On the Moon





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, must be fate-ordained, far above chimney smoke, clouds and trees, that one may wander so steep and high, but not one hour of arc or minute escape. And "one can always reason with reason". Aristotle and Gregory the Great and many others were right as common sense, up to the top of the mountain: the Earth is not moving 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, a deluge at sea and a 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, a question of taste and sentiemnt or something worse, it is one that contradicts objective common sense and remains an unprovable assumption, as every test to show for it has failed.(1)

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 then that each and every attempt that has failed, and failed, and failed, and failed again has only added to the mountains and oceans of proof that the earth is stationary, and Newtonian "gravitation" does not actually propel anything, not even a paper clip. Civilization of so many years has been marked by so many weights, forces, and measures, all the visible and invisible, and vast distances tied up in knots, with bullet trains and airports in between, yet the inanimate strain of "universal gravity" and the rotating earth are not there to carry anything, or make even the slightest difference for a sound. From whatever results to whatever, in the interstices, and in the big picture, the phenomena always tergiversates away. 


Without the resonance even of a wisp of smoke, the undetectable motion of the Earth --- "unaccelerated" --- remains as undetectable as the force of gravity itself, contributing to why nobody can verify that the Earth is actually in motion, since gravity remains weaker than all forces we are able to observe and sense directly. Nobody can verify it, yet like perception the direction of observation is everything: and 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 broad euphemism for communism from as far back as the 1840's. They would commune to serve some sort of complicated serpent with wings, hidden at times, and using strange vocabulary to mask the cultivation of a temple and a presence. Otherwise people might not know what to think about nature that would be better than common sesne. For some inkling of the connection, Engels wrote to Marx, "Darwin ... is magnificent --- there has never been until now so splendid an attempt to prove historical development in nature"(2); and Marx, for his strange and overreaching part in the modern world, 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) holds a key, and the development of "culture is always connected to the workings of power", and "what is held as true is deeply affected by historical circumstances"(5). Likewise it should be clear to anyone with a basic knowledge of history and society that the obnoxious 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. These systems of error have been so arrogant and controlling that they would even go so far as to try to maintain dominion over the knowable itself, by marketing their 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 enter for fear Copernicus might take over the throne of "eternall chaos", and even turn 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, in the sweep of bloody communist politics and deceitful dog-eat-dog days on the surface of the Earth, 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 their lights, he is even bigger than MSNBC and cable news, the Rothschilds, the 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. 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 an uncanny and weird way of insinuating themselves into the dark and hidden interstices of social development everywhere.


Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur: the world wants to be deceived, therefore let it be deceived.(9) If it would be appropriate to digress for a moment of epistemology, intelligence should be evaluated as an equivalent form of desire and memory, and these would include all the refinements of understanding and psychology. Schopenhauer wrote that "will minus intellect constitutes vulgarity". And if all 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.


Mendacem memoria esse oportet: a liar needs a good memory: as well those who commune with him.(10) And from zero to all the other numbers, math class and quantity alone cannot give rise to consciousness, and self-awareness, and intellect cannot operate without desire. There must be something in the wanted file. 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 humans do like to have it their way, and they follow after signs.

Yet missing the better virtue, having no self-denial and forgetting oil for the lamp, fools are always babbling, and the over-ambitious croak like frogs. "Non sumpserunt oleum secum", they did not take the oil with them.(11) So like them in many ways, the world has long wanted to be deceived, and thus it is: on a lake and storm of false words, the foolish head wreathed by empty thunder, coiled and sleepless from lies(12). And after following bad signs like heliocentrism, scientific materialism, worldly pleasures, 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 for a goddess of canned goods and bad music from the '90's, and MTV, for fifteen minutes of fame in the city, looming large like clouds of marijuana at concert over the Grand Canyon, singing "lie to me, nothing's true and nothing's right, ooo woo lie to me, I make the rules up as I go, ooo woo lie to me", etc. "Ooo woo, ooo woo".

"Rascals are always sociable" and like Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Einstein, even fools with loose strings and weak guitars can frame their inertial and non-inertial frames of reference as they want it in a bag, once they get used to it, and make up the craziest math and songs as could be possible. After all, it is only pen and paper, and liars naturally appreciate the value and profit of a deceptive environment. 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."(12)

So the poor public may be sorely 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".(13)


If there are fools and liars in high places, and faked trips to the Moon and Mars at the cost of billions, is it such a surprise then that the scientific materialist, Marxist, and Judeo-Masonic global conspiracy is without any normal sense of order, without proper moral principles or virtues, other than having and getting whatever they want? And they want to stay on top careerwise, "de revolutionibus" and with $$$, of course. They want to stay on top to play king of the hill, and give you the bill: and there is only room enough at the apex of the rotating pyramid scheme for the initiated and preferred novus ordo rite, and their international megalomania. They do not want a puny human figure of the truth, who should only remain in shell games and debt, to figure this out or have any way to do anything about it; and they do not sincerely believe in liberal democracy or its idiotic rules, procedures, fake trips to outer space and fake rhetoric that are so popularized today. They believe in the money and how to get some ... and then some more. A cynical game played at public expense, careerwise, and they would have the crowds drink the kool-aid of worldwide socialism and liberalism --- but they do not drink it. They do not drink that themselves any more than the Moon goes the wrong way. That routine of inversion and transvaluation is separate, compartmentalized, and prepared for rubes who watch it all on TV, and read about it in the magazines. That way the so-called "illuminati" get the gold and bags and bags of missing Pentagon trillions; and they stay on top, on the sly as masters of deception and beetlejuice, Lindsay Lohan and Miley Cyrus, and scientific materialism, creating the most monstrous debt as well; and the hoi polloi will be lost-in-the-cosmos at least by the finger of Saturn, if not more, and evolved-from-monkeys-and-garbage like a bunch of hopeless and fitful rubes.

