"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
Copernican dilemma I
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is one of the oldest fallacies, yet for the sake of the telescope modernist science
would say, "post Copernico, ergo propter Copernico". Therefore, certain eccentricities, great distances, and changing views of the stars would prove the rotation of the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
The "deep slumber of decided opinion" created by heliocentric relativity may seem at times not easy to answer, but in regard to Gamma Draconis, Polaris, Sirius, Saturn, and all the other stars, it is not difficult to know that a star cannot move away from itself, as much as it cannot transit at once in two or more different directions, or be in two or more different places at once, or transit at two or more speeds at the same time, and per se cannot translate its starlight directly from a place where it is not, or from a time and hour when it is not.
For example, from a lost fragment of Clostridio of Minoa, recovered in caves at El Toro of Menorca, we have, "in orbium coelestium proprium,
sol motum per gradatim, vestigiis semper interest duo circulos, et sic pro omnis astris". In its own celestial sphere, the sun is moved by steps, traces always in between two circles, and so for all the stars. With a natural sense of duality, as one for
the other from time and space, he wrote of the Sun in the seasons, "forma pulchritudinis, duo duo, et signaculum dierum omnia", the form of beauty, two by two, and a sign for all the days.
That way the Sun represents a simple combination from one place at a time; and like the rest of the stars, it cannot move away from itself without coming apart, as much as it cannot be going
six different speeds.
"The light that reaches us from above ... comes straight and true to our eyes, because each tender wavelet is linked to the other, receiving and transmitting
the luminous ray."-1 They are not "light-years" away for the sake of any distance but there in the sky by the same principles of geometry as here on Earth. The science of geometry does not change from here to there, from one side of a view or the other, not
even for parallax, so how is it that the sun orbits a point in space, for so many years, yet supposedly the cosmos has no center, and there is such odd nonsense about starlight and "light-years"?
If the question of astronomy and parsameters is which is which, everybody knows that that one light per night is not yesterday or last week. Ultima ratio simplicissimus per noctes, it is as though the fallacy of infinite regress would come
up a little bit short, for anything new and a "light-year", even in the light of a full Moon. As slow as the speed of light light-years away, "from Romulus to Tuesday last," if the question of the stars is which one is which, everybody knows that it is that
one per night not yesterday or another week gone by. Anything as old or new as all directions from the center at once would be so, as
any simple stability between points would be within a magnitude of space, of course, as events are always resolved as much as the now in universal occurrence.
fine magnitude of hyperion space all around, of course, is overall within the magnitude and epigraph of Earth; and that perhaps is why the present is so simple, yet at times profound. Even in the law of the excluded middle, one moment dismisses another, nunc
dimittis, and it always is now, in the present, since whatever presence in time is predicated of some kind, some species, and its space.
Even though philosophy would beg the question,
nature does not ask permission, when the past was now, and when the future will be again, like before and after, as much as neither of these is exactly the same, so it is with the twinkly stars. Overall the magnitude of hyperion space around the Earth is of
one kind in trigonometry, in stereo; and seeing it once at once in a moment, the present order is not yet past. Therefore, if one does not need light-years to reckon the phases of the Moon, and the relations of the Moon in space, and to the stars, one does
not need light-years to estimate the relation of the stars in space, and to the Moon.
Always now between the same, it is good to have the measure of things but never too much involved,
or two different hours or days at the same time of the same place. There is no contact among numbers only succession, and the geometric property endures. If it were a dragon in the aether, it would be tail to eyeball as one sees the light in farthest space.
For all the scales, teeth, and claws, nunc dimittis, one moment dismisses another, with the transmission of magnitude in whatever space, as it is one day, one week, one year, one decade, one century, one millenia or the other.
If nothing looks the same from every perspective, and the stars are old, the night is still young. So how can starlight be from any millions
of years ago in a passing night, when the illumination progresses thirty degrees across the sky in two hours, for example, or sixty degrees in four? The angular position and direction of velocity describe the present orbit and location day by day: and space adds up with identity as well as time.
Since the astronomer and the stars are under the same umbrella of time and space, it would be strange to dispute that it is
the same day and hour from here to there. However great the distance may be, if the light from a star were from some other time, like "from ten million years ago", the star would
have to be in different places at once. Yet it is as impossible for it to be a new moon and full moon at the
same time, as it is for starlight to be from "ten million three hundred thousand years ago", and distilled in arc minutes from a particular place circa diem.
"All instruction given
or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowldge"(2); and from one intercept to the next, one divisible speed per littlest unit and arc of time, from where it was to where it will be, the volume of simple evidence in astronomy also accounts
for actual positions not merely apparent ones. The one place before equal to its volume, where it was, and the one place now equal to its volume, and the one place to follow, where it will be, equal to its volume, add up for some actual part of reality.
It is as simple as the time frame in a glass window in the ceiling, for three steps of past, present, and future, as the heavenly lights go circling around the Earth.
since the Earth apparently is not moving, there must be a confusion of appearance, a mistake of visual perception from one side or the other, to help justify the theory of heliocentrism.
"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the cause of half their erros"(3), and heliocentrism today has the sun going six different
speeds at once, which is impossible. At any given time, it always is only one measure of distance away from the Earth and at one point in the sky. A simple body that can have
only one direction of progress in space, conformable to the whole, the sun is never in two different places at once.
As from earlier notes about the Earth, by the sign at "Go Karts R Us", the explanation of the scene today would attribute 560,000 mph to the Sun for going around the galactic core, and 827,670 mph in view of the cosmic microwave background
radiation, called the CMB for short, then an estimated 43,200 to 45,000 mph towards Lambda Herculis, and also an upwards movement at about 90 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way at 15,658 mph. In addition, for contradictive simultaneity, it flies 1,235,000
to 1,410,000 mph with the Milky Way around a localized group of distant galaxies, and for the sixth velocity it remotes around 2,184,000 mph with the Hubble flow around the "Great Attractor", which does not yet have a specific location in any normal sense,
except very, very far away.
So when NASA supposedly sends a satellite to Jupiter
or Saturn, when does it start having many speeds at once too, instead of the one? If a satellite is always in one place at a time, how can it supposedly begin to go many speeds at once ... like Jupiter and Saturn, which also are in one place at a time before
the background of more distant stars?
If any star is in different directions, as much as different
speeds, at once, when should it not start coming apart or degenerating? The sun cannot return to the west and to the east in the sky at the same time, and not begin to fail the course. From high noon, it cannot begin to set more than one way at once, as the
logic of astronomy also is in procession one step at a time. The same universal relation between before and after holds everywhere in logic, which would not be so plain if not for a center, as much as an origin.
Good eyes then are enough for specifics and "light-years", and how to deliver the mail, where "in the end, the Newtonian and Einsteinian systems are mere mathematical representations of physical forces for which neither system
provides real physical answers."-4
One sees that the proofs and the math in the "Principia",
for example, are unreadable and absurd nonsense, Q.E.D., quod erat demonstrandum. As Aldous Huxley remarked, "if we evolved a race of Isaac Newtons, that would not be progress. As a man he was a failure; as a monster he was superb."-5
Whether for alchemy or the insane, high over Cambridge, the sun has the same angular diameter in the sky as the Moon, 30 arc minutes, which equals half a degree of the ecliptic. Since there are 360 degrees of the
ecliptic, for 2pi radians around the Earth, there are 720 arc steps of the Sun and the Moon per orbit. "Because they are always rolling in their courses (aei eilein ion) about the earth"(6), there is a zip code and an address in the ephemrides, circle by circle,
for the transits in the sky.
"The days have not been bigger than the cosmos, of course, and the cosmos has not been for any less than the longest day." An augur
in the days of Romulus and Remus, Agricola's obscure uncle said, "dies non fuerant maiores quam universalis, et cosmos ipse non fuerat minor in minimis quam dies diutissime. Enim omnissima una correspondeat et una cum catholica, in saecula saeculorum".
For everything corresponds with one and one with everything.
Never underestimate the impact of a good circle either, or the sign of three crows in myrtle, and the
stars have a natural quality of haecceitas. Each one is boxed in by a box of itself that translates geometric space in simple 3-D coordinates, of two interlocked interior squares, that form six corners of the six centers of the sides of a box. Like a hexagonal
diamond in 3-D, there are the two corners in the center to the sides, and the two corners above and below, and the two corners to the front and back. Every point a corner and ever corner a point, and around these six corners can be drawn two circles to represent
the two extensions in space of a star. The inner circle corresponds to the star itself existing in real time, and the second to the rays of starlight.
Motey mo', and they say that
in 1838, Friedrich Bessel observed the first recognized instance of stellar parallax in measuring the distance to the star 61 Cygni of the constellation Cygnus. He reported a parallax of 0.314 arc seconds and that this would also indicate that the star was
far enough away that it would take light 10.3 years to travel this distance. The paradoxical if not absurd convention of the "light-year" would appear again in a German popular astronomical article by Otto Ule in 1851. Yet looking at the stars is a simple
question of where and when, for azimuth, altitude, and ascension, and a matter of genera and species in space and time within the scope of any given day. The solar day and Cartesian mathematics of the sphere, and of rest and motion, are defnitive
enough for astronomical observations circa diem, without needing to add useless complications about "light-years".
Each new day obviously is a little different for the astro-weather.
Just follow the Moon, and no matter the distance or aberration of a twinkling star, as much as where is when, when is where, and now is now. Therefore, it is totally abusrd to say that the distance starlight travels is so many years away for here or there,
when they all go around the Earth in a single day.
For instance, astro-science by the errors of heliocentrism
would say that Gamma Draconis lies around 154 light-years away, and that a light-year is equivalent to about 6 trillion miles, but Gamma Draconis circuits the Earth in one orbit one day at a time. However far away, it only is one complete distance away
at once, any given time, and goes through the sky from one place to the next. Tomorrow night is not today, tonight, or yesterday as much as each day and its evil is sufficent unto itself. "Ipse sufficit diei malitia sua",(7) and so for Saturn and
As "it is impossible to affirm and deny simultaneously the same predicate of the same subject"(8), a star like Venus is not some part of light-years away for the distance either, as it orbits the Sun that orbits the Earth.
People at times have even
confused Venus with an approaching airplane because it can appear so bright. Thinking it was an enemy plane, anti-aircraft batteries have opened fire on Venus; and in one instance, a fatigued Air Canada pilot thought it was another aircraft headed in his direction,
and went into a nosedive to avoid an imaginary collision. It caused a terrific commotion for the passengers, but what was not imaginary was the hour of time, and the star really was at that angle then, and specifically in that corner of the sky, as when other
people have seen it and thought it was a plane.
Such confusion always has occurred on only one of the
seven days of the week, and during one of the 24 hours of the day, and at a given specific angle, within the three simple dimensions of geometry. The distant light seen at the time was in the actual celestial position addressed by their view. If the confusion
had been at another hour that day, they could not have had the same mathematical coordinates in view. Therefore, they were not seeing the star from "light-years ago", but in real time, and as it was corresponding to real space. As with Venus, so with Jupiter,
Saturn, Regulus, Spica, Aldebaran, Gamma Draconis, Polaris and all the other stars, et cetera.
The confusion about light-years and that starlight in transmission from a given
position of the sky would be from another distant time for the sake of heliocentric relativity is false. If the insistence of such a heliocentric vanity as light-years must continue, then
how old and far away is east from west, north from south, up from down, and six cosmic directions of six from the middle, and division or multiplication by one, and how old and far away is geometry, or the basis of common sense and the astro-weather?
A coureur des bois once asked, "are we human because we gaze at the stars or do we gaze at them because
we are human?" If solipsistically speaking, pointless really, "but do the stars gaze back? Now that's a question."-9
Even if science may be unable to verify higher powers
of observation in the heavens other than their own, the age of geometry may be difficult to ascertain; but they have been able to conduct experiments with light to get some idea of the nature of its motion, and that there is no clear evidence that any
light is affected by the supposed rotation of the Earth.
For example, French astronomer Dominique Arago (1786–1853) devised an experimentum crucis to test his
wave theory of light propagation. He analyzed light beams traveling through glass, water, and air, and was able to verify that light travels slower in denser mediums. He ascribed this
to an undulatory theory of light and assumed that, when all other things would be equal, light waves of a given kind should have a uniform speed through the aether.
As much as the
light is the light, and like itself, so should it resemble its dispersion. But since the Copernican theory was that the earth moves around the sun, if the earth was thus moving against the aether, then the aether should impede the velocity of light at
least a little, just as did glass or water or dense and obstructive clouds of air. Arago was able to demonstrate, however, that whether the light beam going through the glass was pointed in the forward direction of earth's supposed rotation in space, or in
the opposite direction, there was no effect on its speed through the glass. And he was able to verify well enough that a light beam pointed toward or away from the earth's supposed orbit had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass.
He found, it appeared, that in whatever way or direction he tested the coincidence of light, it always showed the Earth to be at rest in the aether.
All the evidence seemed to
confirm that the Copernican hypothesis was, in fact, simply wrong.-10 Assuming that all other things would be equal, according to kind, light waves should have a uniform speed through the aether; and he was unable to disover by any experiments with light any
evidence of a difference from the earth's supposed daily flight in space around the sun.
In the years 1811 to 1812, he also observed one distant star regularly through a telescope,
and in that time he noticed that the star would sometimes appear to move toward the Earth and then away. If what he was seeing was true, it could be better explained according to geocentrism and old-fashioned epicycles than heliocentrism; but Arago reasoned
that, because of the theory of a moving earth, the focal length of his telescope would have to change in viewing the star over the course of a year, since the speed of light from
a receding star relative to Earth's rotation would be different from that of an approaching star.
However, he observed no difference in the coincidence of starlight in the telescope,
and thus was not required to change the focal length at all. The star only appeared a little bit smaller, as it appeared further away, which also seemed to be an indication that, even if the stars were very far away, regardless of whether the Earth was moving,
the star seen through a telescope actually is where it appears to be.
However, if not for the telescope, and post hoc ergor propter hoc, it could be for stellar aberration. If funny
things like epicycles are reinterpreted as elliptical wrinkles of time, space, and light, due to terrestrial rotations to orbit the sun, then maybe a platform for heliocentrism can have its literature, its parallax, its light-years, and its math, but qui custodiet
ipsos cutodes? Who watches the monitors and gatekeepers themselves, who teach these things, and write them down for arc seconds and millions and millions of miles and years?
In the seventeenth century astronomers like Pieroni, Hooke, and Flamsteed observed stars like Gamma Draconis and Polaris, and noticed they would shift their positions mysteriously in the sky during
the year, and hypothesized that an instance of parallax from stellar aberration or eccentricity would prove that the Earth orbits the Sun. James Bradley studied Gamma Draconis during 1725-1728 and noted an aberration that was almost parallax, and theorized
that the star was not actually moving back and forth in the sky, but the appearance was from its light that was hitting a moving Earth. Separating the light from the star could add a confusing sense of justification for the Copernican view, but without taking
the Sun as fixed, Bradley would not have detected the same aberration in Gamma Draconis, and why should the only proof for heliocentrism be in an interpretation of circumpolar stellar aberration?
All long exposure star trail photography shows that they are orbiting the Earth within a gradual range
of circles; and when they shift over time, it is from circle to circle.
Of course, all locations around the
Earth correspond to actual positions, with coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds or arc, that parallel the stars corresponding also to actual positions in celestial space. There are only six cosmic directions, and eight cardinal points of the compass
in terra, and eight quadrants in 3-D space around the Earth. Therefore, when a star is in the east at midnight on Tuesday, it really is there, and when it is Tuesday it is Tuesday all day.
"Chacun voit midi a sa porte", everyone sees noon at his door, and if each one follows his own star, the 360 degrees around the Earth, in whatever angle of direction, are still from now. It always is sunset or sunrise
somewhere around the world, for one day-time and night-time over half of the world. So the time of a star and its position are always within the hour of one of 24, or 1/6 of 1/4 of the face of the Earth, in a circuit of 360 degrees around and around.