On the Moon

www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/986/Moon_Landing_Hoax_One_Giant_Spotlight_For_Mankind/

 

 

 

about the video (The real sun has spokes that extend from it. A spotlight does not have the same appearance --- more of a solid circle magnifies around it. The studio lighting is "flat" compared with real light from the sun.)

"I used to go away for weeks in a state of confusion."

Albert Einstein

 

"Why boy, that sun's bright. That's just like somebody's shining a spotlight on your hands. It really is. It's just like somebody's got a super-bright spotlight!"

Apollo 12 astronaut Pete Conrad

Freemasonic hoaxem

Copernican Dilemma (2)

 

Yon stars of wonder, spheres of light, mysterious fires passing through the black wind of night, far above chimney smoke, clouds and trees, must be fate-ordained, to wander so steep, so high but not an hour's minute of arc escape.

And "one can always reason with reason" thought Agricola, where "common sense would be correct", that the land is not moving away from the seasons, and the Sun orbits the Earth. Scientific materialism, on the other hand, the brain creature of heliocentrism over the years, has become a generalized Judeo-Masonic doctrine of vast consumption and mind control, a deluge and pivotal error of egregious proportions. Although the public has been indoctrinated as though there is actually some proof for heliocentrism, in reality, there is none, not a whit, and "the truth may be corruputed by the lie as much as by the silence".

For arbitrary and complicated reasons, heliocentrism has been advanced as the preferred model of the cosmos, yet the choice made to believe in it rests purely on philosophical grounds, not scientific ones. Only a philosophical preference, like theater, and a question of taste and sentiment, it is one that yet contradicts objective common sense and remains an unprovable assumption, as every test to show for it has failed.(1)

Since there is no coherent theory of motion that can be verified by any of however many scientific tests to prove that the Earth moves, it goes without saying that each and every attempt that has failed, again and again, has only added to the mountains and oceans of proof that the earth is stationary, and Newtonian "gravitation" does not account for anything in motion, not even a paper clip.

Civilization of so many years has been marked by so many weights, forces, and measures, both visible and invisible, and vast distances tied up in knots, with bullet trains and airports, yet the inanimate strain of universal gravitation and the experience of a rotating earth have not been present to make even the slightest difference for a sound. From whatever results to whatever, in the interstices and stations of the big picture, the phenomena always tergiversates away. 

 

Without even the resonance of a wisp of smoke, the undetectable motion of the Earth -- "unaccelerated" -- remains as insignificant as the force of gravity itself, contributing to why nobody can verify that the Earth is actually in motion. Weaker than all forces we are able to observe and sense directly, nobody can verify it; yet perception is everything, and, like the direction of observation, which way does the Moon go over Cuba and the Gulf of Mexico? 

 

From east to west, like it does over the rest of the earth, of course, and it has been made obvious by now, by the facts of history, that for social doctrine every Marxist or otherwise Judeo-Masonic government, and its education system, have authoritatively endorsed Copernicanism and Darwinism: which are the two entrance pillars of modernist "scientific" materialism. Copernicanism came first, Darwinism second, and scientific materialism is an old euphemism for communism from as far back as the 1840's. Their communion and income would serve some sort of purpose, if hidden at times, and culitivated with strange vocabulary, to mask the temple of a presence. Otherwise people might not know what to think about nature that would be so amazing and much better than common sesne.

Engels, for instance, wrote to Marx that "Darwin ... is magnificent -- there has never been until now so splendid an attempt to prove historical development in nature"(2). And Marx dedicated a personal volume of "Das Kapital" to Darwin, as a "sincere admirer"(3).

"Admiration: our feeling of delight that another person resembles us,”(4) would hold a key, and the development of "culture is always connected to the workings of power. What is held as true is deeply affected by historical circumstances"(5), and likewise it should be clear, with a basic knowledge of history and society, that the doctrines of Marxist atheism, identity politics, and dialectics have grown in part from a scientific materialist milieu: of which heliocentrism, Darwinism, and Freemasonry have been integral parts.

The system of errors they represent has been so arrogant and controlling that the bad algorithm would even go so far as to try to maintain false dominion over the knowable itself, by marketing its institutionally accredited science as the only path to true understanding.(6) It has been like a thread of regressive predestination to watch it go: that "the notion of limitlessness or infinity", placed in the natural order, "which the Copernican system implied, was bound to devour the space reserved for God"(7). In the satirical piece, "Ignatius His Conclave", John Donne depicts Copernicus as seeking a special place in Hell by it. Knocking on the Devil's doors, he exclaims, "Are these shut against me, to whom all the Heavens were ever open, who was a Soule to the Earth, and gave it motion?

I am he, which pitying thee who wert thrust [down] into the center of the [earth], raysed both thee, and thy prison ... up into the Heavens; so as by my meanes God doth not enjoy his revenge upon thee. The Sunne, which was an officious spy, and a betrayer of faults, and so thine enemy, I have appointed to go [and stay] in the lowest part of the world. Shall these gates be open to such as have innovated in small matters, and shall they be shut against me, who have turned the whole frame of the world, and am thereby almost a new Creator?"

 

The Devil is unsure what to do with such a rascal, almost afraid to let him in for fear Copernicus might take over the throne of "eternall chaos", and even turn the ways of Hell upside down. "Who are you?" he says. "For though even by this boldnesse you seeme worthy to enter, and have attempted a new faction even in Hell ... yet you must first satisfie those which stand about you, and which expect the same fortune as you do." 

 

... and later while, by some generations "de humani generis", as part of the same social and ideological revolution as Marx, Lenin would state categorically, "our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism,"(8) not to mention variations of Copernicanism and Darwinism, of course. There are academics and publicans even today who regard Marx as the most influential and fat-booked man of the age. In the social climate, according to some, he is even bigger than MSNBC and cable news, the Rothschilds, Sassoons, the Rockefeller Foundation, George Stephanopoulos, the Bank for International Settlements and the State Department, the Federal Reserve Bank and Libor, Google, Amazon, and Facebook, for example.

In the sweep of bloody communist politics and deceitful dog-eat-dog days on the surface of the the Earth, they would say that from a grandiose feeling of admiration that his spiritual presence and persona continue, masked in the power of his ideas and confusion of terms. Thus it would seem that the spins of dialectical materialism and Marxism have had an uncanny and weird way indeed of insinuating themselves into the dark and hidden recesses of social development everywhere.

 

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: the world wants to be deceived, therefore it is, and a liar needs a good memory.(9) Mendacem memoria esse oportet.(10) Even so, quantity alone cannot give rise to consciousness. From zero to all the other numbers, for example, math class by itself cannot create self-awareness, and intellect cannot operate without desire.

 

To digress for a moment of epistemology, there must be something in the wanted file. For understanding there must be something sought, and some framework of design, and their must be signs. People frame what they want, and even the way they want it, since they do like to have it their way, and they follow after signs. Therefore, intelligence should be evaluated as an equivalent form of desire and memory, as well as calculation, and these would include all the mix of knowledge, emotion, and psychology.

Schopenhauer wrote that "will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity", and if they miss the better virtue, and have no practice of self-denial, and forget oil for the lamp, people will turn out like fools, always babbling, and the over-ambitious who croak like frogs. Yet if all the percolations and permutations of volition were subtracted from awareness, there would not be any scale of consciousness left, not even for traces of something rude, totally fake, or stupid.

So the world in many ways prefers to be deceived. Like the man with two brains in a storm of false words, reality can be hard to face, and thus it is.

The foolishness wreathed by empty thunder comes in the air across the lake. Dark clouds, and after following bad signs like heliocentrism, scientific materialism, Darwinism, money money, and world communism of the Central Banking System, and garbage for gold, it could almost seem like the barfly crooner Sheryl Crow would be enthroned in the MTV sky, for a goddess of canned goods and bad music from the '90's, for fifteen minutes of fame in the city: looming large like reefer madness over the Grand Canyon, and singing, "lie to me, woo woo, ooo woo, nothing's true and nothing's right, so lie to me. I make the rules up as I go, ooo woo, lie to me", etc. 

Traveling fools can frame the inertial and non-inertial frames of reference as much as any scientist, even as they would want it in a bag, once they get used to it, and make up the craziest math or meth songs as could be possible. "Rascals are always sociable" -- and, after all, it is only pen and paper, and liars naturally appreciate the value of a profit and a deceptive environment as much as a good light. Manipulation reigns and "in the sphere of thought, absurdity and perversity remain the masters of the world, and their dominion is suspended only for brief periods."(11)

So the sorely poor may be deluded and stoned and their leaders may frame the delusion. "The wise have always said the same things, and fools, who are the majority have always done just the opposite".(12)

 

If there are fools of corruption and liars in high places, and faked trips to the Moon and Mars at the cost of billions, should it be such a surprise then that the scientific materialist, Marxist, and Judeo-Masonic global conspiracy is without any motivation other than having and getting whatever they want? And they want to stay on top, of course, "de revolutionibus", to play king of the hill, and give other folks the bill, for the rotating pyramid scheme and international megalomania. A cynical game played at public expense, it is about the money first, more than tennis and Bombay Sapphire; and staying on top as the masters of deception and creating the most monstrous debts as well is a prize in itself.

The big black dog with strange glowing eyes, appearing out of the aether, takes the leash and the loan application, where the bankrupt can look around also one day and see how Copernicanism and Darwinism have gradually evolved into the prevailing milieu of modernist theories of relativity, phenomenology, and intelligence, and so forth. With the liberal and occult support of Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, the theoretical doctrines of relativity, phenomenology, and scientific materialism have helped put the seal of useful-idiot revolution on entire nations and even what is left of the Western world.

 

As Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezemnov, aka Thomas Schuman, described it in an interview from 1984, "The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already. Actually it is overfulfilled."(13)

Ideological subversion, and the atomization of society, with "active measures" and psychological warfare, is a slow processes that takes many years. It is a great alphabet soup brain washing business, he explained, to change the perception of reality in society to such an extent that no one should be able to come to sensible conclusions despite an abundance of information. The demoralized and brainwashed will be contaminated to think and react to certain stimulae in a certain pattern. Exposure to true information will not matter any more when one is unable to assess true information adequately: thus the simple facts would tell nothing.(14)

 

Mr. Tudball, Mrs. Wiggins, Tim Conway, Lyle Dorf and friends in the city, delenda est. Lenin said that, in his opinion, according to the benefits of modernist dialectics, "if we were to announce today that we intend to hang all capitalists tomorrow, they would trip over each other trying to sell us the rope."(15) If the puny human figure of the truth, common sense, and the honest business transaction have not been undermined, how did the confusion get so big and so far over so many heads?

 

As the Reece Committe to Investigate the big Tax-Exempt Foundations (1952 - 54) noted: "In the long run, much public opinion is made in the universities; ideas generated there filter down through the teaching profession and the students into the general public".(16) Fairly obvious, yes, yet some of the questions the Reece Committee were investigating were not so easy to clarify. To comprehend the tricky trail of slippery and occult use-of-funds by the big tax-exempt foundations (heliocentric and Darwinist), and to support communism, was not a piece of cake. As the Tennessee Congressman Reece wrote in conclusion, "I felt that the work ... left several important unanswered questions".(17)

 

However, a predominant theme disclosed in the Committee’s findings was the desire of the large foundations --- and those with the strange spaceship money behind them --- to fashion a system of world governance. Some years later, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, of the Clinton administration, would say that, "in the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority"; and that would be a heliocentric and Darwinist authority no doubt.

The Reece Committee discovered in part that "many of our large foundations were actively promoting communism and socialism"; and that "the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Educational Foundation, and the Ford Foundation had used their grant-making power to take over American education and force our colleges and universities to abandon their religious beliefs and moral standards"; and that "the foundations were working to undermine our constitutional form of government."(18)

 

The exercise of propaganda and social engineering was identified as a special means to that end. Almost as simple as ABC, and 1-2-3,  in 1932, the president of the Rockefeller Foundation, Max Mason, stated that for convenience “the social sciences … will concern themselves with the rationalization of social control …”.(19)

Thirty years later, Florida representative Albert S. Herlong included his discovery in the Congressional record for 1963 that communist goals were many, and not so different from the big foundations, in fact, and numbered among them "getting control of the schools, using them as transmission belts for socialism and communist propaganda, and softening the curriculum, getting control of teachers' associations, and putting the party line in textbooks," et cetera. They also wanted to "infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions, and gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures."

 

 

In 1947 President Truman's Commission on Higher Education published a report which also outlined the goals of social engineering programs. In part, that report stated: "It will take social science and social engineering to solve the problems of human relations. Our people must learn to respect the need for special knowledge and technical training in this field as they have come to defer to the expert in physics, chemistry, medicine, and other sciences.”(20)

 

"Business today consists in persuading crowds", and as much as the crowds who must walk the paths marked out by mass democracy and communism, physics then is part of the problem -- and relativity's chief fault is no better than quantum mechanics or cheap politics, in that it has so many small ones. Of course, the common life of modern man and liberalism can be difficult, “a constant oscillation between the sharp horns of dilemma”, and sometimes too it can become "incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing."

 

 

American industrialist, globalist, market moving social expert, and also probable-possible communist spy Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum confessed that "people I meet today, especially journalists who interview me, are astonished to hear that Lenin told me, in effect, that Communism was not working and that the Revolution needed American capital and technical aid."(21) He also revealed at another point, that "the first thing I look at each morning is a picture of Albert Einstein I keep on the table right beside my bed."(22)

 

As Stanford Research Fellow Antony C. Sutton desrcibed it, in "The Best Enemy Money Can Buy": “Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum is, of course, Moscow's favored deaf mute capitalist, possibly vying with David Rockefeller for the honor. However, Armand has a personal relationship with the Soviets that could never be achieved by anyone with David's Ivy League background. One fact never reported in U.S. newspaper biographies of Armand Hammer is that his father, Julius Hammer,was founder and early financier of the Communist Party USA in 1919. Elsewhere this author has reprinted documents backing this statement, and translations of letters from Lenin to Armand Hammer with the salutation 'Dear Comrade'.

That Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum would supply the Soviets with massive plants that can quickly be converted to explosives manufacture is no surprise. What is a surprise is that Armand Hammer has had free access to every President from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan — and equal access to the leaders in the Kremlin.”(23)

 

How clever the system that even the United States government "financed the economic and military development of the Soviet Union. Without this aid, financed by U.S. taxpayers, there would [have been] no significant Soviet military threat, for there would [have been] no Soviet economy to support the Soviet military machine, let alone sophisticated military equipment."(24) Chicago professional activist, social leveler, and community organizer Saul Alinsky himself owned that, “in brief, all presidential administrations, from that of Woodrow Wilson to that of Ronald Reagan, have followed a bipartisan foreign policy of building up the Soviet Union. This policy is censored. It is a policy of suicide."(25)

Einstein once said that, in his opinion, "no problem can be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it", and how clever the system of relativity and dialectical materialism that has also remained so evasive, yet well funded and engineered with great doublespeak. It would pretend that subjective and arbitrary substitutions, and their interpretations, if approved by proper Judeo-Masonic authorities, are always in line with actual objective facts. Whatever the facts, the foundation experts will say, again it is only a question of perspective, and perspective is only a question of numbers, as much as the reasons for wealth, debt, and banking. Knowledge is yet superficial, if not for the pains of bankruptcy, and anybody's opinion is relative, and only as good as that of anybody else!

However, accepting strange gifts from Greeks is not how Anchises survived the Fall of Troy; and that which only "has quantity is not capable of reflecting on itself", or finding a way to escape destruction and perceive the truth.(26) Like money only for the sake of money, and inflation, numbers and math equations may increase, yet by themselves do not give recollected awareness and appreciation of the facts. Therefore, it is not intelligent or honest to say that the question of the state of man in the cosmos, the featherless biped, the ζώον  πολιτικόν of Aristotle, and his government, can be settled only by arbitrations of complex mathematics, fummdiddles and fummdidles of formulae and lines without logic, and without direct observation and common sense. 

"The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language"(27), and relativity today continues to deceive the world, and would like to pretend that something which is false is as good as anything else: even as good as something that is true. For instance, A can substitute for B, and B can substitue for A, in equivalence even if they fundamentally contradict each other. Whatever the actual content of the recognizeable truth could be, that is only what it looks like. Life and knowledge are fleeting, besides superficial, and the details will all disappear; therefore, relativity would like to pretend that something which is wrong can be as good as anything else.

The trick escape has been the introduction of the abstract and slippery concept of the relativist "observer": not to mention the UN of Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan. With the shifty agency of relativist observers in place, when the Einstein theory and world government appear and reappear to lead to incompatible objective results, they are written off as merely different appearances, but claimed as something else for congruent realities later, when some other actual phenomenon has to be explained.(28) Thus the theory of universal equivalence and cosmic homogeneity by definitive confusion and isotropy of terms would fill the void with the constant speed of rubbish.

