sure why this is a hang up for you.

retrograde motion occurs when the earth passes a slower planets orbit.  It requires the earth to be in its own orbit.  Its the same principle as passing a car.  When you pass a car on the freeway, you have to look back to see it, even though it is moving forward, you are just going forward faster.  If the earth is not orbiting the sun you must include epicycles to compensate for the retrograde motion.  Does the FE model compensate for retrograde motion using epicycles?

Also id still like an answer for parallax and why the north star changes over time.

*

Tausami

  • Head Editor
  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6767
  • Venerated Official of the High Zetetic Council
Re: Parallax
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2011, 05:19:56 PM »
I checked the Wiki and it explains why the stars rotate around Polaris (the north star),  but I could not find a page that explained the parallax.  Also, the north star changes over time (It was different during the time of the ancient Egyptians) due to the tilt of the earths axis slowly rotating.  This will eventually leave us with a south star and no north star.  How does flat earth explain this?

Did you go back in time and take pictures of what Polaris looked like thousands of years ago?

No but if you do a little research you will find that the great pyramids of Egypt are pointed at the north star, but they are not pointed at Polaris, they are aligned with Thuban, because at the time of construction that was the north star.

Except that that's just conjecture from historians. We can't know for sure.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2011, 05:43:11 PM »
I checked the Wiki and it explains why the stars rotate around Polaris (the north star),  but I could not find a page that explained the parallax.  Also, the north star changes over time (It was different during the time of the ancient Egyptians) due to the tilt of the earths axis slowly rotating.  This will eventually leave us with a south star and no north star.  How does flat earth explain this?

Did you go back in time and take pictures of what Polaris looked like thousands of years ago?



No but if you do a little research you will find that the great pyramids of Egypt are pointed at the north star, but they are not pointed at Polaris, they are aligned with Thuban, because at the time of construction that was the north star.

Except that that's just conjecture from historians. We can't know for sure.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia - All of the references are posted.

"Thuban was the naked-eye star closest to the north pole from 3942 BC, when it moved farther north than Theta Boötis, until 1793 BC, when it was superseded by Kappa Draconis. It was closest to the pole in 2787 BC, when it was less than two and a half arc-minutes away from the pole. It remained within one degree of true north for nearly 200 years afterwards, and even 900 years after its closest approach, was just five degrees off the pole. Thuban was considered the pole star until about 1900 BC, when the much brighter Kochab began to approach the pole as well."

The ancients recorded very accurately the movement of the stars,  And unless you are suggesting that the builders of the pyramids were in on the conspiracy and purposefully built the pyramids towards a star that we would believe later on (present day) to have once been the north star, its pretty clear that Thuban was in fact the North Star.

EDIT - 3 questions are still unanswered

1.)  Why do the planets show retrograde motion if the earth does not move along the same orbital plane as the planets that exhibit this motion.

2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?

3.)  Why does the North Star change over time.  (As recorded by the ancients through both their writings and structures.)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2011, 06:01:32 PM by OrbisNonSufficit »

?

Around And About

  • 2615
  • Circular Logic Falls Flat
Re: Parallax
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2011, 06:16:01 PM »
Except that that's just conjecture from historians. We can't know for sure.

You're the best DA ever.  ::)
I'm not black nor a thug, I'm more like god who will bring 7 plagues of flat earth upon your ass.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2011, 08:15:37 PM »
1.)  Why do the planets show retrograde motion if the earth does not move along the same orbital plane as the planets that exhibit this motion.

2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?

3.)  Why does the North Star change over time.  (As recorded by the ancients through both their writings and structures.)

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2011, 08:23:49 PM »
The planets exhibit retrograde motion because they orbit the sun. I'm not sure why this is a hang up for you.
 It requires the earth to be in its own orbit.

It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.


2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?
Some stars are farther away than others.

Quote
3.)  Why does the North Star change over time.  (As recorded by the ancients through both their writings and structures.)
Why could they not?
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40935
Re: Parallax
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2011, 08:28:17 PM »
The planets exhibit retrograde motion because they orbit the sun. I'm not sure why this is a hang up for you.
 It requires the earth to be in its own orbit.

It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.

However, Tycho Brahe demonstrated it in a RE context so it really doesn't help FET at all.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Parallax
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2011, 08:40:53 PM »
The planets exhibit retrograde motion because they orbit the sun. I'm not sure why this is a hang up for you.
It requires the earth to be in its own orbit.

It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.

No. Brahe's model of the orbits doesn't work. It is equivalent to the Copernican model, but Kepler provides better data than either. The retrograde motion is completely (and simply) explained by Kepler with the Newtonian correction factors.
Quote
Quote

2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?
Some stars are farther away than others.

Which works if the Earth is moving relative to the stars.
Quote
Quote
3.)  Why does the North Star change over time.  (As recorded by the ancients through both their writings and structures.)
Why could they not?