See how programmed the practice runs: and the big black dog with strange glowing eyes takes the leash and the application. Look around one day, and see how in the disingenuous "left-hand" way Copernicanism and Darwinism have gradually evolved into the milieu of modernist theories of relativity, phenomenology, and "intelligence" that prevail today. With the liberal and occult support of Hegelian and Marxist dialectics, the theoretical doctrines of relativity, phenomenology, and scientific materialism have helped do the teamwork and put the seal of demoralization and leftist ideology, and useful-idiot revolution, on entire nations of people and on the whole Western world.


As Soviet KGB defector Yuri Bezemnov, aka Thomas Schuman, warned in an interview from 1984, "The demoralization process in the United States is basically completed already. Actually it is overfulfilled."(14)

Ideological subversion, he explained, and "active measures" and psychological warfare are slow processes that take many years. It is a great alphabet soup brain washing business to change the perception of reality in society to such an extent that no one is able to come to sensible conclusions despite an abundance of information. The demoralized and brainwashed are contaminated to think and react to certain stimulae in a certain pattern. Exposure to true information does not matter any more when one is unable to assess true information adequately: thus the simple facts would tell nothing.(15)


Lenin is known to have observed 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."(16)



"Tim Conway and Mr. Tudball delenda est", communism says for dark liturgy, from an obscure secret society text of execration, encrypted like 666 in so many ways. If one had not heard it through the walls, one was not listening well enough to the subliminal, deceptive, and cynical programming in the TV. If the puny human figure of the truth, common sense, and honest business has not been undermined, how did the confusion get so big and so far over his head?


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".(17) Fairly obvious yes, yet the questions the Reece Committee were investigating were not so easy to clarify with substance. To ascertain and comprehend the trail of slippery use-of-funds by the big tax-exempt (heliocentric and Darwinist) foundations to support communism, was not a piece of cake. As Tennessee Congressman Reece wrote in conclusion, "I felt that the work ... left several important unanswered questions".(18)


A predominant theme disclosed in the Committee’s findings is the desire of the large foundations --- and those with the spaceship money behind them --- to fashion a system of world governance. Some years later, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott, of the Clinton administration, of course, would say that, "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority". That would be a heliocentric and Darwinist authority without 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."(19)


The exercise of propaganda and social engineering was identified as a means to that end. Almost as simple as ABC, 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 …”.(20)

On another day, Florida representative Albert S. Herlong included in the Congressional record for 1963 that communist goals were many, and not so different from the big foundations, 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 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.”(21)


Physics is part of the problem, as much as the crowds walk the paths marked out by mass democracy and communism. H.L. Mencken recognized that life can be difficult, “a constant oscillation between the sharp horns of dilemma”. He also confessed that for twisted reasons he enjoyed democracy immensely, because “it is incomparably idiotic, and hence incomparably amusing."



American industrialist, globalist businessman, possible communist spy, and market moving social expert Armand Hammer, of Occidental Petroleum, confessed at his turn through the booth 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."(22) He also said, "the first thing I look at each morning is a picture of Albert Einstein I keep on the table right beside my bed."(23)


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.”(24)


How clever this 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."(25) 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."(26)


How clever of the system: following crudely mechanistic principles of transformation, that deny the unique authenticity of true awareness and true facts, the popularized system of relativity and dialectical materialism has remained exceedingly evasive, yet well funded and engineered withal, with mucho doublespeak: and would pretend that subjective and arbitrary substitutions, if approved by proper Judeo-Masonic authorities, are always in line with actual and objective facts. Whatever the facts, the foundation experts will say, it is only a question of perspective, and perspective is only a question of numbers, as much as wealth, debt, and banking. Knowledge is yet superficial, if not for bankruptcy, and everybody is equal, and anybody's opinion is as good as that of anybody else!

Forward! A sometime communist slogan, and combined with packaged schemes, marketing and media control agreements --- designed to acclimate the public on a large scale to Judeo-Masonic policy and goals for global governance --- and aided with various treaties and contracts, scientific materialist programs of social engineering have been manipulating the American states and Europe for more than 100 years.


However, accepting very strange gifts from Greeks is not how Anchises, Aeneas, and Ascanius survived the Fall of Troy; and that which only "has quantity is not capable of reflecting on itself", nor of escaping destruction or perceiving the truth.(27) Like money for the sake of money and inflation, numbers and math equations by themselves are not capable of giving 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 lines without logic and without direct observation --- without common sense, truth, and ethics, et cetera.

"The corruption of man is followed by the corruption of language"(28), and relativity today continues to deceive the world and would like to pretend that something which is false is as good as anything else: and even as good as something that is true. For instance, A can substitute for B, and B can substitue for A, 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, and the details will all disappear, and relativity would like to pretend that something which is wrong can be as good as anything else.

The trick escape for them and Einstein has been the introduction of the abstract and slippery concept of the "observer": not to mention the UN and Rockefeller Plaza in Manhattan. With the shifty agency of relative 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 congruent realities later, when some other actual phenomenon has to be explained.(29) Thus the theory of universal equivalence and cosmic homogeneity by definitive confusion 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 --- and "no country for old men", and no country for transmission of the truth.(30)

Rather the relativists habituate reversals in the value of words, and would redirect experience in order to turn their 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.(31) Common sense becomes obscure, and the truth becomes lies, and lies become the truth. Darkness becomes light and light becomes darkness, and the earth and the cosmos become absurd, with no good end, signifying an over-running chaos, where "the center will not hold".(32)

They have preferred to determine for themselves a systematic way to remain abundantly blind and deaf, far out of reach, and thousands of days surrounded by reality are in vain. 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. "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."(33)


"In the modern theory the question between Copernicus and his predecessors is merely one of convenience; all motion is relative and there is no difference between the two statements: 'the earth rotates once a day' and 'the heavens revolve about the earth once a day'."(34) 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; but the comparison is false, since there is an immense difference between saying "the sun orbits the earth" or "the earth orbits the sun": 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 ... all motion is relative, and it is a mere convention to take one body as at rest."(35)

"It makes no difference, from the point of view of describing planetary motion, whether we take the earth or the sun as the center of the solar system. Since the issue is one of relative motion only, there are infinitely many exactly equivalent descriptions referred to different centers --- in principle any point will do, the Moon, Jupiter ... So the passions loosed on the world by the publication of Copernicus' book 'De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium', were logically irrelevant. We 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."(36)


Too poor for logic, 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.(37) 


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? Do you believe that the clock in the 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, and the Rockefeller Foundation but does that happen for you? Not for me.



