As it happens, and as RationalWiki notices, there are wobbles.
Geocentrists have to imagine that the stars and galaxies all wobble in (what appears to us) synchronicity while Earth stays still. Since these stars and galaxies are millions of light years apart, however, their wobbles must all occur in the same pattern, but at different times according to their distance from Earth so that the light from these different objects reaches us at exactly the same time making it look simultaneous (for example, the apparent wobble of a star 10 light years away would actually be our observation of its wobble 10 years ago, in synchronicity with a coordinated wobble of another star somewhere across the universe 5 light-years in another direction, but that second star only wobbled 5 years ago). [In footnotes:] Well, of course, the geocentrists can claim, contrary to all the evidence, that stars are really only little mysterious points of light only a few light years away. (Remember, "nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism".) The argument still works, we're saying that stars are making this strangely coordinated dance, instantly changing so that their light will appear on Earth in synchrony. Even if the separation is a matter of as little as days, it is still demanding thousands of ad hoc changes which just happen to look like it is really the Earth which is changing its motions.
Chandler's Wobble is just one of three, I think the one going fastest - once every eight days, unless I misrecall.*
Now, parallax (which is another movement of the Heavens, also neither exactly daily nor in periods observed by astronomers for thousands of years), varies, not just between three quarters of an arc second and "zero visible", but also into the negative, as with 63 Ophiuchi. Aberration (another of the recently discovered movements) probably varies exactly insofar as parallax is measured as minuscule variations on presumed standard annual aberration. But in the wobbles, apparently, especially Chandler's, there is hardly any variation, and apparently it all lines up very neatly.
This could be due to one of three things:
- light might have no finite speed, so even if the wobble is in a star as far away as the thirteen point five billion light years presumed for some stars (and those presumed to be furthest away among visible ones), the wobble is immediately seen on earth, precisely as with the "closest stars" at "4 light years' distance" or as with a very close star c. 1 Astronomical Unit distance, and as with planets, while the Universe wobbles;
- or, light has a finite speed, distances are as thought so Earth is wobbling : simultaneousness of wobble is because wobble is in the one body we inhabit;
- or, light here also has a finite speed, but all stars are equally far away. Sirius and alpha Centauri and 63 Ophiuchi wobble simultaneously seen from us, because they have the same distance from us.
There is a problem for this last option: even if all stars are same distance, planets are closer, including Sun, Moon, comets, asteroids, satellites of planets.
But, supposing as I do that angels are carrying the stars and planets, if not vertically above Earth (that might be due in part at least to relative densities of nuclear matter and ether - Aristotelian theory of gravity updated - or to gravitation of Sun, giving partial credits to Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity), at least horizontally in their different heights above us (and perhaps some verticality in Tychonian orbits as well) : thus they could show the wobble at same moment by moving it in each their own little mirror or lantern with a number of delays between them, as I will presently explain.
Or the wobble could be a fraud.
Supposing the wobble is no fraud, supposing also light has a speed, which, though very great, is finite, one could nearly (not quite), pose the following two equations:
|wobble + geocentricity = stars at same distance|
|wobble + stars at now commonly supposed distances = heliocentric models of some sort|
There is however a little problem with the "stars at same distance" solution, as already noted, being that objects closer to us than stars also show wobble contemporaneous to them, and they are not same distance as stars, nor as each other.
The solution for a geocentric would be to suppose that angels guiding planets (in the large sense as large objects between us and the stars) do the wobble-displacement in time, not with when angels further away and up are actually doing it, but when light from their displacement is reaching down. When a star in Virgo wobbles, its light reaches the level of Mercury a little later and Mercury wobbles in time with the light on its level, each having an angel who is very observant of timing. For angelic beings such fine tuned and speedy reactions are no real problem. Think of the superheroes like Superman and Flash as clumsy and weak compared to angelic beings.
However, as I realised while writing the draft, this solution is also open to a large universe scenario. Which is why the equations will not quite be absolute.
The real reasons against a universe as large as commonly posited, or larger than say stars being in a radius around Earth of for instance a light day (still very large universe, commonly assumed distance to Pluto is 30 light minutes, unless it was Neptune), the real reasons are these:
- not parting from Heliocentric assumptions, via parallax, there is no necessity for a much larger universe;
- there are objections of fittingness against stars being further away than a light day or two, since of they were as distant as four light years or more (even that "smallest stellar distance" is 1461 times the distance of a lightday), it would normally have taken four years after their creation before Adam and Eve would have seen even alpha Centauri;
- apart from being deduced from Heliocentrism, one false system, the hugeness or rather infinity of universe, was alongside the heliocentric topos one of those rejecting Medieval cosmology (Kant, Wright and others).
But the reasoning "from fittingness" for accepting an infinite universe (for which 13.5 billion light years is culturally a recent standin, whatever scientific merits or demerits it might have for one accepting Heliocentrism) is the following reasoning : "God is infinite, therefore he has to express Himself in an infinity of universe or universes" - as if everything that was in God could be adequately expressed even in an infinite number of infinitely large universes! And each existing from eternith past to eternity future!
So, if God can be content with a universe 13.5 billion light years across, He can also be content with a very much smaller one, twice one or two lightdays across.
St. Juliana of Norwich had a vision in which God showed her everything He had created - and it was no bigger than a nut.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton said he liked to adress the universe with diminutives - and it had never seemed to mind.
Ha! Noted I made an explanation involving no rotating ether, as in Greek Mythology or like the Hebrew view familiar to Flavius Josephus or whoever wrote Book of Henoch (whether it be or be not worthy to be considered even locally as canon is a question the Pope may take up with Ethiopian Copts, if and when they apply to be Uniates, and as to Antiquitates, no one ever pretended it was canonic : I refer to story of Abraham realising there was one God, philosophically, before that one God actually called him).
If we take an ether rotating westward, the view of Aristotle basically and of scholastics, though instead of ether they had solid orbital spheres between stars and Earth atmosphere, the wobble is either
Before I quit, if there be an ether, what is the Biblical word for it?
Sungenis and Bennett (two Roberts) think it is "firmamentum, stereoma, raqqiya" and this was of course created on day two. I think it is rather "coelum" in the pair "coelum et terram". Coelum, ouranos, hashamayim. It was thus created in the beginning.
If ether is also the substance of light, and visible light is ripples in ether, this would be very fitting.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Annunciation Feast, 2015
* I was wrong. The 433 days, at the poles, show only 9 metres displacement, an angle smaller than 0.75 arc seconds. And thus somewhat difficult to measure.