"Aranearum telas texis", you are weaving the webs of spiders, is an old Roman proverb that would mean that the work is in vain. And many people today are so far out, they would even
say this about the cosmos: that the work of the cosmos is in vain, whatever sort of demiurge is behind it, because it makes no difference which is which between important and trivial things. Hawaii
and Kenya are the same difference, for example, and it should make no difference either whether the sun orbits the earth, or the earth orbits the sun. It is inconsequential to say that the differences existing between Hawaii and Kenya should be any reason
for discussion, as much as it is to say that it is obvious, in fact, that the sun orbits the Earth.
wrote that "those of us who believe in physics understand that reality is nothing more than a stubbornly persistent illusion. The struggle so violent in the early days of science, between the view of Ptolemy and that of Copernicus, would then be quite meaningless.
Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification"(1). If that would be true, that the issue in such momentous conclusions has no practical importance, from where would the illusion be coming? What motivation percolates when science would prefer
to take the mind away from actual reality into a world of increasingly confused mathematical abstractions?
whatever is, is; and to simplify, "it is impossible that the same thing be and not be"(2). As much as everything must either be or not be, it is impossisble that there should exist any parsing medium between logically contradictory opposites. If not once or
twice, therefore, the third time is a charm, principium tertii exclusi vel tertium non datur.
"To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false,
while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true; so that he who says of anything that it is, or that it is not, will say either what is true or what is false."
As things and such the likewise may be, the one that is false would leave a question about what is that the one that is true would rather answer. The one that is true would leave no doubt; yet Einstein would
prefer to submit the entertainment of doubts as equals, as putatively the same things, yet different. As they would exchange for foolishness and distinctions without a difference, for the sake of science, things would progress, yet "science without conscience is the soul's perdition."(3).
Avicenna wrote that those who deny manifest things and first principles "should be beaten or exposed to fire until they concede that to burn and not to burn, or to be beaten and not to be beaten, are not identical."(4) And oftentimes "people seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of their character"(5).
It makes no difference, only "another time's forgotten space", yet when people are able to confess the truth, and realize what part of it is in their minds, most will credit common sense
and admit that the Earth does everywhere seem to be still ... and that, therefore, it must be obvious that the sun, the moon, and the stars revolve around it. "The most remarkable thing about ordinary human understanding in its practical concern is that it
may have as much hope as any philosopher of hitting the mark"(6), and nobody notices the Earth moving in their entire lives.
Even George Harrison expressed as much in his song, "Here Comes the Sun", since it goes without saying that the lyrics "here comes the sun" and "sun, sun, sun, here it comes", and "it is all right", mean that the Earth
is not moving. The ground is not flying around like a bowling ball through the seasons, in his quiet English garden, and it is the same for the rest of the planet, through all geography and climes of its different zones.
In spite of what he, like everyone else in the modern world, was taught in school, he sang what was true and also in his mind
from a subconscious level: that the Earth is still after all, and the sun, the moon, and the stars, therefore, revolve around it. "Here comes the sun", around the sky to orbit the Earth, not the Earth coming around to orbit the sun.
May mankind also find peace one day in the study of geography and the sea, or the weather and engineering, as much as poetry
and music. And Archimedes would say the same thing as Harrison, and the four winds in Franklin's tower, when he said, "if I had the right lever and a place to stand, I could
move the whole world". Obviously it would be a tremendous feat, and obviously the first time, so Archimedes was telling people by this that the Earth is not moving. It is the only way these statements make sense.
"Like a bee flying from flower to flower", the subconscious mind at work in science and art would bring out its awareness of what is true, to reinforce the understanding gathered by the conscious senses
-- the senses that all confirm that the Earth is not in motion in space around the sun, but that the sun, the moon, and the stars are all in motion around it.
If guitar players like George Harrison and engineers like Archimedes would already know like that that the Earth is not in motion, and not rotating in space, and say it, then the common
people should know it as well -- and, of course, they do, but what has happened is they have been confused out of their minds about it.
"Strings in the earth and air make music sweet, when all things have repose", yet many do not realize how ridiculous heliocentrism really is, and that for it to be correct too many other things have
to be wrong. People do not have to have advanced training as philatelists to observe that the Earth seems stable under the feet, and does not make them dizzy or sick by spinning, wobbling, tilting, and rotating around at astronomical velocities through the
days and the years. From Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Mardi Gras, Ash Wednesday, Lent, Easter, and Pentecost to the summer and fall, they can see already that it is not moving, and that it is settled in its place every day.
