my point was the gyroscope
at least you should be able to know what you should not see in the sky in your model ! there are even pictures with a half moon and a star right in front where the moon should be
and i got more faith in the gyro then in anything else
because its basic physics
and on a spinning ball the vector of the gyro would rotate
because of the spinning ball
but we dont see that!
the gyro keeps the same vector
If you believe that some alleged photo proves that stars are closer to us than the Moon, then there's probably no reason to tell you about reference frames.
but what about geocentrism, which this documentary asserts has teeth being that it is what the CMB data returned by the Planck (2 seperate missions) satellite indicates?
strangely, or not, this "problem" is known by the orthodox and largely atheist modern astrophysicists as the "axis of evil" , since any introduction of meaning or purpose into their model is destabilizing (to them) sacrilege :
I watched the entire film; thank you. Even though many (including, apparently the filmmakers) seem to think there are just two sides to this debate, I think that there are four camps in it, arrayed along two axes. One axis is from (A) "everything that exists is random and meaningless" to (B) "everything that exists is meaningful and perhaps inevitable, even if that meaning isn't obvious." The other axis ranges from (C) "the Divine is mainly found in the Bible or other holy texts" to (D) "whatever we might consider divine is to be found everywhere in Nature but not at all in the Bible." I'm very much in the B-D quadrant.
glad you got to check it out... very interesting stuff.
gyroscope
my point is the gyro
every "proof" or "disproof" has some priority or even not
the most priority got the gyro
images or shadows on the moon are not that relevant
because it could be explained in different ways
but if you say you are on a spinning ball
then the gyro should rotate!
but its not
it always keeps the same vector in space