There remains always a certain probability, therefore, in a certain equivocal sense, that relativity is no country for any shared objective awareness, or common sense of the truth and ethics --- and "no country for old men", and no country for transmission of simple facts.(29)

Rather the relativists habituate reversals in the value of words, and would redirect experience to turn the audience away from the truth. Everything becomes subject to their arbitrary system of occult substitutions, where physics becomes an abscess of abstraction, and rest is motion and motion is rest, as "fair is foul, and foul is fair", as strange Bill Nye from Cornell and Einstein "hover through the fog and filthy air" ... of NASA and scientific materialism at NPR, PBS, and the Ivy League, et cetera.(30)

Common sense becomes obscure, and the truth becomes lies, and lies become the truth, signifying an over-running chaos. Darkness becomes light and light becomes darkness, and the earth and the cosmos become absurd, with no good end, except total reversal where "the center will not hold".(31)

Preferring to determine for themselves a systematic way to remain abundantly deaf and blind, as far out of reach as the "speed of light", thousands of days surrounded by reality are in vain. "The historical parallel between Special Relativity and the Copernican model of the solar system is not merely superficial, because in both cases the starting point was a pre-existing theoretical structure based on the naive use of a particular system of coordinates lacking any inherent physical justification."(32) Science was supposed to be for the understanding of truth, or facts: an investigation of truth for its own sake, and a pursuit of pure knowledge, but in the wrong hands it has become a system of mass confusion, social distortion, and mild psychosis. 

 

"In the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience", where all motion is relative and there is no difference between saying, "the earth rotates once a day", or "the heavens revolve about the earth once a day".(33) But the comparison is false, since there is an immense difference between the sun that orbits the earth or the earth that orbits the sun. According to relativity, the two opposites are supposed to mean enough of the same thing, as when someone says a certain length is either two yards or six feet, and relativists would falsely say that "astronomy is easier if we take the sun as fixed than if we take the earth, just as accounts are easier in decimal coinage." Where all motion is relative, and "it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest."(34)

It makes no difference, therefore, which is which from the point of view of describing planetary motion. Whether we take the earth or the sun as the center of the solar system, the issue is one of relative motion only, and there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers. In principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter, or Saturn, and so on. Therefore, the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book were logically irrelevant. One can take either the earth or the sun, or any point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. "The difference between a heliocentric theory and a geocentric theory is one of relative motion only, and ... such a difference has no physical significance."(35)

 

Too poor for logic, if so much money was not in the wrong places, to say that none of it matters, yet fate happens. Even the blind see that it is one thing to plan a way but another to establish the steps, and "nil habet infelix paupertas durius in se, quam quod ridiculos homines facit": nothing else makes poverty so hard to bear, as that it forces men to ridiculous shifts.(36) 

For instance, one of the predictions of Einstein and the Fitzgerald-Lorentz contraction hypothesis is that a moving clock keeps time more slowly than an identical stationary clock. Who would really believe that? Should one believe that a clock in a car goes more slowly when the car is moving than when it is in park or stopped at a light?

A pocket watch in a coat goes slower when someone is walking, running, or riding a motorcycle than when the coat is left on a chair? Maybe for Einstein, Time Magazine, the Federal Reserve and the Rockefeller Foundation but does that happen for anyone else? 

To try to explain it, a Copernican relativist will say, "we know nothing is sitting still", even though this also contradicts Newton from earlier, who wrote in the "Principia", "that the center of the system of the world is immovable. This is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the Sun, is fixed in that center." "Centrum systematis mundane quiscere. Hoc ab omnibus concessum est, dum aliqui terram, alii solem in centro systematis quiescere contendant."(37)

If everything is in relative motion, and nothing is authentically at rest, how can anyone really distinguish in simple terms between a car in park, or stopped at a light, and a car in motion? In what way do insurance and liability claims actually make sense, with so many stop signs, rules, red lights, deductibles and premiums, if "nothing is sitting still"? 

Who would ever be at fault, and what sign, safety code, or field equation is "nothing"? Something or nothing, and to whom, yet "nature through all her kingdoms, insures herself", since things do make sense by nature. One reason people appreciate nature is for understanding, and common sense would be in common naturally, wihout being overworked for details, if there would be any basic sense of knowledge from the sensus communis, or consensus gentium.(38)

 

FaIstaff said over beer that it "were better to be eaten to death with a rust than to be scoured to nothing with perpetual motion".(39) Besides the question what is nothing, what is still, if nothing is sitting still, and everything is always in relative motion? That which is predicated of nothing as such is nothing, except if it would be purely of itself, in spite of non-being and all other parallel equations, if it were separated away from nothing, perhaps by some accident. And what is sitting then, as only relatively standing and moving, as nothing would be when the roof caves in?

"Nothing is sitting still", and all other negative statements predicated on nothing are impossible for science to investigate anyway. No one catches up with nothing no matter how slow or fast he tries. An electron microscope cannot do it more than a petri dish. For concepts which are predicated upon negations, there is an abyss of nihilism, only one step away from the premise, which when crossed, and then they do not apply to anything.

For example, "there is no money in the bank, only zombies", when there is no bank or banking exchange in existence but only scams. If there is no bank, where are the zombies and where is the money?  

Negative assertions cipher and code the negativity, as "he is not on the team", when there is no team. If there is no team, it does not apply to him or anything. Or "there is no salt on the table", when there is no table, and there is no elephant standing on it either, of course.

Without any luck and no place else to go, if that was the only furniture, there is not such and such or the occurrence, maybe not even a kitchen, and there is not such a thing, as a table with an animal seated on it that would be there in the room.

 

Therefore, there is not anything, where prevails nothing. If there is no thing, no qua qua ex signis, the what of it does not apply to any quality or process of being. "Nothing" cannot apply to any quality or quantity of being that is, it goes without saying, of course, or that would even be sitting still.

Out of the routine ex nihilo, it is more absurd to say that nothing is sitting still, than nothing is moving, because if nothing is moving then at least it is clear that there is still space in existence, and that the space itself is stationary, in vi situ, since objects move through space, but space by itself does not move. Whereas, whereas, if there is absolutely no space in existence, what is there left of all that is and is in motion, that is adding up to everything everywhere?

 

Anima est quodammodo omnia, quod anima cognoscit omnia, inquantum est similis omnibus in potentia, non in actu. In some way, the soul is all, for the  soul knows all, in as much as it is similar to all in potential, if not in act. If there is any spirit, soul, or act of knowing by any virtue, sense or intellect, then there must be some space, as much as there must be room for at least a sign of recognition and its concept.

Datum ex signis, a rule like "nothing is sitting still" is absurd for a sign of reason and relation, and not only approximate to saying everything is moving. It is even closer to saying that there is no space -- because space itself in purest form is not moving. When people say that everything is moving, they are not referring to space itself, but to the objects and quiddities (the whats) that are in motion in space; yet everything substantive is not mere coincidence or accident, and things that are not moving do not cause either accidents or coincidence.

For instance, the sky and space are not moving from place to place. As much as simple quantity has no opposite, the first cut in the table of measures that defines geometry itself, as a science of relation and of space, does not move.

One of these to one of those, and the ratio of conversion of one measure to another does not change. When all things that can be measured are brought to the accounting process, in whatever ratios of conversion, the ratios and measures themselves always remain as fixed as they are, even in the changeable things themselves.

The measure used to measure remains equal to itself, and 15 meters to 5 meters is always the same proportion for 3, since ratios never change the simplicity of rapport: in modis similibus haec per illis semper et ubique, etc. In similar ways, these by those, where the ratio is 3 for algorithm and parallel, the simple value in division between things is immoveable, as they are like 5 and 15 to each other. The relation therein between is 3, for example, no matter what else or the cause. 

 

To escape from the ontological problem of mathematical density, everywhere in existence, ens inquantum ens, if some heliocentric sort of Einstein says, "nihil stat", nothing stands still, he also says "nihil spatium", there is no space, which is twice the foolishness for nihilism, since for everything to be moving and nothing at rest, there must be very much room, for whatever is in motion must expatiate. And all expatiations must be of some proportion to what others and to space itself, which is yet immovable. Always remaining fixed over all places, subsistent in the table of ratios and forms, and in the caves, then behind the clouds, immotus in ipse permanens spatium, space remains simple and immoveable.

As Isaac Newton himself wrote, "... space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable."(40) In Proposition XI, Theorem XI, he adds: "that the common center of gravity of the Earth, the sun, and all the planets, is immovable. For that center either is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a right line; but if that center moved, the center of the world would move also, against the hypothesis." "Commune centrum gravitates terrae, solis et planetarum omnium quiescere. Nam centrum illud (per legem corl. iv) vel quiescet vel pregredietur uniformiter in directum. Sed centro illo semper progrediente centrum mundi quoque movebitur contra hypothesin."(41)

 

Furthermore, if nothing would be still, and everything in motion, how can science be sure of which direction of which in particular it is that anything that is not-nothing is going for relativity? If one cannot tell whether something with a putative quality of operation is authentic, like a hot stove looking red and heating up, how can anything of certain value be predicated of it greater than motion, in comparison for relativity? The most important thing about the stove is not whether it is on and hot, therefore, but whether it corresponds to the way of heliocentrism; yet with relativity, even if it moves, or not, there is still some uncertainity about it.

Unlike burned toast, if one cannot tell whether something is in motion or at rest, how can one know that it is in occurrence along a specific vector of a given direction? As something goes more that way, it is not going this way that is the opposite, but not by relativity. If it does not go the way that is opposite its actual direction of motion, why can one not tell when it is at rest, since when it is at rest it is not going that opposite way either, in the first place?

If less and less progress has been made in one direction, why can one not tell when no progress has been made at all, in that same direction? If relativity were true, there would be no way for people to tell whether they are getting where they are going, or if where they are going has already gone away. As Einstein confessed the point of view, “As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality”.(42)

 

Plus, if the basic assumption of the theory in the argument, that uniform velocity is purely relative, is taken fully into account, then it follows that in the system of two clocks against each other, one goes more slowly than the other, when viewed from the position of the other, and, therefore, there is no sure way of distinguishing between the two.(43)

 

In terms of timeand motion, as it would be if it were "… the assumption of the Lorentz transformation in mechanics requires one clock to work both faster and slower than another. The fact that this can be seen to be contradictory in advance of observation, whereas the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment could not be foreseen, is due simply to the fact that we already know far more about clocks than about light … and we know enough about clocks to know that one cannot, at the same time and in the same sense, be working both faster and slower than another”.(44)

 

With no consistent logic, heliocentric relativity makes all understanding and experience absurd. The difference between what is false and what is true would be "purely a formal one, a difference of interpretation only".(45) If the difference between reasonable common sense and insanity is only "formal", then good luck with the substance of medication , and good night. Who could believe that it is of no physical significance whether the earth is flying 66,600 mph around the sun every day -- not counting the other five astronomical speeds added to it at once, and the different velocities of rotation for all the circles of latitude, which are simply impossible?

Whether Saturn or Pluto would be the center of the solar system, if an accidental tourist is stuck with an exorbitant bill, it makes no difference for restriction by fraud. He had better pay it, when it comes from the same people who told him where to sit, where to stand, and what is okay to say and think.

"2 and 2 are 5, Winston, and learn to like it that way," as much as any vacation experience.

Lenin stated, "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," and if Freemasonry, communism, and the m.a.f.i.a. have been born to suck tits of a globalist toad, and remain lost-in-the-cosmos, that is the way they will have it, as much as that is what they will do. (m.a.f.i.a., e.g., an acronym for Mazzini autorizza furti incendi avvelenamenti)

As they would have the world go round, heliocentrism and relativity become a world fallen and twisted. This is the reason why relativity and so-called phenomenology undermine authenticity and authentic awareness. Perhaps it is from embarrassment to hide knowledge of any disgrace, and so many lies; and this is why relativity needs to uproot common sense, and substitute purely theoretical considerations, and overly complicated calculations at every turn.

The thing-in-itself, das Ding an sich, as a sign of theory from Copernicus to Kant, leads to the land of the lost, and even from there to Darwin and Marx. Everything becomes nothing more than a mind game, a dreamscape of the unknown, and only a question of perception. Yet a wiser man for portents and drfity ways by the beach, qua qua ex signis, once said "dreams have deceived many, and those who trusted in them failed"(46). And "where there are many dreams there are many vanities, and words without number."(47) 

And if the talk is of portents, or monkeys and bats under the stars, "what portent can be greater than a pious notary? Balaam's ass was nothing to it."(48)

 

Copernican Dilemma (3)

 

Cielo a pecorelle, pioggia a catinelle. Sheep in the sky, heavy rain coming, like a flood in the sink.

Se non è sereno, si rasserenerà. Sereno è comunque, sereno sarà. If it is not clear, it will clear up. Clear either way, it will be clear, and "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics," and one of the ways that what is wrong can be sold as being as good as anything else is through an appeal to "progress".

Everything changes, and what was wrong in the past is not wrong now, and what may be wrong now will not be wrong in the future. If something that is wrong can last long enough, whatever the weather, eventually time, money, and amnesia will make it right.

For instance, in the news from 2012, the European Collective Space Agency obtained billions of Euro's to begin preparing a remote space journey for a Solar Orbiter that reportedly would go close to three quarters of the way to the Sun. The mission's launch was planned for 2017 from Cape Canaveral, Florida, aboard a NASA-provided launch vehicle that would place Solar Orbiter into an elliptical orbit around the sun. The closest approach would be near the orbit of Mercury, estimated as 75% of the distance between Earth and the sun, and some 21,000,000 miles away from the sun's surface, and 72,000,000 miles from Earth!

Of course, everything about the story is based on the untenable and ridiculous theories of heliocentrism, where it is estimated that the average distance of the sun from the Earth is 93,000,000 miles.

This mission sadly enough is simply another multi-billion dollar'd Judeo-Masonic NWO space movie hoax. If and when the Solar Orbiter would reach only 1/4 of their listed distance to the Sun, in all honest probability, it would have overshot the Sun by at least more than four times already. And when would the Solar Orbiter start going six or seven speeds at once to keep up a place with the sun?

The truth is there is no logical or scientific justification for a quote of 93,000,000 miles, or for the Sun that goes six different speeds at once, even if it was only to orbit the Earth, and only for a day. The 93,000,000 mile AU is a rabbit taken out of a hat, and from its earliest days Copernicanism has been exaggerating the size of the cosmos. Like an arcane tax-exempt foundation that would rule the world, heliocentrism very likely has been exaggerating the size of the cosmos by about 95% --- including the distance of the sun from the earth.

 

Without any justification other than "theoretical infinity", the methods of proof offered for this length are all based on the mistakes of heliocentrism and relativity in the first place, which are a basket case of willful assumptions, and not scientifically justified. They would have the Sun listed now at an expanded estimate of 93,000,000 miles from the Earth, and this inflated number would represent the standard astronomical unit, the AU, which is a unit of length that would be equal approximately to what is supposed to be the mean Earth-Sun distance.

 

Since the expanding acentric universe must have enough matter and energy to fill up the vast spaces left by its expansion into quasi-infinity, spoken of as "infinity", theories about dark matter and dark energy have been invented to help stitch it together. "Even when all the matter in the universe is added up, the Big Bang theory has only 5% of what it needs to make the model work."(1) Based on Newton’s laws, there simply is not enough matter to account for the gravity and the luminosity that is normally associated with the material extent of the cosmos. In practical terms, there is 95% more gravity and light by the theory than there should be, and when astronomers have tried to use Newton's equations on larger scales to predict the movements of the stars, they have gotten the wrong answers time and again. The stars and nebulae have moved faster than Newton's laws would predict.(2)

Yet "that man is altogether best who considers all things himself and marks what will be better afterwards and at the end; and he, again, is good who listens to a good adviser; but whoever neither thinks for himself nor keeps in mind what another tells him, he is an unprofitable man".(3)

And the mouth that lies wastes the soul, "os autem quod mentitur occidit animam", etc.(4) Nonetheless, "a fool and his money are soon elected", and to compensate for systemic errors, heliocentrism has invented dark matter and dark energy, which are supposed to make up 95% of the universe. This is not the same πράγματα (pragmata, i.e. stuff) as the old fashioned luminiferous aether, and it is not the same thing in total as "the dark"; and, unlike the tiny decimal percentage signs of aether drift that, in fact, have been detected, dark matter and dark energy cannot be measured.

 

 

Like the presupposed spinning rotation and flight of the earth, and like Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity, dark matter eludes the simple facts. No one has ever detected it or seen it, and no one even knows what it is; yet dark matter would be necessary to fill in the blank, "if one assumes Einstein's field equations are valid. However, there is no single observational hint at particles which could make up this dark matter." (5)

 

It is assumed that this "no-see-em", called "the Dark Matter" and "the Dark Energy", resources "at least fourteen times more energy for the universe than the collective energies of all the stars, galaxies and black holes."(6) Without the blank check for effluvia written from the dark, the theories put up for the sake of heliocentrism would go bankrupt from too much space, and the galaxies and constellations and the cosmos would fall apart. The sky and the stars would fall down on Chicken Little and his shack.

 

For instance, galaxies are spinning so fast that they should go flying apart, and the constellations could not hold themselves together, if Dark Matter did not sign the intergalactic check needed for scientific materialism to keep everything from unraveling. For Newton's inverse square law and Einstein's world of relativity to operate, they say that ordinary matter accounts for only 5% of the mass of the universe, and the rest consists of dark matter. To say that only 5% of the universe is atomic and the rest is something else, something unidentified, may also justify the argument that they have exaggerated the natural magnitude of the cosmos by about 95% --- and the distance of the sun from the earth, for example.

