D36 Alleged error concerning the magnitude of IUMMA

UMMOAELEWE

Mr DIONISIO GARRIDO BUENDÍA

No. of Copies 2

June 1966

 

Sir:

 

We have information about the criticisms you have made of an alleged erratum attributed to us in the circular sent in May to several persons of Spanish nationality. (U-C Note: see letter D21)

 

The paragraphs objected to read verbatim:

 

ABSOLUTE VISUAL MAGNITUDE 14.2

APPARENT VISUAL MAGNITUDE It will surely be reduced because a large cloud of cosmic dust lies at a distance of 3.682 parsecs, but it will lie between 12 and 13, so that it will only be accessible to you by photographic means

 

(These data refer to our star IUMMA as we estimate it would be seen from Earth).

 

We beg you to tell us the genuine nature of the error. We strive to translate our own concepts and physical units into your language, so we recognise the possibility that in some case, led by our own habits, we may not manage to do so fully, committing serious errors, but in this particular case we are unable to discover it.

 

We are going to summarise for you the ideas we have about the way terrestrial astronomers evaluate the magnitudes of stars. If such criteria have been distorted by us, we understand why we made a mistake in the paragraphs cited.

 

You call APPARENT MAGNITUDE the brightness visually perceived by an observer located on the Planet EARTH. The number attributed to each magnitude is inversely proportional to the intensity perceived. A Star barely perceptible by photographic means you will say, for example, is of the 21st magnitude, while a bright Star you will classify as of the first or second Magnitude.

 

(This criterion is different on our UMMO, where both apparent and real or absolute magnitudes are valued in increasing order and not as a function of the sensation (which implies a logarithmic scale) but of the real luminous Intensity, which will thus be directly proportional to the magnitude assessed.)

 

The ABSOLUTE VISUAL MAGNITUDE you evaluate conventionally, defining it as “The brightness with which an observer always located at a constant distance of 32.57 light-years (10 PARSECS) would perceive the star.

 

It is important to note the latter, since if a star is less than 32.57 light-years away from us, ITS APPARENT MAGNITUDE IS GREATER THAN ITS ABSOLUTE MAGNITUDE. This is the case of our IUMMA, whose distance from you is some 14.4371 light-years (Apparent distance).

 

Its APPARENT MAGNITUDE will be greater (Around 12) than its ABSOLUTE VISUAL MAGNITUDE (Around 14.3), which is how it would be seen at a much greater distance (32.57 light-years).

 

Now then: Since at a distance from Our planetary system calculated at 3.682 parsecs (some 12 light-years) we have discovered (in the direction of our IUMMA) an immense static cloud of cosmic dust, it is probable that the absorption exerted by that mass will reduce still further the brightness observed by you, That is, its APPARENT VISUAL MAGNITUDE. That is why we told you that, being somewhat reduced, it would lie between 12 and 13 (Let us not forget that the number expressing the magnitude gradually rises as the brightness perceptible to the eyes diminishes).

 

So we still do not understand what our error has been. Perhaps on reading quickly you understood that the magnitude “was reduced from 14.3 to 12 or 13”, in which case the verb “to be reduced” would seem wrongly applied, since the magnitude would then be 15 or 16.

 

The fault would lie in mixing or confusing two measures as heterogeneous as ABSOLUTE V. MAGNITUDE and APPARENT V. MAGNITUDE.

 

We applied the verb REDUCE to the second (read it).

 

Although this time we may be acquitted of having committed any lapse, we wish to point out to you that the real image of our true personality will be distorted if you excessively overrate our intelligence or our mental gifts. We are men like you. We do not consider ourselves superior to Earth people except in the possession of a much more developed culture, being also much older. Please do not regard us as mythical demigods. We can make mistakes like you, although our habits, turned into true conditioned reflexes, protect us from the tendency so common among you to judge lightly, without prior examination or reflective analysis.

 

But we repeat to you that in any case, however well we might come to assimilate Terrestrial languages and Culture, and bearing in mind that many physical and philosophical concepts are approached and expressed differently by us, it would not be strange for us to make errors. We humbly beg you to forgive us for the inconvenience this may cause you. In an earlier letter addressed to Mr Sesma Manzano we indicated the true meaning we gave to the verb TO EXIST., If ever, out of mental habit, we were to write that WOA (GOD) DOES NOT EXIST, a person not acquainted with our customs would give our words, rendered into an Earth language literally but not conceptually, a totally DISTORTED meaning.