In scientific terms added to common sense, the Earth is subsumed worldwide in a profound condition of geodesic hypostasis. A
mysterious spark and range of force keeps it current and fixed in place, de profundis, a vigilia matutina usque ad noctem; and it is not being affected or spun around by so-called "gravity" from the sun, the moon, or the stars. As much as nature represents
a collection of facts, the terrestrial sphere has been more well rooted and atmospherically preserved for its simple existence than any Copernican theory could allow.
Copernicanism, however, became another way to try to reintroduce the infinite into the finite by the finite itself, and by some magnitude of motion of things, which cannot be done. Naturam
expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. You may expel nature with a pitchfork, but she alwasy comes back, and creation is the finite dimension and cannot contain the infinite. According to Christianity, for example, God is infinite, and can reveal himself according
to his will, and through creation, and to creatures, but creation is finite and cannot contain the infinite.
Rather, from day to day, through the weeks and seasons of the years, the Earth always is at rest, in something like a free-air condition of residual electro-magnetic suspension. As Jovellanos wrote, "the state of liberty is a situation of peace, comfort, and happiness," and a most subtle yet powerful energy keeps it
immobile in place, fixed as ice as things move across it, and around it. And as much as the dew rolls away, it always is the first order of authentic inertial frames of reference, however many there may be. And the sun, the moon, and the stars all sweep from
East to West across the dome of the sky around it. Within its magnetosphere, it is so simple and present at rest that it is totally contrary to the value and development of good sense to imagine something so ridiculous and heinous as the Earth would
be spinning in space to orbit the sun -- and only for the sake of a bad interpretation of astronomy!
Even if mankind knew almost nothing with any certainty, other than the stars, perhaps, existence would still make him dream. The fascination of creation touches the sun, moon, and stars from
the earliest days, and people have long wondered what explanations there could be for these appearances, and the phenomena of the Heavens, that marked the passage of time. Ancients puzzled over the shape and origin of the Earth and the cosmos, as much
as what the planets and occasional passing lights of comets were, and how they came into existence, and why their positions shifted between each other, as they wheeled across the mighty vaults of the sky.
They wondered why there was fire in the sky and developed ideas of crystalline spheres, like different bands all encircling the Earth, with
the Earth as their balanced center. "The men who studied the movements of the stars and planets were among the wisest in the ancient world. They kept count of the seasons and predicted the harvest"(7), developing calendars and celestial charts to reckon time,
and were able to predict eclipses accurately, all based on the assumption that the Earth is not moving, and that it is fixed at the center of the cosmos.
If anyone hypothesized that it was the Earth instead that was in motion orbiting the sun, he could never offer any intelligent proof for it, and no one could observe it. No one could examine
it. It was only some mental speculation, beyond observation, and no eclipse predictions or calendars were made based on anything like that. Almost everyone believed the Earth was stationary and orbited by the sun.
Before Copernicus, only a very few oddly wigged and uncertain ancients hypothesized the strange notion that the Earth orbited
the sun, and the records of these speculations today are obscure and incomplete. Aristarchus of Samos is the most well known, but he could never offer any reasonable proof. Neither could Philolaus of Crotona, or Heraclides, two others sometimes mentioned as
wanting to believe that the Earth orbits the sun, or that the Earth is not the physical center of the cosmos. The best they could do was shroud the strange and scientifically unjustifiable idea in unscientific mysticism, bundled together like a pagan sort
of gnosis, a mystery school of fire and sun worship.
To be more precise, it was Aristarchus of Samos who was most known for it, and Cleanthes of Assos, the Stoic philosopher, said that he should be prosecuted for impiety,
because he made the Sun instead of the Earth the center of the Universe. Philolaus too believed that the earth was not at the center of the cosmos, and that everything moved (or was energized) around a "Central Fire", which, however, was not the Sun itself.
Like the Stoics, he held great regard for fire, and said that fire was the most important of all the elements, and there was "fire in the middle at the centre ... and again more fire at the highest point and surrounding everything."