 

There arises a peculiar "Catch-22", since without dark matter added to the heliocentric equation things would really be falling down, since otherwise, according to the theory, the stars would collapse in the void and move against one another.

However, there are as many serious problems with the theory of dark matter and dark energy as there are with the rest of the attempts by heliocentrism to "save the appearances." "In reality, if there is no Dark Matter, then insofar as Newton and Einstein are involved, we have a classic case of the blind leading the blind."(7)

 

"If 95% of the universe is claimed to be Dark Matter, and if we find in the end that Dark Matter does not exist, we might hypothesize that the size of the universe has been estimated to be 95% bigger than it really is."(8) And the converse of all the heliocentric theories about dark matter and dark energy is just as viable as the converse of heliocentrism itself.

The reason for exaggerating the scale of the cosmos comes from confusing infinity with muddled creation and removing the science of theology from the picture. As much as the cosmic envelope could be multiplied, it will never be absolutely infinite, and this confusion of order between quantity and quality in creation --- and between the finite and the infinte --- is the same basic mistake of pantheism.

Scientific materialism would like to impose a belief that "we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star, lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe, in which there are far more galaxies than people" --- as expressed by Carl Sagan. And all of which came into existence and began to develop by mere random chance, from billions and billions, and billions and billions, of years ago.(9) For the magnitude of dumb luck on such an incredible scale, the extent of space and time is exaggerated.

 

Copernicanism today could be described as one of the roots of a world-system that persists in a way of error and obscurantism that is hardly conceivable. The suggested notion of limitlessness of space, including relativistic theories of "dark matter" and "dark energy" today, which the Copernican system has implied, has moved forward from the primary claim of Nicolaus Copernicus in 1543, that the Earth orbits the Sun, and that the Sun is the mean center of the cosmos, through Kepler, Galileo, and Newton, to Einstein, who taught that space and time are chaotically curved and warped by mass and energy, and that time is a 4th dimension, and everything is in motion --- and everything is only relative.
 

 

Since liberal scientists and historians have tried to make it appear as though some proof has ever existed for heliocentrism, yet actually there is none, it has helped to walk the talk by making as big and bewildering an impression about the subject as possible. After all, to all intents and purposes, the hypothetical motion of the Earth in space is completely undetectable, so the motion of it has to be some place else, other than simple observation, yet besides too far away --- where it all winds up only in the abyss of the mind. 

 

The only way that a cannonball could remain so undetectable is if it were so distant and diminished or subtle, where doubt may outplay wits, and common sense would become very remote. In heavy smoke, some people can believe almost anything, and the mind itself can even be falsified, besides rendered a mess. So the subconscious introduces the reason that the motion of the Earth remains always undetectable and unaccelerated is because the stars and planets are so very, very far away: and they would call that gravity. The heavenly lights are so strange for size in our view of outer space, small yet huge, that we cannot notice our astronomical motion around the Sun and through space: because of gravity and inertia, and because space is boundless. "Outer space is limitless" and makes such a great impression on the mind, like the infinite lateral motion in Galileo's and Newton's infinite horizontal plane --- were it not for affects of friction.

 

Oh, for friction! and astronomically big numbers may deepen the chasm and the effects of separation at the drop of a hat. Outer space of the stars is so boundless that even with an abundance of presence of mind we should all disappear. Mankind is less than a needle in haystacks. Somehow the terrrestrial plane is less than the planets and stars, since people are so physically small and easily lost, in the wildrness or the city. And because of Newtonian "gravity", the fault really is probably "in our stars", at least by the inverse squared, and not in ourselves, not other than mechanistically speaking. If it is for poor math skills, "that we are underlings".(10)

In vestitu vario, Abundantia telluris egere, et quoque abiit ad plures. Earthly abundance in fine colors is lacking, and also has gone to the majority (i.e., died).

"Abundantia" was an old-time Roman goddess, a pagan personification of abundance and prosperity. There was also a Saint Abundantia years later, a contemplative who lived in Egypt. Originally from the Duchy of Spoleto, educated by Majolus of Cluny, she liked cookies and tea, and made a holy pilgrimage to Jerusalem, before she retired to solitude, less coffee, more recollection, and the desert piety of Chrisitianity for some years. She eventually returned to Spoleto where she died in 804 AD. Her feast day is January, 19, et cetera, ita ora pro nobis.  

And the notion of infinite space in nature, whether all relative and curved with Einstein, or absolute with Newton, has been fundamental to the growth of Copernicanism; and such an erroneous way of thinking inevitably leads to exaggerating the size and age of the cosmos. To justify otherwise unjustifiable ideas and vast complications, the tricks of relativity and theories of big numbers in boundless expansion ad infinitum would serve to hide where they have gone straight into metaphysics, and are not dealing in natural empirical science. The huge numbers serve as a distraction like neuro-linguistic programming, and hypnotic suggestions of power, to conceal unsubstantiated claims. The huge numbers daze people, and the same thing is done for the sake of Darwinian evolution and the big globalist banks.

Everybody in the markets knows there are more useful things to do with books than simply read them or even understand them. People can keep them for many other things, including concealment; and it is the same with big numbers, as with books, and cooking; and some people can use information painfully well, even to hit others over the head, again and again, with great effects of intimidation or confusion ... ad infinitum, et cetera.

So it goes, and with relativity, according to which the Earth could be orbiting anything else equally as well as the Sun, equivalently for all; yet the Moon, honestly, is too close for anybody to think that the Earth would be orbiting it, because who could not tell if the earth was orbiting the Moon in California?

Not making the same impression as the Sun, the Moon is not as good for creating this type of confusion. After all, the sun is responsible for so much heat and the daylight --- and sunburn --- and can create a lot of glare, and is much bigger and brighter and more powerful. Whereas the Moon sometimes looks only like a little cloud, and it goes through funny phases. The Sun is so big and so far away --- yet at the same time so intensive and impressive --- that the Earth must be orbiting it slowly with an undetectable and unaccelerated motion.

"As the source of practically all the energy affecting the Eart and its atmosphere, sunlight is of prime interest and importance. The ulraviolet and other regions of the solar spectrum are absorbed at high altitudes causing photochemical activity, heating and winds. Variations in intensity of the solar radiations are associated with corresponding variations of atmospheric and weather phenomena."(11) And the daytime is crystallized with such magical effect over the Earth that for some the psychological effect is to make them think the Sun is bigger than it really is, and further away. The elasticity and mixture of elements in Earth's atmosphere capture and magnify sunlight so much that the crystalline effect of the daylight is at times powerfully overabundant.

Even enough to make some people buy Timeshare resorts, that the Earth orbits the Sun, and it is the only way that it could be, since the Sun's heat is so intense along the equator too, especially in July and August, that it can be like a beating. Therefore, would it not be more reasonable to assume that the Earth is revolving around it, rather than the Moon, Saturn, or Aldeberan?

But by some cloudy winter days there could be a dilemma. If the Sun's circle were closer, smaller, and cooler like the Moon, and the Earth were orbiting it, then would people not start to notice? People would notice if the Earth was orbiting the clouds or the Moon instead of the Sun, would they not? If the Sun were only as close and small as some clouds, or the Moon, and it was not so hot in the summer, would earthlings not then begin to sense that the Earth was orbiting it?

 

Would a scientist not recognize the details, if the Earth were moving and rolling over, and over, tremendously every day in winter and in Scotland, only to orbit clouds or the moon?

Yet when it is a full Moon in winter in Scotland, it could be some evenings that the Earth is orbiting it, if not the clouds, or not the Sun at night, could it not?

Have you been to Scotland?

Of course, it could. Over there it is not so much about the sun as Ecuador. A relatively sunny day through clouds, where the face of the sun is reflected in the waters of Loch Ness, for example, the mighty sun appears no bigger than the moon. Let Ecuador orbit the sun, Scotland may orbit the moon, and depending on the weather, it can feel like it. There is no mistake about it. A full moon in the winter is closer and as affectively big as the sun then, so why not?

 

Sometimes it could be that Scotland orbits a full moon even in the summer, as much as in the winter some place else. With mists and foggy breaks, depending on favorability or unfavorability of clouds and obscurations, a naive person in his cups could mistake one for the other, the Sun for the Moon, for horns of dilemma, if his days and nights, and east and west, were backwards.

 

Flip the board, and it could happen that if the earth orbits what is bigger like the sun, should it not as well orbit what is equally large in the sky as the sun, and always closer? The full Moon and the Sun are completely 180" separate from each other, in stereo, with the Earth and Scotland in between, so when the Sun is setting in the West how would one not know that the Earth is orbiting the Moon in the East, if one had things mixed up from poor visibilty, one foggy evening in the highlands, and a good bottle of Scotch?

After all, Scotland is small and cold in winter, and one can block out the sun with a golf ball; and sometimes some people, for whatever reasons, may not go out for days; and remember, according to relativity, Muirfield and St. Andrew's could be orbiting anything else as well as the Sun: Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Regulus, or Venus etc.

"Far off in sunlit places, sad are the Scottish faces, yearning to feel the kiss of sweet Scottish rain"; yet most people would have to believe that the Earth would be orbiting the full Moon in the east over the North Sea, before it would orbit Spica, Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, or Regulus --- instead of the Sun in the West --- which is not the craziest idea for relativity and astronomy, but what if there is a conjunction? For instance, if there is a conjunction of a full Moon and Jupiter, how would people know the Earth is not orbiting Jupiter then and not the full Moon? Or could it be orbiting them both?

However, for heliocentric relativitists and scientific materialism, the sun must win, even if the way to resolve it is by making choices for arbitrary reasons, of philosophical preference only, not scientific ones. And there is always the ignored fact that no one has ever seen the Earth revolving at all, and there has never been any proof for it in history. In fact, all the proof is the reverse: that it is not revolving.

This is why great big math and great big numbers and very complicated equations become essential and have helped heliocentrism so much. Helios the overwhelming giant overwhelms with big numbers and big math, with gigantic impressions of space and time, and relativity would almost make it certain that size not quality is everything. The cosmological theory of heliocentrism will one day be right, even if it could be wrong.

Having "run about the slopes, and picked the daisies fine", science has "wandered many a weary foot, since auld lang syne." If the dialectics of scientific materialism were false, it would only be by a little? Just a little co-variance, not that much, and all is equivalent and equal anyway is it not?

 

Cheers then, "we ... have sported in the burn, from morning sun till dine; but seas between us broad have roared since auld lang syne; and should auld acquaintance be forgot, and ne'er brought to mind? Should auld acquaintance be forgot, and days o’ lang syne!" By Jove this is only some of the obscurity and darkwise background for why scientific materialism today lists the Sun as being one AU away, one astronomical unit of 93,000,000 miles, which is much too far and probably exaggerated by about 95%, or twenty times the range of Pluto, and more than half the size of Texas.

 

 

 

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Heliocentrism is worse than hurricanes and earthquakes, and compare the effects. If there is damage or catastrophic loss from a hurricane,  the pressure system, storm winds, and the storm surge, and flooding did it. Yet heliocentrism would like to claim that "gravity" from the Sun has the Earth flying around at astronomical numbers that dwarf hurricanes and nobody and no scientific experiment can ever tell.

If not for a joke, this system has become a sign of intergalactic strangeness: vanitas vanitatum, ebullita sed et rupta est, enim adflictio spiritus. Vanity of vanities, a bubble that bursts, with affliction of spirit. "The perverse are hard to be corrected, and the number of fools is infinite: perversi difficile corriguntur et stultorum infinitus est numerus".(1) 

{"It wasn’t until the dawn of Relativity (which was the very physics invented in hopes of saving mankind from having to revert back to geocentrism), that science realized it could never prove heliocentrism, and thus, in every experiment devised since then to show otherwise, science became like Sisyphus pushing the rock up the mountain hoping to reach the summit, only to find that the weight of the evidence could not be overcome, and thus it would be forced to watch the heliocentric rock roll down time after time."(2) 

As Hendrik Lorentz, one of the scientists involved in the development of modernist relativity theory, admitted, regarding the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments, and Arago's, Fizeau's, and Airy's experiments as well: "Briefly, everything occurs as if the Earth were at rest ..."(5) 

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.

 

Nihil sub sole novum, nec valet quisquam dicere: ecce hoc recens est: iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos.

 

Copernican Dilemma (4)

 

Always the result of intelligent effort, "quality is never an accident"(1); and in an appropriate understanding of the cosmos, the priority is not in the size but the quality of the aspects. The truth does not need to be big to be true. It does not matter first, so much, how big the sun is as much as where it is, and what it is like in relation to the earth's atmosphere, from its space, where it is going one velocity at a time. The expatiation of solar power can be impressive; and the sun can appear big and bright, when reflected and magnified in earth's atmopshere; but from outer space and low earth orbit it looks smaller, like a tennis ball with golden spokes, in the dark background of deep space.

Therefore, quality over quantity, and many credible opinions have agreed with common sense, everyday experience, and the results of every scientific test to detect any astronomical rotation of the Earth, and concluded that the Earth does not orbit the sun, but that the Sun orbits the Earth.

A list of all the people who rejected heliocentrism would be too long. However, it would include King David and King Solomon, Joshua, Moses and Aaron, and Isaiah, the patristic authorities of the Catholic Church, like Origen, Augustine, and Ambrose, who expressed the opinion of the Church Fathers that "voluntate Dei, immobilis manet et stat in saeculum terra", by the will of God the Earth remains and stands immobile through the ages, also Clement of Alexandria, Venerable Bede, Albertus Magnus, Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Isidore of Seville, Peter Lombard, Duns Scotus, Giovanni Riccioli, Robert Bellarmine, Popes Sixtus IV, Gregory the Great and Gregory XIII, Paul V, Urban VIII, Alexander VII, and many Protestants like Martin Luther and Melancthon, since geocentrism is also the biblical opinion.

 

And the geocentric view is not only in the Bible. It includes ancient thinkers and astronomers like Cleanthes, Thales, Parmenides, Diogenes Laertius, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Theaetus, Eudoxus, Callipus, Theon Alexander, Eratosthenes, Hipparchus, Archimedes (sometimes incorrectly listed as following heliocentrism, because of a mere fragment attributed to him in which he quotes the bizarre opinion of Philolaus, but does not say that it is his) Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Anaximander, Ptolemy, Euclid, Apollonius, Plutarch, Julius Caesar, Sisogenes, Philo Judaeus, Alfraganus, Macobrius, Cleomedes, Maurolycus, Clavius, Barocius, Michael Neander, Telesius, Martinengus, Justus-Lipsius, Scheiner, Tasso, Scipio Claramontius, Michael Incofer, Jacob Ascarisius, Julius Caesar La Galla, Tanner, Bartholomew Amicus, Antonio Rocce, Marinus Mersennius, Polacco, Kircher, Spinella, Pineda, Lorinis, Mastrius, Bellustris, Poncius, Delphinus, Elephantutius, Petrus Aliacensis, King Alphonse X of Castille, called the Wise, Sacrobosco (John Hollywood), King Edward I of England, Regiomantanus, Purbach, Nicolas Cues, Sancho VII El Sabio, the King of Navarra, Philastrius, Tycho Brahe, Francis Bacon, George Buchanan, Jean Bodin, DuBartas, Caccini,  Fromundus, Cassini, Longmontanus, Thomas Feyens, Froidmont, Johann-Heinrich Voight, Walter van der Kamp, Marshall Hall, Gerardus Bouw, Robert Sungenis, and Robert Bennett ... etc.

Out of all the people who recognized geocentrism as accurate, none needed to know how far away the Moon was to know that it also orbits the Earth. No one needs to know how far away it is to count how long it takes to go around, and it is the same way with the Sun. No one needs to know how far away it is to know that it orbits the Earth, or to count how long it takes for a day's circle. If it went twice as fast or twice as slow, it would still be the same path. 

Ancient geocentric astronomers cannot be accused of ignorance or deception, and neither can the modern ones. They made many more accurate observations than Copernicus who himself "hardly bothered with star-gazing; he relied on the observations of Ptolemy and Hipparchus. He knew no more about the actual motions of the stars than they did. Hipparchus's catalogue of the fixed stars and Ptolemy's tables for calculating planetary motions were so reliable and precise that they served, with insignificant corrections, as navigational aids to Columbus and Vasco de Gama"(2) and many other ship captains.

Eratosthenes, an ancient Greek from the 3rd century BC, "computed the diameter of the Earth as 7,850 miles with an error of only 1/2 percent. Hipparchus calculated the distance of the Moon from Earth as 30 and 1/4 Earth diameters with an error of .3 percent (.003)."(3) To round off, the radius of the Earth is close to 4000 miles and the moon is around an average of 240,000 miles away, which represents 60 Earth radii. "Thus, insofar as factual knowledge is concerned, Copernicus was no better off, and in some respects worse off than ancient astronomers."(4)

Having studied eclipses and knowing the spherical curvature and approximate size of the Earth, Hipparchus used a solar eclipse of 129 BC, that was total along the Hellespont, but 4/5 partial in Alexandria, to calculate an estimated distance of the Sun that was fairly accurate. Using trigonometry, a reasonable theory of proportional perspective, and his understanding of parallax to prorate the guess, he was close enough for government work from then until now. 

