Monday, 27 July 2015

How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report



1) On Spirographs and Standard Candles - Cosmic Markers for Mark Shea, 2) How Big is Kepler 452? A Geocentric Minority Report, 3) - But Parallax Guarentees the Distance of Kepler 452, Right? Right? Don't Tell Me It Doesn't!

I was reading Kepler 452b would be amenable to biological life. It circles around Kepler 452.

The size given for this star by astronomers is 110% the volume of the sun.

However, the distance given by them is 1400 light years away.

What if, as I argued previously elsewhere, stars are only one lightday away?

Let's count percent. 110% : 365 (if the difference were only one light day to one light year) was already given sth like 0.3%. But as the supposed light year distance is 1400, we divide this by 1400, and I get:

0.0002152641878669276 % - or 21.5 ppm.

However, since light day/1400 light years is just one dimensional, and since we are talking of three dimensions in volume, I am here not sure (since not dealing with difference only, but with 110% divided by difference) if I should multiply this by itself three times (which would certainly be correct if dealing with difference as such) or if I should instead take the third root, reverse operation.

I'll do both, just to show how unscientific I am as to proper procedure, and let the scientists chose which of the two is better.

Now, third root gave 0.0599317917368674780968 % - if this is correct, and Kepler 452 is a light day away, it is really 0.06% as voluminous as the sun.

Reverse operation:

0.0000000000099750562888 %

If this is the correct mathematical procedure, Kepler 452, at 1 light day's distance from us, is less then one ppm as voluminous as the sun.

Now, let's check it.

I will try to instead procede from difference and involve volume only last.

365 * 1400 = 511000

5110003 = 133,432,831,000,000,000

110% : 133,432,831,000,000,000 = 0.0000000000000008244 %

So, it seems it was reverse operation, triple power there too, which was the correct one for getting from one dimension percentage to 3 dimension percentage.

Let's check the zeroes so the results are roughly compatible ....

Well, no, they are NOT, they are about a thousand times apart.

So, that gives us three values for how much less Kepler 452 is than the Sun if it is seen with its apparent magnitude but is distant only 1 light day.

0.0599317917368674780968 % or 0.06 %

0.000,000,000,009,975,056,2888 % or 1 hundred billionth of a percent

0.000,000,000,000,000,8244 % or 1 quadrillionth of a percent.

I leave it to professionals to decide which is best, and before anyone attacks my math skills for getting so diverse results, I did use a scientific calculator to help me out.

Now, recall that the supposed 110% size/volume of sun at 1400 light years distance is the size of the star, as they reckon.

We know Earth is MUCH less voluminous than Sun (and yes, with 8 light minutes and lots of planets where angle of sunlight can be tested, we do know fairly well real distance to Sun and real volume of Sun, that is not very disputable), and Kepler 452b was only 200% volume of Earth - at 1400 times distance.

So, recalibrating this would mean that in so far as Kepler 452 b was inhabitable at all, The Little Prince would feel at home, or perhaps that man in the park guard function who lights a lantern every sunset and puts it out every sunrise on his even smaller planet that turned really fast.

In other words, it is no surprise that Geocentrics do not believe in extraterrestrials, generally - at least not small universe Geocentrics.

I hope no one was stupid enough to believe I was believing in Extra-Terrestrial Non-Angelic Non-Divine Intelligent Life in their biological bodies not glorified. I don't. And anyone who told you I do (if such a stupid person exists) has lost his credibility, logically and morally speaking.

I have already stated my agreement with Seraphim Rose who considered that ET phenomena from Roswell and on (at least especially grey ones) are demonic.*

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Pantaleone of Nicomedia
Physician and Martyr
27-VII-2015

* Yes, I know CSL took a greater optimistic view of Extraterrestrial life - not necessarily of actual "visitors" - but then he had the handicap of being a Heliocentric. That kind of warps the issue.

10 comments:

  1. HGL again, again27 July 2015 at 06:08

    And since I gav creds to the source, which I misread about size relation of that planet to Earth, should be 500%, why not throw in the scientific calculator too?

