You didn't really answer any of my questions, so here they are again:
[The idea that stars are distant suns is] based on what evidence?
[The idea that the Earth rotates is supported by] which experiments?
Any that you have performed yourself?
I read a dozen or so pages from the book that you linked to but could find nothing compelling. Perhaps you can be more specific? Pendulums were mentioned - I suppose you could cite Foucault's pendulum, but then you would have to account for the Alais effect during eclipses (which of course Wikipedia labels as "alleged" and "inconclusive" but anyone who has read Allais' book knows better):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect
Mainstream sources admit that this effect has never been explained:https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0408/0408023.pdf
Conventional explanations for observations of anomalous behaviour of mechanical
systems during solar eclipses are critically reviewed. These observations include the work
of Allais with paraconical pendula, those of Saxl and Allen with a torsion pendulum and
measurements with gravimeters
Attempts of replications of these experiments and recent
gravimeter results are discussed and unpublished data by Latham and by Saxl et al. is
presented. Some of the data are summarized and re-analyzed. Especially, attention is paid
to observations of tilt of the vertical, which seems to play an important role in this matter
and recommendations for future research are given. It is concluded that all the proposed
conventional explanations either qualitatively or quantitatively fail to explain the
Can you give me any more insight, dear Patrix, as to what underpins your seemingly unshakable convictions that stars are in fact distant suns, and that the Earth rotates on it's axis once per day? And can you confirm the presumed answer to question #3, in that you have, in fact, never undertaken yourself any experiments to personally verify either of these two theories, but instead you must rely on what you are told by those in the mainstream?
All the best,