FaIstaff said that it "were better to be eaten to death with a rust than to be scoured to nothing with perpetual motion"(38); yet an ideologically trained Copernican relativist 2016 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."(39)


However the cards fall, after the work of Einstein and Galileo, if everything is in relative motion, and nothing is authentically at rest, how can one really distinguish in simple terms between a car in park, or stopped at a light, and a car in motion? Think about all the days of traffic and safety codes: in what way do insurance and liability claims actually make sense, with so many stop signs, rules, and red lights, deductibles and premiums, if "nothing is sitting still"? 

What sign or field equation is "nothing"? Something or is it nothing to whom, yet "nature through all her kingdoms, insures herself", natura naturans; and common sense would be in common naturally, wihout being overworked, if there would be any basic sense of knowledge and understanding from sensus communis, or consensus gentium.(40) 

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 is nothing, except as it would be purely of itself and separated away from nothing by some accident; and is it adults or teenagers who say that things that are not moving cause accidents? And what is sitting then --- only relatively standing and moving --- as nothing would be when the roof caves in?

"Nothing is sitting still", and all other nihilisitc statements predicated on nothing are impossible for science to investigate anyway. They will never catch up to nothing no matter how fast they try. An electron microscope cannot do it. For concepts which are predicated upon negations there is an abyss 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, in fact, no bank or banking exchange in existence but only scams. If there is no bank, where are the zombies? NASA and the UN? 

Negative assertions can expand the negativity. For example, "there is no sugar on the table", when there is no table. If there is no table, of course, there is no sugar, coffee, or tea on it, and there are not any elephants in the room either, if that was the only furniture that would be there, a table with an animal seated on it, that would be there in the room without other luck and no place else to go.

Or, "he is not on the team", when there is no team. If there is no team, it does not apply to him or anything.

There is not a thing. There is not one such thing. There is not anything. There is nothing. If there is no thing, no qua qua ex signis, the what 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, or that would even be sitting still.

Out of this routine ex nihilo, it is more absurd to say that "nothing is sitting still", than it is to say "nothing is moving", because if nothing is moving then at least it is clear that there is still space in existence, and 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. If there is any spirit, soul, or act of knowing by any sense or intellect, then there must be some space, as much as there must be room for at least a sign and its concept. Datum ex signis, "nothing is sitting still" is absurd for a sign of reason, and not only close 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 "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 is not an accident of ontology, and things that are not moving do not cause accidents.

For instance, space and the sky are not moving. Space does not move from place to place, as much as simple quantity has no opposite, and they are not alone. At least they have each other, and the sky itself does not move, of course. It is the clouds and stars and things that are in space and the sky that move. Obviously the things that move through space and sky are not of the same simple first cut as the table of measures that defines geometry and space in itself. Space is "the final frontier", as a matter of opinion, and in itself does not move.

In a similar way, the ratio of conversion of coudees to meters to yards does not change. Not before the things in which they are counted, in which they are brought to account, and 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 they are --- unmoved and fixed even in the changeable things themselves.

The measure used to measure remains equal to itself, and 15 meters to 5 meters is always something simple and of the same proportion, since ratios never change: in modis similibus haec per illud semper et ubique. In similar ways, these by that, and the ratio is 3, therefore, the most simplified value in division between things is immoveable, as they are 5 and 15 to each other, for example, no matter the fabrication, the cause, or whatever there may be of lost antiquity and fallen domes and columns between coudees, meters, and yards. 


To escape from the problem of ontological and mathematical density everywhere in existence, ens inquantum ens, if some heliocentric sort of Einstein says, "nihil stat", nothing stands still, he is also saying "nihil spatium", there is no space, which is twice absurd for nihilism, because 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, and always remaining fixed in itself. Subsistent with Plato and Socrates in the table of ratios and forms, if not in the caves, then behind the clouds, immotus in ipse permanens spatium, space remains immoveable in itself.

As Isaac Newton himself wrote, "... space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable."(41) 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."(42)


Furthermore, if "nothing is sitting still", so to speak doublespeak, and everything is moving, how can people be sure of which direction of which in particular it is that anything that is not-nothing is going? 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 they predicate anything of certain value about it greater than motion? Even if they know it is moving, or not, there is still some uncertainity about it.

Unlike burned toast with sour milk, if one cannot tell whether something is in motion or at rest, how can one authentically know it is in occurrence along a specific vector of a given direction? By nature, as it goes more "that way", it is not going "this way" that is the opposite, but not by relativity. If one can tell that it does not go the way that is opposite its 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 one can tell that less and less progress has been made in one direction, why can one not tell that 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 his 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”.(43)


Plus if you take "into account the basic assumption of the theory that uniform velocity is purely relative, it follows that [in their system of delusion of two clocks] each ... goes more slowly than the other when viewed from the position of the other ... [therefore, dichronally], there is no way of distinguishing between the two".(44)


As 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”.(45)


With no certainty, and no consistent logic, heliocentric relativity makes all understanding, experience, and knowledge absurd. The difference between what is false and what is true would be "purely a formal one, a difference of interpretation only".(46) If the difference between reasonable common sense and insanity is only "formal", then good luck, 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? or whether Saturn or Pluto would be the center of the solar system?

