A Proper Gander At Propaganda

Truth Transcends Community

"Propaganda in the United States is spread by both government and media entities. Propaganda is information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to influence opinions. It's used in advertising, radio, newspaper, posters, books, television, and other media."  -  Propaganda in the United States - Wikipedia

"A man without a government is like a fish without a bicycle.” Alvaro Koplovich

Article index

James & The Big Stellar Aberration Lie! Part 1

Please ignore any typos, spell check is an evil little gremlin. We will correct them as we find them. Thank you. AAMorris Staff.

Airy Proved James Bradley Wrong!

"By means of a water-filled telescope, Airy in 1871 looked for a change in stellar aberration through the refracting water due to an ether drag. Like in all other aether drift experiments, he obtained a negative result."

The Art of The Con Job: POLITICAL SPIN

One in a long line of numerous failed attempts to measure the Earth's supposed orbit. Please note the use of the language in the above statement. "Change in Stellar Aberration" really means Airy was looking to measure Stellar Aberration. This experiment, unlike James Bradley's, was specifically designed to measure Bradley's ad hoc explanation named "Stellar Aberration". 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Biddell_Airy#Ether_drag_test

How James Bradley Just Made Up The Value For The Velocity of Light and How He Ignored Basic Astronomical Observation To Obtain An Invalid & Illogical Result

The is the first in as series of articles that will examine the myth of the sped of light. It seems the reality is that the velocity of light is an idea and nobody has actually measured it. James Bradley is credited with coming up with what is pretty much the modern accepted value for this legendary velocity. 

This article is the first part, here we start to examine the experiment that established the modern value for the so called speed of light.

Here we see the beginnings of the circular reasoning that will become foundational to modern cosmology. Light might be an instantaneous phenomena best described as a pressure wave or as an intensity. Yet in their quest to prove the hello centric theory, these astronomers ignore the results in favor of fantastic ad hoc explanations. When no stellar parallax could be found, James Bradley fudged 'stellar aberration' as the explanation. An ad hoc explanation at its finest!

Stellar Aberration is illogical. Light is not like rain drops. Rain drops exhibit parallax! The Fixed Stars Do Not. Since the Fixed Stars are so far away they do not show parallax, or any easily measurable parallax, how then can we suppose the Earth can approach and then recede away from the Fixed Stars? The only motion of the Fixed Stars that we can demonstrate is the circular and non linear motion of the heavens around the Earth. Anything else is based in the imagination.

Bradley's stellar aberration is not logically sound. It is an ad hoc explanation meant to save appearances. He clearly found no parallax and instead of coming to the logical and rationale conclusion, that Ptolemy was more right than not, he fudged his results. In fact his fudging relies on PARALLAX! This is obviously circular type reasoning and it is very wrong and flawed. In order for the Earth to be able to approach and then move away from the Fixed Stars, the Fixed Stars would have to exhibit parallax. It would be like when the Moon is full and on the horizon and you walk North to South the Moon appears to follow you while the houses and mountains all exhibit parallax! The Moon would have to stop 'following you'. That's like what Bradley is claiming.

The currently accepted values for the distance to the fixed stars indicate we'd expect to see parallax.

It's a question of the relative proportion of the distances involved

(in light years)

4.2 to 20 to 50 to 200 and more

should give us Parallax!

Compare:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax

"Distances in older star catalogs look so authoritative that many people think the distances to the stars are known very exactly, but this is not true. For parallax measurements made from Earth: 

  • The nearest star is some 4.2 light years away, and that distance was known to within an accuracy of better than 0.1 light year. 
  • For a star measured as 20 light years away, the distance estimate is accurate to within a light year or so. 
  • For stars 50 light years away, the margin of error is perhaps 5 to 10 light years. 
  • Beyond 100 light years, the parallax is so tiny it cannot be measured accurately, and astronomers resort to more indirect methods to find the distances to the stars. We will examine some of these methods later."

"Most of the stars we see with the naked eye at night are within a few hundred light years. A few are as far away as 2000 light years, only about 1/50 the diameter of our Galaxy. We can only use parallax to determine the distances of stars within about 50 light years, a realm that bears about the same relationship to our Galaxy as a period bears to the size of this page. How can astronomers measure the distances of distant stars?"

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/AstronNotes/distance.htm

The Earth is supposed to move from one side of the solar system to the other. Yet we see no parallax of the stars. This is a huge (ignored) problem for modern cosmology.

We should see plenty of parallax with the naked eye.

James Bradley Claims Gamma Draconis is only 6 Light Years Away. Modern Astronomy Supposes The Distance to Be a little more than 150 Light Years Bradley's number is off by a whole lotta light years!

"After laboriously checking the telescope for any potential defects and finding none, Bradley acquired a new, even more accurate telescope to attempt to see if they observe anything fishy with other stars. He determined that same wobble existed in every star he studied. What he had discovered was aberration). Knowing the accuracies of his telescope, he was able to make a minimum distance estimate for Gamma Draconis. It could be no closer than 6 light-years, otherwise the parallax would have been detected."

http://www.bgfax.com/school/distance_history.pdf

The Constellation Draco

The distances of some of the other stars found in the northern circumpolar constellation of Draco, below. Please note how proportionally far part they are and how we’d expect parallax. The Earth is supposed to move from one side of the solar system to the the other over the course of the year. No real parallax is ever detected. Bradley’s “aberration” is simply made up. The concept ignores the only motion of the constellations that we can measure is one of rotation. His “aberration” relies on a fallacy. The fallacy is that the Earth can move towards and away from the Fixed Stars. If it could do this, parallax would be easily measured! Bradley contradicts himself. The polar stars position shits over the course of the year due to the difference between sidereal and solar time. If there was no such difference, (or if there was no Sun) the stars would always appear in the same place at the same time (23 hours 56 minutes would be our day as measured by the stars). 

Beta Draconis (β Draconis, β Dra) is the third brightest star in the northern circumpolar constellation of Draco. It has the traditional name Rastaban, which has also been used for Gamma Draconis. With an apparent visual magnitude of 2.79, it is bright enough to be easily seen with the naked eye. Based upon parallax measurements from the Hipparcos astrometry satellite,it lies at a distance of about 380 light-years (120 parsecs) from Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Draconis

The Star James Bradley was studying was the Zenith Star above London, named Gamma Draconis,otherwise known as Etamin, Eltanin or Ettanin. This star is considered to be some 150 light years away. Another star in the same constellation, Thuban is supposed to be some 300 light years away. See a problem?

"Eltanin lies around 154.3 light-years (47.3 parsecs) away, as determined by parallax measurements from the Hipparcos astrometry satellite."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Draconis

"Thuban ... also known by its  Alpha Draconis (α Draconis, α Dra), is a star (or star system) in the constellation of Draco."

"Thuban is not a main sequence star; it has now ceased hydrogen fusion in its core. That makes it a white giant star, being 120 times more luminous than the Sun but over 300 light-years distant."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuban#Properties

The star Nu Draconis is supposed to lie some 98.7 light years from Earth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nu_Draconis

The distances for these stars vary from 98.7 light years to near 400 light years! Polaris, The North Star is supposed tone over 400 light years away from the Earth.

"Polaris, designated Alpha Ursae Minoris (αUrsae Minoris, abbreviated Alpha UMiα UMi), commonly the North Star or Pole Star, is the brightest star in the constellation of Ursa Minor. It is very close to the north celestial pole, making it the current northern pole star. The revised Hipparcos parallax gives a distance to Polaris of about 433 light-years (133 parsecs) while calculations by other methods derive distances around 30% closer."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris

Yet the constellation shows no parallax & its shape never changes.

How can the same constellation contain one star twice as far away from the Earth as another and we see no parallax at all during the course of the year? The Shape of the Constellation should be constantly changing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(constellation)

The supposed parallax that astronomers detect is on the order of counting the number of angels on the head of a pin..

 "An “angle of parallax ” is the angle at the star, or at the apex of an astronomer’s triangulation. The angle of parallax 0.31″ (thirty-one hundredths of a second of arc) is so extremely small that it represents only one 11,613th part of a degree.

There is in Greenwich Observatory an instrument which lies a vernier six feet in diameter, one of the largest in the world. A degree on this vernier measures about three-quarters of an inch, so that if we tried to measure the parallax 0.31 on that vernier we should find it to be one 15,484th part of an inch."

"When angles are as (small) as this we are inclined to agree with Tycho Brahe when he said that “ Angles of Parallax exist only in the minds of the observers; they are due to instrumental and personal errors.”

https://ia902705.us.archive.org/12/items/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich.pdf

The supposed distance for the stars in the nearby Big Dipper, below. Both constellations show no difference in relative distance from each other during the course of the year. Any change we might see is due to the difference between sidereal and solar time that produces the effect of the apparent counterclockwise yearly motion of the constellations and Fixed stars. The constellations move as if on a dome.

