Ok. So....Stellar Parralax. This is the most scientific thing that most people can come up with to prove that the Earth moves.
The satement is "We can measure star distances using Stellar Parralax therefore we know the Earth is orbiting the Sun"
Nope, the statement is: we can measure stellar parallax, therefore Earth is at different ends of a given baseline or stellar parallax could not be observed. Because such parallax could not be observed, Brahe concluded that earth did not move, which sat comfortably with a particular theological interpretation of biblical folklore and myth. Analogously, lunar parallax can be observed as Earth rotates around its own axis, i.e. as a baseline for observation is established as the point from which the measurement is taken changes as it moves in relation to the Moon.
Now I'm gonna show you how this is a classic case of CIRCULAR REASONING.
[SIZE=+1]Circular Reasoning – supporting a premise with the premise rather than a conclusion.[/SIZE]
Circular reasoning is an attempt to support a statement by simply repeating the statement in different or stronger terms. In this fallacy, the reason given is nothing more than a restatement of the conclusion that poses as the reason for the conclusion.
Yes, I know what circular reasoning is and, no, this isn't circular reasoning, no matter how much you wish it was.
Look at the diagram below that shows the method of Stellar Parralax:::::::
Lots of comlicated science stuff there. Dont worry, you only need to notice one thing. Look at the base of the diagram. There you have the Earth. The entire method of measuring stellar parralax is based on the ASSUMPTION THAT THE EARTH IS ORBITING THE SUN!
Nope, the entire method of measuring stellar parallax would fail if there was not a baseline from which that parallax could be observed and measured. The inference (not assumption) of that observation and measurement is that Earth has moved from one point on that baseline to another.
So they take a measurement of a distance to a star and then 6 months later they take another measurement ASSUMING the Earth is on the OTHER side of the sun. And thats how they get their calculations. Infact ALL star distances and ANY calculations based on star distances are based on this and therefore fundamentally flawed.
All that appears to be fundamentally flawed is your understanding of what this methodology implies. What alternative and better explanation do you have for the observed and measured phenomenon of stellar parallax, then?
Thats the method. So by bringing this forward as proof your basically supporting the premise that the Earth orbits the sun by saying we measure star distances using the premise that the Earth orbits the sun. Its circular.
Nope, I point out that the existence of a baseline from which parallax can be observed leads to the inference that the times at which measurements are taken indicate that Earth is at a different point in each instance along that baseline. No baseline = no parallax; there is nothing circular about this reasoning. Therefore Earth is not a stationary object in the cosmos.
If this amounts to a 'particularly concise and very telling' rebuttal of the implications of stellar parallax, then you have a much more generous and forgiving idea of what constitutes a 'rebuttal' than I do.
By the way, I still remain interested in what your take is on the 'massive assumptions' I made in respect of inferences that can be drawn from observations of other non-stellar bodies in this and other solar systems.
.
