As far as its mass, it is made up mostly of the two lightest elements known.
How do you verify this a proven concept? Is is not verifiable at all! It is conjecture and assumption absed on observations from here on earth, as well as from spacecraft. You realize, of course, we don't even know what the Earth is made of past 8 miles deep!
gravity will not be sufficient for nuclear fusion.
Hydrogen to helium, eventually to iron, and so forth. Theory, conjecture, and an assumption that the sun has been burning for Billions of years. Circular reasoning. The gravitational collapse model was widely accepted, until Millions of years were required for Darwinism, which prompted an change in theory to Nucler Fusion. However, problems aboud with this model as well, including the shrinking size of the sun, angular momentum of sun & planets, etc.
How small do you need the Sun to be for it to circle the Earth?
About the same size as the moon, I suppose.
Why does it look so big and why is it measured to be so distant?
Don't they look to be the same size in the sky? Don't they both rise & set from our perspective?
I am not asserting geocentrism any more than you are, I am just pointing out assumptions and problems with the heliocentric model, just as you are with the geocentric model. I tend towards Helio, myself. :)
First off you left out the point about the elements the Sun is made up of. Anything other than hydrogen and helium make the Sun MORE massive. So if your proposing that the Sun is not made up of hydrogen and helium that only makes the Sun heavier not lighter. The Sun would have to be made of “magic” to be lighter than hydrogen and helium.
The force necessary for nuclear fusion of hydrogen into helium is known. A Sun the size of the moon would not be capable of nuclear fusion.
A Sun the size of the moon would not be measure to be about 8 light minutes distance and appear to be the size of the moon. A Sun the size of the moon measured to be about 8 light minutes distant would be a mere speck to the human eye.
Once again one must throw out the theories of Physic regarding Gravity and Nuclear Fusion to believe for even a second in Geocentricity.
As opposed to what?
What is a higher level of explanation than a theory?
And "assumption" doesn't mean "automatically wrong" or "wild-ass guess" as is often implied by creationists. There has to be some factual basis for those assumptions, and if they are not supported by subsequent experiments they are discarded.
It is very informative to consider the "assumptions" one is rejecting vs. the "assumptions" one is accepting when one argues for a geocentric universe.
The sun, stars and other galactic objects emitting electromagnetic radiation are probably not powered by gravity-induced fusion, but are a type of electric arc. That's why there is a shortfall in the number of neutrinos detected.