Ptolemy made similar observations and was in close enough agreement with Hipparchus. In Book 37 of his Natural History, Pliny the Elder mentions an ancient estimate for the common range of distance of the Sun from the Earth, and as being only 19 times farther away from the earth as the moon, writing "intervalla quoque siderum a terra multi indagare temptarunt, et solem abesse a luna undeviginti partes quantum lunam ipsam prodiderunt ..."(5) Many have tried to figure the interval between the daystar and the Earth, and the Sun ranges 19 parts further away than the distance of the Moon.

The point is not served in excess over the most exact certitude in such a question, but for reasonable accuracy of scale and valid priority. And for geocentrism, space itself is not infinite or exaggerated, and logic remains essential. Boundless expansion into infinity, relativity, and incomprehensible math fummdiddles are not needed in geocentrism. The simple truth does not need to be titanic and over-complicated, and the real cosmos is much smaller than what heliocentrism pretends, and the Sun is not 93,000,000 miles away.

For instance, the time interval that passes between the Sun and the Moon along the ecliptic is consistently equivalent to around twelve degrees per day, for a balance of about 48 minutes, with each degree of the ecliptic representing 4 minutes of procession. In a day, the Moon will lose an average of 12 to 12.5 degrees to the ecliptic, where the Sun will lose only .9863. Thus the Moon is falling 48-50 minutes behind the stars every day, for its circle, whereas the Sun is falling behind them only about 3.9452 minutes. This is because the Sun is further out, going around the Earth much faster than the Moon, in a lager radius. These differences are what make the phases of the Moon, and are naturally proportionate and consistent. Along with the spherical curvature and size of the Earth, eclipses and predictable ratios of time and space also show that the Sun cannot be 93,000,000 miles away.

It is a little bit uncanny that the Sun is of a higher and more distant sphere around the Earth than the Moon's, yet has the same angular diameter in the sky. For a proportion like that to work out so well, this is a mysterious sign between them: that the disc of the Sun is no bigger than the full Moon. If one sees the Sun through clouds, or reflected in a lake, the solar disc is the same size as the full Moon; yet, of course, for 30 arc minutes in space, the Sun spills over, and makes a greater impression on Earth, because of the heat and energy it generates in relation to the atmosphere. The Earth and its atmosphere absorb and intensify the heat and light from the Sun in a special way; and it is because of the Earth's sky, not because of the Sun, that people cannot see stars during the day. If a man was on the Moon, he could see stars all day, because the Moon has no atmosphere.

Since the sidereal time differential between the Sun and the Moon is about 12 to 1 and space needs a little room for time, one could say perhaps the extensive quadrature is practically 13 to 1 between them. Since the discovery of increments that Big G is really equal only to 6.00/6, and that there are likewise only 6 cosmic directions in definition, with one dimension in the middle, for the mathematical form of the phenomena of the Sun and the Moon going around the Earth, and the distance between them, one could say, therefore: (13 + 6)G = 19, which also happens to agree with Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, and Hipparchus ... more or less.

Yonder Moon is about 1/4 the size of the Earth, and 250,000 miles away, and lunar and solar eclipses work out so well in ordered proportion that if the Sun were the same size as the Earth, it should be the same distance away from the Moon as the Earth. If it were twice the size of the Earth, it should be about four times as far away, and if three times the size of the Earth it should be about twelve times as far away, and if four times the size of the Earth it should be about sixteen times as far away and so forth.

If the Sun was about 4.75 times the size of the Earth, it would be about nineteen times as far away as the Moon, and that also would match the scale and range of numbers of Hipparchus, Ptolemy, and Pliny the Elder more closely than heliocentrism.

If the Sun is about 4.75 times the size of Earth and 19 times far away as the Moon, it is not anywhere near 93,000,000 miles away. If the Moon represents 227,000 miles at perigee, 240,000 in the means, and 253,000 at apogee, then perhaps the Sun could have a distance range of 4,313,000 to 4,560,000 to 4,807,000 miles, as it orbits around the Earth. The theory of gravity, by the way, cannot explain why the distance and velocity of the Moon and the Sun in their orbits around the Earth may vary. It also cannot explain why they orbit the Earth at all, since gravity is not a lateral or even a vertical force; and the "gravity" (density, weight, mass, compression etc.) of the Earth is terrestrial in character, whereas the momentum of the planets and stars is celestial not terrestrial.

The AU that is the astronomical unit used today is so much out of scale that it puts the Sun anywhere from 388 to 412 times as far away from the Earth as the Moon. So when NASA and the European Collective Space agency will have supposedly gone what is advertised as 1/4 of the way to the Sun, in 2017 --- after spending billions in tax revenue --- they should have overshot the Sun by close to 5 times already.

If it was necessary to answer the question how far away the Sun is, how big, and how fast it travels around the Earth, the answer would not have to be exact to know correctly that the Earth is not moving, and that the Sun orbits the Earth.

 

The most common number for the radius of the Earth is 3963 miles. Since out of habit many would like the Sun to be as big as possible, the radius of  the Earth could be rounded up to 4000 miles. And the radius of the Sun could be 19,000 miles ---- a mystical geocentric number, since the Sun could be 19 times as far away from the Earth as the Moon, according to Pliny the Elder and others, and the Moon is 1/4 the size of the Earth. And 1/4 times 19 equals 4.75 for the prorated perspective of eclipses, and 4.75 times 4000 equals 19,000 miles. 19 then is the mystagogical number, like the jersey of Johnny Unitas, a mysterious portent, and a sign of the wonderful powers of the Sun. Therefore, 19 seems to be a good sign for geocentrism and close enough for government work, in figuring out the distance, angular velocity, and size of the Sun, et cetera.

Yippee skippee, animus gaudens aetatem floridas facit: "a merry heart blooms flowers for an age",(6) and "all our dreams can come true, if we have the courage to pursue them."

The radius of the Sun and the Earth and the distance between them are needed to calculate an estimate of the Sun's angular velocity as it orbits the Earth.

v = wr

 

perigee 4000 + 19000 + 19(227,000)
means   4000 + 19000 + 19(240,000)
apogee 4000 + 19000 + 19(253,000)

 

23000 + 4,313,000
23000 + 4,560,000
23000 + 4,807,000

 

4,336,000
4,583,000
4,830,000

And five percent of an AU is 4,650,000, which also fits the apparent range of a ninety-five percent exaggeration today for 93,000,000 miles.

v = wr, v = 1rot/24 x 2pi/1rot x 4,336,000 = pi/12(4,336,000) perigee,
pi/12(4,560,000) means, pi/12(4,807,000) apogee

 

3.14159265359 / 12 = .26179938

 

1,135,162 celestial momentum, as mph of the Sun, in its sphere at perigee
1,193,805 celestial momentum, as mph of the Sun, in its sphere in the means
1,258,470 celestial momentum, as mph of the Sun, in its sphere at apogee

 

For "mph" as a metaphor, since the sun is not a loose object like an automobile, the space shuttle, or an airplane. Its projection is linked within the wheel of its sphere, and these are only simple best guess estimates for illustration. But knowing that the Earth is not moving and that the Sun orbits the Earth is not a guess. It is logically provable and matches the overabundance of common sense and all scientific tests and observations.

"Progress might have been all right once, but it has gone on for too long."

 

Ogden Nash

 

 

Copernican Dilemma V

 

Without Newton's gravity and Einstein's relativity, heliocentrism runs all out of luck. If not for a joke, there may be no rest for the wicked. O vanity of vanities, the number of fools is infinite, a bubble that bursts. The perverse are hard to be corrected, and "non est pax impiis".(1) Constant motion and depravity have never been easy: more like a sea which cannot rest, spin, spin, spin, and the waves thereof cast up bunk and twaddle.

For bad poetry and bad science, Newton had "F" and "G", and Einstein had "E" and "C", and the difficulty between them is the simple fact that the Sun and the Moon orbit the Earth, which is not revolving. So it became necessary to introduce fake constants like "C" and "G" to substitute for the constant of detectability, sometimes quoted as "D", written as Greek delta, Δ, that is the central immobility of the Earth.

However, for science, it would be better to create an atmosphere of sore confusion around the truth of the matter instead, since all experiments and interferometer and aether drift tests have shown that there is no rotation of the Earth, which is why the the public must be taught relativity and E=mc2. If aether exists and the earth is not moving, then relativity theory is a waste --- and this contradiction is what all these tests have shown, that aether does exist in some mysterious decimal percentage detail, and the earth is not moving.

 

Einstein's Special(1905) and General Theories of Relativity(1915) were invented only to counter the results of Michelson-Morely(1887), and other interferometer and aether drift experiments up to that time, including those of Arago(1810-1818), Fizeau(1851), Hoeck(1868), Airy (1871), and Mascart(1872) to detect any proof of rotation of the Earth. Practical evidence for the unjustified theories of heliocentrism has been so difficult to find, where even the littlest bustles surpass the motion of the Earth, that controlling the hidden signs and the spin is everything.

"Moreover, if it was not precisely the Michelson-Morley experiment that was the primary motivating factor for Einstein in the formulation of his Relativity theory, it was certainly the whole cadre of similar experiments performed after 1887 and prior to 1905, namely, those of Roentgen, Lodge, Rayleigh, Brace, Trouton-Noble, and Morley-Miller, all of which produced the same results as Michelson-Morley."(2) "All of the aforementioned experiments", over the course of almost a century, from Arago to Morley-Miller, "concerned one thing, and only one thing" –-- detection of any motion of the Earth relative to the light medium. And "Einstein admitted as much in his famous 1905 paper, as he makes explicit reference to the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the Earth relative to the light medium.”(3)

The question as to what effect the motion of its source had on light, and how that related to whatever there may be of stellar aberration, and the supposed rotation of the Earth, had been posed before 1887, but the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments were the most meticulous examination of the question up to that time. And controlling the interpretation of the negative outcome for heliocentrism in those tests and others also became the source of Einstein's whole famous career.

In response to the results of aether drift experiments, which fairly proved the earth is stationary, Einstein published his special theory of relativity in 1905, and his general theory of relativity in 1915. For developing the modern theories of relativity, and the popularized formula E = MC^2, he won a Nobel Prize in 1921 and was declared Man of the Century by Time Magazine in 1999.

Like other aether drift experiments, like the water-filled telescope of George Airy (1871), and the elaborate water tubes and light beams of Armand Fizeau (1851), the Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted to investigate the way light behaves when its source is in motion. It was another attempt to detect any possible effects on light phenomena from the supposed motion of the Earth, and they designed an elaborate apparatus, which they first called an interferential refractometer and later an interferometer. 

 

At 41"28'56 N, Cleveland should be spinning about 777.3172612013712 mph every day, but nobody or a blood hound can notice, so it should not have been surprising that the interferential refractometer was unable to detect any effect on light either from the supposed violent motion of the earth in space to orbit the sun. What the instrumentality discovered is what any Hollywood movie stunt-man working in Quito could tabulate as well: that it makes no difference whether to jump from east to west, or west to east, despite the supposed fact that the earth is spinninig 1038 mph into the east.

One may figure it should be easier to jump to the west, into the volume of spin, when jumping from tall building to tall building, or across rocky cliffs and so forth. As a helicopter in Arizona can hover and wait for California, in midair let the building or the other side of the cliff come to you.

 

In 1905 Einstein was living in Bern, Switzerland, working in a Swiss patent office as a technical expert third class. At 46"57 N latitude, Bern, therefore, supposedly spins at 708.292075415855 mph every day; but, of course, Einstein could never notice. In 1914 Einstein moved to Berlin, and in 1915 he presented the general theory of relativity to the Prussian Academy of Sciences, and later it was submitted to "Annalen der Physik" for publication on March 20, 1916. At 52"30'2 N latitude, Berlin, therefore supposedly spins at 631.6327310024102 mph every day; but, of course, he and nobody else could ever notice. From all the places that he lived, he and nobody else around the neighborhood could ever notice any of the rotational flight of the earth, or any of its effect on light; and he could never detect any of the differences in velocity from one place to the next, or between any of the most extremely separated latitudes.

The bizarre theoretical situation of relativity would be a scientific disgrace, an embarrassment really, if it were not a joke. "The nearer the destination the more it slip slides away. Gliding down the highway, slip sliding away", a posteriori to mankind and reality, because mathematics normally makes things clearer and better, not worse. Yet Galilean and Einsteinian relativity have served their purpose, in making many things worse, or more confused, because they have sufficiently twisted cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, and common sense to such an extent that people still are not able to recognize without some sense of insult the simple fact that the earth is not moving, and that the sun orbits the earth.

As Bertrand Russell wrote, "pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that if such and such a proposition is true of anything then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true. Both of these [inferior] points would belong to applied mathematics … Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor [that] what we are saying is true."(4) The last words of Aleister Crowley, author of the "Book of Lies", were "I am perplexed", and could serve also as a motto for relativity and theoretical doom. For a last mortal sense of things, "aporiatus sum"; if not that, "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here".

"The trouble with lying and deceiving is that their efficiency depends upon a clear notion of the truth that the liar and deceiver wishes to hide"(5). In any case, to escape an enchanted castle, or a moated miasma, may not be as easy for others as for Don Quixote, and relativity theory is like a swamp of equivocation and confusion, consisting "in a number of contradictory assumptions"(6). When mathematics is applied to it, it only makes things worse and worse for windmills and equivalence.

For the sake of heliocentrism, humanity has been swept away. Rivers of pseudo-science and false engineers have defended it by a labyrinth of deceptive mathematics, which are not applied in relation to objective facts analyzed logically in the real world. Rather, "recondite kinds of higher mathematics have been falsely used to create an awesome, esoteric language whereby the initiated elite have set themselves apart from the world and have labeled all dissenters as quacks."(7)

In sifting through so much relative confusion, Einstein confessed, "since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."(8) Therefore, it may become useful to isolate two of the major contrary signs involved in this system of universal contradiction and denial: "G", the supposed gravitational constant, and "C", the supposed speed-of-light constant.

 

Since the supposed rotation of the earth in its flight around the sun had no discernible effect on the speed or quality of light, then the speed of light must be constant. Rather than admitting that the earth is stationary, and the inertial hypostasis of the earth is what is constant and concrete, it is said, with a straight face, that the earth is flying up to heaven through the east, when no one can ever tell; and the speed of natural light is constant "in vacuo", and also somehow independent of the motion of its source, when people can tell that the speed of light is not constant more than divisible, and not independent of the motion of its source.

 

Natural luminescence represents something divisible and particular, in particles and rays, streaming clouds within a spectrum, and any particle of anything has a circular property by being what it is in the first place. Ontology is also a circular property in science, where facts always come back around to the truth, and light is another circuit, sometimes like the truth. Whether one prefers to emphasize wave and ray or particle, lumens or watts and volts and colors operate in circuits, and like the air media, the special properties in light and color are as various as the one and the many.

The air is in common but all the ones breathing it are different. The way light falls over each letter of an alphabet and each word in a book is different. Depending on the context of luminiferous illuminations, natural light covers too much in distinction, poco a poco by division, to be absolutely constant. There is the species of enlightenment through the eyeballs of a fool, for instance, or a king, or a duck, and many varied circumstances of communication and interpretation that may manifest with the play of light, et cetera.

The speed of light is for government work and the speed of "is" and the speed of dark tooto see how close things are to reality; and "ecce Lunam, behold the Moon, and its phases over wood duck pond. The dark side of the moon is dark, of course, and the dark side of Earth too, yet not with the same rate of motion on both sides. The moon's rate and the earth's are different, and the moon has no atmosphere, and its phases of light are secondary reflections.

NASA is not lighting matches on the moon, and not only is the dark side of the moon dark, but so is the exosphere and cislunar space --- also the vast deep space that is in the darkness between the sun and the earth, as well as all the points in space that are as equidistant from the sun as the earth, or further away, yet where there is nothing else there first but the darkness of outer space. 

With no atmosphere to interact with the Sun, what is the constant speed and magnitude of light out there, in the dark regions and places of outer space, that science can see at night?

In calculating the signal transmissions of stars, the constant speed of light --- that would be independent even of the motion of its source --- is not used, but the velocity of the object itself is part of the equation, of course.

For example, the constant speed of light and so-called light years are not relevant to figuring out the phases of Venus or the Moon or the magnitude of Sirius and Antares. The positions and progress of the stars acrosss the sky do not consist first in the supposedly constant speed of light, but in the angular velocity of the stars themselves from within their divisions and burning spheres.

What is the speed of sunlight, when reflected from the windshield of a parked car, for "anything that could rigorously be called a perception?"

The present meaning must exist that a text could be presented, or that a light could shine through a window, perhaps as slow as the hours and almost as mutable as the passing weather, since not only localized fields of "gravity" may affect the speed of light, but clouds and umbrellas and the chance of rain. And it certainly is not independent of the motion of its source.

"Il n'y a pas de hors-texte", and if there is no outside-text, context is everything: and the context of light as to the image resourced in a glass.

There are many lights, of course, and they do not go only at once, or one constant velocity, wavelength, or color. Therefore, relativity's theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light causes serious problems for cosmology, for then gravity must travel at the same speed, at least at times, or slower, and yet at weird times it must go faster for the stars to keep up. And if gravity moves stars, how does it not move light, and how could it move light, if it does not move shadows or the wind? 