"Because α UMi lies nearly in a direct line with the axis of the Earth's rotation "above" the North Pole—the north celestial pole—Polaris stands almost motionless in the sky, and all the stars of the northern sky appear to rotate around it. Therefore, it makes an excellent fixed point from which to draw measurements for celestial navigation and for astrometry. The moving of Polaris towards and, in the future, away from the celestial pole, is due to the precession of the equinoxes."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris

"Polaris actually lies just a short distance away from where Earth's axis points. Polaris is located about 1 degree off to the side of the north celestial pole, so Polaris does move a little, tracing a very small arc in the night sky, around which the other visible stars make wider circles."

https://www.quora.com/Why-doesnt-Polaris-the-Pole-Star-move-if-Earth-is-revolving-around-the-sun-and-the-sun-is-also-revolving-around-the-center-of-the-galaxy

"The eccentricity of the Earth's orbit is currently about 0.0167; the Earth's orbit is nearly circular. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity

Bradley's concept relies on ignoring the Earth's supposed near perfect circular orbit and the fact that there is no relative linear motion to allow for his imagined effect!

The Fixed Stars look like they move in a circle around the Earth. Thee is no relative linear motion. The stars are supposed to be impossibly far away, so far as to eliminate any such motion. The idea is absurd and quite fanciful but that is the mainstream's so called 'theory' for you.  There should be no way Bradley's idea can have any validity in the context of the mainstream model or empirical observation. In other words his so called theory contradicts both common sense and heliocentric fantasy. 

Star light is not like some kind of magic laser pointer beam  The waves propagate as we see above. Bradley's famed experiment ignores how light actually works in favor of a rain analogy that is absurd. Light does not propagate like rain drops. In fact there is no explanation as to why the Earth's motion would alter the angle of the light's path in the first place. This is magical reasoning.

How Light Works: It Does Not Work Like Rain!

If we accept the mainstream cosmological model and we assume the star Gamma Draconis is some 150 light years away from us, we can see why we have no reason to adjust the angle of the telescope simply due to the velocity of the light wave and the velocity of Earth. The light wave or the star we see is the result of light that left that star some 150 years ago. The wave is where we see it. If we assume the Earth is in orbit around the Sun, the light wave is meeting the Earth as the Earth moves into position. If the Earth was not there, the light wave would continue on its way. The value for the so called speed of light was made up so Bradley's equation fit his ( within the margin of error ) findings. He conveniently ignores any other explanation, even the obvious, in favor of a predetermined end. The Earth is proven to orbit the Sun, despite the failure of Bradley's experiment. The failure becomes a success by way of ad hoc solution. Stellar aberration can be easily explained as the star's position seems to rotate over the course of the year due to the difference between sidereal and solar time. This counterclockwise rotation would mean he would have seen the star rotate a 180 degrees over six months time. There is no relative linear motion for the Earth and Stars. Bradley's explanation requires a motion we can not demonstrate. We have to assume Bradley's authority is deserved and act like empty headed parrots to accept this nonsense as fact. 

"The intensity (or illuminance or irradiance) of light or other linear waves radiating from a point source (energy per unit of area perpendicular to the source) is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source; so an object (of the same size) twice as far away, receives only one-quarter the energy (in the same time period).

More generally, the irradiance, i.e., the intensity (or power per unit area in the direction of propagation), of a sphericalwavefront varies inversely with the square of the distance from the source (assuming there are no losses caused by absorption or scattering)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Modern Mainstream cosmology has the light from Gamma Draconis leaving that Fixed Star some 150 years ago. Compare to a passenger jet flying high over head. The sound reaches your ears after you see the passenger jet fly by. You do not have to alter the angle of your ears nor would you have to alter the angle of your telescope. If the sound wave represents the light wave you can see the illogic of Bradley's fantastic claim. If the star was that far away and if light took some 150 years to reach us, we would not need to alter the angle of the telescope. There is no reason nor any mechanism to explain why this is the case other than an incorrect and illogical and demonstrable incorrect comparison to rain.

On 26 April 2010, the ESO Council selected Cerro Armazones as the site for the planned 42-metre European Extremely Large Telescope. Cerro Armazones is an isolated mountain at 3060 metres altitude in the central part of Chile's Atacama Desert, some 130 kilometres south of the town of Antofagasta and about 20 kilometres away from Cerro Paranal, home of ESO's Very Large Telescope.

Stars are not like Rain. Rain exhibits Parallax!

Why James Bradley is wrong!

The relative position of the fixed stars change throughout the year. He simply was seeing the stars from different points of view. He leaves this out and so does the mainstream. This is another reason why all of this is wrong.
Further London, and England, where Bradley observed the sky, is known for the fog and moisture in the air. Bradley could not simply dismiss this, and yet he does.

SEE VIDEO ABOVE.

There are many flaws with stellar aberration. The concept is absurd and illogical. Bradley's equipment and the facts of actual atmospheric aberration and other such real world demonstrable optical phenomena clearly show why this is simply nonsense.

Astronomy was and is the rebranded and re-imagined version of Astrology and not much more.

I do not mean to imply I do not think it is useful to study our world. I do. I think we need to be honest and logical in our approach. The mainstream cosmological model is a patchwork of conflicting ideas based on prior assumptions and propaganda. It is faith based and is a religion.

Consider the actual motion of the heavens as we can observe them in real life. The difference between sidereal and solar time creates the effect we see in the photo below.

As you can clearly see, the stars seem to rotate counterclockwise around the North Star. Please note that the North star is not the Star Bradley was focused on. The star he was fouled on was the so called Zenith star that was above London, Gamma Draconis. As you can see that star's position would shift throughout the year.

The perspective change coupled with the obvious humid atmosphere in England and other optical considerations, render Bradley's conclusion absurd and nonsensical with not basis in physical reality. This is one of many such ad hoc explanations that have been used like the Lords' Prayer, to keep the flock in the circle of ignorance and obedience to authority

"280 years ago, in 1724, James Bradley embarked on a programme of observation that would transform astronomy. In the south-west corner of the ROG Meridian Building, mounted opposite Halley’s Mural Quadrant, is an unassuming “piece of drain-pipe” which doesn’t get a second glance from most of the visitors to the ROG, but... James Bradley’s Zenith Sector (L) is arguably, with Airy’s Transit Circle, one of the two most influential instruments on display there. A zenith sector or telescope points almost vertically upwards to the zenith or point directly overhead.

Bradley got the right result for the wrong reason. To prove the Earth is in orbit around the Sun, he’d set-out to measure the apparent change of position of the star Gamma Draconis, expected due to the different viewpoints from the extreme positions of the Earth at each end of its orbit six months apart. Measurement of this annual ‘parallax’ would finally prove that the Earth was indeed orbiting the Sun. However, instead of measuring the apparent change of the star’s position due to parallax, Bradley stumbled onto the first direct evidence for the Earth’s motion through space round the Sun, an effect he called the aberration of light.

In 1725 Bradley, working with Samuel Molyneux, began observations of Gamma Draconis. Based on the direction of the star, Bradley expected its apparent position to shift due to parallax with the maximum displacements happening in December and June. The pair carried out a programme of 80 observations stretching into 1727 using Molyneux’s 24-foot zenith telescope in his Kew mansion. They found that the apparent position was indeed changing up to 20 arc-seconds each way on a 365-day cycle, but to their surprise the maximum displacements came not in December and June, but in March and September. Gamma Draconis, also known as Eltamin (which derives from Al Ras al Tinnen, “the Dragon’s Head”), was running three months late.".

http://www.flamsteed.org/fasbradley.htm
 

The bolded paragraph is a clear example of "spin". This is not science. This is propaganda or public perceptions management. This is religion. Bradley assumed he could measure something there was no logical reason to think was possible. No stellar parallax had ever been measured. Focusing on one single star is not a good experiment to do and further, he could not measure what he sought to. His experiment failed to show any evidence that the Earth orbited the Sun. Instead of accepting the obvious, James Bradley and the rest of the mainstream Royally promoted scientific community decide on embracing the ridiculous. We are told Bradley "Proved" The Earth orbits The Sun with a failed experiment. This is exactly how the Michelson Morley Experiment is spun, and like with that experiment, an ad hoc 'solution' is made up and offered as 'evidence' that the experiment shows what it clearly did not. The Lorentz Transformation and the work of the relativists that Einstein plagiarized is predicated on twisting minds into pretzel shapes with nonsensical circular reasoning. The lengths a person has to go to to make not moving into moving is quite impressive. Bradley "stumbles' on his 'evidence' stellar aberration! But wait, he was looking for Stellar Parallax! This is a clear bait and switch. His ad hoc explanation does not prove anything but the fact that Bradley and the rest have a unwillingness to admit the obvious in favor of promoting their own Metaphysical concepts over reason and common sense and demonstrable natural principle.


