Setterfield Picked the Wrong Geocentric - At Least for One Question

Setterfield

Because of the argument that the stars are actually quite close, we have been asked if parallax is a viable way to measure star distances. Parallax is a way of measurement where a closer object is measured against a background object. If you are standing in a field and there is a tree close to you and a forest of trees farther on, then if you move, the relative position of that close tree against the background trees will change. The change in the “movement” of the background trees relative to the near tree creates an angle, whose point is the near tree. That angle, coupled with knowing how far you have moved on the ground gives you the distance between the near tree and the far trees.

The same thing is done with relatively near stars. When we can see a change in the relative positions of a nearer star against the background stars, first of all we can check it for a year or more to make sure it is due to our movement and not something else. When we know it is due to our movement, and we know how much the earth has travelled, we can then determine the distance between the near star and its background. This depends on knowing the diameter of our orbit. Geocentrists, however, state this method of determining distances is entirely inaccurate as the earth does not move. Bouw has worked out a system called the “Tychonic Model,” in which, in addition to the sun and the entire universe revolving around the earth once a day, also has the sun and other stars following an annual path around the earth. This gets complicated. The annual orbit of the sun around the earth is a path whose diameter is equal to what we see as the diameter of the earth’s orbit. This results, in his model, of stars having an annual parallax movement which exactly corresponds to standard parallax measurements based on the diameter of the earth’s orbit.

Now, if their measurement of the sun’s annual change is the same as our earth’s orbital diameter, then the parallax measurements must be the same and the distances measured the same in either case. If this is true, then why do so many geocentrists claim the stars and other galaxies are actually quite close and not as far out as standard astronomy claims? Parallax works in either case, determining the same distances for the same objects.

HGL

Last one first : because most geocentrists differ from the main geocentrists Sungenis and Bouw.

First of all, Tychonic model and Neo-Tychonic model differ on whether stars along with sun and moon are centred on Earth only (Tycho) or are, like Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn centred directly on Sun (Bouw’s and Sungenis’ update on Tycho).

Second, if you give parallax phenomenon another explanation than either Heliocentric or Neo-Tychonic parallactic (apparent) movement, like angelic movers for stars and these "dancing in time with" the angel of Sun, but not necessarily in equal paces, how much smaller parallax appears than movement of Sun in comparison to background of stars, will not be a measure for how much further off they are from us than the Sun is.

This being so, a Geocentric - except the Bouw / Sungenis Neo-Tychonic version - is free to disregard parallax altogether as far as measuring stellar distances is concerned (though it may come handy as one argument stars also are moved by angelic movers).

They may be two of the most single prominent ones, they are not in all ways typical, perhaps.

Not sure I am more typical, but could be.

If size of the phenomenon known as parallax has nothing to do with distance of the star in question from us, then one is obviously free to think stars are both closer to us and smaller than usually imagined by mainstream science.

One favourite of mine is sphere of fixed stars being exactly 1 light day away from the centre of the universe or from our distance above it.

Let's get into a little detail.

Setterfield

Because of the argument that the stars are actually quite close, we have been asked if parallax is a viable way to measure star distances.

HGL

And except for Bouw/Sungenis, this is an argument.

It is an argument about physical feasaibility of Geocentrism. It is also an argument against the Distant Starlight paradox for YEC.

Setterfield

Parallax is a way of measurement where a closer object is measured against a background object. If you are standing in a field and there is a tree close to you and a forest of trees farther on, then if you move, the relative position of that close tree against the background trees will change. The change in the “movement” of the background trees relative to the near tree creates an angle, whose point is the near tree. That angle, coupled with knowing how far you have moved on the ground gives you the distance between the near tree and the far trees.

HGL

I had not heard of that application, actually.

But unlike the astronomical so called parallel, we do know in such a case that we are moving - because we are walking.

We also know trees are not moving because trees are rooted and ground in which they are rooted is also fixed as far around us as we can see.

Two things not known in the parallel case of Geocentrism.

Setterfield

The same thing is done with relatively near stars.

HGL

By people supposing Heliocentrism works. And therefore parallax works.

By people supposing we know we are moving annually back and forth. By people supposing they know that at least an annual back and forth is not a movement a star does.

Setterfield

When we can see a change in the relative positions of a nearer star against the background stars, first of all we can check it for a year or more to make sure it is due to our movement and not something else.

HGL

What is being checked is whether it is an annual back and forth. In the case of a straight line just continuing, astronomers don't mince meat aboutg saying "it's the star that is moving".

Setterfield

When we know it is due to our movement,

HGL

Which we do not know, since we do not know we move.

Setterfield

and we know how much the earth has travelled,

HGL

We really know how far the Sun has travelled in his annual motion. "Counterclockwise" as Sungenis said "to the stars" (which is common for Ptolemaic, Tychonic, and Neo-Tychonic systems of Geocentrism - as far back as Aristotle).

And as far as we know, that movement is unconnected (except for pacing of rhythm) to the annual back and forth of any star.

Setterfield

we can then determine the distance between the near star and its background.

HGL

This is a bit more sophisticated than I had usually heard, when its distance to us is determined.

Setterfield

This depends on knowing the diameter of our orbit. Geocentrists, however, state this method of determining distances is entirely inaccurate as the earth does not move.

HGL

Most of us, perhaps, not Bouw and Sungenis.

