1) ... on Astronomy and a Geocentric answer on the Wobble, or Supposed Dance of Stars Problem & debate, 2) ... on Tower of Babel, Limited Universe, Geocentrism and Seasons
- My original article
- The problem is described like this one Liberapedia:
There's yet another reason why modern geocentrism goes against science. There is a slight wobble in the earth's rotation. The earth speeds up and slows down its rotation a little and the point of the earth's axis changes just a bit too.
- 1) Heliocentrists have no difficulty explaining this wobble, the earth moves.
- 2)Geocentrists have to imagine that the stars and galaxies all wobble together while the earth stays still. Each wobble started at a different time so the light from these different objects reaches us at the same time giving the appearance of synchrony.
- 1) A star 9 Light years away wobbled 9 years ago,
- 2) Stars 600 Light years away wobbled 600 years ago,
- 3) Galaxies 6 billion Light years away wobbled 6 billion years ago. Galaxies that are very far away wobbled before the Solar system formed.
- 4) The light from all these wobbles that really happened at different times reaches us at exactly the same time so there's the illusion that the whole universe wobbles in synchrony.
Is all the wobbling in the whole universe centred round earth plausible? Consider Occam's razor. Isn't the simpler assumption that the earth wobbles?
But there are two solutions possible.
- Wobble being actually observed is an urban legend. The quote gave no reference for its observation. Predicting it is no problem for a Newtonian Heliocentric.
- Wobble is a dance in the stars, but this dance is actually less complex than assumed here, since stars are at a common, little varied distance, and much closer than light years. Its "mechanics" are due to Angelic Movers.
- 1) Heliocentrists have no difficulty explaining this wobble, the earth moves.
- For references, see the Wikipedia article on Chandler wobble.
The variation, as interpretated as a motion of the stars, is coordinated by stars in different directions from the Earth, for example stars near the North Pole and those near the South Pole change their dances simultaneously. The northern stars are at great distances from the southern stars, even if all stars are at the same distance from Earth. We have space probes which are known to be, by the time it takes radio transmission to reach Earth at significant fraction of a light-day, and thus we know that the stars must be quite a bit farther than that. Thus northern stars are significant distances from southern stars, and the coordination of their "dances" is something requiring explanation.
Aside from that, to expect that all the stars are at about the same distance from Earth requires that we totally misunderstand their nature. Sirius, for example, being about the same distance as stars which are so dim that they cannot be seen without powerful telescopes is to demand that they are totally different things, producing light by who knows what different mechanisms.
- No, not quite.
Only that they have a totally different origin.
And coming in very different sizes.
However, you suppose they produce light and heat by fusion.
Saying a star is only a few miles across does not make fusion impossible (if it did you are wasting money at CERN), it only means the fusion cannot have started by self ignition after reaching a critical mass which OF COURSE must be greater than that of Jupiter.
Since, if the fusion started by self ignition, if a certain required mass of a body produces self ignition, either Jupiter is smaller than that mass, which is basically what you are saying, and that is why it didn't self ignite, or Jupiter is larger than it and would in such a case have self ignited.
My saying there are stars smaller than Jupiter simply means self ignition was not how stars started to shine. It does not rule out fusion as an angoing process.
Also, there is a question of time here, the smaller a body in fusion, the faster it must burn out. Well, 7200 years is a very much shorter time than millions or billions of years. Plus hydrogen can have been thicker between the stars at the beginning. Plus in a small universe, the redding that is due to interstellar matter (not redshift, which shifts all spectrum, but a cutting off of the bluest parts of it, a distinct thing) would need to be from a denser interstellar matter.
To produce the redding as observed, you either need light passing through a longer distance of less dense or a shorter distance through denser matter.
Coordinating the dance is no problem. I think angels are good dancers (if I may say so) with a very good choreographer, called God.
- You claim that "the smaller a body in fusion, the faster it must burn it". That claim is in disagreement with mainstream astrophysics - bigger (more massive) stars burn their fuel faster.
You also claim that fusion can be maintained in a body smaller than a star (as understood by mainstream astrophysics). But if the centre of such of a body was hot and dense enough for fusion the pressure would be too great for gravitational confinement to word, so it would expand and become cooler and less dense and the fusion reaction would cease.
- By "faster" I did not refer to speed, but to absolute time frame. And I was referring to stars a few miles across having much less matter than modern models about Sirius. Beyond a certain difference of size, this matters more than speed.