Compare the above explanation to the photo below and please take note how the star would have to be at a 180 degree difference from March to September. The star's position would always be seen to be changing. James Bradley ignores this inconvenient truth. Bradley's work is simply propaganda and nothing more. This is a long standing historical hoax. The mysteries of the cosmos are promoted in order to get the masses to think they need the authority of the neo-astrologers, relabeled as astronomers. Not only were the masses the dupes, the nobility themselves had employed court astrologers for years or so we are told... This would indicate a motive for the former so called astrologers to become the new re imagined "Astronomers", These guys reinvented themselves with the times. Same unsound fantastic imaginative reasoning, applied to the same stars, but disguised as 'science'. Rather than predicting the fortune of a kingdom or king, the neo-astrologers can predict the future of the so called Universe itself. They can even peak bad into the past all the way to the mythic creation event- the NEO GENESIS that is the BIG BANG MYTH! All those neo fanatics desire is to remove God from religion. God is an idea. The Universe must have no beginning and no end, no inside nor outside., by definition, otherwise the word or rather the term "Universe" as we mean it, lacks meaning.

"At the time of the March equinox, the Earth's orbit carries the observer in a southwards direction, and the star's apparent declination is therefore displaced to the south by an angle of κ. At the September equinox, the star's position is displaced to the north by an equal and opposite amount."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Annual_aberration

"universe (n.) 

1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus)."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

Modern science is a religion. There was never a Big Bang. The Big Bang is simply creationism re-imagined.

James Bradley was looking for evidence the Earth orbited the Sun. He assumed he could find Stellar Parallax by looking at Gamma Draconis, a single star. How did he expect to see any parallax when there are no other stars to compare Gamma Draconis too?  In other words, what other stars did he compare Gamma Dracnois' position to? 

Bradley fails to show that the Earth orbits the Sun. He cannot demonstrate any stellar parallax. He failed. Instead of acknowledging the obvious, we get an ad hoc explanation that is dependent on us ignoring sidereal time and all sorts of sources of error. We must take James Bradley's word for it. We must respect his authority with empty heads and parrot tongues. The absurdity might be better illustrated with an analogy.

To accept this nonsense wed have to be willing to accept someone digging up our backyard claiming there's buried pirate treasure back there. After ruining our yard this person comes to us with a lead pipe proclaiming he found the treasure. 

Warning: Circular Reasoning Ahead

"In 1725 James Bradley, who held a position at Oxford as astronomer and natural philosopher, began observations of γ Draconis at the home of a friend, Samuel Molyneux. Using a telescope attached to a chimney so that it pointed nearly vertically, he changed the position of the telescope very slightly, and very accurately measured its change in position using a screw and plumb-line; and over the course of a year or so found that the star did indeed vary in position during the course of the year by 40 arc-seconds, just like Polaris. But, exactly like Polaris, the change in motion was in the wrong direction for stellar parallax, as shown in the following diagram:..."

"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. Circular reasoning is not a formal logical fallacy but a pragmatic defect in an argument whereby the premises are just as much in need of proof or evidence as the conclusion, and as a consequence the argument fails to persuade. Other ways to express this are that there is no reason to accept the premises unless one already believes the conclusion, or that the premises provide no independent ground or evidence for the conclusion.[2] Begging the question is closely related to circular reasoning, and in modern usage the two generally refer to the same thing.[3]

Circular reasoning is often of the form: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true." Circularity can be difficult to detect if it involves a longer chain of propositions."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

"How Bradley's observations differed from the expected effects of parallax. As shown on the left, as the Earth moves to one side of its orbit, γ Draconis should move to the opposite side of its parallactic ellipse (the path the star seems to follow during the year as a result of our motion around the Sun). Thus, when the Earth is at points AB and C, the star should appear to be at points ab and c. Instead, as shown on the right, as the Earth moves from one point to the next the apparent positions are shifted in the direction of the Earth's motion, which is a quarter circle ahead of the expected parallactic shift. In addition (although not demonstrated here), the amount of the parallactic shift should depend upon the star's distance, being larger for closer stars and smaller for more distant stars; whereas the so-called stellar aberration observed by Bradley is the same for every star in a given region, regardless of its distance. (Parallax produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals the reciprocal of each star's distance in parsecs, which is of course different for different stars. Stellar aberration produces an elliptical motion, circular at the Ecliptic poles, and linear at the Ecliptic plane, whose semi-major axis equals a constant regardless of the distance or angular position of the star, that constant being equal to one radian multiplied by the ratio of the Earth's orbital velocity to the speed of light. Said statements to be explained in later revisions of this page.)"

http://cseligman.com/text/history/bradley.htm

Please read the above quote carefully and notice the author engages in the art of apologetics

The illustration, above and on our left, shows what Bradley expected to see. This is a huge problem!  Here Bradley is assuming he can detect stellar parallax! The illustration on the left treats the FIXED STARS like planets. The Fixed stars are the motionless background the rest of the solar system moves relative to, from our vantage point here on Earth. The Fixed Stars have that name for a very good reason. The Fixed Stars do not appear to move against a background of anything. They do not appear to move from the point of view of someone who thinks the Earth orbits the Sun and spins on its axis. Bradley is assuming a linear motion that is unobservable. He then applies circular reasoning to support his claim. He should have never expected to see any sort of shifting of position as a result of Earth's orbit in the first place. The Fixed Stars were thought to be so far away as to make measuring parallax impossible. If the shifting on the left was observable, the the Fixed stars would exhibit parallax.  The illustration on the left simply shows us what Bradley expected to see, despite the long history of observing the skies. Bradley insisted on ignoring empirical observation in favor of his own prejudice for what amount to be a religion. The Heliocentric model is shown to be in error with empirical demonstrations time and again, and the mainstream insists on ignoring the obvious in favor of clinging to the absurd every time. All we can demonstrate with experiment and observation is that the Earth does not move.  

"The fixed stars (from the Latin stellae fixae) are celestial objects that do not seem to move in relation to the other stars of the night sky. Hence, a fixed star is any star other than the Sun. A nebula or other starlike object may also be called a fixed star. People in many cultures have imagined that the stars form pictures in the sky called constellations. In Ancient Greek astronomy, the stars were believed to exist on a giant celestial sphere, or firmament, that revolves daily around Earth."   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_stars 

The illustration above and on our right is what Bradley claims he saw. We have to take him and the Royal Society at their word when they tell us he made sure that atmospherics and optical (and all other) sources of error are taken into account, though we can find no description of the lengths Bradley would have gone through in order to ensure the quality of his results. Its hard to imagine his claim has any real validity to it. Telescopes have very real limits and Bradley was even more limited with his pre 20th century technology.

"Another reason for keeping the magnification low has to do with image brightness.  An unfortunate law of physics dictates that when the magnification is doubled, the image gets four times dimmer.  Most celestial objects are very faint, so making them any dimmer than necessary is not recommended.  This is why the most important thing with a telescope is the aperture rather than the magnification.  Brightness is the key to astronomical observing."   https://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx

Bradley's telescope was fixed to a chimney and its position altered only slightly. Bradley's so called research is shoddy and incomplete, he never followed the stars motion over entire course of the night, for example. He also forgets that the stars would be seen during the day were it not for the Sun. Bradley completely makes up the value for the velocity of light in order to come to the desired result with mathematical equation.  The illustration on our right shows us the absurdity of Bradley idea. What physical process is imagined that allows for the star's position to move in the direction the Earth is moving? Rain? Light is not rain. Light is emitted in a spherical shape that radiates outward from its source. Even if we assume light ravels at some 300,000 km a second, the stars we see are supposed to just be the light waves that were emitted by the star so many years ago, no angle adjusted needed or even possible. In fact since the stars are so far away, the Earth can neither approach nor move away from any of them! If the Earth could, Bradley's research would have been unnecessary as we would easily be able to detect the long sought stellar parallax.

Bradley Just Made up The Value for The Velocity of Light, But Sidereal Time is Real!

Bradley ignores the observable difference between sidereal and solar time. This difference creates an apparent counterclockwise motion of the Fixed Stars, The sidereal day is some 4 minutes less than 24 hours and the solar day varies during the year. The average solar day is 24 hours. This 4 minute difference causes the constellations to appear to shift their appearance in the sky. If we could see the stars during the day, we'd see them return to the same spot in the sky every 23 hours and 56 minutes. James Bradley and everyone else ignores this very real phenomena in favor of an explanation that is completely made up.

