The Stellar Parallax Deception

https://sites.google.com/site/oldshepherd1935/thestellarparallaxdeception

The Stars Are Closer Than You Think

The Stellar Parallax Deception

 

The Stars Are Closer Than You Think

 

Distances to the various and numerous heavenly bodies are measured in light years.  Some objects are said to be quite close, in our backyard so to speak, while others are said to be billions of light years away.  Put simply, to determine the distance to any given star, cosmologists use a measured baseline and triangulate from both ends of the baseline to the star of interest.  The final result is the stellar parallax of the star.  However, a number of researchers question the validity of stellar parallax for determining distances to the heavenly bodies, intimating the premises that stellar parallax is based upon are questionable at best.  Naturally, a controversy is afoot.

 

Stellar parallax is the apparent angular displacement of a celestial object due to a change in the position of the observer.  With a baseline of known length between two observations, the distance to the object can be determined directly.

 

By observing parallax, measuring angles and using geometry, one can determine the distance to various objects.  When this is in reference to stars, the effect is known as stellar parallax. The first known measurements of a stellar parallax were made by Friedrich Bessel in 1838, for the star 61 Cygni, using calculations based upon the heliocentric assumption that Earth orbits the sun.

 

The “precise” parallax measurements of distance always have an associated error.  Thus,  a parallax may be described as “some angle +/- some angle-error”.  However, this “+/- angle-error” will not translate directly into a +/- error for the range, except for relatively small errors.  The reason for this is that an error toward the smaller angle results in a greater error in distance than an error toward the larger angle.

 

According to cosmologists, on an interstellar scale, parallax produced by the different orbital positions of the Earth causes nearby stars to appear to move relative to the more distant stars. However, this effect is so small it is undetectable without “extremely precise” measurements The angles involved in these calculations are extremely small.  For example, .772 arcseconds is roughly the angle subtended by an object about 2 centimeters in diameter (roughly the size of a U.S. quarter dollar) located about 5.3 kilometers away. [The angular resolution of the human eye is usually taken to be about 1 arcminute.]

 

Here ends the minimal quasi-scientific overview of stellar parallax.  Reality follows:

 

It is an undeniable fact that the Copernican heliocentricity model of a rotating and orbiting Earth is the premise (that is, the indispensible foundation) of the present-day universe as presented by theoretical cosmologists.  In the quotations that follow, this very premise is inseparable from the “science” of measuring distances in space.

 

The Copernican Premise Upholding The Big-Bang Paradigm

 

“Astrometric measurements not only determine the position of the objects on the celestial sphere (sky), but can also be used to measure the distances to the stars. By measuring the change in a star’s position as the earth revolves around the sun, you can determine the distance to that star.  This change in [a star’s] position [based on a sun-orbiting Earth] is known as a star’s parallax….Astrometry is the foundation on which almost all of astronomy is based…the bedrock of methods for determining distances to astronomical objects…” (FAME Frequently Asked Questions,http://www.usno.navy.mil/FAME/faq, p.1, 6-1-01)

 

So, plainly admitted, the whole concept we have of distances to the stars is founded on the premise that the heliocentric model of a sun-orbiting Earth is a fact. Just as plainly, if that premise is wrong, then all the alleged distances to the stars are baseless. This understanding is vital to the truth of the whole matter when it is realized that those fantasized distances are the only thing holding the Copernican concept together in the first place.  Another quote about this all-important parallax concept as a measure of distances to the stars confirms the dependency on a moving Earth:

 

“Trigonometric parallax is the apparent displacement of a nearby star against the back-ground of more distant stars resulting from the motion of the earth in its orbit around the sun….If a star’s parallax can be measured, it then determines the distance to the star….”  (Infoplease.com, Parallax, http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0837583.html, p.1, 5-15-03)

 

Although still dependent on the motion of the Earth in its orbit around the sun, the trigonometric parallax is only good for nearby stars, and useful only for stars within 100 parsces One parsec is defined as the distance equivalent to 206,265 times the distance from the Earth to the sun, or about 3.3 light years.  That would put 100 parsecs some 330 light years distant from an orbiting Earth (virtually at our elbows).  [Work it out arithmetically in either miles or kilometers and see what you get.  Then try it with the Big-Bang 15 billion-light-year distance and you will get a sense of the level of disingenuous pretext of “scientific” exactitude involved here.]

 

The orbiting Earth premise continues to be the foundation of all other techniques for measuring distances to stars that are claimed to be millions and billions of light years away even though it is admitted that the trigonometric parallax method is limited to “nearby” stars.