"By nature the middle is first, and around it dance ten divine
bodies - the sky, the planets, then the sun, next the moon, next the earth, next the counterearth, and after all of them the fire of the hearth which holds position at the centre. The highest part of the surrounding, where the elements are found in their purity,
he called Olympus; the regions beneath the orbit of Olympus, where are the five planets with the sun and the moon, he called the world; the part under them, being beneath the moon and around the earth, in which are found generation and change, he called the
In his "Treatise of the Sky", written in the early 4th century BC,
Philolaus wrote that, "it is the fire that occupies the center [of the cosmos]; the Earth is only one of the moving stars, and its circular motion about its own center produces the day and the night." As part of this cosmology, he seems as well to have believed
in a theory that would construct "another Earth, opposite of ours", which would be called "the anti-Earth," or counterearth.(9)
Some philosophers and stoics believed that fire was the elemental power that drove and dominated the universe, and gnostic association of lightning
and fire with the powers of the gods was somewhat religious. Fire, lightning, and the sun impressed them as with a spectacle of the primordial forces of nature. Like Philolaus, Heraclides imagined that fire was not simply an element or quality found and shaped
in mutable things. To him it was the most active and transforming force in the cosmos, something transendental, even a divine power and an eternal sign of the first order of things. The celestial
fire of the stars and the generation of the Phoenix were the beginning and end of all things: "ignis natura renovatur integra", by fire nature is completely renewed.
Plutarch wrote that "the mind is not a vessel to be filled but a fire to be kindled," and Heraclides was convinced that the universe was not made by any god or man but always has been, is, and will be an ever-living fire, kindling itself and going out by regular measures. In his view, fire was the primal
force animating and controlling all things, as much as "it throws apart and then brings together again; it advances and retires," etc.(10)
In a way, perhaps similar to idealization of the motion and power of fire, when people say that "the world is turning", they are talking about the four seasons and the temperatures, and length of day
and night, and the turning fortunes of life, and things that turn corners and change in the passage of time -- which are all phenomena after the tropics of the sun, and the years, not the surface of the earth actually spinning and tilting. "As the world is
turning", if sometimes burning, for a course in history, the big river rolls on; but the terra firma is not flying around the sun. When Aristarchus said that the Earth orbits the sun, he was speaking from the imposture of his own metaphysical beliefs not general
scientific ones. He might as well have been acting; and similar to Philolaus of Crotona and Heraclides, the root for them was some form of fire worship and pagan mysticism; and there was never any practical proof for it.
If at the same time some ancient people imagined that the Earth might be flat, or they were not sure what overall shape it had
(and that it was, in fact, as logic and the evidence would have it, a sphere) at least they were right that it was not rolling or spinning around under their feet. No worries there. Who could miss an overwhelming thing like that? Who could miss a massive astronomical
velocity revolving directly underfoot and generating such incredible force from the very surface of the Earth? The Earth is the biggest thing close to home, everywhere people go, and who could not notice if it were flying?
People noticed the cycles of the seasons, the months, the moons, the days and the years, but from week to week, hour to hour,
nobody could notice the Earth flying, even down to today. That would be a lot of torque and catapult to go unnoticed -- and when some poor pilgrims guessed that it could be flat, it was also because in the subconcious mind they associated its evident stillness
with the smooth surface of calm water, and they had not really thought all the geometry through.
continued like this for many years until the modern era and the Enlightenment of the long eighteenth century. Then it became a popularized doctrine of scientific materialism, politics, and even social revolution, that the ancients and common sense had all
been wrong, and the Earth was in motion, "all in a whirl, like a humming-top", wheels on fire, and orbiting the sun. The Enlightenment (1685 -1815) questioned traditional authority and promoted the ideas of elite intellectuals like Isaac Newton, who was a
leading figure, as though they were representing in society a new and higher order of reason than had obtained before. Yet Newton's ideas about heliocentrism and the motion of the Earth were not exactly new, since they were derived in part from Aristarchus,
Philolaus, Heraclides, Copernicus, Gilbert, Kepler, and Galileo; but they were never better received before his time with the Royal Society and the Bank of England, founded 1694, where he also became Master of the Mint.