As you can see what Bradley observed is easily explained as the apparent rotating of the stars position in the sky. In the spring the star is seen 180 degrees from where it was seen in the fall. The position is always (seemingly) rotating counterclockwise so that each night the constellation is shifted back by that amount. After six months the constellation has rotated 180 degrees. This obvious fact is completely ignored by James Bradley and 'everyone else'. How is that not propaganda? How can any claim this guy deserves an award for science or knowledge? This is what the so called Dark Ages looks like. Ignorant and mistaken minds are promoted as 'genius'.

See illustration below

 In the Spring, the handle seems to sweep away from the North Star and towards the South part of the Sky. In the Fall the Big Dipper's handle appears to sweep towards the North part of the sky. This is assuming we are observing the sky from the Northern Hemisphere, specifically the London area.

"At the time of the March equinox, the Earth's orbit carries the observer in a southwards direction, and the star's apparent declination is therefore displaced to the south by an angle of κ. At the September equinox, the star's position is displaced to the north by an equal and opposite amount."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Annual_aberration

SIDEREAL VS SOLAR TIME MEANS THERE IS A 12 HOUR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FALL AND SPRING SITINGS OF GAMMA DRACONIS. IN OTHER WORDS IN ORDER TO SEE THE STAR IN EXACTLY THE SAME POSITION IN THE SKY, ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO OBSERVE THE STAR DURING THE DAY, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. WHEN THE STAR IS OBSERVED 6 MONTHS APART, WE LOGICALLY EXPECT THE POSITION TO BE SHIFTED DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SIDEREAL AND SOLAR TIME.

In September the Bigger Dipper is in the Southern Sky and the star Gamma Draconis is shifted towards the North. In March the positions are reversed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ursa_Minor

Sidereal time is consistent. This is the time it takes for a star to return tot the same position in the sky each night. The time would be some 4 minutes less than 24 hours proper.

Solar time fluctuates. In the mainstream model of the sox called solar system, this value has to do with the Earth's orbit.This value varies throughout the year. The time averages out to 24 hours a day.

The difference between the two times is supposed to explain the counterclockwise motion you see in the photo above. This is the mainstream explanation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_time

If there were no Sun, we'd see that the Fixed Stars return to the same place in the sky every 23 hours and 56 minutes or so. The stars, like all other celestial bodies, would be seen to rotate clockwise in the sky, rising east and setting west. It is the Sun's varying position and varying schedule that creates the apparent counterclockwise like motion of the Fixed Stars, we see in the photo above.

A Fudged Formula Below:

Bradley needed the result to be his measured 20 arc seconds. So he used the heliocentric model itself to design his formula. He took the assumed orbital velocity of the Earth (as an average) and then made up a value of for the velocity of light that enabled him to get the desired result. This is an ad hoc explanation that is not based on any empirical observation. It is not like pi, (3.14...) which allows us to calculate the circumference of the circle. This kind of 'reverse engineering' is nonsensical faith based religious thinking. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-pi-and-how-did-it/

Gamma Draconis or Eltanin is thought to lie some 150 Light Year Away!

James Bradley's calculation was not based on any assumed distance to the star Gamma Draconis, does this make any sense? Bradley simply made up the value for the velocity of light so the equation 'proved" his supposed observation.

"In 1729, James Bradleydiscovered stellar aberration. From this effect he determined that light must travel 10,210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the modern figure is 10,066 times faster) or, equivalently, that it would take light 8 minutes 12 seconds to travel from the Sun to the Earth."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#First_measurement_attempts

Circular Reasoning Warning! Bradley Just Makes Up The Velocity of Light:

"In 1728 James Bradley, an English physicist, estimated the speed of light in vacuum to be around 301,000 km/s. He used stellar aberration to calculate the speed of light. Stellar aberration causes the apparent position of stars to change due to the motion of Earth around the sun. Stellar aberration is approximately the ratio of the speed that the earth orbits the sun to the speed of light. He knew the speed of Earth around the sun and he could also measure this stellar aberration angle. These two facts enabled him to calculate the speed of light in vacuum."

http://www.speed-light.info/measurement.htm#James_Bradley

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light

The Fine Art of Pushing Bullish Science Propaganda : Circular Reasoning Provides the "Right Angle" for the "Spin"

Gamma Draconis or Eltanin is thought to lie some 150 Light Year Away!

"Eltanin lies around 154.3 light-years (47.3 parsecs) away, as determined by parallax measurements from the Hipparcos astrometry satellite."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Draconis

The Location of Gamma Draconis or Eltanin. above. Compare its location to the the big dipper's below. Please notice how Eltanin (Gamma Draconis) in the above illustration is in the exact same position as the Big Dipper is in the Fall. Specifically the first star on our left, the start of the 'handle" part of the 'pot'. We can clearly see that the difference between the sidereal and solar day easily explains the apparent motion Bradley observed. The first star in the Big Dipper is on our left in the Fall and on our Right in the Spring. the same motion applies to Gamma Draconis. In the fall the star is shifted west and in the spoing the star is shifted east. All the stars are. This is all Bradley could have observed and he completely ignores this obvious fact.

 In the Spring, the handle seems to sweep away from the North Star and towards the South part of the Sky. In the Fall the Big Dipper's handle appears to sweep towards the North part of the sky. This is assuming we are observing the sky from the Northern Hemisphere, specifically the London area.

All James Bradley Could Observe was The Above apparent Motions - He was seeing the star from different relative angles over the course of the year. Compare to the illustration below:

The Axial Tilt Problem

Build your own moving, solid brass orbiter

The Earth's Supposed Axial Tilt is a Very Unnatural Idea. The mainstream model requires the very complex concept that the Earth is tilted towards the Fixed Stars. This motion is very complicated and more difficult to actually model than most think. One would expect the Earth axis to be oriented in relation to the Sun not he Fixed Stars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#/media/File:Aberrationseasons.svg

"At the time of the March equinox, the Earth's orbit carries the observer in a southwards direction, and the star's apparent declination is therefore displaced to the south by an angle of κ. At the September equinox, the star's position is displaced to the north by an equal and opposite amount."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Annual_aberration

In other words, the supposed aberration can be explained by the shift in viewing perspective,

This so called 'experiment' ignores this inconvenient detail and fact. This is not science.

The star Gamma Draconis would be seen from different perspectives over the course of the year.

Bradley's telescope was fixed in place and did not follow the motion of the star. The zenith star was supposed to be right over head, but as we can see from the illustrations, this is impossible. The star would naturally shift in position as seen at night, during the course of the year, due to the difference in sidereal and solar time

Please note too the number of observations were less than 90. There are 365 days in the year.

(here we are ignoring atmospherics and water vapor, which we cannot do) there are many logical fallacies to be found with this stellar aberration explanation. It is fantasy not science.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

"The formidable Robert Hooke was among the first to try and measure parallax using a fixed telescope. Hooke reasoned that a fixed scope pointed at the zenith could be aligned to the vertical with a plumb-line, and there would be no need to adjust the measurements for the refraction of light when it enters the atmosphere at an angle. It was Hooke who selected Gamma Draconis as a suitable target because it transits at the zenith at London and is bright enough to see in a scope in daytime. In 1669 he cut holes in the roof and floor of his apartments in Gresham College to mount a zenith telescope (L). Typically for Hooke, the design was ingenious, but also in fine Hooke style he made only four observations before moving on to other things. In the event he found all kinds of practical difficulties and the objective lens soon got broken (Aw, shucks!). Few were convinced by his pronouncement that the parallax of Gamma Draconis was 30 arc-seconds (more than 1000 times bigger than the modern value)."
http://www.flamsteed.org/fasbradley_files/page0001.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_and_second_of_arc

Arc seconds are on the order of 1/3600th of a degree!

"With the 24-foot sector Bradley and Molyneux could measure with a precision of 1 arc-second. This was 60 times better than Tycho’s capability at Uraniborg. Bradley ushered in a new era of high-precision in observation. He was extraordinarily careful to anticipate and measure all causes of error in his instruments. Although he failed to measure the parallax of Gamma Draconis, Bradley could safely say that he would have succeeded if it had been any bigger than one arc-second. Gamma Draconis was therefore at least 400,000 AUs distant. At about the same time (1728) Isaac Newton announced his estimate of the distance to Sirius. Based on the relative brightness of Sirius and the Sun, he calculated the distance at 1 million AUs (not too bad—the modern value is about 550,000 AUs; 8.6 light-years). The stars were vastly more distant than thought by previous generations."

