http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2014/12/duhem-on-physical-theory-and-experiment.html
Modus tollens states that
p→q
not-q
/.: not-p
which is to say "p" has been "falsified." However, in this manner, heliocentrism, natural selection, and electromagnetism were "falsified." Does Popper have the grace to blush?
Now, modus tollens is good logic. The problem with using it is knowing whether the two premisses are true.
Is p→q true? Or is the real judgement rather "p→q OR r" or "o AND p→q"?
Is it true that not-q or is q possibly unobserved?
IF both p→q is true AND not-q is true (i e q is false) THEN not-p is also true (i e p is also false).
Now let us see how this applies to the taste of examples of TOF:
heliocentrism→visible stellar parallax
no observed stellar parallax
/.: no heliocentrism
Now, p→q is obviously in principle true. If Sun is at least proximate centre to an annual rotation by Earth, the-in-principle-observable movements of stars must include an inverse apparent motion to that of Earth. This is however not the same as their in-principle-apparent obverse movement being certainly actually observed, something else can stop observation - like distance. If a man is sufficiently far away, he may walk pretty fast without seeming to move at all. If a man walks beside a mountain that is sufficiently far away, the distance might make even an hours walk of the man incapable of seeing any apparent obverse motion in the mountain.
This is also the solution given by heliocentrics. I'll quote TOF for you:
But in every case, what was falsified was not the main proposition, but certain auxiliary assumptions associated with it. Heliocentrism would result in visible parallax IF the stars were close enough. Stellar distance was based on the brightness and apparent diameters of the stars; but those diameters were spurious: artifacts caused by optical aberration. The stars were really much farther away and the resulting parallax was too small to detect at the time.
Now, before going on with any other, shall we stay with Heliocentrism for a while?
heliocentrism AND close sphere of fixed stars → reasonably even stellar parallax
no observed stellar parallax that is reasonably even, on the contrary the parallaxes vary very much
/.: no heliocentrism OR no close sphere of fixed stars
So, I can take the view of parallax as usually taken:
no heliocentrism OR no close sphere of fixed stars
heliocentrism
/.: no close sphere of fixed stars
And from there go on on the path trodden by Herschel onto modern cosmology as per 1930.
I can also take the view of parallax in another way:
no heliocentrism OR no close sphere of fixed stars
a close sphere of fixed stars
/.: no heliocentrism
Which is what as a geocentric I do.
There is even another thing on this one:
heliocentrism only causes parallax observations → no inverse parallax
inverse parallax observed (63 Ophiuchi has parallax 0.77 arc seconds obverse sense to usual)
/.: something other than heliocentrism can (also?) cause parallax observations
| Wrong on example 63 Ophiuchi, right on other example, same implications, see below. |
Why the first?
If Earth moves one way, stars will from there on appear to move the other way. If I walk beside a mountain for two hours, the mountain will be meeting me and receding behind me, i e like a walker going the other way. An inverse parallax is as if I were walking beside a mountain and mountain appeared to be walking by my side, same direction as myself.
Of course, the Heliocentrics do have another explanation for the inverse parallax. They say 63 Ophiuchi is so extremely far off that the measure of its parallax is unreliable.
In other words they say that "inverse parallax observed" is not strictly true, it is rather "inverse parallax pseudo-observed".
But .... how about asking how they then know that the measures for parallax of α and Proxima Centauri (0.74 and 0.76 arcseconds RIGHT way for a parallax, I have recently corrected my previous fact) are measured correctly?
For one thing, how are parallax angles measured?
By a protractor? Very huge NO. The angles you can measure by a protractor are like down to 1°. This includes 60' (arcminutes). Which includes in its turn 60" (arcminutes). So each degree you can observe on a protractor 1° = 3600". An angle 3600 times smaller than a degree cannot be measured by a protractor. I have tried to find out, but the science community is not very informative when challenged by an enquirer challenging its usual views. "You have the right to remain silent, everything you say will be used against you" is said to criminals, a scientist usually does not have a moral right to remain silent especially if what he says is used against him!
So, from there on, how do we know the nearest stars in the Centaur are really 4 lightyears away? Even if we take the Heliocentric assumption.
But let us assume the parallax angle of the Centaur stars is correctly measured, why not assume it can be the same for 63 Ophiuchus? And if that is so, its inverse parallax simply cannot be caused by Earth moving annualy, just as however distant away a mountain is, my walking in one direction will not make mountain look as if walking beside me and faster than I.
It will of course look as walking beside me when compared to closer objects. But only as fast as I. I will not be walking forward and having the mountain where my arm is stretched out straight to the right when I start and two hours later, walking a straight road, I will have the mountain where I hold my arm between right and forward at 45°, that will not happen. (If the mountain is an angle more forward, it must be I who turned to the right).