Not generally known as an occultist, Newton, however, wrote over a million words on alchemy, and practiced the art with a passion, also trying to turn lead into gold. Newton spent days locked up in
his laboratory, and at times even suffered from bouts of nervous disorder from mercury poisoning. After his death in 1727, the Royal Society deemed that his papers on alchemy, to the tune of thousands of pages, were not fit to be printed, but they were rediscoverd
about 200 years later; and "most scholars now concede that Newton was first and foremost an alchemist", and that "the inspiration for his theory of gravity came from his alchemical work."(11)
Every dog would have his day, and to the intellectual imagination of the Enlightenment it may have seemed as though even logic would have changed from
the stone age. Since they were discovering ways about the cosmos much smarter than Aristotle or Ptolemy, and the old traditional views of creation in the Bible and Plato, for example, the stone age also seemed undermined. But truth and logic are one, from
beginning to end, and in them there is no progress. In the truth, as much as there is no infinite regression, there is no advancement away from the essential properties that obtain
in things. No matter the extension or velocity in space, wisdom and logic have not changed from the first light, or in the dark, and are even remaining the same as they are before the advance of time.
Since the ephemerides and the everlasting are two different cases of two different orders, some thngs are the same as always and will everywhere
have the same categorical priorities in view of the natural world around them. The parallel is the universal, and they say "sicut transit gloria mundi", so passes away the glory of the world; and "the starry heavens above and the moral law within fill the
mind with an ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and the more steadily we reflect."(12)
Inventions said to be new are called new because the discovery involved has been recent in terms of the people who use them, yet the principles were always there hidden in the possible things from before.
Nihil sub sole novum, nec valet quisquam dicere: hoc recens est, iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt
ante nos. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us. Whatever matter the form and system could take, the predicable and subject of relation were always
As a Whig from Cambridge with political connections, Newton enjoyed an influential career, setting a special mark in the world of intellect with his
famous book the “Principia”, published in 1687, coincidentally the year before the "Glorious Revoltuion" of 1688. With
deceptive use of vocabulary, and an appearance of mathematical precision and rigor, it added a new touch to old absurdities and seemed impressive. Yet in many places it was simply impossible to understand and very difficult to read. Galileo and Kepler had done similarly mischievous things before,
but Newton surpassed them both as an authoritative voice in dissociative nonsense, and in the 20th century Einstein and Time Magazine would have to work only a little harder to pass them
all. Yet "the line of Newton's work was the principal source of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century conception of the universe as one grand machine".(13)
The peculiar course that led to Newton’s erroneous influence in cosmology can be traced back through Galileo, Kepler, Gilbert, Digges, and Copernicus, at one level,
and from there to Aristarchus of Samos, where, at another level, the influence of Newtonian heliocentrism shares some of the signs of pagan gnosticism, mystery pantheism, and pre-Socratic monism, et cetera.
Would it all be as one where "to be and to have meaning are the same"? Yet "vanitas, vanitatum by the inverse squared", said Qoheleth. Even
from before the first millenium BC, the sages warned "vanity of vanities, and what profit does a man have from all his labors under the sun"?
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more. It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury" and sometimes crowded with
Copernicus published his treatise on heliocentrism, "De Revolutionibus
Orbium Coelestium" in 1543, which for numbers could be remembered as a transposition of 1453, the year that Constantinople fell to the Turks and became Istanbul, and it seems to have remained like Istanbul ever since.
In 1453 Constantinople fell, and from 1543 the cosmos itself in the West would slowly begin to come unglued, unraveling little
by little under the stars, crumbling down over the years, tripped up by the philosophy of heliocentric skepticism.
Copernicus died the same year his book was published, and it never really caught on at the time or gained a popular audience, as has been misrepresented. Ptolemy's "Syntaxis Mathematica" remained dominant, and had many more publications,
and was much more widely read, studied, and actually used. Nautical almanacs even today are based on geocentrism, and after the first run of "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium", which was 1000 copies that never sold out, there were only four reprints through
the next 400 years, with one reprint prior to 1700, and it was of no great importance compared with other astronomy books of the day.(14)
It was Ptolemy's "Syntaxis Mathematica", whose reprints continued into the hundreds, that was still authoritative and formed
the continuing basis of European calendars, astronomy, and navigation.
a better writer and astronomer, clearer and more easily understood; and his geocentric system was more accurate, simple, and immediately correct. Copernicus claimed that he had devised a simpler and more improved system, but this was not true.