"Back in 1749 Bradley got the Admiralty to buy the 12-foot zenith sector for £45 (a huge sum) and moved it to Greenwich. He also found the instruments left to him by Halley in a sorry state. He went cap-in-hand to the King and got funds for a new brass mural quadrant and transit instrument, both by John Bird, and up to his high standards of 1 arc-second precision. Bradley also got funds for a new building to house the instruments—now the Meridian Building at Greenwich and opened in 1750. He worked diligently with the new equipment for the 20 years of his time as Astronomer Royal, mainly re-observing the positions of 3200 stars in Flamsteed’s catalogue. Bradley left over 60,000 observations of unprecedented accuracy. Unfortunately, his heirs took possession of the data on his death and ownership disputes with the Board of Longitude dragged on. Bradley’s work was not fully published until 1805, 43 years after he died.

It was not to be until 1838 that the first reliable measurement of stellar parallax was announced by Friedrich Bessel in Germany. There was a direct link back to Bradley: in 1818 Bessel had published Bradley’s catalogue with positions corrected for precession, aberration, and nutation. This, together with an outstanding new instrument by Fraunhofer, formed the basis for his attack on the parallax of 61 Cygni. In 1838 the publication of his measurements just pipped announcements by Thomas Henderson from his work at the Cape, and Wilhelm Struve in Dorpat. Bessel found the parallax of 61 Cygni to be 0.314 arc-seconds — far beyond Bradley’s capability to detect. 61 Cygni is much closer than Gamma Draconis which had been chosen only because of its transit near the zenith at London. Today’s value for the parallax of Gamma Draconis is 0.022 arc-seconds (distant 148 light-years or 9.36 million AUs). Bradley needed a 100 times improvement in his instrumentation. But with Bradley the chase was on. Airy called Gamma Draconis “the birth star of modern astronomy”.

http://www.flamsteed.org/fasbradley_files/page0002.htm

"Stellar parallax remains the standard for calibrating other measurement methods (see Cosmic distance ladder). Accurate calculations of distance based on stellar parallax require a measurement of the distance from Earth to the Sun, now based on radar reflection off the surfaces of planets.[9]
The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and also the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.[4] This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away."

Arc seconds are on the order of 1/3600th of a degree!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_and_second_of_arc

"If the star's position is observed twice, six months apart, then we triangulate its position from opposite sides of the earth's orbit. The angle at the apex of the triangle is tiny. Of course, we don't measure that angle - we measure the angle of the star's parallax as seen from earth, which is the same thing. And the angles are tiny. One of the pre-Copernican proofs that the earth does not move was the failure to observe parallax, and the reason it was not observed is that the change in position is far too tiny to measure without good instruments. For the nearest star, Alpha Centauri (4.3 light years away), the total shift is 1.5 seconds of arc, or the apparent width of a quarter at a distance of over two miles. Astronomy books usually tabulate the shift either side of the star's average position, which is half the total shift, so the parallax of Alpha Centauri is about 3/4 second of arc.

Up until 1997, we had fairly good direct measurements of stellar distances out to 70 light years or so. In that year the data from the European Space Agency satellite HIPPARCOS came on line and rendered everything before then obsolete. We now have accurate distances (within 10 per cent) for tens of thousands of stars up to a couple of hundred light years away."

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Geocentrism.HTM

But Ptolemy was more right than wrong! see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologetics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zodiac

A Matter of Rotating Perspective

What You Are Supposed To Overlook, One of Bradley's Many Errors: The Pole Star & The Rotation of the Celestial Sphere Around The Earth

Bradley ignores the facts of the matter. The heavens rotate around the Earth. The difference between solar and sidereal time makes the stars seem to move counterclockwise during the course of the year so that the star's position is shifted due to this rotation. 

"After laboriously checking the telescope for any potential defects and finding none, Bradley acquired a new, even more accurate telescope to attempt to see if they observe anything fishy with other stars. He determined that same wobble existed in every star he studied. What he had discovered was aberration (previously mentioned in §4.3). Knowing the accuracies of his telescope, he was able to make a minimum distance estimate for Gamma Draconis. It could be no closer than 6 light-years, otherwise the parallax would have been detected. "

The very real and observable motions of the heavens are ignored in favor of what can be called literal religious dogma. Stellar aberration is an illogical lie. The Earth can not approach nor move away from the Fixed Stars. If it could, we'd easily be able to observe the legendary stellar parallax.

http://www.bgfax.com/school/distance_history.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_stars

The North Star: The Pole Star

"While other stars' apparent positions in the sky change throughout the night, as they appear to rotate around the celestial poles, pole stars' apparent positions remain virtually fixed. This makes them especially useful in celestial navigation: they are a dependable indicator of the direction toward the respective geographic pole although not exact; they are virtually fixed, and their angle of elevation can also be used to determine latitude."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

Even the North Star describes a circle and is not dead center. It looks like it makes a halo.

"As Earth spins daily on its axis, the stars appear to rotate in circular paths around one of the celestial poles (the north celestial pole for observers in the northern hemisphere, or the south celestial pole for observers in the southern hemisphere). Stars far from a celestial pole appear to rotate in large circles; stars located very close to a celestial pole rotate in small circles and hence hardly seem to engage in any diurnal motion at all. Depending on the observer's latitude on Earth, some stars — the circumpolar ones — are close enough to the celestial pole to remain continuously above the horizon, while other stars dip below the horizon for some portion of their daily circular path (and others remain permanently below the horizon).

The circumpolar stars appear to lie within a circle that is centered at the celestial pole and tangential to the horizon. At the Earth's North Pole, the north celestial pole is directly overhead, and all stars that are visible at all (that is, all stars in the northern celestial hemisphere) are circumpolar. As one travels south, the north celestial pole moves towards the northern horizon. More and more stars that are at a distance from it begin to disappear below the horizon for some portion of their daily "orbit", and the circle containing the remaining circumpolar stars becomes increasingly small. At the Earth's equator this circle vanishes to a single point – the celestial pole itself – which lies on the horizon, and there are therefore effectively no circumpolar stars at all."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_star

Seeing Draco in the Sky:

"Draco the dragon is famous throughout mythology. This great beast was especially present in greek myth. One of the more popular stories involves Heracles and the twelve labors. Gaia gave Hera a golden apple tree when she married Zeus. Hera put the tree in the garden to be guarded by the Hesperides and a dragon called Ladon. 

Heracles asks Atlas to gather the apples while he and Athena held up the sky. Atlas, thinking he could trick Heracles into holding the sky forever, gladly accepted the mission. When he returned with the apples, Heracles slipped the sky back on Atlas' shoulders. 

Yet another story is set during the Titan war with Zeus. Athena was attacked by a dragon. She flung it into the air, wrapping it around the pole. To this day, the dragon remains in the night sky.

The constellation, Draco, can be found revolving around the celestial North Pole. This type of constellation is said to be circumpolar."

http://www.windows2universe.org/mythology/draco_dragon.html

"The chart shows the position of Draco over most of the United States in mid-summer at 9 pm. This chart can also be applied to other areas of the Northern hemisphere such as Canada, the UK and Europe. In the Northern hemisphere Draco never sets below the horizon, as a result it is visible all year in the night sky.
From January to March the constellation will first appear low in the horizon in a northerly direction at around 6 pm, as the night progresses it will become higher in the night sky before disappearing at day break around 7 am.
From April to June Draco will first appear in a more north-easterly position at around 9 pm, at around 2 am it will be almost overhead before heading down towards the horizon in the north-west until day breaks at around 6 am.
From July to September the constellation will be visible almost directly overhead at around 10 pm, it will gradually move lower towards the horizon in a north-westerly direction before day breaks around 5 am.
From October to December it will appear high in the sky in the north-west at around 6 pm, by 2 am it will be almost directly north and low on the horizon, by day break the constellation will be in a north-easterly direction."

http://www.solarsystemquick.com/universe/draco-constellation.htm

"The usual limiting factor in maximum magnification is Earth's atmosphere.  Since we have to look through the atmosphere to see anything in space, the more we magnify the celestial objects we're looking at, the more we magnify the atmosphere.  And if the atmosphere is turbulent, that turbulence will tend to blur the image.  The steadiness of the atmosphere is called the seeing conditions.  When the seeing is good, the atmosphere is steady and the image looks very sharp.  When the seeing is poor, the atmosphere is very turbulent and the image appears blurry.  On nights of poor seeing, even a good telescope cannot give a detailed view."

https://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx

James Bradley Says We Can Ignore The Atmosphere. Is that Logical? Of Course Not.

"Atmospheric refraction is the deviation of light or other electromagnetic wavefrom a straight line as it passes through the atmosphere due to the variation in air density as a function of height.[1] This refraction is due to the velocity of light through air decreasing (the index of refraction increases) with increased density. Atmospheric refraction near the ground produces mirages and can make distant objects appear to shimmer or ripple, elevated or lowered, stretched or shortenedwith no mirage involved. The term also applies to the refraction of sound. Atmospheric refraction is considered in measuring the position of both astronomical and terrestrial objects.

