The Stellar Parallax Deception
https://sites.google.com/site/oldshepherd1935/thestellarparallaxdeception
The Stars Are Closer Than You Think
The Stellar Parallax Deception
www.British-Israel.ca
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.
If you wish to donate to the BICOG Please click here