Gravity does not moves shadows or the wind, but it is not called "Big G" and the force of universal gravitation for nothing. Therefore, really, its motion must be instantaneous, in the category of "always" --- like the god Mercury maybe, whose cape would be faster even than light, or at least the natural light that humans perceive.

 

Some people perhaps would say that darkness is the mere absence of light, but if blind men remain in the dark, as they are surrounded by light, the darkness is in the present species and lack of sight. How would the speed of light be constant, when there are so many types of interference, and, if, when there is illumination, it should also depend on the mediation perceived and the reflection?

 

An impressionistic medium in unique spheres, as particle or wave, light radiates in natural correspondence, as would a very fine and subtle substance in aether: circuitous in rings, sparks, waves, rays, and particles, et cetera. One way, and then another, it illuminates impressions by geometry, bringing out similarities and differences in the shape and texture of things, as it enlightens things all around. Light leavens things a little or a lot, and elevates knowledge, settling in the interstices by the quality and quantity of divisibility and presence, et cetera. Without it, many things would become impossible, and the speed should not be called constant any more than a genie and his bottle hidden in a world of possibilities.

 

"Einstein’s postulate that nothing can go faster than the speed of light causes severe problems for current cosmology’s concept of gravity, for gravity must then travel at the same speed, or a speed less than that of light. But a gravitational force that is limited to the speed of light will cause enormous problems for the vast distances it must travel in the universe."(9)

 

"Whereas it can be shown that light traveling from the sun to Earth has a displacement aberration of 20 arc seconds ... which is caused by the speed of the sun ... [the supposed force of] gravity between the sun and Earth has no such aberration effect, and thus it provides no indication of a propagation speed. In other words, gravity propagates with an instantaneous, or even infinite speed, which was precisely what Newton assumed to be the case."(10) Yet according to the force of logic, natural motion cannot take place in an instant; and according to relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. Therefore, it may become apparent that what is being discussed by Newton in the "Principia", for the sake of heliocentrsim and occult actions-at-a-distance, is a metaphysical theory of preternatural horns of dilemma.

 

According to Newton’s upside down laws, however, gravity is also natural and a radial force propagated by the inverse squared, yet not innate to matter. Any actual gravitational fields are not instantaneous but weaker than applied forces, otherwise everything would collapse together at once; and if gravity is not a radial force, then Newton’s laws cannot be applied to the orbits of the planets and stars.

However, it must have some sort of essence or basis to propagate its theoretical powers; and, therefore, it is said that the sun is continually tugging at the Earth, as if it were with a gigantic steel cable. So the Earth does not go flying off into space, but instead keeps circling yonder, flying into the east and up into the heavens by the theoretical principle.

If the sun were suddenly to stop issuing the force of gravity, the Earth would immediately be cut loose from its orbit, the same as when a string snaps from a tether ball. Once the cord is broken, the ball flies away into the woods.

From experience of the cycle of seasons and years, the force of gravity must be absolutely constant, as much as light, otherwise things would certainly come apart over a century or two. Yet it is said that nothing travels faster than the constant speed of light, and that it takes 8.5 minutes for sunlight to reach the earth, yet gravity must be everywhere, as much as there is the effect of order. And if gravity were everywhere, it could not go any faster and must be the fastest for so many places.

Faster than sunlight, it must move everything, since everything is in motion; and it would rate as an activity of universal force; but gravity does not move light or even boil water. It does not move through neutral gravity zones or crush ice cubes. Although they may attempt to solve one problem, with heliocentrism, they create others, and pop goes the weasel in the cosmos.

"The medium is the message", and constant absurdities arise from the theory of relativity. For example, relativity maintains that if a falcon is moving at the speed of light, chasing a particle in a light beam ahead of him, the target particle will continue to increase its distance from the falcon at the speed of light. The particle in sight ahead of him will only get further and further away, by the very speed of light at which the falcon itself is traveling, as if the falcon were like a turtle in the light--- weighted by some sort of "gravity" --- even though it is flying fast as the speed of light too.(11)

Since falcons are not turtles, this part of relativity is hard to believe, and becomes more like an old paradox of motion than something new. Zeno of Elea had a file of similar paradoxes called "aporeia". One that survives is the story of Achilles and the tortoise that he could never catch, if the turtle had a good enough lead: and what a creature of circumstance he was, a mighty river turtle, more than a normal dirt kicker too, and with a fifteen or twenty yard lead he would always win.

 

If the tortoise was prepared for the race with as little as a twenty yard lead, like one side of a tennis court from baseline to net, plus seven yards, the tortoise would never be passed by Achilles, since from where Achilles begins, he must first reach the point from which the tortoise began. But in the meantime the plodding champion will have crawled ahead to a new advance point. Even if only by a little, it will figure just enough, so that the turtle must always be ahead by at least some fraction of a distance, in finis.

For in all the midpoints halfway of halfway to halfway to halfway, Achilles will always be stuck behind the turtle by the coincidental power of division, because the turtle also is always making some forward amount of positive progess at the same time. Even as he would run, for Achilles there are an innumerable number of divisible points to be crossed, where the turtle has already been, so that he can never catch him by any division of the line. And divison of the line is the only way that Achilles can progress.

In the time that it would take Achilles to run the first 10 yards to halfway, the River Diver will already have advanced the measure of a champion. And in the interval it may seem like infinity that it takes him to progress another few yards; and the turtle will have already advanced another space also; and in the time it took for Achilles to cover the next few yards, the turtle will again have already moved forward also; and so on, and so on, so that as Achilles goes the following yards ahead, the turtle will have increased his lead again by some measure. As Achilles tries to catch the turtle over the remaining half and half yards, the situation does not really improve enough for him to win.

Going another fraction of a fraction to a fraction and then close to a yard for some total, he is still behind the opponent's beginning, and the turtle has already been on his way. As Achilles must always go by some division and decimal parts into the distance, the glory of the tortoise in the interstices always stays ahead, so much so that he will continually have some part of a lead, and so on ad infinitum.

Some perhaps would object and say there is an unfair motive of division in favor of the turtle, only for an old paradox reductio ad absurdum, and cheating is the only way the turtle can win. But with a little daylight reflection in his shell, the turtle would pose for pre-eminence like "C", and a strange metaphor of E = MC^2, for his own relativity of special advantage.

As much as the "constant speed of light" in theoretical relativity could be stuck in a mirror on the shell of his back, he would be a well placed and immanent creature, to reflect many points of light, and its constant speed back into Achilles face, if he should ever think he could somehow win by running fast enough. The equivalent power of the river turtle's position in Zeno's paradox would be close to the same as the so-called constant speed of light in theoretical relativity, where it goes so far that the speed of light is even said to be independent of the motion of its source, as it would be "constant".

This type would also be instantaneous and, therefore, could not be predicated of a merely natural source, since natural motion cannot take place in an instant but must have divisible parts, like the feet of Achilles. The tortoise or light beam that travels with such quality as to always outdistance the fastest pursuer by division cannot be defined from a strictly natural source, and this is perhaps where Zeno and Einstein begin to cross lines and metaphysics and theology. For as much as the beach with shells and sea glass, man is a bubble of division.

"Homo bulla", is an old Latin saying. Varro wrote "quod, ut dicitur, si est homo bulla, eo magis senex", for if, as they say, man is a bubble, all the more so is an old man. And the scientific materialist Judeo-Masonic NWO is a bubble of vanity, a hoax lost in the cosmos and evolved from monkeys and garbage. And when an empty bubble bursts, there goes all of it, as within the category of motions and divisions of a simple body and a sphere.

 

"Vanitas vanitatum", dixit Ecclesiastes, "vanitas vanitatum. Omnia vanitas. Quid habet amplius homo de universo labore suo, quod laborat sub sole"?(12) Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. What hath a man more of all his labour, that he taketh under the sun?

 

If Einstein had played Hamlet or Captain Thermite one year, perhaps he could have been bounded in a nut shell and counted himself another king of infinite space, were it not for bad dreams, and bad dreams indeed because of Michelson-Morley, Fizeau, and Airy's naive water-filled telescope failure. As dramatic a character as Einstein as Hamlet could say interferometerwise, in soliloquy, that "a combination and a form indeed, with wings as swift as meditation, has been set as a seal on every aether drift and light-beam interferometry experiment, to give further assurance that the sun, moon, and stars encircle the poor trodden earth, which perdures immobile and green in many places at once in space."(13)

"For clarity or dimness, would I not have eyes then? Eyes without feeling, feeling without sight, ears without hands or sense at all to continue saying that the earth revolves to orbit the sun? What may this concoction of theoretical relativity mean, except to be a politic fool and revisit glimpses of the moon stupidly, and to continue saying that it goes the wrong way?

Have I made the wrong motion? Drunk the wrong potion?  Since when we lie, we make fools of nature and ourselves, heliocentrism and its fog of relativity could perhaps also be particle and wave of something creepy and rotten in Denmark. Yet with this game all the money is favored."

"To be or not to be? O my! O my! and in the U.S.A., it's money that matters whatever you do."

Whatever the gain may have been, he denied the honest answer, wandered through a career, and invented Special and General Relativity, and E =MC^2, to provide a line for absurdist escape. But if Einstein or Hamlet could be fit into a shell, so can the speed of light and a map of the earth from Egypt or the Red Sea.

For example, from Yerevan, Armenia (40*11'N, 44*31'00"E) to Constantinople (41*3'13N, 28*59'06"E) there is an estimated 820 miles. This length covers the distance of Asia Minor, as the crow flies, and is also equivalent to 15 degrees of longitude and one nautical hour. As the days pass, the hand of time that separates day from night, and light from darkness, has separated these two cities by an hour. An international dateline has added an extra hour to man-made clocks, but the 15 degrees of terrestrial distance is equivalent to one hour or 15 degrees of celestial longitude.

Since the sun cannot move away from itself and divides the day and night side of the earth from each other, from the high noon meridian, a question about the speed of light is also a question about the speed of rotation of a semi-circle within a given scale of dimension, where the high noon meridian is the primary line of longitude, from which 90' of East is divided from 90' of West, for the 180' of the daylight side of Earth.   

The equatorial circumference of the earth is an estimated 24,902 miles, with each 180' half section equivalent to 12,451 miles and twelve nautical hours. Since twelve is the number of hours given to any side for a day, each 15' of longitude is equivalent to an hour and 1037.58333 ... miles along the equator. Due to the overall uniform curvature of the earth, the estimated 820 geodetic miles from Yerevan, Armenia to Constantinople, from 40 North latitude, is less terrestrial distance than the parallel of the equator, yet the latitudes correspond in an equivalent scale of longitude and equal time to any other 15' and one hour: because the sun orbits the earth, of course, which is a sphere, and light is both particle and wavelength, and its property of illumination is immanent by nature, et cetera.

 

And the work of modernist heliocentrism has not been the work of Einstein alone, since he owed a start-up debt to the Fitzgerald-Lorentzian transformation equations and contraction hypothesis, regarding interferometer rods and clocks, for example. And he also owed a debt to Poincare for developing non-Euclidean theories of relativity, including that mass increased with velocity, which could contradict the theoretical contractions of rods and clocks, but not the dilation of time, etc.

Some have accused Einstein of plagiarising the formula e = mc^2 from Olinto De Pretto, an Italian industrialist from Vicenza; and the notion that the velocity of light was constant and independent of the motion of its source was not Einstein's first, but was proposed earlier by the Scottish scientist James Maxwell in 1878, in response to the aether drift experiments of Arago, Fizeau, and Airy, which showed that the Earth was not moving and, therefore, could not be orbiting the Sun. But in any case, e = mc^2 has become the most famous metaphor for multi-dimensional accounting in the heliocentric cosmology of time and space.

It has been said that the speed of light is the fastest velocity, and that it is also constant; yet right there in the formula they have squared it. How is that strangeness possible? How is a constant speed squared, and how is that the fastest or ultimate remaining "constant"? Would they or someone faster with better luck cube it one day perhaps? c^3 or more would not be possible, when c^2 already is? For a "constant" speed how to use an exponent? Obviously light is not really constant in terms of absolute velocity, if it is being raised by exponents.

If it goes up, maybe it goes down, like c^1/2 or c^1/3? If light is the fastest speed, are all speeds lightsome but less so? If all speeds are not light, and light is not infinite or the fastest speed in all cases, then what speeds are not lightsome, if for being less so, and what is the speed of dark?

If they do not know the speed of dark, and whether it would be constant too, how do they know such a number for the speed of light and a match, as 186,282 miles per second, and that it is constant? From the ways light and darkness interact, there is sometimes slow burn and fast burn, and it does not appear that the speed of dark is necessarily constant. The dark is recognized for context more by the light than by the darkness itself. So the speed of dark over light, as much as a fire in the woods at night, is not perfectly constant any more than light penetrates the dark for animation.

What is the speed of dark then, at least in terms of animation, and the square root of the ratio of energy to mass? When the square root of the ratio of energy to mass is considered first, what is the "1" hidden in quale quid in the denominator of c? If light has any carry or animation, and can be divided in space, there must be suitable light-carrying-media for it, in a plenum of at least one or more quanta. Since nothing is nothing, qua qua containing nothing ---- not even luminiferous aether --- and any vacuum is something, in existence at least for terms of space, not only nothing, since no two points in space can be separated by nothing, even for a vacuum: that vacuum that anybody would mean is qualified by what it lacks, not that it does not exist.

And things are a lot like what they are, and who would know the constant speed of light from when? From eternity or chaos, or when it was only dark? If eternity is chaos and chaos is eternal, then Einstein was certainly wrong and wasting his time about it, even if he was trying to make good sense. The more that he could possibly have been right, he would clearly still be wrong, although he was clearly illogical. What kind of light would the heliocentrics be talking about, and from where, when they say that they know how old the universe is by billions and billions of years, and that it has no center, as much as it would be totally homogeneous and isotropic, according to their math fumdiddles and miscalculations?

 

From the dawn of chaos?

 

It has been assumed that "the velocity of any medium-dependent wave is the square root of the medium’s elasticity divided by its density."(14) Since a generalized frequency of light's wavelength is given as 3 x 10^8 meters/sec average, for example, the "1" in the denominator of c in Einstein's formula must be something extensive and resilient, with high tensile strength, yet also very porous. And what is the constant velocity of that ... the fluxion or fluff of anything like aether, in the denominator, which would mediate or divide a wave moving at the speed of light?

 

According to heliocentrism, the speed of light is equivalent to "c" in the "vacuum" of Newton's "absolute space", somewhat, which is 11,176,920 miles per minute, and 670,615,200 miles per hour --- but between Yerevan and Constantinople there are only 820 miles or a little less. Going from east to west, with dawn's first light in Yerevan, it is still dark in Constantinople, which is an hour behind for morning. A question about the speed of light then is also a question about its magnification and distillation as sunlight, which is an essential property around the sphere of the earth by halves. Why is the speed of light so much like divisions of the twenty-four hour day, except that the Sun orbits the Earth? As the earth's atmosphere magnifies and scatters sunlight throughout the day, the velocity is an apparent distillation process, which is also slow for the hours, if not for the seconds.

 

The appearance can be as slow as reflections in a silver pocket watch or mirror fragments on a turtle's shell. Some species may average 26 cm in shell length, which is close to 30 cm and a foot. If a road was built from Yerevan to Constantinople, close enough for government work, with turtle shells placed in segments of one foot along the side, it would take about 5280 of them for a mile and 4,329,600 for the 820 miles.

The sun's light would cover this distance in one slow hour of a morning, as it moved through 15' of longitude. If a turtle going east from Armenia, with a little mirror and silver pocket watch taped to a photo t-shirt of Einstein on his shell, was riding in the back of a truck on the highway, traveling 60 or 70 miles an hour, he could keep up with the sun within one degree of longitude, 40 degrees North, for the morning. By that time the daylight would have also begun to reach Constantinople further to the east.

So goes some of the speed of light around the earth between different places, roads, and cities. Any turtle at the beach with a vanity shell can keep up with some part of the speed of light for an average of twelve hours a day, whether he would be riding in the back of a truck or not.

 

Investigations into the propagation and quality of light involve questions of amplitude and the distillation within various distributions of a given plenum. Not unnecessarily esoteric at all points, the evidence can follow simple questions of essential properties like transluscence, geometry and color. If the 820 miles and 4,329,600 turtle shells between Yeravan and Constantinople were made into a great pyramid of Asia Minor, for example, the altitude of it would overextend the international space station about 470 miles, with a height of 710.14 miles, and could be magnified further into a greater pyramid of the moon and the sun, et cetera. In round numbers, for its altitude to reach the sphere of the moon, it would be multiplied another 353 times, and to reach the sphere of the sun, the pyramid of the moon would only need to be multiplied about 19 times.

 

If thinking about so many turtle shells and the velocity it would take to reach the moon and the sun would be a headache, then just imagine one great tortoise corresponding to the altitude of each pyramid. It would only take a certain gigantic turtle for any one, and what would the speed of light and e = mc2 be in the context of three cosmic pyramids, one of Asia Minor, one of the moon, and one of the sun? Perhaps as fast as the gigantic cosmic tortoise that fits each one, and "c^2" for "carapace squared", and the light off a turtle's back.

