with a headache

cramped living conditions

There was a wizard in a poor fix who went to the doctor one day complaining of headaches. "It's because I live in the same one room apartment as two of my brothers," he said. "One of them has five goats, and the other has six little pigs. The smell is terrible."

"Well, couldn't you just open the windows?" asked the doctor.

"No, certainly not", he replied, "my bats would fly out."






Winston says that 2 & 2 are 5, and Winston gets a cookie. I want a cookie too, don't you?

Whereas, a heliocentric syllogism for the sake of errors, delusions, skepticism, cynicism, disorientation, scientific abuse, chaos of motion, anxiety, escapism, and, of course, a delicious cookie:

Major Premise: Due to the apparent great size, heat, glare, and impressionable effects on Earth of the Sun and of sunlight, it is self-evident that the Earth is moving because of the Sun, and it is orbiting the Sun in space.

Minor Premise: No interferometer, or interferential refractometer, or any scientific experiment whatsoever has ever been able to detect any rotation or spinning of the Earth in space at all; and the Foucault pendulum is driven, damped, and tuned. It even seems to have a little gyroscoped communist setting hidden away inside the bob.

Conclusion: Therefore, with an undetectable yet most powerful and unaccelerated motion, the Earth is moved by the effects of Newtonian gravitation from the Sun, the cause of which remains unassigned, and solid matter shrinks in the forward direction of motion -- and time rather dilates, it does not "fly" as the geocentric Romans used to say, "tempus fugit".

Neither aether nor absolute and authentic rest exist anywhere, since everything, including the Earth, is in motion, and everything is only relative. Yet somehow the speed of light remains constant. A great constant indeed, although it can be squared.

Also, when General Relativity is fully considered, and remaining valid, it could be that a minor mistake has been made, and the Earth is rather orbiting Sirius, Saturn, Jupiter, or Regulus, instead of the Sun, but under no circumstances is the Earth orbiting a crescent Moon or clouds, especially not the little ones.

And it is okay that gravity is the weakest of fundamental forces, weaker than what is experienced directly, and of no significant or practical measure in real physics. Weaker than the littlest kitten's paw. In fact, gravity is not even a lateral or vertical force, and not innate to matter. The way gravity acts is incredibly passive, and not even really an activity of force, as much as it would be merely a coextensive attribute of things, things in quale quid, like division or multiplication by one, if not zero. 



The restaurant guest said to the waiter, "please quit putting your thumb on my steak". he said, "okay, as soon as i can quit dropping it".

The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Cosmos

Heliocentrism did not begin to become so widely accepted until after the "Principia" (1687), the Inglorious Revolution (1688), the foundation of the Bank of England (1694), and the French Revolution (1793) and War of the First Coalition (1793-1797), followed by the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815), and the Communist Revolutions of 1848 and Foucault's pendulum (1851), Darwin (1859) and Karl Marx's publications of 1848, 1867, 1885,  and 1894, the Communist Manifesto and volumes I, II, and III of Das Kapital.

As great as its social development and impact became, however, only 200 years after the "Principia", Copernicanism hit a serious bump in the road with the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments of 1887. A bone rattler in the aether, and only the same old problem of Egyptian darkness as before, since it already is evident that the earth is not moving, how can it be orbiting the sun?

Not only has it been falsely presented that heliocentrism is scientifically valid, it also has been falsely presented that geocentrism and common sense are somehow ignorant, unscientific, anti-modern, and rather too "medieval". Under the unremitting influence of modernist and scientific materialist propaganda, the grand deception has gotten so rotten that most people today ignorantly identify geocentrism with superstition and the myth of the flat Earth, not understanding that geocentrism is modern, scientifically valid, and classical as Caesar and Cicero, and not anything to do with stupid myths of the flat Earth.

Historians generally have marked the beginning of the modern era from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 or the discovery of the Americas in 1492, and except for very few the Renaissance was still geocentric in worldview, and none of the educated believed or advocated the myth of the flat Earth. The voyage of Columbus that reached the Americas in 1492 did not prove to the court of Spain, Pope Alexander VI, or to any of the well advised that the Earth was round. They already knew that. They just did not know that the Americas would be there in between Europe and China.

The famous voyages of discovery did not prove more than verify that the Earth was round. Columbus, Vasco da Gama, John Cabot, Giovanni Verrazzano, Jacques Cartier, and Magellan, and the circumnavigation of the globe completed by Elcano merely helped them obtain a clearer idea of its dimensions and what was out there. Cartier discovered the St. Lawrence river in 1534, nine years before Copernicus's "De Revolutionibus", and in those days the sun still orbited Canada and France. Looking for gold and the Fountain of Youth, Ponce de Leon discovered Florida in 1513, twenty-one years before; and Elcano completed Magellan's voyage around the Earth in 1522, 21 years in advance of Copernicus: and port authorities already knew as well as the ancients and medieval monks that the Earth was in the form of a sphere, and also correctly recognized that it was not moving, and that the Sun and the Moon and the stars were orbiting it, from their spheres.

None of the Renaissance navigators believed anything so heinous as the Earth flying in space to orbit the Sun. The suggestion would be practically psychotic, and they did not say that the body of the Earth overall was flat. Like Cabeza de Vaca, de Luna, and Menendez, from Florida to Texas and Mexico, they all understood correctly that the earth was well centered, densely compacted together as a perfect sphere, and represented an elemental and mineral collection within its domain at the center of the ecliptic. All the effective navigational charts and nautical almanacs used to survive and sail around the world were based on a very clear and definite fixed-Earth assumption; and that way also it was conclusive that it was at the center of the cosmos, since there is only one ecliptic.

