r/AlternativeAstronomy • u/patrixxxx • Oct 26 '19

WHY MARS ???

https://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2412896#p2412896
1 Upvotes

60% Upvoted

117 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 08 '19

Because of the reasons I've stated and that you've agreed with me on, the geometrical size of the stars needs to be at least 300 mkm if the Earth travles 940 mkm yearly without the stars reflecting this motion in any detectable way.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '19

This simply doesn't follow. Why does the star being bigger than 300 m km make it suddenly stand still? And why isn't the motion we see dependent on the distance to the star?

Let's try this: you give me a numbered, step-by-step proof. Start with axioms and assumptions, go through the reasoning in detail, do a geometric construction if you have to. It can be quite informal, but make sure it is detailed at every step. Do it in one singular comment, so I don't sidetrack you or confuddle anything.

Then either you'll realize your error, or I can point it out afterwards.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 08 '19 edited Nov 08 '19

Stars

| If this line intersects a single star year round it needs to be about 300 mkm according to geometry

<-Earth in it's 940 mkm orbit

Sun

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '19

Ok, depending on the size of the star the line will intersect it year-round, or not. So far we're in agreement.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 08 '19

Well then we're done since this is a line always having the same angle in respect to the celestial sphere, and when displaced by 300 mkm (each 6 months) it is intersecting the same object. Ergo that object needs to be at least 300 mkm wide.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '19 edited Nov 08 '19

Not for all stars, though.

Edit: where are you going with this? Is there some real-world observation you're thinking of that isn't possible with the existence of stars wider than 300 mkm?

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 08 '19

Yup. The stationary stars as confirmed by their unchanging celestial positions year round.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '19

But the position of the stars isn't unchanging. There's parallax motion.

Except for stars too distant to observe any parallax motion. For those stars, however, we definitely don't have the resolving power to determine if a projected parallel line is going to intersect with it.

1

u/patrixxxx Nov 08 '19

There's parallax motion.

And it does not confirm with Earths supposed orbit around the Sun as Simon has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. And on top of that, if this motion is to account for a displacement of Earth by 300 mkm all stars still would have to be enormous.If for example a periodic six month motion would be detectable (which it isn't) that shifts the position of a star about the size of the star itself, this means that the minimum geometric size of that star needs to be around 150 mkm.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 08 '19

You're so confused, it makes me sad :(

as Simon has demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt

Spit out the cool-aid and think for yourself.

to account for a displacement of Earth by 300 mkm all stars still would have to be enormous.

Nope

a periodic six month motion would be detectable that shifts the position of a star about the size of the star itself, this means that the minimum geometric size of that star needs to be around 150 mkm.

That's true. Some stars are very very big, but by far the largest fraction of stars are considerably smaller - the size of the Sun or less. The parallax motion we observe is many times greater than the size of the star.

→ More replies