co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Wednesday, February 4, 2026
Parallax and Tycho
HGL's F.B. writings: Geocentric Assault on Atheism · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Refutation of Le Maître's main point · Parallax and Tycho
@RSungenis
Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism: The Parallax
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nYqgDLwQrKE
In both of the scenarios you envisage, we would "know" (inside the theory) that the star does not move (in relation to the starfield).
That's the proton pseudos, it implies the phenomenon of 1838 (if I recall correctly) is indeed, in correct theorising, an actual parallax.
I do not deny the phenomenon, but good luck proving it's a parallax.
If angels move celestial objects, then parallax / annual aberration / possibly even wobbles would be explicable as partial analyses of the angel doing a liturgic dance, while carrying the star under God's throne.
Unlike the two scenarios you envisage, where we have a side of 2 astronomic units between late December and late June, this an angel moving the star in moral solidarity but physical independence of the Sun would not give a side opposite the narrow angle, therefore not give a triangulation for the distance.
We know the starfield is further away than this little less than one light day, since the two way speed of light between Earth and Voyager, divided by two, is still less than one light day, for both probes.
Other than that, we cannot know the distance to stars; nor their size.
In the original Tychonian system, up to and including Riccioli, the stars are each day (or c. 5 min less than 24 h) doing an orbit around earth.
St. Thomas would have attributed it to God moving the whole primum mobile, Riccioli who knew we hadn't a sequence of solid crystalline spheres down to Earth atmosphere (Tycho had disproved it) attributed it to each angel moving in solidarity.
I think to a Geocentric, the Coriolis effect and Eötvös effect and one more I forget would tend to prove St. Thomas rather than Riccioli, and the answer to absence of solid spheres would be the aether, same as in which light is a wave movement and in which gravitation is a bend.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

No comments:
Post a Comment