Astronomical or celestial refraction causes astronomical objects to appear higher in the sky than they are in reality. Terrestrial refraction usually causes terrestrial objects to appear higher than they really are, although in the afternoon when the air near the ground is heated, the rays can curve upward making objects appear lower than they really are."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Modern astronomy would have us ignore every other rationale and empirically based explanation in favor of the absurd. Bradley's supposed discovery is nothing of the kind. It is simply nonsense. This so called discovery is not a repeatable experiment, is it? Do Astronomers bother to redo this famed set of observations?  How many students or astronomers actually observe the heavens every night to see if this is correct? Where are all the countless video and photo sequences, (time lapse photography) showing this famed phenomena? We are supposed to accept that this is 'settled science'. We are supposed to accept an empty appeal to authority and the majority as explanation rather than an appeal to logic, reason and empirical based experiment and demonstration. 

Even if we are supplied with a series of photos or videos, what would that prove? Photography and film making ( including video) has always included fakery and special effects. Faking star photography is not hard a hard task.

The broader point is that Bradley's so called discovery was accepted without critical thought by the establishment who all had a prejudice to do so. A peer review is really a meaningless endeavor as the term peer indicates that those who are checking the work share the same prejudiced attitudes towards the subject matter. This is and was clearly the case with the so called Heliocentric theories that modern cosmology has abandoned that basic solar system model in favor of a patch work that even Newton would find insane.

"Optical aberrations are deviations from a perfect, mathematical model. It is important to note that they are not caused by any physical, optical, or mechanical flaws. Rather, they can be caused by the lens shape itself, or placement of optical elements within a system, due to the wave nature of light. Optical systems are typically designed using first order or paraxial optics in order to calculate image size and location. Paraxial optics does not take into account aberrations; it treats light as a ray, and therefore omits the wave phenomena that cause aberrations."

http://www.edmundoptics.eu/resources/application-notes/optics/comparison-of-optical-aberrations/

Do You Think 'They' Discovered Stellar Parallax?

Stars can have "Negative Parallax". Does That Make Sense To You?

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1943AnDea...4....1L

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_magnitude

"For example, nearly 7 percent of the observed stars had negative parallax, a recurring phenomenon in parallax work.  Such data have no counterpart in the physical concept of parallax—these stars appear to move with the earth in its journey around the sun instead of being semi-fixed at a distance.  When negative parallax is measured for a star, the usual assumption made is that the star is extremely distant and that the result is due to random errors.  The large proper motion of these stars is difficult to reconcile with great distance, however.  Although the negative parallax could perhaps be due to random error, a 7 percent error rate is relatively large, and there are many ways in which the gravitational bending of light can cause such an effect.  Negative parallax may actually indicate that a star is very nearby."

"Other discrepancies, less easily explained, occur regularly in parallax work.  These include major variations in parallax measurements of the same star made by different observers and sometimes between different sets of observations made by the same observers—discrepancies well in excess of the possible error sources.  In a few cases these discrepancies can be attributed to systematic errors by one or both observers, undiscovered proper motion of the reference stars and even unnoticed perturbations in the motion of the parallax star due to an orbiting object.  However, these differences are more easily explained by the effects of gravitational bending of light from different sets of reference stars, or on different plates.  This possibility may also account for the annoying occurrence of apparently legitimate measurements which fall far from the general trend—deviations for which no valid reason can be found. When this occurs, as it does periodically in all parallax work, these spurious measurements are excluded as non-representative.  It could be, however, that these inexplicable results occur when a particular alignment of stars is present as the earth moves around the sun in its orbit, accentuating for a brief period the gravitational bending effects.  It would be interesting to see if spurious measurements could be repeated under controlled conditions."

http://www.deceptiveuniverse.com/Distance-to-the-stars.htm

There is no real Stellar Parallax .Parllax Cannot Be Negative The Earth's motion is supposed to cause the phenomena. The parallax would be consistent. 

 It Would look like this:

A Brief History Lesson: From Astrology to Astronomy

"Renaissance scholars commonly practised astrology. Gerolamo Cardano cast the horoscope of king Edward VI of England, while John Dee was the personal astrologer to queen Elizabeth I of EnglandCatherine de Medici paid Michael Nostradamus in 1566 to verify the prediction of the death of her husband, king Henry II of France made by her astrologer Lucus Gauricus. Major astronomers who practised as court astrologers included Tycho Brahe in the royal court of Denmark, Johannes Kepler to the HabsburgsGalileo Galilei to the Medici, and Giordano Bruno who was burnt at the stake for heresy in Rome in 1600.[69] The distinction between astrology and astronomy was not entirely clear. Advances in astronomy were often motivated by the desire to improve the accuracy of astrology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology#Renaissance_and_Early_Modern

A Rose Re-Imagined: Court or Royal Astrologers become Royal Astronomers.

See What Went Down? These 'astrologers' would have been out of jobs. "Astrolog" becomes "Astronom" and instead of predicting the individual or kingdom's fate, astronomers can predict the Universe's future and peer into the past and beyond... Astronomers served and still serve the same superstitious purpose as the court appointed Astrologers.

Propaganda and sleight of hand deception is Paramount.

The Royalty still runs the show.

Click Here For More

"astro- 

element active in English word formation from mid-18c. and meaning "star or celestial body; outer space," from Greek astro-, stem and comb. form of astron "star," related to aster "star" (see star (n.)). In ancient Greek, aster typically was "a star" and astron mostly in plural, "the stars." In singular it mostly meant "Sirius" (the brightest star)."

"nom (n.) 

French, "name" (9c.), from Latin nomen (see name (n.)). Used in various phrases, such as nom de guerre (1670s), name used by a person engaged in some action, literally "war name;" nom de plume (1823), literally "pen name;" nom de théâtre (1874) "stage name." "Nom de plume is open to the criticism that it is ridiculous for English writers to use a French phrase that does not come from France" [Fowler]."

"logo (n.) 

"simple symbol or graphic meant to represent something," 1937, probably a shortening of logogram "sign or character representing a word."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=logo

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nom&allowed_in_frame=0

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=astro-&allowed_in_frame=0

A Peer Review of The Noble Views

"peer (n.) 

c. 1300, "an equal in rank or status" (early 13c. in Anglo-Latin), from Anglo-French peir, Old French per (10c.), from Latin par "equal" (see par (n.)). Sense of "a noble" (late 14c.) is from Charlemagne's Twelve Peers in the old romances, who, like the Arthurian knights of the Round Table, originally were so called because all were equal. Sociological sense of "one of the same age group or social set" is from 1944. Peer review attested by 1970. Peer pressure is first recorded 1971." 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=peer&allowed_in_frame=0

This Society is Not For You!

"The President, Council, and Fellows of the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge,[1] commonly known as the Royal Society, is a learned society for science and is possibly the oldest such society still in existence.[a] Founded in November 1660, it was granted a royal charter by King Charles II as "The Royal Society". The Society is the United Kingdom's and Commonwealth of Nations' Academy of Sciences and fulfills a number of roles; promoting science and its benefits, recognising excellence in science, supporting outstanding science, providing scientific advice for policy, fostering international and global cooperation, education and public engagement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society

For Royal Eyes Only!

"The society also elects royal fellows, honorary fellows and foreign members. Royal fellows are those members of the British Royal Family, representing the British monarchy's role in promoting and supporting the society, who are recommended by the society's council and elected via postal vote..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society

"Bradley was elected a fellow of the Royal Society on 6 November 1718." 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Bradley

The Limits of The Telescope Lens

"Another reason for keeping the magnification low has to do with image brightness.  An unfortunate law of physics dictates that when the magnification is doubled, the image gets four times dimmer.  Most celestial objects are very faint, so making them any dimmer than necessary is not recommended.  This is why the most important thing with a telescope is the aperture rather than the magnification.  Brightness is the key to astronomical observing."

https://starizona.com/acb/basics/equip_magnification.aspx

Bradley's Telescope Could Only "Tilt Slightly" (some 6 degrees) North to South

"Reverend James Bradley was no slouch when it came to astronomy. He and his Uncle James Pouch had together measured the diameter of Venus and the parallax of Mars. Bradley alone calculated the orbits of two comets. Bradley and Molyneux, a wealthy amateur astronomy, teamed up and obtained much better equipment than Hooke every had access to, in an attempt to duplicate Hooke’s attempt to determine the parallax of Gamma Draconis. The telescope, however, was designed to tilt slightly north or south by turning a micrometer screw. When Gamma Draconis would pass overhead, they would tilt the scope such that the star would cross through the center of the eyepiece. The tilt reading could then be recorded and later analyzed."

http://www.bgfax.com/school/distance_history.pdf

Neil Armstrong describes the lunar environment. He claims he saw no stars in space.

