Stellar spectroscopy conveniently ignores the possibility that stars are reflecting sunlight and incorporates itself into one of the most intricate examples of circular reasoning ever devised.
Circular reasoning is a problem in science where people make up fiction that suits their narrative, then use the fiction to rationalize more fiction. A good example is heliocentricity. We don’t observe it, it is purely theoretical, but it is used along with stellar parallax, stellar spectroscopy and the decay constant in an exquisite example of circular reasoning.
There’s a clever way to rationalize a timescale of billions of years which has three parts, each one is a minor deity in the atheist pantheon. It’s clever because it incorporates denial of the fulfillment of prophecy.
Inductive Reductive Circular Reasoning
- By assuming heliocentricity we can use stellar parallax to confirm heliocentricity.
- We also assume that stars are distant suns and galaxies (synonymy).
- By assuming that stars are distant suns we can use the assumption of heliocentricity to calculate vastly inflated distances to them.
- The vastly inflated distances may be used with stellar spectroscopy to support the assumption of an ancient Earth (needed for biological evolution) as follows:
- spectra show that radioisotope ratios in stars match the ratios we measure on Earth,
- by assuming that the light has traveled for billions of years across the distances contrived by assuming heliocentricity,
- this supports the assumption that the rate of nuclear decay has been constant for billions of years.
This type of reasoning is known as induction. In it the premise, heliocentricity, is used to supply evidence for the conclusion, heliocentricity. The conclusion is then used to supply evidence for another premise, in this case ancient earth.
None of the assumptions necessary are testable hypotheses, unless you accept the premise that the assumptions are true. It is not scientific, and yet this is what most people think science is.
Everything here has to be assumed before you can use any assumption to confirm any of the other assumptions. It is a giant pile of inductive reductive circular reasoning. Peer Review, as always, has a response:
“You’re the perfect example of Dunning Kruger syndrome.”
– Peer Review
If there is a sphere of rigid crystal on the edge of space of which the inner layers sloughed off and fragmented, then we would expect that there would be billions of fragments of glass-like debris with highly reflective surfaces and a variety of mineral composition, including ruby, sapphire and diamond. We would expect to find that stars are reflecting sunlight and the spectra is variable based on the mineral composition of the reflective body.
There are times when reporting on new scientific observations gets ahead of the Peer Review propaganda machine and the truth gets reported, almost by accident: Here’s an example of a report of what we predict: CFM (Crystalline Firmament Material)
Astronomers Find a Huge Diamond in Space
Do stars emit light or reflect it? More and more evidence shows that they reflect it.
This artistic rendering of a diamond in space is complicit with the false narrative of exoplanets. It appears to show a diamond which has been weathered to have a dull surface. However, the light we detect is sunlight reflected from a highly polished surface because the diamond is a fragment of CFM.
The stars are going to fall to the earth. Denying this prophesy is the express purpose of of Astronomy which is not scientific, but it’s Okay, the Peer Review people said don’t worry about it.
Modern Astronomy is a pseudoscientific validation of the Star Trek universe for the purpose of making you think that Biblical prophecy about stars falling to Earth is ludicrous. We want you to sleep at night and not worry. You’re welcome!
– Peer Review
First off all what evidence observational evidence do you have for your proposed space jewels? What would have caused them to separate from the firmament? The fundamental problem with what you’re doing is simply you’re making stuff up. Simply fabricating phenomena and entities that are divorced from observation and experiment.
The spectra observed seem to be coming from large bodies of plasma that are emitting their own light? Can you on the basis of observations alone without citing your erroneous warped esisegeses. Prove your hypothesis is a superior explantion for the observed data?
Also Astronomy was not founded to disprove Bible prophecy stop with the persecution and victim complex. It was founded to explain our observations of the heavens. And its up you to proved your wild claims provide a superior explantion.
We all have the same evidence. The only evidence that we have is observational. The stars are specks of light of which we can measure luminosity and spectra. That’s all. You can’t submit the heliocentric theory as evidence, because it’s an inductive rationalization of the evidence, which is circular reasoning. Look up Hypothesis 31, Bowen’s Reaction Series and the formation of stars..
First of all we do not have the same evidence you have assertion and presupposition. In science we do not arbitrarily assume things we go with observation and experiment tells us and what theories offer the best explanations. We can observe the spectra of stars this gives us information about them such as their temperature and chemical composition etc. Turns out they are hot balls of hydrogen helium plasma just like are sun. The data strongly suggest that the stars and the sun are the same calls of object you have given me no reason to doubt this.
Also about your hypothesis 31. I have only one thing to say what observational evidence do you have for the existence of a massive crystalline sphere inclosing the universe? Why should I accept this bare assertion?