If an accidental tourist for a customer has been stuck with an exorbitant and fraudulent bill, it makes no difference. He had better pay it, if it comes from the same people who told him where to sit, where to stand, and what is okay to say and what is okay to think --- or he gets trouble.

"2 and 2 are 5, Winston, and you had better learn to like it that way."

As Vladimir Lenin stated, "a lie told often enough becomes the truth," and if Freemasonry and the m.a.f.i.a. have been born to suck the 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., an acronym for Mazzini autorizza furti incendi avvelenamenti)

As they would have the world go around, heliocentrism and relativity become fallen and twisted. This is the reason why relativity and so-called phenomenology undermine authenticity and authentic awareness. It is to hide knowledge of disgrace and so many lies, and this is why relativity needs to uproot common sense and substitute purely theoretical considerations and complicated arithmetical calculations and signs at every turn. The thing-in-itself, das Ding an sich, as a sign from Copernicus and Newton to Kant, leads to the land of the lost; and everything there becomes nothing more than a mind game, a dreamscape of the unknown. A wiser man for portent, qua qua ex signis, once said "dreams have deceived many, and those who trusted in them failed"(47); and "where there are many dreams there are many vanities, and words without number."(48) 

And if the talk is of portents, "what portent can be greater than a pious notary? Balaam's ass was nothing to it."(49)


Copernican Dilemma (3)


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Benjamin Disraeli


"Os autem quod mentitur occidit animam".(1) The mouth that lies slays the soul, 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". 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, eventually, the time, money, and amnesia will make it right.


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".(2)

Nonetheless and even so, "a fool and his money are soon elected". Notorious and crowd-pleasing conventions and ships of fools vociferate, "Forward"! ... and chant "Progress"! "Forward"! ... and "Progress"! and like waves of mass hypnosis would possess governments by cheap tricks of "equality". Circumtuemur ergo fruges habemus! for a motto. We will defend around so we have the results, and always ready to rearrange deck chairs on the Titanic or dress up a delusion.

For instance, in the news from way back 2012, the European Collective Space Agency obtained many more billions of Euro's, as a matter of course, 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 is planned for 2017 from Cape Canaveral, Florida aboard a NASA-provided launch vehicle. Solar Orbiter will be placed into an elliptical orbit around the sun. Its closest approach will be near the orbit of Mercury, 75% of the distance between Earth and the sun – 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 bad as it is unfortunate, as much as it is based on the untenable theories of heliocentrism, chaos, and relativity, 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. 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 will the Solar Orbiter start going six or seven speeds at once in its journey, to keep up its exploratory place with the sun?


From its earliest days, Copernicanism has been exaggerating and increasing the size of the cosmos out of scale. Without any justification other than the attractions of "theoretical infinity", they would have the Sun listed now at an expanded estimate of 93,000,000 miles from the Earth. 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.

The truth is that there is no logical or scientific justification for a quote of 93,000,000 miles --- or for saying that the Sun goes six different speeds at once, even if it was to orbit the Earth, and only for a day. The 93,000,000 mile AU is a rabbit taken out of a hat. The methods of proof that have been offered for this length are all based on the mistakes of heliocentrism and relativity in the first place, which are only a basket case of willful assumptions and not scientifically justified.


Like an arcane tax-exempt foundation, or a demon in the shadows 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. Since Newton's and Einstein's expanding acentric universe must have enough matter and energy to fill up the vast spaces left by its expansion into quasi-infinity, theories about dark matter and dark energy have been invented to 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."(3) 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, to look at it this way, and look at it that way, 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.(4)


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 has eluded the simple facts. No one has ever detected it or seen it, and no one even knows what it is; yet dark matter becomes 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", that is 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, de spectaculis, written from "Dark Matter" and "Dark Energy", the sequence of theories that have been put up for the sake of heliocentrism --- from Copernicus to Einstein --- would go bankrupt, and the galaxies and constellations and the cosmos would fall apart. The sky would fall down on Chicken Little and his shack.


For example, galaxies are spinning so fast that they should go flying apart, and the constellations simply could not hold themselves together, if Dark Matter did not sign the intergalactic check needed for scientific materialism to provide the necessary mass and invisible glue to keep everything from unraveling on their terms of formula. For Newton's supposed inverse square law of universal gravitation to operate, and for Einstein's world of relativity, 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% --- like the distance of the sun from the earth, for example.


A peculiar "Catch-22", since without dark matter added to the heliocentric equation, things really would be "falling down", worse than folks like Michael Douglas and the secretive or not-so-secretive communists from Hollywood could figure: otherwise, according to the theory, the stars would collapse 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 they have so exaggerated the scale of the cosmos is that they have confused infinity with muddled creation and removed the science of theology from the picture. As much as they could multiply the cosmic envelope, it will never be infinite, and this confusion of order between quantity and quality in creation --- 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 it was aptly 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)


Copernicanism today has become one of the roots of a world-system that persists in a magnitude of error and obscurantism that is hardly conceivable. The suggested notion of limitlessness of space, including the 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 for them to walk the talk by making as big and bewildering an impression 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 --- besides very, very far away --- where it all winds up only inside the abyss of the mind. 


The only way that an active motion can yet remain so undetectable is if it is so distant, so diminshed, or subtle --- and the mind itself can be made very subtle, distant, and diminished and some people can believe almost anything. Temptation and doubt may outplay wits, while common sense becomes very remote. So the mind introduces subconsciously that the reason the motion of the Earth remains always undetectable and unaccelerated is because the stars and planets are so very, very far away: and they call that gravity. They are so strange for size in our view of outer space, small yet huge when near them, 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.


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 abundant presence of mind we should all disappear. Mankind is less than a needle in haystacks. Somehow the terrrestrial abundance 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, "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, and later making a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, before she retired to solitude, 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.  