Here's an issue: if one has two hypotheses and one explains something and the other doesn't, the first one is generally a better explanation. In this case, we have a known phenomenon that is explained by RE and isn't explained by FE.

*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8646
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #18 on: May 05, 2011, 08:51:46 PM »
It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.
... , but Kepler provides better data than either.
I find that fascinating since it is widely held that Kepler simply stole Brahe's data.


Quote
Quote
2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?
Some stars are farther away than others.

Which works if the Earth is moving relative to the stars. [/quote]
How exactly did you decide which frame of reference was correct?

"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2011, 02:33:19 AM »
It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.
... , but Kepler provides better data than either.
I find that fascinating since it is widely held that Kepler simply stole Brahe's data.

How did Tycho demonstrate that without earth movement or epicycles retrograde motion was possible, I tried to find the info on my own but could not. 

Quote
Quote
2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?
Some stars are farther away than others.

Which works if the Earth is moving relative to the stars.
 
How exactly did you decide which frame of reference was correct?
[/quote]

Not sure what you are asking but i am guessing you mean how do we know that its not the stars movement, but that it is our movement creating the parallax?

Well first off in the FAQ the stars are at 3100 miles in altitude in FE, so no, they are not all at different distances.  Perhaps the FAQ is wrong, and the stars are at different distances.

This is still not a reason for the parallax to exist.  If the earth is not moving, and it is indeed simply the stars shifting their alignment back and fourth, what mechanism is creating this effect.  Is DE somehow creating a pattern on top of the universal acceleration? 

To answer your question regarding accepting one point of reference over another - I guess the simplest answer is most likely the best.  Rather than jump to the conclusion that the stars are moving ever so slightly due to some unknown (maybe you know) force, i am simply choosing to believe that the earth rotates around the sun. 


1.)  How does retrograde motion work in FE?  If Brahe has shown this please post a link, i am really just curious.

2.)  Why does the stellar parallax exist in FE?

3.)To answer the question regarding the changing of the north star - In RE the earth's axis (the 23.5 degree slant) rotates once every 24000 to 26000 years.  In Flat earth does this 23.5 degree shift occur in the stars themselves, and if so, what causes this seemingly random event?


Re: Parallax
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2011, 06:04:32 AM »
It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.
... , but Kepler provides better data than either.
I find that fascinating since it is widely held that Kepler simply stole Brahe's data.

Please reread the discussion. We're not talking about Kepler's empirical data (which he did get from Brahe and no one ever said otherwise). We're talking about the *models* that all three used. The model provides much better predictions.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
2.)  Why do some stars show greater parallax motion than others?
Some stars are farther away than others.

Which works if the Earth is moving relative to the stars.
How exactly did you decide which frame of reference was correct?


My barber suggested which I should use. Nice chap by the name of Occam.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40935
Re: Parallax
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2011, 07:45:38 AM »
It does not, as Tycho Brahe so clearly demonstrated years ago.
... , but Kepler provides better data than either.
I find that fascinating since it is widely held that Kepler simply stole Brahe's data.

Perhaps JoshuaZ should have said that Kepler provided a better interpretation of the data than Tycho did.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2011, 09:21:38 AM »
I am still confused as to why the stellar parallax exists in a model where the earth does not move, and I am also confused as to how Brahe devised a planetary system model that is just as accurate as Kepler model without using epicycles and also explaining retrograde motion.  The Geocentric model that he proposed, (at least the one that i know of) was not as accurate at predicting the motion of the planets due to its failure to include elliptical orbits.

Also it would be great if someone could tell me how the north star changes over time in the flat earth model, as it is a bit confusing.

Re: Parallax
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2011, 11:16:12 AM »
I am still confused as to why the stellar parallax exists in a model where the earth does not move, and I am also confused as to how Brahe devised a planetary system model that is just as accurate as Kepler model without using epicycles and also explaining retrograde motion.  The Geocentric model that he proposed, (at least the one that i know of) was not as accurate at predicting the motion of the planets due to its failure to include elliptical orbits.


Your confusion is justified. Regarding Brahe, his model is functionally identical to Copernicus but is less accurate than Kepler for obvious reasons.

?

OrbisNonSufficit

  • 3124
  • I love Gasoline.
Re: Parallax
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2011, 11:53:59 AM »
I am still confused as to why the stellar parallax exists in a model where the earth does not move, and I am also confused as to how Brahe devised a planetary system model that is just as accurate as Kepler model without using epicycles and also explaining retrograde motion.  The Geocentric model that he proposed, (at least the one that i know of) was not as accurate at predicting the motion of the planets due to its failure to include elliptical orbits.


Your confusion is justified. Regarding Brahe, his model is functionally identical to Copernicus but is less accurate than Kepler for obvious reasons.

It's a relatively simple occurrence in RE, how could it be possible that FE would have no explanation for it?