## Tuesday, 26 January 2016

### Aberration and Parallax

1) Does the First Diagram Makes Sense? · 2) Aberration and Parallax

If the stellatum, at one lightday away*, were moving annually same distance as the Sun, it would have an overall per se measurable parallax, since a triangle with a side 90 times smaller than the two other** sides is not too skinny to measure, but rather a triangle the kind of which, I suppose, is pretty often used by surveyors. So, one would be measuring a parallax of about 4° or sth like that (hasty oversight, 360° being full circle, divided by factor 90:1, equal 4°). So, if I am right***, stars are not annually moving the distance of the Sun.

Can a smaller movement than that be responsible for the aberration, supposing, as at least Sungenis does among Geocentrists° it is the kind of phenomenon that Heliocentrics since Bradley suppose it to be?

Aberration is held not to contain any information about the distance to the stars. I suppose therefore that the distance of stellar annual movement in relation to us, by Bouw and Sungenis as by Heliocentrics and as relevant to aberration, is taken to be the same as that of the Sun simply because it is a distance attributed (though not by Bouw and Sungenis) to Earth rather than to Sun and to Stars. The movement of one body needs to be self identical, the movement of two independent bodies can be of diverse size. Then the speed of light is calculated from that distance of Earth and angle of aberration.

In that case, another movement, like a larger and a smaller one, of the Sun and of the sphere of fixed stars is annually possible, but then adjustments must be made for speed of light, since it is calculated from angle of aberration.

However, speed of light is calculated by other methods too, which do not seem to totally agree, only very largely so.

So, is annual movement of Stars as large as that of the Sun, but then the stars by far further off than just one light day?

Or should stars be showing a parallax of 4° annually, which has been misread by astronomers, while surveyors manage to read it? After all, surveyors are cautious to have fixed landmarks, and astronomers like a view on the sky free from obstacles?

Or - again a possibility - is "angle of aberration" largely due to the actual annual movement of stars, as angle between two real positions rather than as angle due to real aberration-of-light processes, and this annual movement caused by angelic movers, which I anyway hold, with St Thomas Aquinas, of being responsible for movements of individual celestial bodies insofar as they differ in angle around Earth from the daily circuit of the Stars?

This last laternative is what I have anyway considered to be the actual truth, for very long. Once I discussed this with Sungenis and he responded "aberration and parallax are different angles". In the heat of discussion, I took this to mean "angles along differnet axes" or "angles on axes that are different angles from us" or sth, and I replied, without absurdity but less to the point than here, that in that case angels could be making somewhat complex dance moves. But what he meant was probably simpler: the measured value of angle is different.

Aberration is an angle uniform for all stars, at least in theory, of 20 arc seconds or 25 arc seconds or whatever.

Parallax is an angle, in the positive field (there is a negative one as well, when one looks closely) of maximum 0.75 or sth arc seconds.

However, this does not preclude that "both angles" are of the same movement (same axis of rotation even) for each of the stars.

"Aberration" (as usually called, I am referring to the angle value) is the medium angle common to all.

"Parallax" of any given star is a kind of aberration (! pun intended !) from that medium value.

So, supposing that - which I do not know°° - aberration counts as 20 arc seconds exactly, and - which I don't know either°° - aberration and parallax go same direction, α Centauri would be actually measured as moving concretely each year 20.75 arc seconds, deduct 20 arc seconds for "aberration" (since uniform) and you get a positive "parallax" (for the individual star) of 0.75 arc seconds°°.

But if 63 Ophiuchi has somewhat less annual movement concretely observed than the 20 arc seconds, it is of course measured by a negative parallax. Heliocentrics do register this, for keeping their records accurate with observations actually seen, but they do so as a preliminary to further on, hopefully, finding out why there was a false measure and how to correct it and then they hope to correct the slightly negative parallax value for 63 Ophiuchi to a slightly positive one.

While the angels directing the movements of α Centauri and 63 Ophiuchi in their turn are awaiting, I presume, perhaps Doomsday to explain that they were both doing about 20 arc seconds of the parallel circle in the sphere of fixed stars, but were avoiding to coincide exactly so as to show they were not seen as doing a 20 arc second parallax due to only Earth moving. And astronomers might then be replying : "how were we supposed to know that! To understand it we would first have to admit you exist!"

And as angels take themselves lightly (that is why they can fly, as Chesterton said), they'll have a good laugh.

However, whether the astronomers might join the laughter or not depends on why they discounted angelic movers. If they did so out of habit, while believing angels in other contexts, well, possibly they were Christians and will have gone to Heaven. But if they discounted the mere possibility because of a clear, decided disbelief in "angels, demons, that sort of thing", well, they are Sadducaeic, Modernistic or Atheistic Apostates and Pagans, and will unless regretting that be heading for a fire where laughter is not very easy. Angels take themselves lightly, that is their persons, their egos. We must not take their existence lightly. It is clearly testified in the Word of God.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Cergy St Christophe
St Polycarp of Smyrna
Disciple of St John
26.I.2016

Notes:

* I had previously misjudged the distance of a lightday away by a factor of thousand, but fortunately this does not affect my calculations on how big Kepler so and so is, since the comparison was with how many light years it was away, and I was obviously wrong by exactly the same factor of thousand about the light years - or hadn't calculated them - so that, irrespective of my mistake on the distance of "one light day" expressed in km, 26 million instead of 26 billion, the proportions between so and so many light years and the light day are the same.

** Why is twice the distance to the Sun or the annual axis of the Sun 1/90 of the distance to the stars, if they are a light day away? Simple distance to Sun is 8 light minutes, double must be 16 light minutes. 16 min / 24 h = 16 min / 1440 min. 16:1440 = 8:720 = 4:360 = 2:180 = 1:90!

*** I have expressed elsewhere that the probable distance to the stars is one light day. By an even number of light days stars were shining in the same position we see their light now and where they are again. Three light days or more, Adam and Eve would not have been able to see the stars their first evening, how unromantic, so max 2 light days. One more probably than two, as so the birds also could see stars on their first evening, and as each day that way each star is going 2pi light days, more than six light days, but much less than seven light days distance around their periphery around Earth.

° I think Gerardus Bouw too. But they count on stellatum being mechanically tied to Sun and therefore the displacement of stellatum annually to be as great as that of the Sun. Which I do not.

°° Look up your exact values yourselves, in a science book! Dito for if ordinary parallax is augmenting or diminishing it. And also do look up if 0.75 is closer to parallax of α or to proxima Centauri. That is the kind of thing one should be able to trust scientists on.