Monday, 18 January 2016

Does the First Diagram Makes Sense?

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

I No, this diagram above does not make sense. If angle to star is in same direction, supposing that "straight up" is the neutral one for a star showing any kind of parallax, then sun and earth should also line up in same direction. In either the Heliocentric or the Geocentric interpretation. So, the following is a diagram of ordinary parallax. Up and down are opposite seasons. Left is Heliocentric interpretation, right is Geocentric interpretation. As said, left is heliocentric, star has no proper movement involved, angle is fixed by observation, therefore the length of line between Earth and star is fixed as to what lines up with star having same relation to Sun all year through. That some stars do have proper movement diagnosed as such is not here taken into account. Earth is earth, both in relation to Star and in relation to Sun. Right is geocentric interpretation. In this case, the star has a proper movement not diagnosed as such by heliocentric astronomers, it need not be as big as that which the sun has, same time, same direction. Star and Sun are not the same, neither in themselves nor in relation to Earth. Therefore the annual orbits could be smaller with the star. But does above, first diagram suggest anything to you? Yes, in it the left is Geocentric and it has star opposite side of Sun, in their annual orbits. This does at least for extremely small parallactic angles occur, as they are measured. 63 Ophiuchi is an example. So, supposing this is NOT a measurement error. What does this so called "negative parallax" look like if analysed according to the diagrams? That is right, even in Heliocentric interpretation you need to have star have a movement of its own, not that of Sun (supposed not to have one, at least not one taken into account in annual relations of Sun to stars), and not that of Earth either. Therefore giving no information about distance to star either. If ALL stars showing parallax were indeed showing only positive parallax, as in diagram II, then one could say ALL stars were stationary in relation to Sun, at least excepting the proper movements which are non-annual and non orbital, as far as as yet observed.. But if some stars show negative parallax, even on Heliocentric terms that means a proper movement which is annual and orbitting. Either a mechanci link to Sun - or a voluntary act on part of sth like an angelic mover, as the Scholastics very unanimously thought when considering the subject of movement of celestial bodies, other opinions being marginal (and mechanic causes being less common than either animated stars, that is stars that have their own life and souls or than God alone moving each directly). Hans Georg Lundahl Nanterre UL Sts Marius and Martha couple and martyrs, with Sons and companions 19.I.2016