"The superior simplicity of the Copernican system was just as much of a myth as its superior accuracy."(15)
His system had more complications than Ptolemy's and was much less supported by facts. Copernicus tried to justify his theory by admitting that while Ptolemy's system was consistent with all the data, it was yet unsatisfactory because it had too many equants
and epicycles, but Copernicus himself had at least eight more epicycles than Ptolemy. In his arbitrary system, which was contrary to even the most primary evidence, there were 48 epicycles, whereas in Ptolemy's there had been 40. Even Copernicus's most basic
assumptions were unsound and unprovable, and they were, in fact, simply wrong.(16)
the model he proposed, the sun would become the immovable center of the cosmos, but that cannot be, as the sun is moving through all the constellations of the ecliptic every year. The sun transits through the twelve tropical signs one month at a time every
year. This movement of the sun through the zodiac is the original basis of the solar calendar and its months in the first place. It is constantly and gradually changing its position against the background of stars, as the fixed-stars and the three distant
planets Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars are consistently passing the sun in space, not orbiting it.
a less direct way than Ptolemy, William Herschel would reiterate these basic points in a technical paper before the Royal Society as late as 1782, since the elementary but important facts at times may be forgotten, and the situation at times can become foggy.
“The world is full of obvious things which nobody by any chance ever observes,” and the Royal Society and the London Interbank Offered Rate cannot correctly tell themselves or the public which way the moon really goes around the Earth even down to today, since heliocentrism has been forced by prior
arrangements to reverse that detail as well.
For general heliocentric theory,
misdirecting the moon in its path has been par for the course, inviting people to believe that the moon is going from West to East, falling behind the Earth's astronomical rotation into the East; but, of course, it simply is not. For one, there is still never
any evidence at all that the Earth rotates, and all indication is that it is not; and for two, the moon is clearly going from East to West every day.
But heliocentrism has never been based on any method of proof other than bewilderment of nature to undermine good sense. Getting lost in the woods and the cosmos is where it all starts. Startled wonder
at the simple passing of day and night, with convoluted and spaced-out fantasies, with false concepts and false arrangements, with big metaphysical numbers, big words, and crazy theories of relativity, and undetectable and "unaccelerated" motion, and so-called
universal gravitation and hypnotic calculations, have really been the extent of it.
heliocentric theory of gravity, for instance, has been presumed to be mutual to the earth and to all points of the compass, and to the cosmos at large. However, as much as it is admittedly not innate to matter, it has remained beyond natural human intelligence
to explain it with any real understanding, since it is beyond the experience of sense, logic, and all technical skills to discover it. Therefore, Newton wrote one of the most absurd and densely moronic books that could be imagined, the central argument of
which was that if nobody will be able to understand it, then certainly no one can disprove it.
Yet far away from the madness of Newton's calculus, and theory of universal gravitation, the soul would wake as from a coma. "There is absolutely no thing whatsoever that brings itself into existence", and "as ground of every living movement there is the resting earth.(17)" A fundamental and present cause cannot reasonably remain unassigned, especially among titans, and except for the crazy math fumdiddles, there
is no positive logical connection or excuse between the falling apple and the mixed up space that was inside and roaming around Newton's brains by the inverse squared.
As a matter of science, heliocentrism has never been anything other than what some peculiarly distorted minds could put down on paper, like division by zero, and proofs that
all numbers and locations are equal, and for probability 1+1+1=1 ⇔ 2+2=5. However, "unbeknownst to almost all modern-day believers in the solar system of Copernicus is one stark but incontrovertible fact: the popular idea of the Earth revolving around
the sun has never been proven."(18)
The only fragmentary piece of evidence, other
than the passing of day and night and the moons of Jupiter, that has ever been advanced for it, outside of nutty books and bad math, has been the Foucault pendulum, and even that is not honest proof. No physical experiment has ever proved that the earth is
actually in motion.(19) And ironically, Foucault's pendulum is evidence not of its hypothesis but of the manifest contrary.
*("planet" is from the Greek (asteres planetai), “wandering stars”, from planasthai “to wander”. The original 7 planets include the sun and moon as the first two major ones, as well
as Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, as a second five, because they all have apparent and separate motion through the moving background of the constellations of the ecliptic.
In a technical sense, the Earth is not a "planet", since it is not a wandering star, but rather the most fixed: fixed in the center of the natural order of the cosmos. The Earth does not
move through the constellations. It always is in all signs of the ecliptic all the time. The only way that this is possible is if the Earth is at the center of the ecliptic, and, therefore, also of the cosmos.)