Setterfield

Bouw has worked out a system called the “Tychonic Model,” in which, in addition to the sun and the entire universe revolving around the earth once a day, also has the sun and other stars following an annual path around the earth.

HGL

This part of Bouw's theory is common to Aristotle, Ptolemy, Tycho and his own and Sungenis' Neo-Tychonic models.

Except for the addition on his part "and other stars". Or, perhaps, the addition's rendering by Setterfield.

To me, it is far from clear why the other stars like alpha Centauri would have an annual path around the Earth. Around the Earth sounds like 360° and not like 0.75° /(60*60) [zero point seventyfive degrees divided by 60 times sixty] or 0.75" [zero point seventyfive arc seconds].

So, I don't think Bouw said that in those words. He probably said that Sun has an annual path around Earth (correct on any Geocentric view) and that the stars go in exact and equidistant parallels with it (which allows those accepting this to accept parallax measurements).

Setterfield

This gets complicated. The annual orbit of the sun around the earth is a path whose diameter is equal to what we see as the diameter of the earth’s orbit.

HGL

If "we see" means "we theoretically see in our Heliocentric world view".

It is the annual path of Sun around Earth that we actually DO literally see in our observations.

Setterfield

This results, in his model, of stars having an annual parallax movement which exactly corresponds to standard parallax measurements based on the diameter of the earth’s orbit.

HGL

Yes, and here some Geocentrics less known than he - like me - differ.

Setterfield

Now, if their measurement of the sun’s annual change is the same as our earth’s orbital diameter, then the parallax measurements must be the same and the distances measured the same in either case.

HGL

So far as distances "measured" are measured by parallax, yes.

Setterfield

If this is true, then why do so many geocentrists claim the stars and other galaxies are actually quite close and not as far out as standard astronomy claims? Parallax works in either case, determining the same distances for the same objects.

HGL

One reason would be rejecting the Neo-Tychonic view of Bouw (and of Sungenis and of DeLano and of Bennett) and not accepting parallax as a distance measure.

One other reason would be seeing that the distances actually supposed to be measured mainly by parallax are rather close and few.

As Setterfield mentioned, he was getting the answer from whatever astronomer he consulted that it applies to "relatively near stars."

Here is another one:

Setterfield

Because we have determined the distances by parallax to some Cepheid variable stars, and know their intrinsic brightness, when we see similar Cepheid variable stars in distant galaxies, and measure their brightness, we know how far away those galaxies are.

HGL

Sungenis said that we do not know the intrinsic brightness of such stars and therefore cannot measure distance by brightness.

In my view correctly so.

Unfortunately, with some lack of logic about his own position.

IF it is true that distance to relatively near stars (say, "within 100 lightyears" as believers in parallactical distance measures would say) can be measured by parallax, THEN it follows we can know the intrinsic brightness of any star with a measured distance.

And that would in turn give us a few thousands of stars on which to study intrinsic brightness - you take apparent brightness as measurable by our telescopes and cameras, and then you multiply that by the distance (not sure if multiplication is the actual correct mathematical operation), and then you have the intrinsic brightness.

If this held true, one could from then on see how this or that type of star has a typical intrinsic brightness - a kind of astrophysics, and one which is included in wider descriptions of astrophysicians - and in this scheme colour plays a role, some colours have more than one typical size, but Cepheids - which vary in brightness in an oscillating way - seem to have so far only one. Or one relation between oscillation period and intrinsic brightness. Either way, a Cepheid with no known parallax measure would be considered far off, would be measured according to the formula given by Setterfield, after the astronomers. And we would know the distance to it. And to the "galaxy" in which they are observed.

AND we would get back to the problems which far off distances pose both to Geocentrism and to YEC.

Setterfield

Geocentrists require a solid firmament so that the whole universe can rotate around the earth in 24 hours. If it were not solid, this could not happen. The argument may be presented that we have an example of the planets orbiting around the sun which is not solid. However each of the planets orbits at its own individual speed. Geocentrism states that the entire universe actually is rotating around the core, the earth, once every 24 hours — there are no individual orbiting times. For this to be possible, the earth's firmament must be surrounded by a solid covering. The core of the universe must be solid. In fact, the universe itself must be a solid for it not to disrupt at the incredible speeds required to spin around the earth once every 24 hours, despite the idea presented by a number of geocentrists that the universe is not that large at all. Even if it were no larger than our Milky Way Galaxy, the disruption caused by the speeds required would be quite evident. Disruption is not evident.

HGL

I obviously do not subscribe to the conventional size of "our Milky Way Galaxy".

Milky Way is a greater thickness of stars clustering along the stellatum - which is perhaps just one light day away over our heads.

Non-Milky Way "galaxies" are spiral nebulae.

If angels are dancing one with each stars observed in those, we can perhaps ask astronomers the question which St Thomas is once supposed to have been at least asked to answer, how many angels that can dance at the tip of a needle.

Some of the stars requiring very huge resolutions are relatviely speaking nearly that close.

If angels are conducting the movement of single celestial bodies, then there are actually two options other than a rotating solid: 1) a rotating quasi-solid, which does not preclude actively moving through it, but which takes around in it any resting place; 2) angels conducting celestial bodies through a void, at very exact coordination.

Whether both are feasible with meaning of Raqia, I don't know. Both are feasible as to angelic and God's own possibilities.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris V
St Jean-Baptiste Marie Vienney
and Vigil of St Laurence
9.VIII.2016