The notion of infinite space in nature, whether it is 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, they have had to resort to the tricks of relativity from Galileo to Newton and to Einstein, and to very big numbers and vast complications, and theories of big numbers of boundless expansion ad infinitum, like Ben Bernanke and the international bankers at the Fed. The huge numbers are a distraction like neuro-linguistic programming and hypnotic suggestions of power to conceal unsubstantiated claims. The huge numbers daze people and hide the fact that they have clearly gone straight into metaphysics and are not dealing in natural empirical science. They do the same thing for the sake of Darwinian evolution and the big global banks.

Mark Twain remarked that there are more useful things to do with books than read them or even understand them. People can use them for many other things. It is the same with big numbers, as with thick books, and some people can use them painfully as well, to hit people over the head, again and again, with great effects of intimidation. Again and again, if it ever were not enough yet. Ad infinitum, ad infinitum ...

So it goes, 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?

It does not make the same impression as the Sun. The Moon is not as good for creating and chairing this type of confusion. After all, the Sun is much bigger and brighter and more powerful. The Sun is responsible for so much heat and the daylight --- and sunburn --- and can create a lot of glare, 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."()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 fluid 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. It has been enough to make some people buy Timeshare resorts

That the Earth orbits the Sun 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 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 in Scotland, only to orbit clouds or the moon?

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

Have you been to Scotland?

Of course, it could, and let me tell you about it. Over there it is not so much about the sun as Ecuador. A 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 for as much, 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 and the horns of a full moon there could mistake one for the other, the Sun for the Moon, 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 a little backwards 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 that 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?

For heliocentric credulists, relativity 2016 becomes a game of exhaustion by the horns of dilemma, after dilemma, and scientific materialism would like to resolve it by making choices for arbitrary reasons of philosophical preference only --- not scientific ones. And they always ignore the 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 have helped heliocentrism so much. They make it like an overwhelming giant, and that way everybody believes it. They will be overwhelmed with big numbers and big math, with gigantic impressions of space and time; and relativity makes it certain that the cosmological theory of heliocentrism will one day be right, even if it could be wrong.

Progress! Forward! "We ... have run about the slopes, and picked the daisies fine; but we’ve wandered many a weary foot, since auld lang syne." And submit "a hand my trusty friend" to the dialectics of scientific materialism! If it were false, anyway, it would only be by a little? Just a little co-variance, not that much, and all is equivalent and equal 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 obscure and darkwise background for why scientific materialism today lists the Sun as being one AU, one astronomical unit of 93,000,000 miles, away from the Earth, which is much too far and probably exaggerated by about 95%, or twenty times Pluto and more than half the size of Texas.




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)


"Quality is never an accident. It always is the result of intelligent effort",(1) and in the study and 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 uniquely 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 does look powerfully 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 scientific 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 complete list of all the wise and scientific people who rejected heliocentrism and instead believed in geocentrism 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, St. Augustine, and St. Ambrose, who expressed the opinion of the Church Fathers that "[sicut] 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 and Venerable Bede, St. Albertus Magnus, St. Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, Pope Sixtus IV, Gregory XIII, Paul V, Urban VIII, Alexander VII, Isidore of Seville, Peter Lombard, Duns Scotus, Giovanni Riccioli, Cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine and many Protestants like Martin Luther and Melancthon. Geocentrism is the biblical opinion and heliocentrism is not.


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 (who has been incorrectly listed y some as following heliocentrism, because of a mere fragment of writing 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, and Walter van der Kamp (De Labore Solis), Marshall Hall (The Earth Is Not Moving), Gerardus Bouw (Geocentricity Primer), Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett (Galileo Was Wrong The Church Was Right) ... etc.

Out of all the people who recognized geocentrism as being accurate, the one realistic case, none needed to know how far away the Moon was to know that it orbits the Earth. No one needs to know how far away it is to count how long it takes for it to orbit a full circle around. 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. 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, and were wiser and more honest than Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein combined. "Copernicus 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 into the Renaissance.

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 (60 and 1/2 Earth radii) with an error of .3 percent (.003)." To round off, the radius of the Earth is close to 4000 miles and the moon is close to an average of 240,000 miles away, which is 60 Earth radii. "Thus, insofar as factual knowledge is concerned, Copernicus was no better off, and in some respects worse off than ancient astronomers."(3)

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. He used trigonometry, a reasonable theory of proportional perspective, and his understanding of parallax to prorate his guess, and 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 the distance of the Sun from the Earth, 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 ..."(4) 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 to be excessive for the most exact certitude in such a question, but for reasonable accuracy of scale and valid natural priority. And for geocentrism, space itself is not infinite or exaggerated, and logic is essential. Boundless expansion into infinity, relativity, and incomprehensible math fummdiddles from Cambridge are not needed in geocentrism. The simple truth does not need to be titanic and complicated, and the real cosmos is much smaller than what heliocentrism pretends, and the Sun is not 93,000,000 miles away.

The circular time interval passing between the Sun and the Moon along the ecliptic is consistently around twelve degrees per day, representing 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 degrees. The Moon is falling 48-50 minutes behind the stars every day, 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 astronomical differences in time and space 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 show that the Sun cannot be 93,000,000 miles away.

It is uncanny that the Sun is of a higher and more distant sphere around the Earth, yet has the same angular diameter in the sky as the Moon. This is a mysterious sign for the proportion between them to work out so well: 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 disc is the same size as the Moon; yet, of course, the Sun makes a greater impression on nature because of the heat and energy it generates in relation to the Earth. 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 atmosphere, 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 the sidereal time differential is practically 13 to 1 between them. Since we have discovered that Big G is really equal only to 6.00/6 and that there are likewise only 6 cosmic directions, for the mathematical form of the phenomenon of the Sun and the Moon going around the Earth, and the distance that is between them, one could say (13 + 6)G = 19, which also happens to agree with Pliny the Elder, Ptolemy, and Hipparchus ... more or less.