If the whole sphere of the earth were a bump on a log, and day and night were represented by two turtles, one for the day and one for the night, one can see that the speed of light is also the equivalent speed of slowly turning shells.

Some may object and say there are no turtles this big; and it takes them too long to do anything, even if they are as big as the solar system. However, as with light and algebra, the matter is not only a question of size but also proper attribution of species. If 4,329,600 Fitzroy River turtles in a row between Yerevan and Constantinople are able to keep up with the propagation of light across Asia Minor every day, then one greater one that is the size of all the others combined will be able to as well.

 

If there were a shadowy actor, with a voice like Hesiod or Virgil, or blind Homer, to answer Einstein as Hamlet in a school play, maybe he would say:

"O thou procrastinating fool, thou jackass, when the hours have gathered and are as still as it could be anywhere else on earth, come see thy reflection of goofball solemnity ... of universal equivalence and indifference. If the sun floods its banks and falls across shadows, and the clouds change their hue of light, as the wind blows through a forest of trees, a heavy stone would not fall from a cart by the road, even for a widget of Newtonian 'gravity'.

 

None of what passes and returns, folding up the world from evening to evening, with some mysterious embrace, is because of Newtonian 'gravity', any more than the greatest silence that could be borne across the whole earth.

 

If the greatest silence carried across the whole earth, as fast and present as the speed of light, it would not be because the invalid weakness of Newtonian 'gravitation' had anything to do with it, or would have an effect in the quiet --- by any chime of the inverse squared --- much less have any practical extension in physics. Gravity does not break the silence or ripen a sour lemon.

 

If by the dusty road home one day, by some turn or crook in the shadow of a tree, if a heavy stone should fall towards your poor feet, from a cart, where it is so still, so quiet and still, that the air would seem to leap with the slightest breeze, it would not be because of a widget of Newtonian 'gravity', or your confounded theories of 'relativity' and 'acceleration'. Whatever the cause of motion, hidden agency or not, it would be from something else mixed in with the foil of elements, in quale quid, as they are themselves, you jackass."

Admiror, paries, te non cecidisse ruinis
cum tot scriptorum taedia sustinea 

I marvel, wall, that you have not fallen in ruins
since you hold up the tedious writings of so many authors

graffito from Pompeii


 

 VI

 

Einstein's system is a patchwork of confusion and graffiti, where "the anomalies and contradictions in Relativity are endless"(1). Devised to hide the simple fact that the sun orbits the earth, and the earth, ipse tellecor immotus, is not moving, Galileo's tricknological ideas of invariance in relative inertial frames of reference, from three centuries earlier, and his false law of falling bodies and the pendulum, had been the same for the same purpose. The notions of "equivalence" and "co-variance" and the constant speed of light in Einstein's theories ran parallel to Galileo's and Newton's suppositions of universal gravitation and perpetual horizontal motion.

 

In the world of Copernican denial and "scientific" materialism, or that part of oblivion, Einstein added E=mc2 with a poetic touch like Haiku: for cicada shells, twisted and teeming in nonsensical dreams, that sang themselves utterly away.

 

E=mc2, a cicada shell

A cicada shell;
it sang itself
utterly away. (2)

 

Einstein's work at the root says that all motion is only relative to this or that and the other, and to where an observer is when something is in motion, and that nothing in the whole universe is standing still. "In the dazzling world of relativity, ordinary time and space are replaced by baffling effects at odds with common sense"(3), but the disorientation should not be blamed on Einstein alone. It is a dizzying spell supported by a chorus from the official scientific community. As one of Einstein's critics, N.M. Gwynne, observed:

"... Einstein's works can be searched from beginning to end without revealing a single original thought of real importance.

Curved space, for instance, was thought of by Riemann ... the new concept of space-time by Minkowski; the doctrine that objects contract in proportion to the speed in which they moved, by Fitzgerald; and the idea that the velocity of light in a vaccum was constant ... by Lorentz.

Did he first assert the impossibility of detecting the velocity of the earth through the aether? No, this was done J.H. Poincare and H.A. Lorentz ... Did Einstein coin the name of the Principle of Relativity? No. Poncare did ... Einstein was not the first to assert that a clock in motion runs slow. This was done by Sir Joseph Larmor ... Einstein was not the first to asset that matter is crinckles in curved space. Professor W.K. Clifford advanced this quaint notion in 1870, nine years before Einstein's birth ..."(4)

 

"Did Einstein invent the famous equation E=mc2 which has become almost synonymous with his name? No, not even that. In 1881 J.J. Thompson had produced a formula, E=3/4Mc2 ..." not to mention the similar work of Olinto de Pretto and James Maxwell.(5)

 

In short, Gwynne's investigations led him to conclude that Einstein's "work was a hodgepodge of plagiarizations which were in total not only defective in logic but also so full of internal error that, as Lynch, Dingle, and Essen showed, any mathematician brave enough to investigate them critically cannot fail to destroy them. And let me repeat he plagiarized. His contributions to thought were not only childish; they were not even his."(6)

 

The whole purpose of relativity had been to save the Copernican assumption as a valid option in spite of the mountains of scientific and logical facts arrayed against it. Loaded with mathematical smoke screens and double-talk, the premise that everything is in motion naturally concludes also that the earth spins many different speeds at once to orbit the sun.

 

According to the philosophy, all things are only subjective and relative, and there is not anything objectively authentic or simple or transcendent such as truth. Pilate asked Jesus, "Quid est veritas"? What is truth?

Sometimes it may be difficult to say, and the communist state instructed Winston in "1984" that "2 and 2 are 5!" So in these conditions of doublespeak, it is useless to acknowledge the every-day stationary quality of the earth, even if it is self-evident to all.

 

If no one can be certain of simple authenticity, or of any rest or motion in things, how can anyone be certain of any positive direction? Thus it is useless to acknowledge the daily motion of the sun and the moon from east to west around the earth, against the background of distant stars, which are also circling the earth from east to west every day.

And Sisyphus used to push the great rock up the mountain, but could not make it rest at the summit, where the weight of the evidence could not be contained, and would watch it roll back down again and again. But how is it positive that such a motion or affliction is not both of the different opposite ways at once, or many different one's simultaneously, if it is not even clear whether it is moving in the first place? What ever could be said or recorded of a motion, "vis in moto" versus "vis in situ circumsidentis", if there is no objective authenticity at any level of experience? With only subjective and relativistic perceptions, how can anyone be sure of any given direction or results from reality?

 

If everything in the world is only a matter of opinion, or philosophical preference, what about all the lies and the easy ways to undermine and mislead the deaf, dumb, and blind? "Quid est veritas"? Pilate asked, as if pretending to be blind.

Some people may lie about generalities or details for whatever good reasons, comme ci, comme ca; and many may become proficient at it. SInce if doublespeak wins, no harm can be done, that would also be "good" for Einstein as a tennis umpire.

 

A shot could be either way of any direction, or all at once for total confusion, depending only from where the observer is viewing the progress. So John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors should settle down. After all, the Earth is not moving. But who would be fair to call a line in close circumstances of "relativity"? Who would be honest and best, if it is only relative to the observer? A deceiver and a fool, or someone only with bad eyes who would be equal to the best judge of sight?

"Do not worry about your problems with mathematics" an observer said. "I assure you mine are far greater. Mathematics are well and good but nature keeps dragging us around by the nose."(7)

 

Yet if there is no central and objective criteria to make anything certain, and everything is only changeable and relativistic ... and there is no truth, is that true? There is no truth, yet, plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.

 

If it is true, then it must be false. Yet the human mind remains subject to fantastic ideas and fantasy; and in many instances may lose its natural sense of grace and reality.

 

As Einstein wrote to a friend who had suggested that there seemed to be some connection between mathematics and fiction in modernist science and heliocentrism: "There may be something in what you say. When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge".(8)

VII

 

"Since, therefore, no man is born without faults, and he is esteemed the best whose errors are the least, let the wise man consider everything human as connected with himself; for in worldly affairs there is no perfect happiness under heaven."

Giraldus Cambrensis

 

 

In 1904, 17 years after the Michelson-Morley tests at Case University, Jules Henri Poincare gave a speech at Paris which dealt "with the contemporary crisis in physics", that had been created by the failure of every aether drift and light beam experiment to detect any evidence of motion of the earth. There had been sophisticated tests not only in America but also Cambridge, Berlin, Leiden, and Paris, and, as it turned out, none of these places was catching any spin or gravitational attraction from the sun at all. Poincare's speech was an indication of the unrest into which the scientific community had fallen, caused by the creeping advance against them of common sense and reality. Therefore, veiled by discussions of interferential refractometers, interferometers, and various papers of abstract scientific materialist arcana, simple words failed to express the quandary adequately.

Into this peculiar breach stepped Einstein, like "E=MC^2" tremolo, perhaps an oracle or "a sucker for pain", with a pawn shopped bag of paradoxes and confusing theories of relativity. "For sure and certain the Copernicans had to retain the two ideas that the Earth was moving through space with an astronomical velocity, and that the atmospheric envelope surrounding it was moving with it at the same speed without being disturbed"; but it had become scientifically evident through all painstaking investigations that the aether was not being carried along with the earth at all. The scientific materialist community, therefore, imagined that the "explanation must surely lie in some perverse feature of the physical world, which scientists had not suspected."(1)

The radical step that Einstein proposed to save appearances was simply to abolish out of hand the aether. However, sometimes it may be easier to say that there should be no fear of the dark than to know what is really there in it, or for what percentage from the substance of other realms. To say that the aether did not exist at all was a form of banishment, "equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism," which were well founded at the time.(2) It was a difficulty for the scientific community, one way or the other, and like starting everything over again from some unknown begining. The Einstein solution at first did not seem feasible, because even to reinvent the wheel it is impossible for two points in space to be separated by nothing; but the answers kept coming back in vacuo, empty and strange as they could be, and would turn the key to unlock relativity's later success.

 

His far ranging theories of equivalence and co-variance, and metaphors of trains, planes, and automobiles and oblivion could be as exaggerated as slapstick. "When you come to the fork in the road, take it", Yogi Berra would say; yet if it is human to err, "errare humanum est", perhaps "nothing is more intolerable than to have to admit to yourself your own errors".

 

And not so far removed from the uneasy grip in the world of relativity follow other absurdities, like faulty reasoning, false analogies, ridiculous substitutions and allusions, and concealments. The technique of the act in the joke helps create the stage, and for physical comedy and the heliocentric insistence of motion, et cetera, Einstein used a tricky method of literary allusion. To compare acceleration to gravity, for one equivalence of the same difference, was as much an assertion for poetics as for the scientific endeavor. If Albert was a poet and he did not know it, the cognitive sense people may get of equivalence through metaphors, such as "as" and "like" and "equals", may go from one end of the universe to the other.  

 

Adapting Galileo's false law of falling bodies, and false theoretical formula of universal gravitation, for illustration Einstein would say that a passenger in outer space, like Ed Grimley in an elevator, in the twilight zone, accelerating at 32 feet per second squared, feels the same pulling forces as gravity exerts on the occupant of an elevator at rest on earth. But when a passenger on a roller coaster throws up, all other things being equal, it was not because he did not take the ride, and gravity does not cause acceleration any more than fire climbs up a matchstick. Overall the weight of objects brings them to rest, and some composure, and people experience motion sickness and dizziness from present acceleration not gravity, as acceleration comes from forces of impetus and momentum

Einstein's use of allusion is evident in the concepts, since according to him everything is equivalent, and everything is in motion. In theoretical relativity, motion is a sign signed over again for all by an additional larger referent in the special equation E=mc^2. The mathematics and talk shop involved become a parody or pastische, if not an absurdist allusion, for the sake of appearances in Copernican cosmology. The larger referent is maintained in whatever way possible to fill the void and say that the earth orbits the sun.

"The literary allusion is a device for the simultaneous activation of two texts. The activation is achieved through the manipulation of a special signal: a sign (simple or complex) in a given text characterized by an additional larger referent. This referent is always an independent text. The simultaneous activation of the two texts thus connected results in the formation of intertextual patterns whose nature cannot be predetermined ... the free nature of the intertextual patterns is the feature by which it would be possible to distinguish between the literary allusion and other closely related text-linking devices, such as parody and pastische."(3)

Einstein found "physics full of propositions about simultaneity or non-simultaneity of events; he finds these concepts playing a decisive role in interpretations of the Michelson-Morley and other experiments; and his special originality as a physicist is that, at a crucial point in the history of science, he suddenly begins to behave like a philosopher" ... and turns to the analysis of fundamental concepts, raisinig the prior question: what do we or can we really mean when we predicate the attribute simultaneity of two or more events? What, in other words, is the meaning of meaning and the expression "is"?

Einstein himself said that his Special Theory was based on a "free-will definition of simultaneity", and admitted that his definition was  ... "purely arbitrary ... unobservable and unverifiable" ...

Questions of chronology never confused people so much until Einstein, and three illustrations he used involved time, to avoid the real difficulties of cause and effect and simultaneity. One had to do with twins, and another with a train station observer, and then another with clocks, which Herbert Dingle summarized this way:

"According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A - which it requires no super- intelligence to see is impossible.

Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false."(4)

Einstein would say that two synchronized clocks on two different trains will work at different rates, because of the separate relative motions of the trains, so that one is ahead of the other. Due to everything being relative noninertial frames of reference, the clocks on the trains will work at different rates from the clock at the station also, which is in motion too, as much as the station is; but in the comedy of relativity it sometimes becomes unclear which is which, and who is on first, what is on second, and which clock of the three should be ahead. After all, the Earth does fly faster than trains, if for an astronomical velocity. 

If at times scientific reality may seem artificial or evasive, an old and useful rule for corrections is that when explaining a question and answer, it is better to clarify rather than confuse. Therefore, words are to be understood so the subject may be more effective than wasted, verba ita sunt intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat. And the relativist confusion about clocks would simplify even for a game of musical chairs, where it should better be forgotten that the measures of a score are the same wherever they go.

The time in the poem or the song remains the same, within the beat and rhythm, even within the octave. A musical bar signature is the same number of beats per measure wherever it roams in the world of relativity and numbers. If any atomic clocks can keep time only as well as a dozen perfect drummers drumming, not missing a beat, the minutes of the hours will not vary from an original metric due to relative background motions or their own transporation.

 

If a few people count together like a drum, "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi", etc., as perfectly as a metronome, the count can be kept together like a crystalline sphere, of cardinal numbers in the air, if they were so perfect. The counting numbers paced with an equal measure between them would tie together as well whether any of the mathematicians or musicians using them would be riding trains, planes, or automobiles, or staying in their original places, or moving in and out of the dark, "de profundis".

"Ad astra est modus in rebus", from the depths to the stars there is objective measure in things, and Einstein's trouble about the clocks is too much juvenile nonsense for real science. Yet the role of the observer figures so prominently in expositions of Einstein's thought experiments, because he is "falsely identified with a co-ordinate system" that is abstractly and arbitrarily said to be in this or that "state of motion".(5) Where "it is an essential feature of the theory of relativity that either of the two observers (one on a train going 60 mph and one in the station) has the same right as the other to say that he is at rest and the other is moving ..."(6) 

To say that train stations are moving as well as the trains is an observable contradiction, yet one that would follow naturally enough from the absurdities of Galileo's theory of the detectable undetecable and unaccelerated motion of the earth. 

A cartoon in a British newspaper summed it up, where a passenger on a train whizzing through a station calls out to the platform:

"Hi, guard, does Manchester stop at this train"?

 

Another Einstein paradox was of the twins, where one flies on a journey through outer space almost or just about at the speed of light, and the other stays home on earth. They were 20 years old when one took off in a ship, traveled one year out, and then turned around and came back. The astronaut twin was 22 years old when he returned to earth, but in the meantime 200 years had passed on earth, and the stay-at-home twin had died long ago and been buried. Something strange was in the confusion about light years and the hundreds' place between them.

The interval was not the interval was not the interval, but according to relativity it would be just as true to say that the earth had moved away from the spaceship, as it would be to say that the spaceship had moved away from the earth. Therefore, in relativity theory, it is "just as true to say that the earth, therewith the homebound twin Peter, has been moving away from Paul the astronaut, as to say that Paul has been moving away from Peter."(7)

So the strange event could as well be the reverse in either case. When the ship comes home, Paul the astronaut could be dead and bones at the wheel, and Peter the earthman still alive and only 22, or as in the preferred first example Peter from earth could be dead, and Paul from space alive and envigorated by the stars. That is to say, Paul simultaneously could "be both dead and alive", and Peter simultaneously could "be both dead and alive", when Paul arrives home.(8)

 

“The greater part of the world's troubles are due to questions of grammar,”, much less time and space, and in 1918 Einstein attempted a resolution of the twins and clocks paradoxes by invoking a principle of co-variance. Not far different from hypnosis and old-school Galilean invariance from years before, the doctrine of co-variance became "the conceptual heart of his General Theory ... the interesting application of this principle is the alleged equivalence of gravitation and acceleration --- Einstein's principle of equivalence."(9)

"What this [Einstein's principle of equivalence] comes to in the present case [the twin paradox] is this: the jolt you may experience in falling flat on your face is explainable not only in the conventional way, but alternatively by supposing that the earth, along with the universe, has suddenly flown up and bumped you on the head ..."(10)

However, Einstein's "assumptions cannot be justified in a purely logical way", and the principle of equivalence running as the thread throughout the theory "is not an observable truth: rather it is a purely arbitrary and desperate assumption ..."(11)

 

Shrinking rods were another of Einstein's far-out thought experiments, involving "the theory that a rod traveling through space will become shorter as it approaches the speed of light and would actually disappear if it reaches that speed." Here, Einstein was merely following Fitzgerald, who had hit upon the idea while trying to skirt around the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Since the results of Michelson-Morley and all light beam and aether drift tests had shown that the Earth is not rotating or moving, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare, et al., and Einstein attempted to side-step the unthinkable conclusion that the earth was not a spinning ball of wax under the Sun. As part of the desperate search for another way to explain how light behaves around the earth, which apparently is not in motion, Fitzgerald decided that every material object, when moving through "absolute space", must thereby become shorter in the forward direction of its movement, even if imperceptibly. That would include conveniently the arms of the interferential refractometer of Michelson-Morley, of course, and explain a light beam's general indifference of direction in terms of velocity of reflection and emission.

