Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

New blog on the kid: Not So Far Away, Not So Big · "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." · How do we know stellar distances? · But Angels Don't Move Planets, They Are Guardian Angels! · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Cosmic "Banana" vs Distant Star Light Problem

While the title is a clickbaiting reference to Ray Comfort and Singing Banana (the former discussed in a video I was hearing while making the html), whatever view you take of the heavenly bodies, even a Heliocentric one, it is kind of a cosmic version of Ray Comfort's well designed banana which fits the human hand. Here are CMI doing a Heliocentric version:

Remarkable evidence of a designed, young, and stable solar system
by Andrew Sibley, This article is from
Creation 45(4):55, October 2023
https://creation.com/young-stable-solar-system

But the problem is, it doesn't take care of the Distant Starlight Problem, Geocentrism does.

Gary Robokoff

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

17.X.2023

The age of the universe is all over the place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Geocentrism.

Recall how the shortest distance measures are done that involve light years, e g 4 light years to alpha of the Centaur? Trigonometry. If earth is what is moving, sun and star both are relatively still (though moving on a very much more long term basis), then we have one distance and two angles and can do trigonometry. If the Sun and the star is what is moving and if we can't guarantee the stars moves in stride with the Sun, even if we see it is in pace with the Sun, then we have simply one angle and no distance. Not enough to do trigonometry.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY and needs revision once more data available, even under 1k LY.

Any claim of accurate parallax or any light departure point of light visible here and now over 5,784 (minimum value SPIRAL LY radius i the nearest departure point of any light arriving here and now at standard light speed) is disputed science.

SPIRAL shows why basic physics and math explanation of the vast body of empirical cosmological observations, attest the vastly higher probability science is the year age of the universe is capped by the LY distance SPIRAL radius i. So the mantle of science is firmly within the universe being 'thousands, not billions' of years old.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roger M Pearlman "my understanding is parallax never reliable over 1k LY"

The problem is, above that, there are other methods taking over.

Parallax X optic size of star is supposed to break down to certain star types with certain typical sizes, like main series has a size 1 ~ 2 times the sun. By this method, astronomers think they have gone far beyond 1k LY.

And from there, Cepheids take over until you have the 13.8 billion LY away.

I do not have the book you have written on spiral cosmology, but Geocentrism actually takes away the need, since it involves no reliable reason to take even alpha Centauri as even 4 LY away.

And how does Geocentrism work?

Two options.

Riccioli: angels move individual heavenly bodies through a void from East to West, but are not keeping the same speed.
Thomas Aquinas: God moves the upper heaven, which moves spheres below it, from East to West, and in each sphere angels move the celestial bodies the other way round.

In the mechanics of St. Thomas, I analyse the miracle of Joshua's long day as follows:

a) God obeyed Joshua, by ceasing to move the heavens westward
b) the angels of sun and moon also stood still in their habitations (which is why they did not move slightly eastward either).

This way, Joshua 10:14 is true:
There was not before nor after so long a day, the Lord obeying the voice of a man, and fighting for Israel
and Habacuc 3:11 is true:
The sun and the moon stood still in their habitation, in the light of thy arrows, they shall go in the brightness of thy glittering spear.

And the thing which God moves directly and in which angels move their orbits can be considered as the firmament, which also reaches down in this circular motion to the surface of the earth, which is why we have Coriolis effect and winds of passage and oceanic currents. The matter of which this is made is presumably aether, i e the actual non-void in so called vacuum. Not only celestial bodies, but also atoms, are suspended in aether. However, the aether between the atoms in our bodies does not belong to the firmament, as it is not firmly tied to similar positions in relation to other parts of it.

Note, when an object starts to fall, the reason it does not fall westward with the aether is, while it was suspended before the fall, it acquired an eastward momentum through the aether of the firmament, this being also why geostationary satellites work.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl
In Pearlman YeC SPIRAL we illustrate how/why even if parallax was accurate up to 30k LY (somehow able to account for all gravitational lensing...) based on the highest probability science it would still align best with the most distant stellar objects light departure point of 5,784 (6k rounded) light years to date maximum. As one needs to take into account the change in density of the universe at light departure. All over SPIRAL Radius i departed on day 4. The more distant the stellar object, the earlier on day 4 in passed that distance from us. We conclude a Earth-sun elliptic centric universe.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

(PDF) SPIRAL's 'MVP' hypothesis our most preferred view of the universe exhibit A
www.researchgate.net/publication/315676261

MVP hypothesis, i will see if i have an excerpt on the cosmic distance ladder.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Unlike a blog, your link to researchgate won't open on this computer.

It may be interesting, but I think it is also superfluous.

Roger M Pearlman

Admin, Meilleur contributeur

Hans-Georg Lundahl see if this link works on SPIRAL Blitz PDF on the comic distance ladder. if not i will see if i have the link to it on academia.

(PDF) Parallax, Gravity and The Cosmic Distance Ladder.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301567405_Parallax_Gravity_and_The_Cosmic_Distance_Ladder

Hans-Georg Lundahl there can be more than one viable hypothesis on reconciling the cosmic distance ladder, a light speed limit of standard light speed, and the universe being 6k rounded years. It is good to have more than one in case one is falsified.Either way, time (and or our One common father) will tell which one best describes the one actuality.

SPIRAL 'Blitz' cosmic distance ladder hypothesis.
https://www.academia.edu/44429404/SPIRAL_Blitz_cosmic_distance_ladder_hypothesis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Thanks for sharing.

// Don't assume uniformitarian assumptions. Do you assume a stellar object 15k LY, 1.5M LY, 1.5B LY.. has always been at that approximate distance?

Obviously if it was subjected to a material amount of cosmic expansion it was not. So the light we see here now from all objects at and over 5778 LY, could have departed when 5778 LY distance. //

The problem is, on your view, the views we have of the stars OUGHT to reflect, not the actual distance now (if anything like known), but the distance within 5778 LY.

Because you see, when a modern cosmologist says "those far off stars are 13.8 billion LY away" he means they were so 13.8 billion Y ago, and that they could now be very much further off.

The REAL logical result of your theory being true is, no star should even by uniformitarians be measured further away than 5778 LY, since the "distance measured" reflects very strictly the conditions of the light we receive, filtered through certain assumptions.

The positions given by astronomers are definitely NOT meant as "what the distance is now, long after the starlight was emitted" bt ONLY "distance when the starlight was emitted" ..

So, your solution seems to be a non-solution.