Is the Stationary Earth the Heaviest Object in the Universe?

[hansgeorg]

Why do you suppose that God would put so many Angels to work with the rather complex task of making sure that the many thousands of stars whose parallax have been measured would move precisely the amount required to simulate their apparent distance and thus deceive us in our efforts to determine their distance? Is God revealed in scripture as the "Great Deciever"? Keeping in mind that their parallax distances correspond very well to other measures, such and standard candles or spectral characteristics, visual intensity, theoretical evolution, and even measured size and rotational characteristics and deformation per, for example, the Chara array on Mt. Wilson (Altair and Rasalhague) or the HST (Betelgeuse) - meaning that not only has God put Angels to work to move the stars, He has (as logically is required per your explanation) also made sure all possible measured properties of those same stars would correspond to what would exist if they would massive objects made mostly of Hydrogen and Helium undergoing thermonuclear fusion in their cores of various elements and rotating at various rates on their axis.

Geocentrists have been pushing the more complex hypothesis since Kepler showed that planetary orbits were ellipses.

The question about "deceptive parallax" is a bit like asking why God allows either angels or mechanically functioning stars to emulate very perfectly what would appear if horoscopes were true.

Whatever God put in place for one reason could correspond to sth a man wrongly figures out is there for another reason.

As to thermonuclear fusion, I am not denying that to stars (nor affirming it dogmatically, just admitting it is probable enough).

Some persons think that an object needs to be at least the mass of Jupiter (or rather more) to get thermonuclear fusion going, since with a Jupiter mass or less, the self ignition would not happen. But certainly the stars I reconstruct per size with a distance of one light day away are big enough to keep it going, provided God started it.

Otherwise, the guys who are trying to make thermonuclear fusion a source of energy are wasting their time, since the reactors (can one use that word when it isn't fission?) are much smaller than such stars.

Not only that, He put on a great big light show about a thousand years ago simulating what we call a supernova, and then left expanding, glowing clouds of hydrogen gas that move outward at just the right rate to simulate the aftermath of that explosion, and then he put a simulated pulsar in the middle that acts like what we call a neutron star and made sure that the observed changes would correspond to such an exotic object and its intense magnetic fields. (Reference: the crab nebula pulsar).

If the sphere of fixed stars is only one light day or two away, the crab nebula pulsar is a real pulsar, not a simulation.

It was precisely the idea of distant starlight paradox and omphalos solution running into simulated things which never happened which brought me to Geocentrism, where I can afford to have stars very much closer than you suppose star nebula pulsar is.

[hansgeorg]

Biblical inerrancy itself refutes the idea of the stars being created 7215 years ago.

How so?

Oh, and of course stellar parallax isn't the first step in the cosmic distance ladder - trigonometric calculations of the Earth's radius and the distances to the sun and moon are.

Thank you for noting a quibble. I mean the first step one can reasonably attack, namely if Bradley and Bessel phenomena aren't separate effects of aberration and parallax, but one effect of angels dancing with the stars.

[hansgeorg]

It's also reasonable to note that if you never left the train you would not have all that evidence, and would not be able to thus determine whether the train or the scenery were moving, and would have to make that determination via some other means (such as visual parallax); and extrapolate from that to note that if you never leave the Earth you could equally not determine whether the Earth or the sun/stars were moving, and that such determination would also need to be via other means (such as stellar parallax).

If one never left the train, one would never know which one moved.

The visual parallax of scenery could be scenery moving, if one had never seen it at closer hand and therefore had no particular knowledge trees, buildings, rocks are fixed in place.

Therefore parallax can in and of itself never be a means of determining whether stars or Earth move.

[Sparko]

No, more like he had the opportunity to enjoy moving planet Venus and lost it after trying to emulate God. Hence "fallen Lucifer". Note, Lucifer itself means just "morning star" and is also applied to Our Lord in the Latin Bible (lucifer matitinus ... in cordibus vestris ... I seem to recall from an epistle of St Peter).

"Lucifer" means "Light Bringer"
not "morning star"

And don't correct my theory. I can make up stuff on my own.

[Roy]

Some persons think that an object needs to be at least the mass of Jupiter (or rather more) to get thermonuclear fusion going, since with a Jupiter mass or less, the self ignition would not happen. But certainly the stars I reconstruct per size with a distance of one light day away are big enough to keep it going, provided God started it.

Only one light-day away? That's only about three times the distance to Pluto, and about the same distance as Sedna. If there were objects that large and that close we would definitely know.

If the sphere of fixed stars is only one light day or two away, the crab nebula pulsar is a real pulsar, not a simulation.

If the sphere of fixed stars was only one light day or two away, they'd be colliding with comets. Or have the star-carrying angels and the comet-rolling angels got some mutual agreement?

[Roy]

If one never left the train, one would never know which one moved.

So your claim to know the Earth is not moving is invalid, because you have never left the Earth.

