1. If we accept the Copernican viewpoint and its unavoidable extrapolations with regard to the structure of the universe, we have to accept the consequences. Then we cannot hold on to the picture of a simple sun- centered cosmos, of which not even Newton was fully convinced, but which Bradley and Molyneux took for granted. Today the astronomers assure us that our Great Light is only an insignificant member of a spiral Milky Way galaxy, containing billions of stars. Our sun flies at a speed of about 250 km/sec around the center of this system. And that is not all, the ruling cosmology also tells us how the Milky Way itself whirls at 360,000 km/hr through the space occupied by the local group of galaxies. Now all these imposing particulars are theoretically gathered from observations assuming the speed of light to be 300,000 km/sec, at least, everywhere through our spatial neighborhood. But if this cosmological panorama is put through its paces, there is a hitch somewhere. The astronomical theorists cannot have their cake and eat it. If they accept— as all the textbooks still do!—Bradley's “proof” of the Copernican truth, then their cosmological extrapolations of that truth clash with a not-yet developed simple heliocentrism; that is to say, with the model of an earth orbiting a spatially unmoved sun.
The other way around, when holding on to their galactic conjectures, they are at a loss how to account for a steady 20”.5 stellar aberration. For in that scheme our earth, dragged along by the sun, joins in this minor star's 250 km/sec revolution around the center of the Milky Way. If, for instance, in March we indeed would be moving parallel to the sun's motion, our velocity would become 250+30 = 280 km/sec, and in September 250-30 = 220 km/sec. The “aberration of starlight,” according to post- Copernican doctrine, depends on the ratio of the velocity of the earth to the speed of light.
As that velocity changes the ratio changes. Hence Bradley's 20”.496 should change, too. But it does not. Therefore, there is truly a fly in this astronomical ointment, paraded and promoted as a truth.
2.For those who maybe don't know:
1 sec. of an arc = An angle subtended by a U.S. dime coin at a distance of 4 km!!!
1 mas =
1/1000000 sec. of an arcTycho Brahe was able to measure angles about 0,3 minutes of an arc.
Casini was able to measure angles about 3,6 seconds of an arc.
The North Star, also known as Polaris, is known to stay fixed in our sky. It marks the location of the sky’s north pole, the point around which the whole sky turns. That’s why you can always use Polaris to find the direction north.
Just look at this insanity:
In a recent letter to the Astrophysical Journal, Turner et al.(2013) (TKUG from here on) suggested that the parallax as measured by Hipparcos (van Leeuwen 2007a,b) for Polaris (HIP 11767, HD 8890) is signi?cantly lower than it should be. The distance of 99 ± 2 pc suggested by TKUG on the basis of he assumed pulsation mode of Polaris is equivalent to a parallax of 10, 1 ± 0 2 mas, very di?erent from the parallax as measured by Hipparcos, 7, 54 ± 0 11 mas. Consequently, I have recently frequently been asked if it is at all possible for the Hipparcos parallax measurement to be so far o?. This letter shows the Hipparcos astrometric solution for Polaris in all detail as a means to assess the robustness of that solution, to assess whether its measurement of the parallax could be o?set by 23 times its standard error. It also brie?y discusses other arguments that have been used to suggest a signi?cantly shorter distance for Polaris than what has been measured by Hipparcos.
READ MORE: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1301.0890v1.pdfAll that this "stars parallax" nonsense is about is this : throwing sand in the eyes of a sincere thinkers, nothing more than that!
3.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Negative%20parallax.htm4 .Again and again have their theories been combated and exposed, but as often have the majority, who do not think for themselves, accepted the popular thing. No less an authority in his time than the celebrated Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, argued that if the earth revolves in an orbit round the sun, the change in the relative position of the stars thus necessarily occasioned, could not fail to be noticed. In the " History of the Conflict between Religion and Science," by Dr. Draper, pages 175 and 176, the matter is referred to m the following words :
" Among the arguments brought forward against the Copernican system at the time of its promulgation, was one by the great Danish astronomer, Tycho Brahe, originally urged by Aristarchus against the Pythagorean system, to the effect that if, as was alleged, the earth moves round the sun, there ought to he a change in the relative position of the stars ; they should seem to separate as we approach them, or to close together as we recede from them... At that time the sun's distance was greatly under-estimated. Had it been known, as it is now, that the distance exceeds 90 million miles, or that the diameter of the orbit is more than 180 million, that argument would doubtless have had very great weight. In reply to Tycho, it was said that, since the parallax of a body diminishes as its distance increases, a star may be so far off that its parallax may be imperceptible. THIS ANSWER PROVED TO BE CORRECT." To the uninitiated, the words " this answer proved to be correct," might seem to settle the matter, and while it must be admitted that parallax is diminished or increased according as the star is distant or near, parallax and direction are very different terms and convey quite different meanings. Tycho stated that the direction of the stars would be altered ; his critics replied that the distance gave no sensible difference of parallax.
This maybe set down as ingenious, but it is no answer to the proposition, which has remained unanswered to this hour, and is unanswerable. If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 90,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and direction of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax maybe. THAT THIS GREAT CHANGE IS NOWHERE APPARENT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, incontestably proves that the earth is at rest — that it does not "move in an orbit round the sun."
5. This is not about the parallax but it gives us additional insight into a sanity of the heliocentric theory.:
http://www.energeticforum.com/264118-post355.html