There are only two explanations* of 63 Ophiuchi (its angle is repeatedly mesured at same one):
- it is moving either same way as Earth is moving annually or opposite way to how Sun is moving annually
- it has like every other star a parallax that moves obverse to Earth's movement, but this is apparently inverted by greater parallaxes of stars around it.
In the first case, an angel is moving 63 Ophiuchi and angels are moving the other stars too and they do not prove heliocentrism in any way. Or God is Himself causing each movement and they are not mechanic-optic results of Earth's movement and do not prove heliocentrism in any way etc. What is possible for one star need not be true but must be possible (as in thinkable) for any other star.
In the latter case, parallaxes must have a uniform factor of addition, so the 0.77 arcsseconds minus** annually land at plus. And if so, this uniform (and therefore hidden) plus factor must also raise the value of parallax at the Centaur. Instead of 0.76 arcseconds, we get at least 1.53 arcseconds. This would not prove Heliocentrism, but if this were true and Heliocentrism also, then the Centaur would be lots nearer.
So, waiting for readers to come with objections, I close this essay for now, on stellar topic. What about "natural selection, and electromagnetism"?
The others were similarly falsified. A new trait would be diluted before it could establish itself; permanent magnets did not have an electrical current. ... Similarly, inheritance was not through the mingling of blood, as Darwin and his contemporaries thought, but through genes. That is, inheritance is digital, not analog. A gene mutation could spread through a population until it reached a critical concentration and bearers began mating with one another. And the electron bore the electrical charge for permanent magnets. ... The electron was a leap of faith, postulated specifically to justify electromagnetism for magnets that were not overtly electrical.
Meanwhile the electron seems to have been verified by the cloud chamber - as to its existence when emitted from an atom. but this does not quite mean it is a certain truth as to its supposed role in atoms. Which I touched on here in these three debate posts:
HGL's F.B. writings : 1) Bible Prophecy, TV, Changing Subject onto Common Sense - Science, 2) Continued Debate with MC and JL on Common Sense and on Science of Subatomic Particles, 3) JL admits he's no physicist, MC gets a reductio ad absurdum when asking "for info" (and I am asked to leave fifth grade behind)
And the main thing about Darwin is not natural selection, but a variation sufficient to provide new varieties with never seen before possibilities such as natural selection can favour. One of these is of course that bacteria only had one chromosome, if they are supposed to be our ancestors, and we have more. Precisely among mammals this is a difficulty:
Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html
To return to angelic movers, and to optic-observational confirmations of Heliocentrism, have a look at this oldie:
HGL's F.B. writings : Creationism and Geocentrism are sometimes used as metaphors for "outdated because disproven inexact science"
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2011/04/cagasuamfobdis.html
The many "comments" aren't me "talking to myself", they are simply using comboxes to insert afterthoughts, and to this one there were many!
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Gatian of Tours
18-XII-2014
PS The O'Floinn is obviously not English but Irish-American. Here is a friend of his, at his best (I have seen him at his worst too ...):
Catholic and Enjoying It : New Atheism, Old Empire
December 18, 2014 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/12/new-atheism-old-empire.html
* Feel welcome to mention a third one I haven't thought of!
** You know how "minus" in modern maths applied is often used to mean "value opposite direction to plus values", rather than as meaning "subtract the following number".
| I had known from the catalogue search on Tycho Main there were these objects with negative parallax, and in these high ranges, but had no names for them, so I checked a search with "negative parallax" and landed on 63 Ophiuchi - which I presumed would be the clearest case of negative parallax, since only one mentioned in wikipedia. Then I misread the range. My bad. Since I am a writer, not an astronomer, I will not loose the promotions in astronomy for this, I am not expecting any.
The maximum negative parallax I found, at any rate, had rectascension 040.79214577 and declination +41.43010962. It is not 63 Ophiuchi, since that star has (according to wiki) Right ascension 17h 54m 54.04380s and Declination −24° 53′ 13.5413″. Even if the system of the catalogue did allow a totally different notation of rectascension, the declination would hardly vary between ... well, here is what the README has to say about ra and dec: Right ascension (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H8/T8 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [0,360]; Declination (epoch J1991.25, ICRS): Field H9/T9 from the Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, range [-90,90] T8 and T9 are the fields I copied. These should be identical for the H8 and H9 fields in the other catalogue. Well, what do we get: Catalogue Selected: Hipparcos Main Catalogue Fields and parameter search limits: ra (degrees): Min 040.791 Max 040.793 dec (degrees): Min 41.429 Max 41.431 0 entries satisfied your request. But switching to Tycho Main we do get one, namely the one I started with. Parallax -904.4 mas. More than a thousand times greater negative parallax than the one I read (when rereading correctly) for 63 Ophiuchi. |
No comments:
Post a Comment