As to fusion, I was not saying the confinement was gravitational, as in the case of CERN we know it is not.
As a Creationist, I am nowise bound to limiting the structures of stars to only what could arise from lifeless and mindless physical processes.
Also, I am not absolutely bound to accept the current theories about what stars are are correct. It's not as if we'd been inside one and looked (the space probes looking closest at sun are obviously outside it).
[I am not so much referring to Hadron colliders and attempts of modelling Big Bang like conditions, I am referring to experiments in nuclear fusion.]
- We agree, then, that to accept the fixity of Earth, that one must find practically everything in astronomy is wrong, and that there are spiritual beings which are up to doing practically everything to make things look as if the Earth is moving, in such a way that we poor mortals cannot tell the difference.
The angels could be forming images in telescopes, could be intercepting radio transmissions from space probes, and ... well, you tell us, what more to they do to make us think that Earth is in motion?
- I agreed one had to accept some things in astrophysics are wrong.
I certainly agree there are angels and I do certainly NOT agree all they are doing is make it "look as if the earth is moving".
Not to common mortals without a telescope. And to those that have good such, they have done some counter indications - like negative parallax.
See Tycho Main catalogue, which has negative parallaxes to the range of -900 micro-arch seconds and beyond.
Not surprisingly Heliocentrics have disqualified the observations as not correct parallaxes.
Well these *not* correct parallaxes have been "measured" as much as any parallaxes by very good equipment very well placed.
"The angels could be forming images in telescopes"
Could, but I don't think God would usually let them. And the devils are not allowed that high up.
"could be intercepting radio transmissions from space probes"
Actually the radio transmissions from space probes seem to be very well hidden by Heliocentrics. See the article on zig zag.
"what more to they do to make us think that Earth is in motion"
Nothing. It's astronomers who do INTERPRETING to make THEMSELVES (not all of us common mortals, they cannot reach all of us) think that. At the limit, allowing "aberration" and "parallax" to be observed through telescopes could have been a practical joke on astronomers. BUT, with negative parallax, they have alreade signalled "April fools" to that community, which however is not getting it.
Oh, the Heliocentric majority of astronomers, of course. Who are a very tiny minority of mankind, and the angels are doing nothing to make ordinary mankind (except those trusting Heliocentric astronomers) conclude anything about Earth moving.
See articles on Parallactic zig zag of space missions? and Negative Parallax - a Problem for Heliocentrism
- To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars.
We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other. Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects). And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature.
You seem to suggest that angels are doing this. To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth. It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation.
- To try to keep this focussed on the topic of the wobble of the apparent motions of the stars.
I refuse to focus out other "apparent" motions. Like such as would render Heliocentric model dubious, if taken seriously (negative parallax).
We can agree that stars, even if they are all at the same distance from Earth, are at substantial distance (at least light-days) from each other.
If my guess is right that stars are one or two light days away from us, they are of course much closer than that to each other. One light day away = Adam and Eve could see the light created on day four on the first evening of their life. Two light days away, sorry reverse, two light days away it's just Adam and Eve, but one light day away the birds created on day five could also enjoy them from start.
Their apparent motions are coordinated in such a way that astronomers can interpret them as being the result of changes in the rotation of Earth. Remember that we are talking about appearances of thousands of naked-eye stars (and millions or billions of telescopic objects).
Operative word : can. Before this was predicted and sighted, astronomers had already decided they were going to. They had basically "grown out of" even considering Geocentrism with angelic movers, which was standard in the days of Riccioli (for it) and Newton (who was against it).
And the coordination of these observations is predictable - we predict that if the apparent change in star A changes, so will the same will happen at the same time to star B, star C, ... according to the heliocentric model. To borrow language from the "Intelligent Design" folks, this is complex and specified ("specified" in the sense that it is predictable), and therefore is either (1) random or (2) due to a regularity of nature or (3) the result of a design beyond nature.
If you know the dances of European folklore, dance moves tend to be predictable. Very good dancers seen at a distance (not so close you could see their faces or fingers, of course) would look very similar to robots programmed for the dance.
At enough distance, indistinguishable.
I opt for option 3, a design - choreographic such - beyond the nature of stars and angels, and through the will of these, obedient to their maker and chroreographer.
You seem to suggest that angels are doing this.
Not only "seem to suggest" - if you click at category celestial mechanics, you will find Angelic movers. I am saying it very explicitly.
To me, that suggests that angels are designing things that imitate rotation of Earth.
Are following a design of things, that in fact can be seen as imitating it.
It is a "design inference". You say that it does not indicate that it is by design, but just a massive ongoing coincidence, needing no explanation.
My explanation is double. Remember now, the times when planets (including sun and moon) block some object of the zodiak are ALSO designed. But they are not designed FOR the convenience of astrologers making horoscopes, at least not generally for every man. Of course, once over Bethlehem they were strictly designed to guide mages, i e astrologers (at least for this occasion) to Our Lord.
If an astrologer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a horoscope and interprets it as a horoscope, it is his fault.
And if a heliocentric astronomer chooses to see a pattern he was not meant to interpret as a wobble of earth, it is his fault.
In the one case for ignoring how Jacob and Esau (and so many others born same day and even hour same maternity) had same horoscope but very different fates and and characters. In the other case for taking one of two attitudes to angelic movers:
- "they don't exist"
- "if they do it and Earth isn't moving, it's their fault".
They have given a corrective by showing negative parallax in the best measurements yet, and astronomers react by calling these "incorrect parallaxes".
One could just as well say, they are trying to tell astronomers they are alive and intelligent by different dance moves and failing all the time, because astronomers always have a newq mechanistic aspect to discover.
"The International Latitude Observatories were established in 1899 to measure the wobble; incidentally, the wobble is also called the variation of latitude. These provided data on the Chandler and annual wobble for most of the 20th century, though they were eventually superseded by other methods of measurement. Monitoring of the polar motion is now done by the International Earth Rotation Service.
The wobble's amplitude has varied since its discovery, reaching its largest size in 1910 and fluctuating noticeably from one decade to another."
In other words, the wobble has not any more than the other things exactly lived up to mechanistic explanations, but given astronomers surprises.
And when we speak about celestial mechanics. How about looking at the page here:
Is Newtonian Physics a Sufficient Explanation for Celestial Mechanics?
The wobble seems to accentuate the problem.
- I am replying to your request for what we heliocentrists are talking about with regards to the coordination of the wobble of the stars.
Once again, what we are saying is that the apparent motions of the stars (and this includes Solar System bodies and interplanetary rockets and, for that matter, GPS satellites) vary in such a way that the light reaches Earth in a coordinated way. For example, the light from Polaris and the light from Sirius and the light from Neptune and the light from Voyager 1 varies in their direction at the time that they are observed on Earth just as if the Earth were varying in rotation. Even though the various bodies are at great distances from one another, and at great distances from Earth. You seem to think that the distances are "only" a matter of light-days when we are speaking of stars. I'm not going to get sidetracked on that, but only note that that is still far enough to make the effect striking: Polaris makes a wobble at least a day or so earlier than Voyager 1 makes its coordinated wobble. The same is true of Sirius and Voyager 1. Polaris and Sirius are at least a day or so distant from one another and they make the coordinated wobble at the same time (assuming that they are equal distance from Earth). This happens for thousands of stars and Solar System objects. So much so, that astronomers point their telescopes according to the effect. The coordination is a predicable effect, for thousands of objects as an everyday observation.
You say that the angels are capable of doing anything with the stars. I'm not going to bother asking you why angels would be concerned with such behavior, because, of course, angels are beyond our comprehension. But angels should know that humans will see what is going on and be led to suspect that it is the result of the Earth's motion. These angels are behaving like Puck, playing games with these fools which we mortals be. But I am not to question their motives. These angels who are up to making dances with stars, are surely able to - oh, say, making it look like there are people who are typing stuff on the net.
But if you thiink that the wobble is something worth explaining, then invoking angels who are capable of dancing with the stars without limitations - well, then what are they not going to do next?
To return to the question to which I was responding, I think that I have made it clear what we heliocentrists are saying. The wobble of the stars has the appearance of the motion of the Earth. And no other explanation is known, short of "anthing is possible".
- "I am replying to your request for what we heliocentrists are talking about with regards to the coordination of the wobble of the stars."
No, I was NOT requesting you what Heliocentrics are talking about.
I was requesting you when and where this has been observed.
I actually found the answer myself. [After his indicating the wiki article.]
I also replied to the argument.
As for angels acting like Puck, that is NOT the case with normal mortals, who have no telescopes. It is NOT the case with astronomers or philosophers who, aware of wobble can imagine it is caused by them. It is ONLY the case with heliocentric and an-angelic astronomers, who decided for error even before looking.
God (and therefore His angels) have a perfect right to "act like Puck" towards these.
The question what they will do next is a bit moot. A bit before the world ends, "stars will fall from Heaven" - whether this is literal or refers to UFOs (literally about how it looks) or allegorical about bishops, I don't know. But apart from that event, they can normally be reckoned on as continuing their dance as usual, with the usual steps.
Unless you count things like a rumour of Moon turning 90° during one particular night (the end times researchers were not able to contact the observatories) or things like the Smiley caught in Hubble as them crying out "April fools" to you.
Like the not so bright idea of using very abstruse observations in flouting of very open and commonplacce observations, like Earth being still below our feet while Heavens turn each day and night around us.
Your point of objects at very different distances was also nearly answered.
The "wobble" is longer than a year.
The distances that I must admit are different are within lighthours or less, except for stars which I consider to be one light day away. Now, if stars had been distant at very different light years from us, like 4 for alpha Centauri or 800 for Rigel, you would have had a point.
For how I reason about this, see this article: Whether Parallax be Valid as a Distance Measure
- It is obvious that your only reply is that whatever anyone sees is irrelevant, for supernatural agencies can do whatever they want.
It is pointless to discuss this, for whatever you want to believe can be done by supernatural agencies and there is no questioning about what they do, when or where, how or why.
The only remaining puzzle for me is why you pretend to be interested in what anyone has to say, for you know that you have constructed a view of the world which is immune to any discussion.
- It is of course obvious I count on supernatural agencies being able to do what I think they are able to do.
It is equally obvious, you are more like allergic than just immune to that kind of explanation.
However, I was genuinely interested in what you would have had to say on "light from Voyager 1".
I am especially interested in whether it has really been observed.
Or for that matter, whether stars seen from Voyager 1 are observed with sufficient accuracy to detect a wobble, if it is really in the stars.
I actually think neither is the case, but if you had given a good source, I would have had to reconsider wobble as being a dance in individual stars performed by their angels, I would have had to consider it a part of the movement of the aether, like the daily rotation.
This is not "immune to any discussion", it is only immune to atheistic and anangelic limitations on what explanations I can accept. Just as a discussion of history is immune to arguments like "resurrection can't have happened, because it would be a miracle, and miracles don't happen".
But if your ONLY argument is contesting for various reasons the angelic explanation of stellar movements, well, my world view is certainly immune to THAT. And I am happy to have shown that you had nothing more than that to offer.
But if you have ANY really good source about Voyager 1 in this context, welcome back, and I'll reconsider wobble as possibly rather made by God's moving the aether.
- As far as "light from Voyager 1", I was referring to the observed delay of radio transmissions from interplanetary probes. You can read about an example of that in the recent news stories about New Horizons. This is only one of several signs that you need to read a bit about astronomy before attempting to discuss geocentrism. The available literature is vast, and maybe you should ask your local librarian about some books which are appropriate to your level.
If you care to "explain" whatever happens by saying that agency which is apt to do anything could do it, feel free. Angels could be making messages which you see on your computer screen, and there is no human who is sending them. Maybe I don't exist, but this is just a way of testing your faith by angels.
- "I was referring to the observed delay of radio transmissions from interplanetary probes. You can read about an example of that in the recent news stories about New Horizons."
Link to those stories, please?
"This is only one of several signs that you need to read a bit about astronomy before attempting to discuss geocentrism."
I did. That is how I became a Geocentric.
The greatest proper movement exceeds the greatest parallax, and therefore parallax is NOT sth about fixed stars being really and truly fixed, and therefore NOT necessarily about observer moving.
And DO please click reply button so discussion can be read from top to bottom instead of just highlighting your latest idea!
" Angels could be making messages which you see on your computer screen, and there is no human who is sending them."
It is correct this is within their capability. But in what situation could they morally do so?
Let's suppose a blogger had died, and God asked angels to publish his last post with the news of his death, they could do it.
Demons could do other things than moral ones, but are for now not allowed to.
"Maybe I don't exist, but this is just a way of testing your faith by angels"
I never said ANYTHING about ANY deception being worked by angels or by God or otherwise to test our faith, except at a very low level.
During Flood, God may have allowed devils to pile microfossils along with the larger fossils and in layers the larger fossils don't come in, so as to test our faith. But before resorting to that, I would like to be sure the microfossils were so unanimously assorted along with vertebrate fossils assigned to diverse periods as he claimed they were.
Sorry for not answering that before, but I made the previous answer tonight in a cyber.