Stellar Parallax Is Fudged!
"The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec. This angle is approximately that subtended by an object 2 centimeters in diameter located 5.3 kilometers away."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax#Stellar_parallax

Modern Measurements of So Called Parallax Would Be Within The Margin of Error. The Measurement is Too Small!

The Supposed Parallax for Gamma Draconis is on the order of some 21 Milliarcseconds. Atmospheric refraction and the effects of temperature on the telescope lens mean this minor value is well within the margin of error. This measurement is too small to be taken seriously. It is made up. 

"Eltanin lies around 154.3 light-years (47.3 parsecs) away,[1] as determined by parallax measurements from the Hipparcos astrometry satellite.[11][12] In 1728, while unsuccessfully attempting to measure the parallaxof this star, James Bradley discovered the aberration of light resulting from the movement of the Earth. Bradley's discovery confirmed Copernicustheory that the Earth revolved around the Sun."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_Draconis

No Satellites Needed For Communication

"In radio communicationskywave or skip refers to the propagation of radio waves reflected or refracted back toward Earth from the ionosphere, an electrically charged layer of the upper atmosphere. Since it is not limited by the curvature of the Earth, skywave propagation can be used to communicate beyond the horizon, at intercontinental distances. It is mostly used in the shortwave frequency bands"

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave

 21 Milliarcseconds Is Too Small To Actually Measure

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minute_and_second_of_arc#Symbols_and_abbreviations

The Stars Would Have To Be Huge

"With respect to the stars, Tycho also believed that if the Earth orbited the Sun annually there should be an observable stellar parallax over any period of six months, during which the angular orientation of a given star would change thanks to Earth's changing position. (This parallax does exist, but is so small it was not detected until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel discovered a parallax of 0.314 arcseconds of the star 61 Cygni.[77]) The Copernican explanation for this lack of parallax was that the stars were such a great distance from Earth that Earth's orbit was almost insignificant by comparison. However, Tycho noted that this explanation introduced another problem: Stars as seen by the naked eye appear small, but of some size, with more prominent stars such as Vegaappearing larger than lesser stars such as Polaris, which in turn appear larger than many others. Tycho had determined that a typical star measured approximately a minute of arc in size, with more prominent ones being two or three times as large. In writing to Christoph Rothmann, a Copernican astronomer, Tycho used basic geometry to show that, assuming a small parallax that just escaped detection, the distance to the stars in the Copernican system would have to be 700 times greater than the distance from the sun to Saturn. Moreover, the only way the stars could be so distant and still appear the sizes they do in the sky would be if even average stars were gigantic — at least as big as the orbit of the Earth, and of course vastly larger than the sun. And, Tycho said, the more prominent stars would have to be even larger still. And what if the parallax was even smaller than anyone thought, so the stars were yet more distant? Then they would all have to be even larger still.[78][79] Tycho said

Deduce these things geometrically if you like, and you will see how many absurdities (not to mention others) accompany this assumption [of the motion of the earth] by inference.[80]

Copernicans offered a religious response to Tycho's geometry: titanic, distant stars might seem unreasonable, but they were not, for the Creator could make his creations that large if He wanted."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Brahe

What About The Optical Effect Known as Airy's Disk?

"Optical aberrations are deviations from a perfect, mathematical model. It is important to note that they are not caused by any physical, optical, or mechanical flaws. Rather, they can be caused by the lens shape itself, or placement of optical elements within a system, due to the wave nature of light. Optical systems are typically designed using first order or paraxial optics in order to calculate image size and location. Paraxial optics does not take into account aberrations; it treats light as a ray, and therefore omits the wave phenomena that cause aberrations."

http://www.edmundoptics.eu/resources/application-notes/optics/comparison-of-optical-aberrations/

This phenomena would make measuring stars very difficult and would make precise measurements impossible. The so called parallax that is supposed to be measured is nothing but a mistake. Obviously such measurements cannot be carried out as stars do not follow the same optical 'laws' light bulbs and objects that reflect light do. Stars twinkle. 

"In optics, the Airy disk (or Airy disc) and Airy pattern are descriptions of the best focused spot of light that a perfect lens with a circular aperture can make, limited by the diffraction of light. The Airy disk is of importance in physicsoptics, and astronomy.

The diffraction pattern resulting from a uniformly-illuminated circular aperture has a bright region in the center, known as the Airy disk, which together with the series of concentric bright rings around is called the Airy pattern. Both are named after George Biddell Airy. The disk and rings phenomenon had been known prior to Airy; John Herschel described the appearance of a bright star seen through a telescope under high magnification for an 1828 article on light for the Encyclopedia Metropolitana:

...the star is then seen (in favourable circumstances of tranquil atmosphere, uniform temperature, &c.) as a perfectly round, well-defined planetary disc, surrounded by two, three, or more alternately dark and bright rings, which, if examined attentively, are seen to be slightly coloured at their borders. They succeed each other nearly at equal intervals round the central disc...."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk

Stars Do Not Look Like Physical Objects

"This is the star Sirius through my Orion XT8 Classic Dobsonian telescope!"

The Atmosphere Matters

"The term "transparency" refers to how clear the sky appears to be. It is measured in terms of the faintest stars you can see by eye. So for example in my neighborhood it is not unusual to have a magnitude 3 night -- you can't even see stars that are magnitude 4 -- but on a really good night you can just see magnitude 5 stars. Transparency is determined by the combination of lights that brighten the sky and water vapor or dust in the air to catch the light and obscure faint stars and deep sky objects. 

The peculiar term "seeing" refers to how steady the air is. This directly affects the detail that you can resolve. The more turbulent the air, the worse the resolution. A typical sky only permits 2-3 arc-seconds of resolution, whereas a good sky, at sea level, will permit closer to 1 arc-second. A superb sky at high altitude, could possibly provide 0.4 arc-second seeing. 

Let's translate that into terms of magnification. As discussed on the Maximum Magnification page, the resolving power of your eye, assuming 20/20 vision, is 120 arc-seconds. If the atmosphere will permit 1 arc-second resolution, how much do I need to magnify that to make it 120 arc-seconds? By what factor do I multiply 1 in order to get 120? Take your time... that's right, 120

What that really means to us is that as you increase magnification above 120, your eye starts to see the blurring the atmosphere introduces. Remember, this is when we have good atmospheric seeing, on some nights the image can start to get blurred as you get above a magnification of 60 or so. Then we can certainly say that as you get to the range of magnification of 150-200, the atmosphere will limit what you can resolve. Any further increase in magnification will only give you a closer more detailed look at exactly how the atmosphere is blurring and distorting the image."

http://www.rocketmime.com/astronomy/Telescope/ResolvingPower.html#Airy

For more:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_parallax

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(constellation)

Airy disk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidereal_time

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed_stars

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules_(constellation)

http://www.comfychair.org/~cmbell/myth/draco.html

https://ia902705.us.archive.org/12/items/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich/kingsdethronedhi00hickrich.pdf

http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Esclangon/Aberration_and_Esclangon.html

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys2170/phys2170_fa06/downloads/stellar_aberration.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Bradley used a plumb line. See below. The telescope is also described below. The link is provided as well. Read through and see if you can find out how Bradley was able to ensure no error due to atmospherics, moisture in the English air and other such concerns. Bradley ignores sidereal time which is astonishing. This easily explains any apparent motion he might have seen.

The article also explains that Bradley sited some of the stars during the day. The daytime atmosphere is both brighter and warner than nighttime and dust and moisture in the air is always a factor, especially when illuminated by sun light and all the ambient light. None of this is deemed important to the discussion or this supposed 'discovery'. It is more difficult to see stars during the day and more difficult to accurately measure their location

Twinkle Twinkle....

Ever wondered what a twinkling star looked like up close? Sirius is the brightest star in the sky and is called the "Dog Star". Shot with Canon Powershot SX50 HS . Maximum zoom length was 200x with digital zoom. Very cool effects the star is putting off.
Screen Shot 2016-08-21 at 5.10.28 PM.png

"As an indication of exactly how good the Ptolemaic model is, modern planetariums are built using gears and motors that essentially reproduce the Ptolemaic model for the appearance of the sky as viewed from a stationary Earth. In the planetarium projector, motors and gears provide uniform motion of the heavenly bodies. One motor moves the planet projector around in a big circle, which in this case is the deferent, and another gear or motor takes the place of the epicycle."

http://www.polaris.iastate.edu/EveningStar/Unit2/unit2_sub1.htm

The modern mainstream model is quite fantastic and very wrong. The incredible distances to the stars means we would not expect to see much by way of light from these distant objects.

