"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."
The Copernican dilemma (1)
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is one of the oldest fallacies, yet for the sake of the telescope modern science would say, "post Copernico, ergo propter Copernico". Therefore, certain
eccentricities, great distances, and changing views of the stars would prove the motion of the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
The "deep slumber of decided opinion" created
by heliocentric relativity may not seem easy at times 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, or be in two or more different places at once, or transit at two or
more speeds at the same time, and cannot transit at once in two or more different directions, 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
example, from a lost fragment of Clostridio of Minoa, recovered in caves at El Toro of Minorca, we have, "in orbium coelestium proprium, sol motum per gradatim, semper interest duo circulos, et sic pro omnis astris". In its own celestial sphere, the sun
is moved by steps, always in between two circles, and so for all the stars. With some sense of duality, and one or 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.
The Sun represents a combination from one place at a time.
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 are 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 "light-years"?
Nothing looks the same from every perspective, but 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, or sixty degrees in four? If the species is old, the night is still young.
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 is the same day and hour from here to there; and 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.
"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowldge"(2), and 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", yet distilled in arc minutes from a particular place circa diem.
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 simultaneous speeds, 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 goes 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 east and to the west in the
sky at the same time and not begin to fail the course. From high noon, it cannot begin to set in the east and the west, for the logic of astronomy is in procession one step at a time. The same relation holds everywhere in logic, which would not be so 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) ... and crated for alchemy and 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, 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 less than the longest day", said Agricola's
obscure uncle, an augur in the days of Romulus and Remus. "Dies non fuerant maiores quam universalis, et cosmos ipse non fuerat minor 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, 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 is a corner and ever corner has a point. 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 the star itself existing in real time, and the second circle corresponds to the rays of starlight.
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 the star was far enough way that it would take light 10.3
years to travel this distance. The paradoxical if not absurd "light-year" would appear again in a German popular astronomical article by Otto Ule in 1851. Yet looking at the stars is a 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.
Each new day obviously is a little different for the astro-weather, and no matter the distance or aberration, as much as where is when, and when is where, now is now; and it is abusrd to say the distance starlight
travels is millions of 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, little by little 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 "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, and the star really was at that angle at the time, 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 simple three dimensions of geometry. The distant light they were seeing 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. They were not seeing the star from "light-years ago". They were seeing the light 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 time for sake of the distance is false. If the insistence of the heliocentric vanity of "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)
Science may be unable to verify higher powers of observation in the heavens, and the age
of geometry, 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, and 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.
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 movement in space or in the opposite direction, there was no effect on its speed going 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 he tested the coincidence of light, it always showed the Earth to be at rest in the aether.
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 their kind, light waves have a uniform speed through the aether, and he was unable to disover by any experiments
with light any evidence of 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 the focal length of his telescope would have to change in viewing the star over the course of a year, because of the theory of a "moving earth", since the speed of light coming from a receding star 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, and it 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, 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 watchmen themselves, who teach these things, and write them down for
arc seconds and millions and millions of miles?
In the seventeenth century astronomers like Pieroni, Hooke, and Flamsteed
observed stars like Gamma Draconis and Polarisand 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 to the Copernican view, but without taking the Sun as fixed, Bradley would not have detected the aberration in Gamma Draconis, and why should the only proof for heliocentrism
be in an interpretation of circumpolar stellar aberration?
long exposure star trail photography demonstrates 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 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.