[TheLurch]

Some persons think that an object needs to be at least the mass of Jupiter (or rather more) to get thermonuclear fusion going, since with a Jupiter mass or less, the self ignition would not happen. But certainly the stars I reconstruct per size with a distance of one light day away are big enough to keep it going, provided God started it.

Translation: i want to believe both that these things are a light day away, and that they're fusion-powered. Since i want to believe it, it must be true!

Never mind all those pesky physics calculations - that's just some guys thinking.

Otherwise, the guys who are trying to make thermonuclear fusion a source of energy are wasting their time, since the reactors (can one use that word when it isn't fission?) are much smaller than such stars.

Again, don't bother with the actual physics. Everything has to be compatible with what i want to believe.

[One Bad Pig]

The question about "deceptive parallax" is a bit like asking why God allows either angels or mechanically functioning stars to emulate very perfectly what would appear if horoscopes were true.

Whatever God put in place for one reason could correspond to sth a man wrongly figures out is there for another reason.

As to thermonuclear fusion, I am not denying that to stars (nor affirming it dogmatically, just admitting it is probable enough).

Some persons think that an object needs to be at least the mass of Jupiter (or rather more) to get thermonuclear fusion going, since with a Jupiter mass or less, the self ignition would not happen. But certainly the stars I reconstruct per size with a distance of one light day away are big enough to keep it going, provided God started it.

Otherwise, the guys who are trying to make thermonuclear fusion a source of energy are wasting their time, since the reactors (can one use that word when it isn't fission?) are much smaller than such stars.

I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, as I happen to be reading Nemesius of Emesa. You're approaching science the way ancient Greeks did (doubtless mediated via Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics), via logical speculation. Unfortunately for you, what seems to be logical (to you and the ancient Greeks) does not necessarily correspond with actuality. We've developed a much better method of doing science than the Greeks, based on hypotheses confirmed or disconfirmed via empirical observation.

[Roy]

I'm beginning to see where you're coming from, as I happen to be reading Nemesius of Emesa. You're approaching science the way ancient Greeks did (doubtless mediated via Thomas Aquinas and other scholastics), via logical speculation. Unfortunately for you, what seems to be logical (to you and the ancient Greeks) does not necessarily correspond with actuality. We've developed a much better method of doing science than the Greeks, based on hypotheses confirmed or disconfirmed via empirical observation.

The ancient Greeks did at least confine their logical speculation to being compatible with the available knowledge of the physical world. Hansgeorg doesn't bother with that.

[Sparko]

If strings keep things up in the sky, what, you may ask, keeps things stuck to the Earth?

Invisible bungee cords.

[TheLurch]

If strings keep things up in the sky, what, you may ask, keeps things stuck to the Earth?

Invisible bungee cords.

This is actually better science than aether, given that we have strings and bungee cords that we can test the properties of and see if they're compatible with your model.

[Sparko]

This is actually better science than aether, given that we have strings and bungee cords that we can test the properties of and see if they're compatible with your model.

The strings and bungee cords are made of a special element that I call Flubber after the famous movie. It is invisible and undetectable and can pass through any matter between it's two end points.

[TheLurch]

The strings and bungee cords are made of a special element that I call Flubber after the famous movie. It is invisible and undetectable and can pass through any matter between it's two end points.

Now you're getting aethereal.

[oxmixmudd]

The question about "deceptive parallax" is a bit like asking why God allows either angels or mechanically functioning stars to emulate very perfectly what would appear if horoscopes were true.

Whatever God put in place for one reason could correspond to sth a man wrongly figures out is there for another reason.

As to thermonuclear fusion, I am not denying that to stars (nor affirming it dogmatically, just admitting it is probable enough).

Some persons think that an object needs to be at least the mass of Jupiter (or rather more) to get thermonuclear fusion going, since with a Jupiter mass or less, the self ignition would not happen. But certainly the stars I reconstruct per size with a distance of one light day away are big enough to keep it going, provided God started it.

Otherwise, the guys who are trying to make thermonuclear fusion a source of energy are wasting their time, since the reactors (can one use that word when it isn't fission?) are much smaller than such stars.



If the sphere of fixed stars is only one light day or two away, the crab nebula pulsar is a real pulsar, not a simulation.

It was precisely the idea of distant starlight paradox and omphalos solution running into simulated things which never happened which brought me to Geocentrism, where I can afford to have stars very much closer than you suppose star nebula pulsar is.

Wrong. A pulsar needs to be a minimum mass and size to exist at all in this universe. A pulsar of the smallest possible size at a distance of on light day would likely destroy the solar system. If not the radiation and magnetic fields would be of significant consequence.

Jim

[hansgeorg]

Wrong. A pulsar needs to be a minimum mass and size to exist at all in this universe. A pulsar of the smallest possible size at a distance of on light day would likely destroy the solar system. If not the radiation and magnetic fields would be of significant consequence.

Unless, of course, the initial error in placing alpha Centauri 4 light years away, and so on, prejudiced the size estimates of standard candles (supposing such exist) and therefore warped the understanding of astrophysics.

Simple as that.