 

Referring back to Fitzgerald, Einstein simplified "every material object" to rods and used more abstruse mathematical arcana to sell the idea again, including the principle of contraction due to forward motion "in his equations just as if it were as real as 1 + 1 = 2."(12) Of course, there is not much for legitimate science in such desperately abstract and logic-defying formulas, except as science would be better served by the most ridiculous ideas. The rules and terms in relativity were fabricated out of thin air only to avoid the unthinkable stationary earth. And "neither Einstein nor anybody else can know anything about the physical meaning of all these formulae. They are all mathematical constructions without known physical meaning."(13)

 

Therefore, not only is the rotation of the Earth undetectable, so is reality; and many people who study relativity may feel a natural and convincing tendency to become logically bewildered. They may experience a confusing loss of confidence in their ability to reason, as they momentarily slip into the portal of scientific materialist math fummdiddles, where clear thinking fuddles the noggin away ... slip sliding away ...

Daydreams after all, but which is more logical?

 

"A) mathematically conceived rods that shorten and disappear with increased speed?

or

B) real rods that are not affected by speed?

and

A) train stations that move?

or

B) trains that move?"(14)

 

 

The assumption that everything is in motion and nothing at rest would also mean that everything changes and nothing remains the same. All natural motion is change of some kind, and all change involves some sort of motion, but most people will admit that some things never change, at least as much as any extremes cannot exist without a middle. As quantity has no contrary, motion does not have an opposite in less or more but in not-motion.

 

"The old commonplaces of philosophy [are] the same from the beginning of time ... always the same, always the same, from the beginning of time, and never any other."(15) For "truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress."

 

 

Math and logic do not change, of course, for the correct answer or the wrong one. As much as simple entity is absolute, the development of ontological necessity and forced moves in chess, and mathematics consist of many necessary and logical truths, like the congruent angles and sides in whatever size triangles. It is in the relation and interdependence of particular truths that the formal natue of mathematics is evident. "Numbers are the universal language offered by the Deity to humans as confirmation of the truth",(16) and assets always equal liabilities plus equity.

 

Fiat justitia et pereat mundus, justice be done and let the world perish by an algebra book. If the heavens fall, it is fairly obvious that 4 + 4 = 8, for north and south, east and west, on one side of the Earth and the other; and d = rt and pi = C/d at all times and places, everywhere for all further constructions, et cetera. The truth is the canon that is not merely coincidental or accidental with things that give evidence of it. The truth is essential and transcendent in a unique way, even another order of excellence and sufficiency away from all the material and ephemeral things that coincide with it in virtue of scientific facts. 

 

To help resolve some of the riddle of heliocentrism, therefore, it helps to look not only at the separation of gravity and light, but also at the different spheres of the potential and the actual, of the infinite and the finite. Between the indivisible and the divisible, the infinite and the finite, is the greatest division; and of the indivisible and the infinite there is only one proper kind per se, the actual one; and then another experience follows that is spoken of by analogy, the potential.

 

Zeno the fool had another paradox that one day a man discovered that he could not leave his room. To reach the door, he had first to walk half of the way to halfway across the room. There was half of that, and other many parts before he would even reach the middle, towards the center; and after that he had to walk half of the remaining division, and then half of that, and half of the lesser half, before he could even reach the door. He discovered, as he tried to leave the room, that there were infinitely many of these littler halfway points to cross, so that he could not even reach the means for the extremes and all of the divisions, except for some little part --- and he realized no one can perform infintely many acts in such little time, so he decided to stay in. It seemed like he would be stuck in his room forever, and he could not run or jump fast enough to get out.

 

It was not even a problem with the rug or the floor, for between any two marks there must be a third, and also a window and hall of projection. If there are two separate measures, some other space must separate them at least for an amount, as much as between any two numbers, there must be another. There is no contact among numbers, only succession, and the third from betwixt or between must be a distinction from the other two, as much any fraction exists, and since there must be a further separation whenever one separation is present, because one separtion cannot cover all of the space involved, the number of separations is endless. This would mean that time and space are infinite, even more than too many channels on TV, and a man can never leave his room.

 

Since he knew, however, that he could leave his room, and Achilles could outrun a tortoise, Aristotle solved Zeno's riddles by drawing a simple line of distinction between actual and potential infinity, which are on very different terms.

As much as TV is reality or equivalence, in Physics Book VI, Chapter 2, he wrote that "Zeno's argument makes a false assumption in asserting that it is impossible for a thing to pass over or severally to come in contact with infinite things in a finite time. For there are two senses in which length and time and generally anything continuous are called 'infinite': they are called so either in respect of divisibilty or in respect of their extremities. So while a thing in a finite time cannot come in contact with things quantitatively infinite, it can come in contact with things infinite in respect of divisibility."

As regards motion and a world between extremities, although what is continuous may contain an infinite number of halves, "they are not actual but potential halves. Therefore, to the question whether it is possible to pass through an infinite number of units, either of time or of distance, we must reply that in a sense it is and in a sense it is not. If the units are actual, it is not possible: if they are potential, it is possible."

The passage described by finite motions over that which is only potentially infinite by continuous divisibility can occupy a finite time in actuality, as it remains true that finite actions cannot equal infinity. Furthermore, for the lights of Einstein and Zeno, the infinite is unknown except by abstract analogy, "because only to the extent that something is in act is it knowable."(17) Therefore, E=MC^2 and the theory of relativity are not something that Einstein or natural science can know actually for a fact, because the basis of the instruction appears unqualified by infinity. The formula for the picture is on the scale of an indeterminate supreme genus, and the implication  is on the magnitude of an unbounded plane, intuentes abyssos, looking into the abyss.

 

And for "E", what kind of energy? "M" is implied of what substance and form of mass? The presence and velocity of light would be absolutely constant, yet it multiplies to the square for acceleration? 

 

Passage over actual infinity "cannot occupy a finite time, and the passage over the finite cannot occupy an infinite time: if the time is infinite the magnitude must be infinite also, and if the magnitude is infinite, so also is the time," and if the speed of light were constant, it would not be in the grain for natural acceleration.(18) Einstein should have just written, "infinity = infinity", for the sake of the magnitude, and left the whole world of physics at that. 

 


They say this and that and these and those have been important in every age; and infinity = infinity, but such an actuality is not balanced in the extremities with what is only potentially so by innumerability of division.

Like Zeno shooting an arrow or chasing rabbits, the distinction between the two can be expressed at the level of grammar, for paradox as well as metaphysics, to lessen the problem of explaining why the potentially infinite cannot become the actual infinite. And there the difference between them serving for pronouns is enough, so that if something were actually infinite, it never would be potentially so, but always already was, and had to be with total necessity from the beginning as well as the end. 

Peter of Spain was a 13th century logician who tried to find a way of distinguishing two ways of parsing sentences with the word "infinite", without directly using Aristotle's distinction between the potential and the actual. Under one interpretation, for example, he would say that "the number of dead men is infinite" should mean that for every natural number n, there is a stage of history at which the number of dead men is greater than n. Under a second reading, "the number of dead men is infinite" should mean that there is a stage of history such that for every natural number n, the number of dead men is previously greater than n. 

It may not seem to make much difference either way, since the number of dead men cannot be infinite, or pre-existent, but Peter suggested that paradoxes of infinity could be conjugated away by choosing the simplest grammar.(19) Yet if “n” were infinite and the number of dead men would not be greater than “n”, for only one, two, or three steps away, it would be absurd, to be separated from infinity by only one, two, or three steps of a dead man. Or if the dead men were only as great as infinity in the completion of nothing, but not more than "n", then the number of them would have been impossible to count more than zero. That far … from the first to the last, yet infinity never ends. Actual infinity perhaps would be named more properly complete infinity, whereas potential infinities are not so complete but divided and, therefore, could never become an actual infinity, properly speaking. 

The predicaments of Michelson-Morley, and the apparently authentic immobility of the earth, were a headache, and would perhaps suggest another paradox: can an artifact or a headache, or whatever the difference may be, survive complete replacement of its parts? If every aspirin in a bottle has been replaced by a different aspirin, is it still the same bottle, as much as there is a bottle of aspirin and not a bottle of air?

The ancients had asked a similar question about the ship of Theseus. Plutarch wrote that "the ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete, where Theseus had slain the Minotaur] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question as to things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending it was not the same."

To answer the question, Aristotle taught that there are four aspects to describe nature: the formal, material, efficient, and final, which are the reasonable causes and ends of things like the ship of Theseus and museums. If an object can remain itself only formally, then to what end and how? If there is only a formal identity of conveyance, could the ship of Theseus remain itself forever, even if all the original materials had been completely replaced?

If the attributes are the same, some say yes, but some still say no. But for those who would say yes, would the ship of Theseus then be infinite in some sense for the form of it? If it could seem to go on forever formally, and E=MC^2 was painted on the starboard or port, would that help substantiate the argument of formal permanence in the ship of Theseus or undermine it? Details painted or carved in the wood may be difficult to replace exactly as they were the first time. As the fitted planks on which E=MC^2 would be painted wear out with the years, and are replaced in perpetuity, what does the labor involved say about Einstein's famous equation and theory of heliocentric relativity in terms of timber?

Scientific materialism teaches that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed", without admitting that it is only an argumentative statement of a philosophical preference. Except for nonsense, it is not logically correct, as much as it is not clear which energy woul be in the definition of the form, if not the matter, or the end: something only natural, or preternatural, or perhaps supernatural?

In terms of natural science, it is obvious to common sense that energy and matter can be destroyed and burned away, as much as things grow and change, so the so-called Law of Conservation of Energy and E=MC^2 are not really valid, except as purely formal arguments in favor of an unsound philosophical preference. These sayings are not considered within the order of real material efficiency and applied science, but hide metaphysics and paradox, in the realm of philosophical preference, yet pretend that they are only conducting natural empirical science with objective facts.

 

It is not the material fact in the question but only the view from inside their head, like Kant and Nietzsche, who do not know what the thing is in itself, except for an opinion. It is like saying Theseus's original ship can suffer complete replacement of all its parts and still be Theseus's ship, but that was not the ship on which he set sail. 

 

If E=MC^2 cannot endure materially, as an efficiency for a label, any better than the false Law of Conservation of Energy, or the ship of Theseus burned up and gone away with the wind, what about the formal and teleological significance?

A game of formal predication and philosophical preference can be far ranging, of course, and some minds can become as lost in the cosmos as they want. If a boat in a museum, that has not one of the original parts of the ship of Theseus, is still called Theseus's ship, only because it has the same design and scale from a memory, what about the ship of Theseus on paper? And from paper to canvas, a painting that would represent the same boat, true to form, would be the ship of Theseus also?

Theseus killed the Minotaur in a painting or real life?

In virtue of the true similitude of pure form, some people could say so, as here and there would make the same difference, but everybody still knows it is not actually the ship of Theseus in a drawing, but only a representation, and that the original one has been lost to time.

So what are the implications of E=MC^2 and the "Law of Conservation of Energy" other than as a tautology of the central scientific materialist premise at work in disguise: that the Sun does not orbit the earth? What sort of premise for things are they other than as a negative formality vis-a-vis geocentricity?

The only practical purpose of E=MC^2 is to support a negative premise and subtle fallacy to confuse the facts against geocentricity. That is its way of equivalency, and it all goes back to Copernicus and Aristarchus of Samos, who were both wrong and without any reasonable scientific proof to begin. 

Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Less distantly, if all is the same, as the same is for all, it can be inferred logically that there is only one thing from the premise in concepts which employ negations where they do not then apply to anything. Since the theoretical concepts of Einstein are all based on the premsie that the earth orbits the sun, which constitutes the negation of geocentricity, if the premise that the earth orbits the sun is incorrect and removed, then E=MC^2 and the theory of relativity do not apply to anything, except science fiction and fantasy.

As stories go, why should it not be of interest, as much as the speed of light, that if one discovers that, in fact, the earth is immobile and does not orbit the sun, then he also corroborates what occurs from all other points: and that it does not orbit anything else? Not clouds or the full moon in Scotland, or Jupiter, Saturn, or Aldebaran, not one for more than another. 

 

 

 VIII

 

Three Card Monte is like relativity, where they always talk about a "vacuum", but a complete or perfect vacuum as they would mean is not really obtainable, any more than the prize from the wrong shell. Since there are no two points in space that can be separated by nothing, what there is of space must be quantitized, and free space always has some geometric structure.(1)

"Space is not a complete vacuum"(2), not without continuity of a plenum; and there is room for more fools than Einstein. Suckers for pain are many, at least for a little time and interpretation of a type. As they say in proverbs, "he shall lose the game without instruction, and in the greatness of smoking folly his wallet shall go astray." Whatever vacuum or void they may talk about is qualified by what it lacks as well as being wherever it is in the first place. And at least for an empty bag, there is what it contained and does not contain in three inevitable dimensions.

Space is a great composite in three's. Mixed in with many sorts, quotients and directions are everywhere, and a great cloud of wintesses, and there simply is not an absolutely unqualified vacuum in existence. As King Lear answered the fool, abyssus abyssum invocat, "why, no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing. This is nothing," even for the edge of a cliff over the depths of the abyss. And the circle of the abyss is not nothing, so laws governing a so-called absolute vacuum for Einstein are impossible, because in that case there is nothing for the law to be about. 


Any vacuum for proof of a theory of relativity will be qualified by predication and locus of some sort. Some words or sense of usage and a mass of air, or aether, or something most subtle yet indifferent must avail, for at least the most obscure presence and volume of space. When all the common interrogatives in predication of some sort come to it at once, the emptiness may seem stragne; but the old horror vacui is nothing to analyze or discuss without actual prepositions of relation, ens inquantum ens, which means being at least as much as being, as there would be a vacuum, or a sign, or any possible light, otherwise there would be no way to test it and know anything about it.

Nowhere and in the dark, being qua being, qua pro quo --- qua qua quo quo --- there is not any sort of when, what, how, so, why, or of, with, and to in nothing. Nothing is nothing, and where it really is nothing, it is not even there in between the edge and the cliff, for the least void of a void and its perfect vacuum, for any real scientific purpose, as they would use the unqualified term "in vacuo" in relativity.

An assessment of nothing will be critical of nothing, as nothing causes nothing, and it is impossible to think or talk about what absolutely does not exist more than it is impossible to know an infinite number of things. "The infinite as infinite is unknowable" and absolute nothingness is even more so.(3) As much as a waste land cannot be produced by itself, it cannot follow from nothing, or be nothing, for "nothing ever makes itself or begets itself."(4)

No effect can produce itself or be produced by nothing at all. Therefore, even a perfect vacuum always indicates at least something else, since the greatest vacuity is at least for a sign of negative relation. Nothing that is so empty that it could not be more empty can have not and have not without some immanence of not-having and also an existent causeWhat there is instead is a plenum and an always of some sort. Something immanent as the simplest form of substance exists, even before and above the mind of a Buddhist monk in a luxury car commercial.

 

If there is not the first payment, there are not the others that follow. "To travel hopefully is a better thing than to arrive, and the true success is to labor"(5), so some may prefer to lease. And nothing that is empty of care even like the Buddha can have not and have not without the first essential terms of its own adherence to begin. The speed of light then is always for context and that for a plenum. "For the spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and he who contains all things, retains knowledge of every voice."(6) 

Even a dry fool, when he hears of a most simple state of being, quodammodo omnissimis, than which nothing more simple can be conceived, understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his understanding. And assuredly that, than which nothing more simple can be conceived, cannot exist in the understanding of complications alone. For suppose simplicity would exist in the understanding of complications alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality, which as a generality is yet more simple than only complications. Therefore, if sometimes a little complicated, if that, than which nothing more simple can be conceived, exists in the understanding of complications alone, the very most excellent simplicity, than which nothing more simple can be conceived, is one, than which a greater simplification can be conceived. But obviously this is too complicated and impossible for reason.

Hence, there is no doubt that there exists a way or a state of being, if not an entity, than which nothing more simple can be conceived, and the greatest simplicity, therefore, exists both in understanding and in reality.

