The only way this could possibly happen is if the stars were a projection a few thousand feet up
There are some who claim this is the case. But actually the distance to them doesn’t matter. Perspective (which causes the “vanishing point” phenomenon which is the “reason” things that recede apparently converge with the horizon) is more to do with angular resolution / receptor density in our eyes. It doesn’t matter how far away it is - as long as we can see it.
We can tell stars are far, far, far away simply due to triangulation taken 6 months apart
Assumptions built on assumptions. Castles made of sand.
What if the earth does NOT move over that 6 month interval - and the difference in apparent position (used for stellar parallax) is then NOT caused by this believed (but utterly unempirical ie. unmeasured ie, unscientific) motion?
We can see with our own eyes this is true
Evidence abounds, it is often the interpretation of that evidence which leads to incorrect conclusions.
We can see that the star’s apparent position moves slightly over a yearly interval. That is very different than all the (unvalidated) assumptions built beyond that evidence that you preach as gospel (because astronomers preached it to you as gospel first).
you would HAVE to still see Polaris since it is so far above us all
This is a common misunderstanding. It is analogous to the common “why can’t i see the eifel tower from the top of everest then?” nonsense.
There is more than one reason. One is perspective/angular resolution (causing apparent convergence with the horizon and vanishing because the object is too small to be resolved), and the other is there is a lot of stuff in the way (most notably air and the things dissolved/commingling in it) which as i said - tends to cause light to curve convexly towards the surface.
Any dip shit can say "everything is fake, life is a projection, the stars are not very far away"
Anyone can say anything, dip-shit status not withstanding. But that doesn’t make them correct/incorrect. You claiming (parroting the claim, in point of fact) that the stars are unfathomable distances from us is a good example. In any case, i didn’t make any claim like that, so why don’t we talk about claims i actually made instead?
I told you to publish your 'research;'
And i told you that i am, right now, to you. Look at your reaction to this publishing! Witness your belligerent disinterest and zealous faith in your own preferred “status quo”. I may “publish” something in some form in the future, but there is nothing wrong with starting small. One of the major reasons i engage in forums like this is to share (“publish”) my research to subject it to scrutiny in the hopes of refinement (including refutation!).
All celestial bodies are forced into a ball shape due to gravity
Lol, yes - so we are taught and required to repeat. It is not insane to conclude that what you have been conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood is likely incorrect. Quite the opposite!
If gravity (gravitation specifically; gravity is a phenomenon and has been defined for thousands of years - it is demonstrably real) doesn’t exist, then it can’t force any bodies - celestial or otherwise - to take any shape.
No fuck off and die coward
Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they can’t attack the thought. Do better if you can!
Given a powerful enough telescope, of course you would.
A common misunderstanding. The farthest you can see from the top of everest is a few hundred miles - more magnification can’t change that because the air is not completely transparent. The more of it you look through the less you can see clearly.
A good analogy is looking out towards the open ocean from underwater. At some distance from you - all you see is blackness. The distant light from the shark that is absolutely there simply can’t reach you and no amount of magnification can change that. There is too much “stuff” in the way (in the analogy, water and the things dissolved/commingling in it; in the example above, the air - which also behaves as a fluid - and the things dissolved/commingling in it.)
You don't understand basic physics
Lol. Look up diffraction/angular resolution limit. Physics isn’t for everyone, and optics are tricky!
Not really, this is more like “status quo”. It’s “basic physics”, as you said. It is not surprising that you don’t know that, as most people don’t - but that’s just because physics isn’t for everybody. Some of us genuinely like it!
Try to address the content, not resort to childish ad hominem. It just makes me sad for you, and mires communication. Viciously attack the thought, but never the thinker! Attacking the thinker is a demonstration that you weren’t competent to attack the thought. Do better if you can!
There are some who claim this is the case. But actually the distance to them doesn’t matter. Perspective (which causes the “vanishing point” phenomenon which is the “reason” things that recede apparently converge with the horizon) is more to do with angular resolution / receptor density in our eyes. It doesn’t matter how far away it is - as long as we can see it.
Assumptions built on assumptions. Castles made of sand.
What if the earth does NOT move over that 6 month interval - and the difference in apparent position (used for stellar parallax) is then NOT caused by this believed (but utterly unempirical ie. unmeasured ie, unscientific) motion?
Evidence abounds, it is often the interpretation of that evidence which leads to incorrect conclusions.
We can see that the star’s apparent position moves slightly over a yearly interval. That is very different than all the (unvalidated) assumptions built beyond that evidence that you preach as gospel (because astronomers preached it to you as gospel first).
This is a common misunderstanding. It is analogous to the common “why can’t i see the eifel tower from the top of everest then?” nonsense.
There is more than one reason. One is perspective/angular resolution (causing apparent convergence with the horizon and vanishing because the object is too small to be resolved), and the other is there is a lot of stuff in the way (most notably air and the things dissolved/commingling in it) which as i said - tends to cause light to curve convexly towards the surface.
Anyone can say anything, dip-shit status not withstanding. But that doesn’t make them correct/incorrect. You claiming (parroting the claim, in point of fact) that the stars are unfathomable distances from us is a good example. In any case, i didn’t make any claim like that, so why don’t we talk about claims i actually made instead?
And i told you that i am, right now, to you. Look at your reaction to this publishing! Witness your belligerent disinterest and zealous faith in your own preferred “status quo”. I may “publish” something in some form in the future, but there is nothing wrong with starting small. One of the major reasons i engage in forums like this is to share (“publish”) my research to subject it to scrutiny in the hopes of refinement (including refutation!).
Lol, yes - so we are taught and required to repeat. It is not insane to conclude that what you have been conditioned to believe through rote under the guise of education from childhood is likely incorrect. Quite the opposite!
If gravity (gravitation specifically; gravity is a phenomenon and has been defined for thousands of years - it is demonstrably real) doesn’t exist, then it can’t force any bodies - celestial or otherwise - to take any shape.
Ad hominem is the last resort of the intellectually feeble. They attack the thinker out of desperation because they can’t attack the thought. Do better if you can!
Given a powerful enough telescope, of course you would. But you don't, so you're always going to be wrong.
You don't understand basic physics. You're 100% wrong.
A common misunderstanding. The farthest you can see from the top of everest is a few hundred miles - more magnification can’t change that because the air is not completely transparent. The more of it you look through the less you can see clearly.
A good analogy is looking out towards the open ocean from underwater. At some distance from you - all you see is blackness. The distant light from the shark that is absolutely there simply can’t reach you and no amount of magnification can change that. There is too much “stuff” in the way (in the analogy, water and the things dissolved/commingling in it; in the example above, the air - which also behaves as a fluid - and the things dissolved/commingling in it.)
Lol. Look up diffraction/angular resolution limit. Physics isn’t for everyone, and optics are tricky!
So, this is your claim!? Lol, you are a fucking idiot and a moron.
It certainly isn't for you, that's for sure. Lol. Seriously, you're fucking retarded.
Not really, this is more like “status quo”. It’s “basic physics”, as you said. It is not surprising that you don’t know that, as most people don’t - but that’s just because physics isn’t for everybody. Some of us genuinely like it!
Try to address the content, not resort to childish ad hominem. It just makes me sad for you, and mires communication. Viciously attack the thought, but never the thinker! Attacking the thinker is a demonstration that you weren’t competent to attack the thought. Do better if you can!