 

“The first stellar parallax [the trigonometric one] was measured in 1838 by Friedrich Bessel for the star 61 Cygni.  Its parallax of 0.3 places it at a distance of 3.3 parsecs or about 11 light-years….”  (Op. cit., Infoplease.com)

 

One may have to read this two or three times before it sinks in…and the same message is standard in all reports on the subject.  What message?  This blue ribbon pseudo-scientific deception that ranks up there with the best the world has to offer, that’s what!  Herr Bessel’s “finding” (in 1838) for the distance to 61 Cygni based on his trigonometric parallax hypothesis of parsecs has become the standard cosmological reference for distances to all the “nearby” stars!  This in spite of the fact that the method was calculated upon, and was therefore deduced from, the conviction in virtually all cosmological circles by that time that the Earth orbited the sun and was on opposite sides of the sun every six months…as has now become a “fact”, of course.  Since any accurate application of parallax to the calculation of distances is wholly dependent upon the position of the observer relevant to that which is being observed, Bessel’s deduction was based on faith in the heliocentric assumption that the position of the earthbound observer changed every six months by some 186,000,000 miles (the diameter of the alleged Earth orbit).

 

By contrast, geocentric parallax is a technique that uses the diameter of the Earth as a baseline.  Because of this small baseline (8,000 miles), this parallax is useful only for close objects such as the moon and perhaps a few planets.  Thus, if the Earth and its observers are not orbiting the sun, the standard for distance measurements that is arbitrarily set at 206,265 x 93,000,000 miles based on a 0.3 parallax taken from an observation point 186,000,000 miles away from the previous observation point…those measurements would produce a distance that is 23,250 times larger than a distance calculated from a stationary Earth!  (8,000 x 23,250 = 186,000,000 or put another way:  8,000/186,000,000 = 23,250)

 

The importance of what has happened here relevant to true measurement of distances in space cannot be overstated!  The only reason any parallax at all showed up for Bessel’s star 61 Cygni (0.3) was because the baseline for the observer was assumed to be one hundred eightysix million miles further away than the baseline of the observer six month earlier…thus giving a base line of 186,000,000 miles instead of 8,000 miles!

 

The proof that calculations of “nearby” star distances are dependent upon the helio-centric assumption of a rotating, orbiting Earth could not be more clear.  What we have here is mathematical tautology, pure and simple:  The Earth orbits the sun and provides a parallax figure which pushes even the close stars out 23,250 times further than they would be if a non-moving Earth parallax were used.  Then, the light year distances derived from this sleight-of-hand are used to “prove” that the Earth cannot be stationary because the stars are too far away to get around in 24 hours!

 

Using stationary Earth parallax, how far away is Bessel’s star 61 Cygni really?  Based on an orbiting Earth, he put it at 3.3 parsecs (about 11 light years) distant from Earth.  That’s about 64,660,000,000,000 (64 trillion, 660 billion) miles.  If the Earth is not moving, his figure is 23,250 times too big and the parallax distance would be c. 2,800,000,000 (2 billion, 800 million) miles (the alleged Earth to Neptune distance).  That’s more like it, but stationary Earth parallax calculations are too small to triangulate even at that distance.

 

“Professional astronomers often use another unit [other than the a.u. 93 million miles] for big distances: the parsec.  One parsec equals 3.26 light years. (In case you’re really wondering, a parsec is the distance where a star shows a parallax of one arcsecond against the background sky when the earth moves 1 a.u. around the sun.)  A kiloparsec is 1,000 parsecs, and a megaparsec is a million parsecs.” (Sky & Telescope, “Words Ya Gotta Know”, Alan M. MacRobert, http://www.skyandtelescope.com)

 

Trigonometric Parallax

 

This method rates an “A” because it is the gold standard for astronomical distances.  It is based on measuring two angles and the included side of a triangle formed by 1) the star, 2) the earth on one sideof its orbit, and 3) the earth six months later on the other side of its orbit. (Trigonometric Parallax, http://www.astro.ucla.edu’~wright/distance.htm,p.1)

 

Again, we see the complete dependency on the unproven assumption of an orbiting Earth in calculating star distances.  If that assumption is wrong, all alleged star distances upholding the pseudo-scientific Big-Bang universe are 23,250 times too large to begin with.  That would be stupendously wrong, to put it mildly.

 

There are at least 26 different techniques for stretching star distances to fit the Big-Bang paradigm.  Think of it!  Twentysix different theoretical models just to stretch star distances!  But, that is not the worst of this built-in deception booster.  No, not at all!  Think of all the mind-boggling software sophistication, all of which is premised on previous assumptions that are handcuffed to the rotating-orbiting Earth assumption.

 

All of this pre-digested “science” has been programmed into computerized technology for one purpose: namely, to push those distances out to the 15+ billion-light-year boundary. What it does is tempt theory-happy cosmologists, trained never to question the evolutionary mind-set, to roll up their sleeves and “simulate” more stars, galaxies, nebulae and planets, and then to ascertain their distances with a great show of exactitude.

 

Stellar parallax is here to stay, until those Alice in Wonderland cosmologists can be convinced that it is based on an assumption, not scientific fact.  The assumption is that Earth rotates on an axis and orbits the sun.  The concept of Earth motion began as an assumption, exists as an assumption, and will continue as an assumption, until enough people realize the Earth is stationary and finally lay heliocentricity to rest.

 

Thomas E. Cobb

 

[Special thanks to Marshall Hall, President of The Fair Education Foundation, Inc. www.fixedearth.com for providing the major portion of material for this essay.]  tec

 

“When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one.”                                   --Halton C. Arp, Ph.D.