The 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 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. That 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 is 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 speeds of the Moon and the Sun in their orbits around the Earth vary. It also cannot explain why they orbit the Earth at all. 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 they advertise as 1/4 of the way to the Sun, in 2017 --- after they have spent billions of the money --- they should have overshot the Sun by close to 5 times already.

Anyway, if it was necessary to answer the question how far away is the Sun, 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 everybody would like the Sun to be as big as possible, the radius of  the Earth could be rounded up for paperwork to a solid 4000 miles. And the radius of the Sun could be 19,000 miles ---- a mystical number of geocentric discovery, since the Sun is 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 geocentric number 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.(5)

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




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. It is projected within its sphere, and these are only simple best guess estimates for illustration of the wheel of its sphere, 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 every scientific test and observation.

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

Copernican Dilemma (5)

The astronomical situation for Galileo, the Freemasons, and the communists is not far from Italian tongue twisters for the intoxicated: sereno non è; sereno sarà; se non è sereno, si rasserenerà. E forse o non forse. It is not clear, it will become clear; if it will not be clear, it will clear up. Maybe, maybe not.

Heliocentrism is a natural disaster worse than hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, and compare the effects. If there is damage or catastrophic loss from a hurricane, "gravity" did not do it. The hurricane pressure system, storm winds and storm surge, and flooding did it. Yet heliocentrism 2016 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 a joke, this system has become a sign and archetype of a tyrant 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)

Einstein's Special(1905) and General Theories of Relativity(1916) were invented only to counter the results of Michelson-Morely(1887), and all other interferometer and aether drift experiments up to that time,(1887): including those of Arago(1810-1818), Fizeau(1851),   Hoeck(1868), Airy(1871), and Mascart(1872) to detect any proof of any rotation of the Earth, and any evidence for the unjustified theories of heliocentrism that are taught as "scientific" materialist doctrine today. "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."(3) 

"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. "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'.”(4)


All scientific experiments and all interferometer and aether drift tests have conclusively shown that there is no rotation or translational movement of the Earth, and that is why they teach the public relativity and E=mc2. If aether exists and the earth is not moving, then relativity theory is a waste of time --- and this is what all these tests have shown, that aether does exist and the earth is not moving. The very small decimal percentage readings that they obtained were not exactly null. They were miniscule. They were not exactly zero, but a very small positive fraction of what they had expected. These very low results many times less than what they had expected, showed that the earth is not moving, and there is a very subtle and barely detectable aether around the earth.

But something else that is true is that relativity theory goes back well before Einstein and the interferometers. In direct descent, Einstein's theory of relativity, in significant measure, only goes back to old Galileo, yet it even could go back further from there. It is just deceptive garbage and errors; and that, of course, people should know, goes back about as far as the oldest profession and whatever of the vices.

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)

And that is why they have had to create fake constants like "C", the "constant speed of light", and "G", the figure for "universal gravitation", to substitute for the very real and detectable constant that is the central immobility of the Earth in the cosmos.

Yet no rest for the wicked. Trading with the Devil has never been easy in the end, and bad music and bad numbers are for bad people. Spin, spin, spin: "there is no peace to the wicked", "non est pax impiis"(6). "But the wicked are like the raging sea, which cannot rest, and the waves thereof cast up dirt and mire", "impii autem quasi mare fervens quod quiescere non potest et redundant fluctus eius in conculcationem et lutum"(7). And the Lord swore in his anger, when they tempted him in the wilderness, "these always err in heart, and they shall not enter into my rest."(8)

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


Ogden Nash



Copernican Dilemma VI


Without Newton's gravity and Einstein's space-time relativity, heliocentrism runs all out of luck. For bad poetry and bad science, Newton had "F" and "G", and Einstein had "E" and "C", and the difficult reality in between is that they were both wrong, since the simple fact is that the Sun and the Moon orbit the Earth, and the Earth is not revolving. However, because modernist Judeo-Masonic scientific materialism cannot accept this, or let it be widely understood by the sheeple, who are there to be fleeced, they must create an atmosphere of total confusion around the truth of the matter instead.

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 supposed rotation of the Earth --- that was supposed to be flying around the Sun because of Newtonian gravity --- had been posed before the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments of 1887, but they were the most meticulous and definitive tests to examine the question up to that time. And controlling the spin from 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 Michelson-Morley and all other aether drft experiments, which fairly proved that the earth is not moving, Albert Einstein published his special theory of relativity in 1905, and his general theory of relativity in 1916. 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, for example, 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 relative motion of the Earth in space. Making many thoughtful and painstaking preparations for the experiment, Michelson and Morley designed an elaborate apparatus, which they first called an interferential refractometer and later an interferometer. 


At 41"28'56 N, Cleveland should be spinning around and around at 777.3172612013712 mph every day, but nobody or the smartest blood hound can ever 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 interferential refractometer discovered is what any Hollywood movie stunt-man working in Quito, Ecuador could have discovered as well: that it makes no difference whether he jumps from east to west, or west to east, despite the supposed fact that the earth is spinninig 1038 mph into the east, as it supposedly goes flying around the sun from the equator. It should be easier to jump to the west, into the spin, if he was 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 to come to it, 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. Bern is at 46"57 N latitude and, therefore, supposedly spinning 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. Berlin is at 52"30'2 N latitude, and, therefore supposedly spinning 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, 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 nearer the destination the more it goes slip sliding away. Gliding down the highway, slip sliding away", and the bizarre theoretical situation of heliocentric relativity is a scientific disgrace, an embarrassment really, a posteriori to mankind and reality, because mathematics normally makes things clearer and better, not worse. Galilean and Einsteinian relativity, however, have served their purpose in making many things worse, because they have sufficiently confused the whole matter of cosmology, astronomy, common sense and mathematics to such an extent that people still are not able to recognize without insult the simple fact that the earth is not moving, and that the sun orbits the earth.

