Hey mate, I hear where you’re coming from — and I get that the distances involved in space are massive. That’s what we were all taught, and I believed the same for years. But let’s unpack your point a little.
You said Earth’s orbit is “infinitesimal” compared to the distance to the stars — and that’s
exactly the issue.
If Earth is orbiting the sun at nearly
300 million kilometres across in total (150 million km radius on each side), that’s a huge shift in
position and perspective. Even if stars are light-years away, this distance should result in
some parallax — a change in star positions, especially the closer ones.
That’s basic trigonometry. When you move your head just slightly, your background shifts — but somehow, even moving Earth-sized distances,
the stars don’t budge?
Also, if the Earth is supposedly
tilted on its axis and circling the sun at
107,000 km/h, that should cause the visible stars to
rotate out and back into view over a year. But we still see the
Southern Cross from Queensland — every single night, year after year.
Let’s be real: you haven’t debunked any of the observations so far — you’ve
repeated what we were taught, without explaining
why the observations don’t match the model.
If your model is correct, we should see:
- Seasonal constellations changing dramatically.
- Some stars disappear entirely for part of the year.
- Observable stellar parallax with high-powered consumer telescopes.
But none of that happens. The sky behaves as if
we are not moving at all.
You’re welcome to challenge the ideas — that’s what real discussion is. But so far, it seems the evidence
against the globe model is stacking up, and your replies are leaning more on theory than observable reality.
Let’s keep digging, respectfully — truth doesn’t fear questions.
