[JoeTheToe]

I know this has been debated numerous times over the years. But:

• I don't recall what special FE arguments are made about it
• A site search results in too much noise to sift through
• Does not appear to be in the wiki

"This" being, the question: How does stellar parallax (e.g. closer stars appearing to move more in the sky than more distant ones when viewed six months apart) - work in the FE model, again? E.g. Is the answer the simplest FE fallback, e.g. it doesn't exist and is a hoax?

Thanks.

[pedant]

For what it's worth, the FE hypothesis is that the stars are merely a few thousand km from the earth.  That means that two observers on Earth separated by about 5,000 km can simultaneously take a picture of the Moon and the parallax should show the Moon appear shifted by 13.8 arcmin (78.5% of the FE Moon's angular width) as compared to the background stars (assuming the stars are right behind the Moon).  The actual apparent shift of the Moon that we should observe empirically is about 44.7 arcmin (143.9% of the observed angular diameter).

This observer separation is approximately the distance across the US and the experiment could be easily performed.  I hope to actually perform this experiment.

Interactive diagram here.

To answer your question though, my guess is they would make up a pure speculation about refraction or something.  All without any prior empirical evidence or models to back it up.

[3DGeek]

For what it's worth, the FE hypothesis is that the stars are merely a few thousand km from the earth.  That means that two observers on Earth separated by about 5,000 km can simultaneously take a picture of the Moon and the parallax should show the Moon appear shifted by 13.8 arcmin (78.5% of the FE Moon's angular width) as compared to the background stars (assuming the stars are right behind the Moon).  The actual apparent shift of the Moon that we should observe empirically is about 44.7 arcmin (143.9% of the observed angular diameter).

This observer separation is approximately the distance across the US and the experiment could be easily performed.  I hope to actually perform this experiment.

Interactive diagram here.

To answer your question though, my guess is they would make up a pure speculation about refraction or something.  All without any prior empirical evidence or models to back it up.

I already comprehensively debunked refraction as a cause.

The "Electromagnetic accelerator" idea *might* fix that problem for them - but Tom (at least) doesn't believe that.

[TomInAustin]

For what it's worth, the FE hypothesis is that the stars are merely a few thousand km from the earth.  That means that two observers on Earth separated by about 5,000 km can simultaneously take a picture of the Moon and the parallax should show the Moon appear shifted by 13.8 arcmin (78.5% of the FE Moon's angular width) as compared to the background stars (assuming the stars are right behind the Moon).  The actual apparent shift of the Moon that we should observe empirically is about 44.7 arcmin (143.9% of the observed angular diameter).

This observer separation is approximately the distance across the US and the experiment could be easily performed.  I hope to actually perform this experiment.

Interactive diagram here.

To answer your question though, my guess is they would make up a pure speculation about refraction or something.  All without any prior empirical evidence or models to back it up.

I already comprehensively debunked refraction as a cause.

The "Electromagnetic accelerator" idea *might* fix that problem for them - but Tom (at least) doesn't believe that.

There has been a lot of debunking of late.

[3DGeek]

For what it's worth, the FE hypothesis is that the stars are merely a few thousand km from the earth.  That means that two observers on Earth separated by about 5,000 km can simultaneously take a picture of the Moon and the parallax should show the Moon appear shifted by 13.8 arcmin (78.5% of the FE Moon's angular width) as compared to the background stars (assuming the stars are right behind the Moon).  The actual apparent shift of the Moon that we should observe empirically is about 44.7 arcmin (143.9% of the observed angular diameter).

This observer separation is approximately the distance across the US and the experiment could be easily performed.  I hope to actually perform this experiment.

Interactive diagram here.

To answer your question though, my guess is they would make up a pure speculation about refraction or something.  All without any prior empirical evidence or models to back it up.

I already comprehensively debunked refraction as a cause.

The "Electromagnetic accelerator" idea *might* fix that problem for them - but Tom (at least) doesn't believe that.

There has been a lot of debunking of late.

Yeah - I'm rather pleased with how it's going actually.   Someone said today that Tom Bishop is FE's smartest debater!  So I guess it's game-over here.

[juner]

There has been a lot of debunking of late.

Yeah - I'm rather pleased with how it's going actually.   Someone said today that Tom Bishop is FE's smartest debater!  So I guess it's game-over here.

While you two usually post at least somewhat interesting things for debate, I will ask you to keep low-effort, low-content posts such as these out of the upper fora. Warned.