As Bertrand Russell wrote, under the influence of heliocentrism and relativity, "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."(1)


It was reported that when the famous and creepy author of "The Book of Lies", Aleister Crowley, died, his last forked-tongue words were: "I am perplexed". Perhaps these words should have been chosen as Einstein's motto over the escutcheon in the hall leading to the world of theoretical relativity. Or "I am perplexed, and so you will be too, won't you"? If not that, he could have taken a sign from the "Inferno" of Dante's "Divine Comedy": "Abandon All Hope Ye Who Enter Here" or "This Is Pain".

In any case, to escape an enchanted castle may not be as easy for others as for Don Quixote, and "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"(2); and relativity theory likewise is a welter of equivocation and confusion, consisting "in a number of contradictory assumptions"; and when mathematics is applied to it, it only makes things worse and worse for windmills of equivalency.(3) For the sake of heliocentrism, humanity has been swept away by rivers of pseudo-science. False engineers have defended it by using 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."(4)

Einstein confessed, "since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore."(5)

In sifting through so much relative confusion, therefore, it becomes useful to isolate two of the major contrary signs involved in this system of contradiction and denial: "C", the supposed constant speed of light, and "G", the supposed universal gravitational constant.


Since the supposed rotation of the earth in its flight around the sun had no discernible effects on the speed or quality of light, then the speed of light must be constant, Einstein in a note to Time Magazine concluded. Rather than admitting that the earth is not moving, and that the authentic inertial stasis 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, however, is something divisible and particular, particles in 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 circular in the property of science, where facts always come back around to the truth, and light also is another circuitous essence, sometimes like the truth, whether one prefers to emphasize wave or particle. Lumens or watts and volts operate in circuits --- including where there are old-fashioned fires, torches, and candles --- and, like the air, the special property in light is 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, light covers too much distinction by division, poco a poco, to be constant. There is the species of enlightenment through the eyeballs of a fool, for instance, or a king, or a duck, and many varied material circumstances of communication, interpretation, and communion that may manifest with the play of light, et cetera.

If they would petition the speed of light for world government, they should also petition the speed of "is", and the speed of darkto see how close things are to reality. Ecce Lunam, behold the Moon, for example, and its phases over wood duck pond. And the dark side of the moon is dark. Of course, it is, and there is the dark side of Earth too, yet not with the same rate of motion on both sides, the moon's and the earth's, and the moon has no atmosphere and its phases of light are only secondary reflections. They are 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, 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 of light there, in the dark regions and places of outer space, that we can all see at night?

In calculating the signal transmissions of stars, the constant speed of light --- that would be independent of the motion of its source --- is not used, but the velocity of the object itself is part of the equation. 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 in the supposedly constant speed of light, but in the angular velocity of the stars themselves from within their burning spheres.

What is the speed of sunlight, when it is reflected from the windshield of a parked car? It is as slow as the hours and as mutable as the passing weather, since not only localized fields of "gravity" may affect the speed of light, but clouds and umbrellas and stormy weather. And it certainly is not independent of the motion of its source. If "image is everything", so is the resource. There are many lights and they do not go only at one constant wavelength, color, or speed; and Einstein's formula E = MC^2 and relativity's theory that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light cause serious problems for cosmology, for then gravity must travel at the same speed, or slower, and yet at 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, whose cape would be faster even than light, or at least the natural light that humans perceive.


Some people said 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 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 so much on mediation and reflection?


Light would rather be an impressionistic medium of natural correspondence in unique spheres, as particle or wave. It radiates as would a very fine and subtle circuitous substance in aether: in rings, sparks, waves, rays, and particles, et cetera. One way, and then another, it illuminates natural impressions by geometry, bringing out similarities and differences, as it enlightens things all around. Light leavens things, settling in the interstices, and elevates knowledge a little or a lot by the quality and quantity of divisibility and presence. Without it, many things would become impossible, of course, and its speed should not be called constant any more than a genie and his bottle or a world of many 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."(6)


"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."(7) 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 should become apparent that what is being discussed by Newton in the "Principia", for the sake of heliocentrsim, is a metaphysical theory of preternatural or supernatural horns of dilemma, and occult actions-at-a-distance, not natural and empirical science.


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. Gravitational fields are not instantaneous but weak as can be, 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 essential anchor or basis to propagate its theoretical powers; and, therefore, it is said that the sun is continually tugging at the Earth as if 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 will fly away into the woods. Then again, from what we experience through 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 they say that nothing can travel faster than the constant speed of light, and that it takes 8.5 minutes for sunlight to reach the earth, but gravity must be everywhere, as much as there is the effect of order. If gravity were everywhere, it could not go any faster, and what cannot go faster must be the fastest. Faster than sunlight, it must move everything, since everything is in motion; and it would rate as an active and universal force; but gravity does not move light or even boil water, or crush ice cubes, and it does not move through neutral gravity zones. Although they may attempt to solve one problem, with heliocentrism, they create others, and pop goes the weasel in the cosmos.

Constant absurdities arise from the theory of relativity. For example, relativity maintains that if a falcon is moving at the speed of light and is 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.(8)

But falcons are not turtles, and this part of relativity was more like an old paradox of motion than something completely new. Zeno of Elea had a file of similar paradoxes called "aporeia". One that has survived and is fairly well known is the story of Achilles and the tortoise that he could never outrun, if the turtle had a good lead. What a creature of circumstance he was! Not any normal turtle but a long legged river turtle, a dirt kicker and a stud of a Fitzroy River turtle, and with a fifteen or twenty yard lead, Achilles could never catch him.