However, if the dead would bury themselves, for fewer complications, would the school of scientific materialism propose to know the speed of dark too, or the square root of the ratio of mass to energy, for any convenience, since they claim to know the constant speed of light, at such a high speed and within so many decimal points?

If by dreams they envision an absolutely constant speed of light, and that the motion of light is independent of change in its source, what would be the constant rate of acuity of water in the eyeball, and of common sense for a strong pinch to wake up? Why have they not been able to verify a constant speed of water or air, for example, or velocity of the dark in a mote and the secret in the dirt, if they presume to verify a constant speed of light?

Water can fill a vast space and be quite heavy in bulk, yet divisible into many light drops. How much heavier are the oceans together than a light drop of rain or fine sea spray? If the bulk of the world's oceans had fallen frozen in one concentration on Galileo's head, instead of a mist, would he still have taught the same nonsense about falling bodies and universal gravitation?

If it is not instantaneous, and, therefore, also faster than the constant speed of light, how would the force of gravitation be universal? How would the speed of light be constant, and independent of the motion of its source, if it is divisible from many points, and somewhat affected if not obstructed by gravity, which does not move anything? If all points of motion are not light, what about all the invisible changes in the dark? Things thrown into obscurity, many times totally without light, may also go as fast as the speed of light, and the same speed as before, when they are set on fire. If it can be observed that many lights do not last long enough, or go far enough, to keep up with Einstein, and if motion itself is not constant, how could light be constant when it is in motion?

How would natural measurements of the speed of light be independent of the mutability of human perception? Without the right prescription for coke-bottle glasses, someone with really bad eyes could measure the speed of light for clouds but not as well as hawks. What is the constant speed of light around the heavy and strange edges of storm clouds, when the weather is volatile and the darkness of a strange quarter moon is closing in?

 

When there is great darkness over the vast face of the deep, where did the constant velocity of light go? What is more and remains ahead of knowledge, which requires at least a little light, even if it is slow?

If an obscurity is not traveling faster than light, how much slower is it, if the velocity of light is absolutely constant, which should mean something indivisible? Memory comes before knowledge and research may improve if researchers remember their motives. A falcon traveling the speed of light cannot catch up to a particle of light ahead of it in a stream, supposedly, but only fall behind, but by what quantity of how much less is something finite and divisible than the infinite and the indivisible, to which it would be compared?

Before and after the speed of light, imagine the least common denominator of "is", irreducible in the most simple and aethereal form of "to be". For instance, there is not any void without some place, somewhere at least extensive for it to be the empty void of an abyss: since a vacuum in space may be called when of where, even when there is no sign. There is never any where without some type of when, and even forever is a kind of supreme when.


For every this or that, a circle of equal causes is also impossible, where forms are not merely outlines, since they represent an invisible necessity of logic between being and becoming. As much as the mathematical necessity for simplicity, there is no space, place, time, or motion or way into nihilism without involving an existential question of the most simple being.

As there would at least be this way or that way, and the one from before, a circle of equal causes is indeed impossible, unless for a fallacy of circular argument; and any effect like a vacuum, therefore, must be produced by something else; there must be a simple form to have or have not, and an infinite regression of causes leading to empty space is also impossible. So every vacuum is only codependent for lack of elements and for the imperfect possession of not having whatever it is that it is missing; and no vacuum is ever completely and absolutely empty, being dependent at least in cause and effect, and being only an ontological deprivation, even before light.

Therefore, to begin, light and the speed of light cannot accelerate or burn away from somethng in an absolute void or vacuum. To speak of the speed of light as "constant in a vacuum" is formally naive. If a given vacuity would possess "C", as light passes, for it not to be in the dark, already it is twice not empty. Wherever there is light is also place for it, and such places must have already been, ens inquantum ens, and contained something formal of being itself, for any illumination to occur, because light does not create dark places or corners. It only illuminates them.

Where the lights go out, the logic of space pre-existent in geometry and the way of being itself are from before light. It goes without saying that numbers in the dark are still the same numbers. They have the same identity. And there is never a one without at least also the sides. As they say, a good definition for a shin is an instrument for finding furniture in the dark, and expatiation always remains the same in the dark as in the light.

There may or may not be light, but there must be logic, and that way all the things that are different can make sense, even in terms of each other. As simple perfections would tend toward ultimate simplicity, the simple perfection of being, only as being, ens entis inquantum ens, is the most general form of perfection common to all. If something general exists that is the most simple component of any existence, it must be genuine per se, and nothing that exists would be alien to it. Since simplicity resolves all matters, being is categorically expositive in an excellent way, and there is nothing in existence which can remain ontologically alien to it for a simple reason.

There is no absence in nothingness from it. "Neither what is not was nor what is was then", or "there was not what is not, and there was not what is, then", says the Vedic riddle, to express the pristine mystery of primum movens, that which moves without being moved. Yet there has always been being, even then, in the beginning, and being has always been, since it must be as much as "then" is for any generality. Being, ens entium inquantum ens, cannot not be. It cannot not be for any category, and there is nothing greater before it, except for the Supreme Being; and with being there has always been logic, and at least 1,2,3, and without being there has not been anything that is.


No obscurity that chances by is totally without at least a little logic and math. If the most general, extensive, and common element possible exists and includes any geometry, it is an attribute and property of being itself, for the greatest simplicity of resolution, and, to be, it has no opposite. A unique property of being then, as the most extensive, general, and common category that is, is that it has no opposite. A formal mark of substance such as the primary and simple quality which is being is that it has no contrary(7), for nothing and nothingness are not the opposite of "being".

Nothing and nothingness are nothing, and oppose nothing. They cannot be opposite anything, since they are nothing, and, therefore, to be has no opposite. In the only roads of inquiry possibly thought of, the one of "is" is primary, and it is impossible for it not to be.

Any and all opposites are and obviously follow from a way of being and becoming. Since being encompasses all oppositions and anything that is, and it has nothing, which is nothing at all, as a categorical opposite, being, therefore, is simply absolute. With no opposition from nothing, the way is always clear, that the metaxological immanence and transcendence of the most simple and greatest simplicity must be; since, without doubt, being cannot not be, and, therefore, it is very simple that it always must have been and must always be.

There is not even one present moment of the weakest nihilism without past and future, one side of the coin and the other. There is not a slice or corner of time at which being cannot not be, or could not not have also been when; therefore, being must be, and that way also must be for all then as when for an eternal simplicity.

Of all properties and attributes within being, with everything it is and could be, there can only be one absolute and supreme being, of course. There cannot be two, since it would not make any sense to say that there could be two or many absolute and supreme beings. Even less than division by zero, that would be totally impossible.

There can only be one absolute and supreme being, as there can only be one predication of the first order; and that being must certainly be, since the state of "being" itself is a uniquely simple category of mathematical necessity, for its total extent, and has no opposite in any scale or perpetuity.

If either of two contraries were absolute, then the other must be completely annihilated, and there would be no room for it anywhere in existence.(8) So it is, with the greatest simplicity of being and the scope of nothingness, that an unqualified nothingness, as an absolute vaccum of nothing, must always be predicated of total nihilism, and an annihilation that would be without boundaries of place and extent. Therefore, being per se, ens inquantum ens, is absolutely constant for the greatest simplicity to be, and more constant than the speed of light, which may vanish and slip away by darkness. The one that is more constant is more perfect and divides the one that is less. If there is something absolutely constant in space, it is more constant than light, which is not so constant but something also intermittent --- as all the luminiferous interferometers and interferential refractometers have shown.

"Words will not fail when the matter is well considered", and the ontological necessity of "Being" cannot be explained or known by anything better than the most simple moment of the present, as a basis for everywhere, and the greatest simplicity itself, et cetera.(9) Therefore, the authenticity of the plenum, refined ens inquantum ens, is prior to any empty vacuum of a sphere, or flickering light, and E = MC^2 is merely more scientific materialist propaganda ... to say that the Sun does not orbit the Earth.

Whatever the instances of the speed of a light may appear to be, or actually be, they are not measured and manifest in a total vacuum more than the tendency of the medium; and a light is not independent of its source, or the motion of its source. Light, rather, is another mediated agency, and dependent on context for the illumination, and that way it seems that it is not necessarily always constant.

Natural energy that science knows a posteriori for things is not perfectly continuous, which would be constant, therefore, neither is light. In 1900 Max Planck rediscovered that energy is not continuous but discrete; and available in various packets of distribution that he called quanta; and these quanta, of course, must be intercalated and added together of some kinds.

The analysis of categories and kinds formed the backbone of Aristotle's philosophy of science, where he defined 10 genera with as many species as possible to follow. The method he developed has exerted a lasting influence on the systems of many philosophers, since any sort of quanta of analysis will logically have to fall in with some kinds, as things would fall within some type of definition and context, that also fits a pattern of energy, and so forth.

 

 

The Four-Fold Division was:

1. Not Said-Of and Not Present-In
2. Not Said-Of and Present-In
3. Said-Of and Not Present-In
4. Said-Of and Present-In

 


The Ten-Fold Division was:

1. Immobile Substances — Unmoved Mover(s)
2. Mobile Substances — Body

3. Eternal Mobile Substances — Heavens
4. Destructible Mobile Substances — Sublunary bodies

5. Unensouled Destructible Mobile Substances — Elements
6. Ensouled Destructible Mobile Substances — Living things

7. Incapable of Perception — Plants
8. Capable of Perception — Animals

9.   Irrational — Non-Human Animals
10. Rational — Humans

 

All of which for things is characterized by "being" --- "ousia" and "ontos" in Greek, which Aristotle also closely associated with ultimate substance and form. Ultimate substance and form in fine should also be associated with at least some simplified quality of energy. And out of all this, the greatest categorical division in kind will be between the infinite and the finite. After that three general sorts can also be added to help clarify the overall picture:

1. the supernatural
2. the preternatural
3. the natural

 

From a simple reference outline, it should be clear that in a valid scientific method proper recognition of genera and species and the order of distinction for cause and effect is all important to the facts.

For Einstein's troubles of theory, however, here, there, and everywhere about atomic clocks, and the supreme genus "when", should Judeo-Masonic controlled NASA have to go to the Moon to figure out what day and time it is, and which way the Moon actually goes around the earth, any more than Columbus supposedly needed to go to America to discover that the world was round?

One can tell from the front porch that the Moon orbits from east to west around the Earth, like the Sun, and that natural space itself is not "absolute", "unbounded", or "infinite". We see the borders of the great big sphere everywhere, and the Earth does not have an equatorial bulge or squeezed-in polar caps, and is not an oblate spheroid. Some could figure that out too with only a library card and no big budget from the government.

 

Energy being in quanta, which is all kinds for fate, is well to know not only for physical science and logic but also for etymology. Since the history of words may contain hidden clues to better awareness, one could notice the similarity in sound and sense between Norman "quand", "when", and Anglo-Saxon "kind", for similarity in class. They sound a lot alike, and both involve a measure of this or that, and refer to quanta in natural sorts.

Norman "quand" comes from Latin "quando", and is parallel to "quam", how, how much, and "quantum" or "quantus", how much, how great, and "quantitatem" or "quantitas", relative greatness or extent, and number, etc. Anglo-Saxon "kind" is related to Latin "genus" in the Indo-European word roots, and these also are related to Greek "kinein", to move. After all, there is no sort of mover moving or quantum leap without a "when" and "quanta" in their kinds. 

 

Even the TV show "Quantum Leap" was not "absolute" or "unlimited" in time and space, for example, but distributed in epsiodes and reruns of electric video. However much they may have tried for that extra season, it was only natural energy at work, generated in its kind and quantitative bubbles of channels. Broadcast on NBC from March 26, 1989 to May 5, 1993, for a total of five seasons, the show graduated, as "all things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven." (10)

 

Even the greatest high defintion television cannot be without the littlest kinds of when, in natural sorts, any more than commercials and all the noise. All the same, and for many more, the truth does not need to be big to be true. "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." Nihil sub sole novum, nec valet quisquam dicere: "ecce hoc recens est", iam enim praecessit in saeculis quae fuerunt ante nos.(11)

 

Which also means that all channels and natural orders of space and time, no matter the magnitude of scale, are not "absolute", unbounded or infinite. Since what is newly contemporary is not infinite, unbounded, or absolute but recent, what is less than new and secondary is not either. The world is of great consequence, where all subsequent orders are mixed results in quality, in quale quid; and the mixed basis of the natural world simply cannot satisfy the universal claims and fantasies of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein to make the Earth orbit the Sun.

 

"Time, the Lord of every hour, every man can tell, is nothing else but the mobility of sun and moon, changing in every degree."(12) Beyond that sort of partial nature, potential infinity becomes a question of metaphysics and poetry, transcendence and even theology, not inductive empirical analysis. Therefore, with discretion the data may say Albert was a poet, but he did not know it, since relativity is so abstract and far out, like a literary chaos theory, as if up were down, and one way were the other way, and so on, for a few dozen or more. And if for a survey the land of the lost was home, Daniel Boone, for instance, would still say that he lacked such an education in science and theory, for what is too complicated for no good reason.

After a life trekking the wilderness frontier, he claimed “I've never been lost, but I was mighty turned around for three days once.” Even so, he never heard of Einstein or Special and General Relativity, of course, but if he had he might have agreed with Kurt Vonnegut that “the things other people have put into my head, at any rate, do not fit together nicely, are often useless and ugly, are out of proportion with one another, are out of proportion with life as it really is outside my head,” or something like that.

 

What we think or contemplate may affect what we become. Though E=MC^2 is not practically scientific, it has been so popularized today that it cannot be mentioned without its natural sorts and the social effect. It represents a road trip and signs. With little packets or bottles of energy, and expressions perhaps of sunshine, the equation cannot go of itself into actual infinity except by an umbrella of metaphor. Even by the greatest confusion, if it were accepted to the limit as a poetic joke, or an ode to chaos, or a quantum leap in haiku, the divisions of relativity jump only in one of six cosmic directions, created out of two planes, on the finite side of things, that are multiplied to the cube in 3-D, et cetera.

 

"The days and months are travelers of eternity, just like the years that come and go. And many are the men of old who met their end upon the road"(13), or by the old duck pond, where we see a sibylline fountain of ruth. 

 

Old pond...
mirror of ancient calm

Einstein jumps in
water's sound.

Infinity = infinity, 
not E = MC^2  

 

Yet "hope springs eternal in the human breast;
man never is, but always to be blessed
The soul, uneasy and confined from home,
Rests and expatiates in a life to come."(14)
                                    

Quantum Credo

 

abacus! abacus!
a number. i am a number too!
and which one are you?

i resemble the license plate of a car
that has driven very far:
one way there, another way back
for many ways between and the
circles all around.

from coast to coast and back,
then some more, here and there.
for a house. around the corner there is a house. 

a number too, and so the address on its street.
i'm not the house or the address, 
but do i know you, more than 2 and 2 make 4?
there are two windows, a garden, and a door.
two chimneys and two floors.

there are at least seven windows more, if you count that far.
that makes nine, and 
two from seven is five. 5 and 9 is fourteen.
two years too young to drive and two from twelve.

we have North and South and East and West that make four,
but all cardinal directions are 
four more. they are eight.
i am very simple and mild; i am very gentle and even.
there is a tree, see, and for a number it could be me.
heavy leaves, old branches, old knots.

it rustles and bends a little with the breeze,
but not because "of gravity". when the sun shines in the leaves, could seem like there is infinity, somewhere in a circle.

and for a creed. yes, i would be for a creed!
a creed, a house, and a road am i.
a numeric house, with a very little government, egomet.
it is my own, and with a VIN:
a vehicle identification number that goes on and on,

like snakes and feathers. 
the road a process, a long journey 
that goes on and on.

it goes 1, 2, 3: A , B, C per singulos dies
therefore, i believe with evidence in infinity, that it exists, because numbers 
would not exist unless there was an end or purpose.
quantity, after all, is part of logic. it must be formal.
what must be must be.

the number 1, for instance, makes clear that there is only one
infinity, because infinity can only be counted once, of course.
to count infinity once forever is enough.

to count it all, an accountant does not count infinity many times
any more than he would add or multiply his way into it,
which cannot be done. no-no-no: three no's in one.
#1 also indicates there are a great many 
numbers to follow less than infinity,
and there is not enough time to count them all.

who would have enough time to count all the numbers?
who would try to do it?
t
here are as many ones in all of them, as there are as many ... numbers.

as many doors as places, windows too,
where there are doors, there are windows, and everthing may have a number.
with so many, one may wonder, are there as many places as windows and numbers, 
and how many doors and bells could that be?
so infinity, which can only be counted once, cannot be counted by all

any more than as many numbers that
being counted, one by one, could possibly lead up to it.
it is evident by many cars, that many number plates exist,

and they go beyond in columns and rows, in colums and rows,
as they would go on forever, and infinity, which can only be counted once,
with good luck, for traffic,
is beyond them, 
and beyond any fantastic numerations other than once anon of one.

 

http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/full-moon-hovers-above-scotlands-loch-lomond-photos

 

 

Eisntein wrote that "the struggle so violent in the early days of science, between the view of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaninigless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification" and that "those of us who believe in physics understand that reality is nothing more than a stubbornly peristent illusion". If that is true, from where is the illusion coming?