Even so, in view of the progress of heliocentrism over the Seven Seas, a little historical perspective from England may help.

For example, King Henry VII, who sponsored the voyages of John Cabot to America, and Henry VIII, Thomas More, and Erasmus*, and the warp and woof of their day were all of a Ptolemaic perspective. Society continued this way in the soundness of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, common sense, the Bible, and geocentricity even until the days of Walter Raleigh, Captain John Smith, and the Virginia Colony of Jamestown 1607. When William Gilbert published "De Magnete" in 1600, there was practically nobody in England who was so ungrounded in presence of mind that he actually thought that the Earth was spinning away and flying in diurnal rotations except him, and a very small circle of readers of Thomas Digges.

Digges was the first in the climate to propose a physically infinite universe, which is as impossible as 2 and 2 are not 4. In England at the time, only Gilbert and Digges, and at the most some odd dabblers in arcana and the occult, had adopted Copernicanism. To say that the natural physical universe is infinite is such a basic confusion and distortion of terms, like Newton's "absolute space", that it cannot be kept long without some defense from ignorance. The natural physical order is everywhere divided in parts, and infinity, which has no beginning and no end, is indivisible and transcends all counting numbers, and cannot be attained by any duality or multiplication.

Rather the country was as geocentric as Adelbert de Bourgogne, Aristotle, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, St. Brendan, Madoc Gwynedd, Owain Glyndwr, Bishops Wishart and Lamberton, and the common sense Popes of St. Peter and Gijón. The leading English scientist Sir Francis Bacon wisely rejected the theory of heliocentrism, and it is safe to assume that Shakespeare did as well. A clever man widely read with a good eye, there are no indications anywhere that he entertained any revolving Earth ideas. Instead it seems clear from the record that he was a traditional Christian and a Catholic sympathizer.

When the first European settlements in North America, from Quebec City 1535, Pensacola 1559 and St. Augustine 1565, Jamestown, Virginia 1607, Cuper's Cove 1610, and Plymouth Colony 1620, were being founded, the world was still largely in one place, and the errors of Copernicanism were remote and more retarded to develop than most people realize. At that time in l'histoire dans l'Age des decouvertes et exploration, l'influence de Copernicus was still only peculiar and negligible and for difficult translation into wider experience.

On the continent, Copernicanism was not doing much better than in England, where it never really took off until it caught strange wings from Newton. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) wrote the first defense of Copernicanism, "Mysterium Cosmographicum", in 1596, and it did not go over any better than "De Revolutionibus". He added "Astronomia Nova" in 1609 and "Harmonices Mundi" in 1619, and the first of three volumes of "Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae" in 1617, the second edition in 1620,  the third in 1621.

Kepler was Protestant and his mother was scrutinized and described as a witch, but none of prominence among the Protestant communities like Luther, Melanchthon, or Calvin agreed with any theory of heliocentrism, because such ideas were contrary to the bible and common sense.

Rene Descartes, however, was fascinated by heliocentric cosmology, and included his own theory of vortices, to explain gravitation and the spheres, in the first manuscript copies of his book, "The World", in 1633, until he discovered that Galileo had been condemned with heresy for teaching Copernicanism in the same year. Galileo's situation in Italy was a debacle, in fact, and in older age he privately confessed in a letter to a friend that he had changed his mind and abandoned the heliocentric position.

Descartes contributed to the growth of subjective idealism, if not the air of skepticism, in European philosophy, but heliocentrism did not really find its counter-intuitve game until after Newton's "Principia" of 1687. With a strong position among Enlightenment philosophers of the long 18th century, and the expansion of the Judeo-Masonic British Empire around the globe, the scene began to change in favor of heliocentrism and its hoo-diddy math. Until those days, wider society had not felt sufficiently the motivation to entertain such grandiose mechanistic fantasies as heliocentrism would utilize.

Cardinal Bellarmine had written Galileo that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun", and yet to this day there has not been any adequate demonstration for it. The official Church opinion in 1615 was that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."


What the Michelson-Morley interferential refractometer experiment of 1887 discovered is that there is no rotation or movement of the Earth, and the supposed motion of the Earth has no effect on light. Of course, the supposed rotation of the Earth, which does not really exist, has no effect on lost golf balls or the wind and the shadows of eclipses either, and an interferential refractometer to observe and measure what is already obvious is not required. At times there is not much better for science than good eyes and common sense, and to recognize that the land does not fly away from the four winds is a good place to start.

If it were only comedy, it would have been better, because what scientific experiment will ever be able to detect any rotation of the Earth, which is so immediately obvious, when no one can ever notice it moving at all in the first place? To confirm heliocentrism's idiotic position and walk, it becomes apparent that without a dubious patronage system and powerful throne of confusion hidden behind it, it could not make it across the street too well, since it is not parallel with any derivative of common sense. No honest science more than occult or escapist fantasy could succeed as much. 

"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, if certain uncertain eccentricities come to play in great distances, and sunk costs and changing views of the stars would prove the rotation of the Earth in orbit around the Sun, nothing like a ray of light to brighten things up with a note of stillness and composure from time to time. 

Long exposure to grey gloom and 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, et cetera. The thing in question must have its place.

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.

One 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.


But 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 Gamma Draconis. 


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.