- Fatima - Bad News and Good News - the latter provi...
- Panthéisme ? Non. Trinité ? Oui.
- Do not support World Childhood Foundation!
- Hans-Georg Gadamer was of the "Frankfurter Schule"? - get Inklings for me please!
- A Relevant Quote from J. R. R. Tolkien
- Sur le concept de l'ésotérique et sur les sociétés secrètes
- In Case Someone Thinks I am Preaching ...
- Would Gay Marriage Allow them an Authentic Life?
- Malfaisance de "Sécurité"
- Have I Done Ill Speaking Against the Real Pope a F...
- Drodzy Polacy - i Rosjanie itd.
- Vatican in Exile : Calendar and Marian Anthems
- Code ASCII et James Bond
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.
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
St Pantaleone of Nicomedia
Physician and Martyr
* 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.