Light is clearly a wave and waves need a medium to “wave”. The unimaginable distances between star systems as imagined in the mainstream cosmological model would mean we’d not expect to see the light from the stars anymore so than we’d expect to hear the sound of a pin drop from across a football field.

tars would have to be MUCH LARGER than our Sun is supposed to be.

The light wave would be too spread out and weak to be seen by our eyes.

"How do scientists measure the speed of light?

Answer:

Jack Fraser, Undergrad Physicist at Oxford University (2014-2018)

Written Wed · Upvoted by Paul Mainwood, Degrees in Physics and Philosophy, Doctorate in Philosophy of Physics

We don't.

No, seriously, we don't measure the speed of light.

We know exactly what the speed of light is.

It is:

c=c299792458299792458ms−1ms1

And that is absolutely 100% accurate, with no measurement errors.

But Jack, I hear you say, what the bloody hell are you talking about?

The reason we know that that's exactly the speed of light, is that we defined it to be that number.

We then take our definition of a second (the length of time for a certain number of periods of the radiation emitted in hyperfine transitions in caesium-133), and from that we define a metre.

So the thing we would be measuring is what a metre is!

We use the speed of light as a fixed velocity, from which all observers can define their own length scale.

To measure the speed of light would require an external definition of what a metre is - and since about the 1970s, we don't have one!

And if you did want to measure the speed of light using this external distance reference, it's easy to test - you just release a light pulse at t=0, towards a mirror - and then time how long it takes to get back to you. This is the exact principle that Radar/Sonar work on (although again, they measure the distance knowing the speed - but it works either way round)."

https://www.quora.com/How-do-scientists-measure-the-speed-of-light

The Limits of Human Engineered Measurement VS Mainstream Myth

Measuring The Imagined Velocity of Light: The Oscilloscope

The Devil’s in the details. We are supposed to be able to measure the velocity of light with an experimental set up that uses the oscilloscope. The thing is the scope itself can only measure so fast a signal. In other words, it has to extrapolate the data.

The mainstream “Scientific” Community likes to make claims of being able to measure abstract ideas like “atoms” and “electrons” and all sorts of other imagined particles, as well as possessing the ability to measure the mythic billionth of  as second, the Nanosecond! .

The truth is, with experiments like particle accelerator based ones, all anyone can really do is measure some kind of radio or electrical noise and then apply mathematical modeling and massaging to this data to obtain the desired result. Circular reasoning is the order of the day. With measuring electronic or light signals, we see evidence of the same kind of reasoning.

The oscilloscope, like all man made instruments, has a limited resolution. Even modern digital scopes are also limited. When the signal is on the order of the so-called speed of light, the scope can only (logically) measure which signal arrives first in terms of a set timing. The limits of measure would be along the lines of one sixtieth of a second, or even more, but still  far below the mythic nanosecond. which is on the order of one billionth of a second. 

Nanosecond - Wikipedia

An oscilloscope, previously called an oscillograph,[1][2] and informally known as a scope, CRO (for cathode-ray oscilloscope), or DSO (for the more modern digital storage oscilloscope), is a type of electronic test instrument that allows observation of constantly varying signal voltages, usually as a two-dimensional plot of one or more signals as a function of time. Other signals (such as sound or vibration) can be converted to voltages and displayed.

Oscilloscopes are used to observe the change of an electrical signal over time, such that voltage and time describe a shape which is continuously graphed against a calibrated scale. The observed waveform can be analyzed for such properties as amplitude, frequency, rise time, time interval, distortion and others. Modern digital instruments may calculate and display these properties directly. Originally, calculation of these values required manually measuring the waveform against the scales built into the screen of the instrument.[3]

The oscilloscope can be adjusted so that repetitive signals can be observed as a continuous shape on the screen. A storage oscilloscope allows single events to be captured by the instrument and displayed for a relatively long time, allowing observation of events too fast to be directly perceptible.

Oscilloscopes are used in the sciences, medicine, engineering, automotive and the telecommunications industry. General-purpose instruments are used for maintenance of electronic equipment and laboratory work. Special-purpose oscilloscopes may be used for such purposes as analyzing an automotive ignition system or to display the waveform of the heartbeat as an electrocardiogram.

Before the advent of digital electronics, oscilloscopes used cathode ray tubes (CRTs) as their display element (hence were commonly referred to as CROs) and linear amplifiers for signal processing. Storage oscilloscopes used special storage CRTs to maintain a steady display of a single brief signal. CROs were later largely superseded by digital storage oscilloscopes (DSOs) with thin panel displays, fast analog-to-digital converters and digital signal processors. DSOs without integrated displays (sometimes known as digitisers) are available at lower cost and use a general-purpose digital computer to process and display waveforms.”

The earliest and simplest type of oscilloscope consisted of a cathode ray tube, a vertical amplifier, a timebase, a horizontal amplifier and a power supply. These are now called "analog" scopes to distinguish them from the "digital" scopes that became common in the 1990s and 2000s.

Analog scopes do not necessarily include a calibrated reference grid for size measurement of waves, and they may not display waves in the traditional sense of a line segment sweeping from left to right. Instead, they could be used for signal analysis by feeding a reference signal into one axis and the signal to measure into the other axis. For an oscillating reference and measurement signal, this results in a complex looping pattern referred to as a Lissajous curve. The shape of the curve can be interpreted to identify properties of the measurement signal in relation to the reference signal, and is useful across a wide range of oscillation frequencies.”

Oscilloscope - Wikipedia

NANO OR NONSENSE?

"A nanosecond (ns) is a SI unit of time equal to one billionth of a second (10−9 or 1/1,000,000,000 s). One nanosecond is to one second as one second is to 31.69 years.

The word nanosecond is formed by the prefix nano and the unit second. Its symbol is ns.

A nanosecond is equal to 1000 picoseconds or  1⁄1000 microsecond. Because the next SI unit is 1000 times larger, times of 10−8 and 10−7 seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of nanoseconds.

Times of this magnitude are commonly encountered in telecommunications, pulsed lasers and some areas of electronics.

Light travels exactly 29.9792458  centimeters in 1 nanosecond. This is equivalent to 11.8 inches, leading some to refer to a nanosecond as a light-foot.[1] A light-foot is actually ~1.0167033621639674471063578257196 nanoseconds.[2] The earliest use of the term is by George Gamow.[3] Another early reference commonly given[4] is to Admiral Grace Hopper, who used to give out pieces of wire about a foot long to illustrate the eventual problem of building very high speed computers.[5] If it takes light a nanosecond to go a foot (in a vacuum, slower in copper), then a computer built with parts connected by half this distance, 15 centimetres (5.9 in) of wire, would take at least a nanosecond to send data to a part and get a response. The solution, developed in Hopper's lifetime, was first the integrated circuit and later the multi-core processor.

"Once she presented a piece of wire about a foot long, and explained that it represented a nanosecond, since it was the maximum distance electricity could travel in wire in one-billionth of a second. She often contrasted this nanosecond with a microsecond - a coil of wire nearly a thousand feet long - as she encouraged programmers not to waste even a microsecond."[4]

Common measurements

  • 0.5 nanoseconds (0.5 ns) – the average life of a molecule of positronium hydride
  • 1.0 nanosecond – cycle time for radio frequency 1 GHz (1×109 hertz), an inverse unit. This corresponds to a radio wavelength of 1 light-nanosecond or 0.3 m, as can be calculated by multiplying 1 ns by the speed of light (approximately 3×108 m/s) to determine the distance traveled.
  • 1.0 nanosecond – cycle time for a 1 GHz processor. As of 2011, common processors have frequencies around 1–3.5 GHz, so the cycle time is somewhat shorter than a nanosecond.
  • 1.017 nanoseconds (approximately) – time taken for light to travel 1 foot in a vacuum
  • 3.33564095 nanoseconds (approximately) – time taken for light to travel 1 metre in a vacuum[6] (In air or water light travels more slowly; see index of refraction)
  • 10 nanoseconds – one "shake", (as in a "shake of a lamb's tail") approximate time of one generation of a nuclear chain reaction with fast neutrons
  • 10 nanoseconds – cycle time for frequency 100 MHz (1×108 hertz), radio wavelength 3 m (VHFFM band)
  • 12 nanoseconds – half-life of a K meson
  • 20–40 nanoseconds – time of fusion reaction in a hydrogen bomb
  • 77 nanoseconds – a sixth (a 60th of a 60th of a 60th of a 60th of a second)
  • 100 nanoseconds – cycle time for frequency 10 MHz, radio wavelength 30 m (shortwave)
  • 333 nanoseconds – cycle time of highest medium wave radio frequency, 3 MHz
  • 500 nanoseconds – T1 time of Josephson phase qubit (see also Qubit) as of May 2005
  • 1000 nanoseconds - one microsecond"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanosecond