Rabinoz, how can HC theorists recover from this EVER :
During the New Moon phase, according to HC theory Moon's motion (around the Earth) is in an opposite direction wrt the direction of orbital motion of Earth-Moon system :
Now, since the "apparent" motion of the Moon is in CW direction (and the "real" motion of the Moon is in CCW direction) and the "apparent" motion of the stars is also in CW direction, then whenever is New Moon phase the stars would (if HC theory were true description of our reality) need more time to catch up the Moon than during the Full Moon phase.
So, the slowest apparent motion of the Moon (between the stars) would be at Full Moon phase, the fastest apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) would be at New Moon phase, and the speed of the apparent motion of the Moon (wrt the stars) during two phases in between New Moon and Full Moon would be moderate.
On top of that Tycho Brahe noticed that the Moon moves between the stars faster than expected during New Moon and Full Moon phase. His observation would be consistent (principally) with the speed of the "apparent" (looking from HC FOR) motion of the Moon during New Moon phase, but it is utterly inconsistent with the speed of the "apparent" (allegedly) motion of the Moon at Full Moon phase when the apparent motion of the Moon would be slowest (than at any other Moon phase) if HC theory were true description of our reality.
ANOTHER HUGE HC SMOKING GUN :
On stellar aberration :
In order to stress the all-embracing importance of that short-
sightedness (with respect to Bradley's fictitious “stellar aberration”),
which has been blatantly accepted for nearly two hundred years,
it may be well to cite a twentieth-century appraisal of Bradley's and Airy's
quandary by the Dutch physicist,
J. D. van der Waals, Jr. :
”Aberration may equally well be squared with the supposition that
the stars indeed describe circlets. And though we find the latter
explanation improbable and prefer the first, the question may arise:
is it in no way possible by means of observations to decide which of
the two suppositions is the right one?”In short,
the convinced Copernican Boškovic
proposed the right thing for the wrong reason. He supposed that a
water-filled telescope would conclusively prove the heliocentric
theory. But to translate a Dutch expression:
“with that crooked
stick, Airy made a straight hit.” His experiment was powerless to
show that Gamma Draconis' circular movement was only
apparent. Shortsightedly forgetting the fact that telescopes cannot
bend radiation to look around corners, he affirmed on the
contrary that stars really describe orbits equal to that of the sun.
Consider : according to the ruling paradigm, it makes no
physical difference whether I declare either the earth to move
with respect to everything else at rest, or declare the earth to be at
rest with respect to sun and stars moving around. Starting from an
earth at rest, and hence aberration being absent, then whatever the
truth, the annual standard size circlets of all the stars are real and
not caused by our 29.8 km/sec orbital velocity.
Instead of a
heliocentric “aberration,” we are confronted with a geocentric
parallax, and these parallaxes being practically the same size for
all stars, these stars must be at the same distance from us. This
points to the existence of the stellatum of old.