    I used this one: http://web2.0calc.com/

    ReplyDelete
  2. And, yes, I had been reading Le Dimanche Proto-Indoeuropéen in which a Belgian (somewhat masonic in opinions, alas, you might want to pray for his conversion) was discussing "warp drive" as in Star Trek and "Antwerp" - the latter of the same root as warp ... that is the latter part of the latter.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In fact, I recounted a few things this morning, after a fairly good night's sleep.

    First of all, the two smaller results differring should be no surprise. If I start with 3/2, then divide by 3 and then cube the result, I get 1/8. If I start with 3/2, then divide by cube of three, I get 1/18.

    Next, yes, it is the first method I should have used – but I was wrong to start with 110 %. If Kepler 452 is 110 % the volume of the Sun, it means each dimension is 103 %. 1.03 cubed is 1.092727 which is adequately close to 1.1.

    So, recalculating, I divide 103 % by 365 and stop after getting to decimals 0.2821, which I divide by 1400 and get 0.0002015. Cubing this I get 0.000,000,000,008,181,353,375 %. That is how much Kepler 452 is of the volume of the Sun if only one light day away. 0.1 parts per trillion, approx.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And this means the star is smaller than Earth, at least.

    I checked volumes of Earth and of Sun on French wikipédie (in cubic km), and got two values which I proceeded to compare:

    Terre (Earth) Volume 1,08321×10^12
    Soleil (Sun) Volume 1,412×10^18

    10^12 : 10^18 = 10^-6
    0.7671458923512748 * 10^-6

    And 7.671458923512748 * 10^-7 is obviously a greater part, nearly a whole ppm, than the 0.08 parts per trillion for Kepler 452, if it is 1 light day away.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So much about the star.

    The exo-planet, Kepler 452b, I did some calculations tonight.

    If astronomers supposing it 1400 ly away say it is 5 times the volume of earth, that means it is in each dimension approximately 1.7 times the volume of Earth. However, if you divide this by 1400 to reduce to one light year and then further by 365 to reduce to one light day, you get a very small fraction, which multiplied with 12600 km as diameter of Earth give you a diameter of Kepler 452b as 41 meters and 91 centimeters. I checked on a converter to get 137.5 ft, that is 137 ft and six inches.

    Now, let us check if this is correct by doing the multiplications.

    15297.15 m or 15.29715 km if same "apparent size" is for one light year (365 times more), multiply by 1400 you get 21,416.01 km. Divide that by 12,600 (diameter of Earth) and you get 1.6996833333333333 - a little further from the third root of five than I started with as proportion for each dimension of Kepler 452b to Earth on supposition it were five times as voluminous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The star's volume at 1 light day off would be 115520.709655 cubic kilometres.

    It's radius would be 33.25 and its diameter 66.5 km across. Or 41.325 miles. Or 41 miles, 1716 feet.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Obviously, this illustrates how "apparent size" as a given diversifies into different actual sizes according to distance assumed.

    Which is the problem Herschel had when he started to calculate standard sizes of standard candles (see previous post), as he went by parallax as reliable measure for for instance alpha Centauri 4 light years away or 11.36 light years away for 61 Cygni. Which is an interpretation of the heliometer observation that reposes on the Heliocentric theory.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hans Georg Lundahl13 August 2015 at 08:09

    And just because of this, the "five times volume" now seem to be "five times mass" (John G. Hartnett) and only 60% larger - would that be diameter? If so, it fits the five times volume nearly? - or would it be 60% larger volume? If so it contradicts previous statement.

    Here are two quotes:

    "Scientists say NASA’s Kepler Space Telescope has discovered Earth’s “older, bigger first cousin” – a planet that’s about 60 percent bigger than our own, circling a sunlike star in an orbit that could sustain liquid water and perhaps life." Alan Boyle. Link see above.

    "It has a mass about five times that of Earth and diameter about 60% larger, hence a gravity nearly double that of Earth." John G. Hartnett. Link see below.

    Sounds like volume could be about five times too - and volumes are easier to ascertain.

    CMI : Life on Earth 2.0—Really?
    Discovery of Kepler-452b
    by John G. Hartnett, Published: 13 August 2015
    http://creation.com/life-on-earth-2

    ReplyDelete