If the tortoise was prepared for the race with as little as a nineteen yard lead, which is like one side of a tennis court from baseline to net, plus about six yards, the tortoise will never be overtaken by Achilles. When Achilles begins the pursuit, he must first reach the point from which his opponent the great tortoise began. But in the meantime the plodding champion will always have crawled ahead to a new advance point. Even if only by a little, in the interstices, it will always be just enough, so that the apparently slower turtle must always be ahead by at least some fraction of a distance, in finis. For in all the many halfway marks, and midpoints of the halfway marks, Achilles will always be coincidentally stuck behind the turtle by the power of division, because the turtle is always making some amount of forward progess. Even as he would run as fast as he can, for Achilles there are an infinite number of divisible points he must first attain and cross, 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 takes Achilles to run the first 9.5 yards to halfway behind, the River Diver will already have advanced a measure of a champion. And in the time that it takes him to progress another 4.75 yards, the turtle will have advanced another space also, and in the time it took for Achilles to cover the next 2.375 yards, the turtle will again have moved forward also, and so on, and so on, so that as Achilles goes the following 1.1875 yards the turtle will have increased his lead again by some little part. 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 and pass the turtle. Going another .59375, and then .296875, and another .1484375 yards, for a total of 18.8515625, he is still behind the beginning, and the turtle has already been on his way. As Achilles must always go by fractions and decimals into the distance, the glory of the tortoise in the interstices always stays ahead, so much that he will continually have some part of a lead and so on ad infinitum.

Some would object and say there is an unfair motive of division in favor of the turtle, but it is only an old paradox reductio ad absurdum, and the only way the turtle can win: a metaphor like E = MC^2 for the turtle's advantage, as much as the "constant speed of light" in theoretical relativity would be stuck in the shell of his back. The turtle would be pre-eminent like "C" and could sport a little photo t-shirt of Einstein over his shell. Being a well placed and immanent creature, his his t-shirt could be touched up with little mirrors and shards of glass 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. 

In other words, the power of the Fitzroy 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 of motion 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 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 where Zeno and Einstein begin to cross lines and go into metaphysics and theology. 

As much as the beach and a sweep of sand, with sea glass and shells, man is a creature of nature and 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 a bubble bursts, there goes all of it, as within the category of motions and divisions of a simple body and a sphere.


For better or worse, there is even Las Vegas, which everybody knows as well as the m.a.f.i.a. (Mazzini autorizza furti incendi avvelenamenti), and then there was the dollar rediscount movie "Last Vegas", starring Michael Douglas near his last legs: and there is also Richard Dawkins, the idiot, and NASA's fake trips to the Moon and Mars: and Ben Bernanke and Janet Yellen of the Federal Reserve, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers, and Goldman Sachs, Strobe Talbot and equity fund friends by degrees of the financial derivatives of hoo joo international apocalypse, etc., bubbles that will burst ... like 9-11 bombs in the buildings: "boom, boom, boom", and "falling down".

"Vanitas vanitatum", dixit Ecclesiastes, "vanitas vanitatum. Omnia vanitas. Quid habet amplius homo de universo labore suo, quod laborat sub sole"?(9) 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 one year, he could have said as well, "I could be bounded in a nut shell and count myself a king of infinite space, were it not that I have bad dreams", bad dreams indeed because of Michelson-Morley, and Dr. Fizeau, and Airy's naive water-filled telescope failure. A dramatic character as Einstein as Hamlet could say interferometerwise in soliloquy, "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 the world further assurance that the sun and the moon and the stars all orbit and encircle the poor trodden earth, which perdures immobile and green in many places in space."(10)

"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 moves 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, making the cover of Time Magazine, and to continue saying that it goes the wrong way?

Have I not made the wrong motion? Drunk the wrong potion? When we lie, we make fools of nature and ourselves, yet with this game that I helped author all the money is favored. This heliocentrism and its fog of relativity would perhaps also be particle and wave of what is creepy and rotten, and breaking the poor like Denmark."

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

Instead, he denied the honest answer, wandered through a career to cash a check, 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, more or less, and is also equivalent to 15 degrees of longitude and one nautical hour. As the days pass, the hand of time in nature 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 and 15 degrees of celestial longitude.

Since the sun cannot move away from itself, and it can only be in one place at a time, one speed at a time, it always divides the day and night side of the earth from each other, from the high noon meridian. The high noon meridian is the primary line of longitude from which it divides 90' E from 90' W, for the 180' of the daylight side of Earth. A question about the speed of light then is also a question about the speed of rotation of a semi-circle within a given scale of dimension.  

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 miles from Yerevan, Armenia to Constantinople, from 40 North latitude, is less terrestrial distance than the parallel of the equator, yet the latitude corresponds in an equivalent scale of longitude and time to any other 15' and one hour: because the sun orbits the earth, which is a sphere, and light is both particle and wavelength, and its property of illumination is immanent by nature, et cetera.


Of course, the work of modernist heliocentrism has not been the work of Einstein alone. 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 much to Poincare for developing non-Euclidean theories of relativity, including that mass increased with velocity, which could contradict the theoretical contraction 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 all 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, the fastest pitch and the fastest serve; 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 remaining "constant"? Would they or someone faster 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 and toyed with by an exponent.

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 light 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 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 an insane number for the speed of light and a match, 186,282 miles per second, and that it is constant? From the way that light and darkness interact, there is slow burn and fast burn, and it does not appear that the speed of dark is necessarily constant. The dark is known for context more by the light than by the darkness itself. So the speed of dark over light, as much as a fire is 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, 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" that is 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 for terms of space, not only nothing, since no two points in space can be separated by nothing --- that vacuum that anybody would mean is qualified by what it lacks, not that it does not exist.

And they would know the constant speed of light from when? From eternity or chaos or when it was dark? If eternity is chaos and chaos is eternal, then Einstein was certainly wrong and wasting his time, if he was trying to make good sense, even the more that he could possibly have been right, 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 of years, and that it has no center, as much as it is totally homogeneous and isotropic?


From the dawn of chaos?


It has been assumed and taught that "the velocity of any medium-dependent wave is the square root of the medium’s elasticity divided by its density."(11) 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 extensively 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 support 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, when dawn's first light is 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 is an essential property around the sphere of the earth. 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.


It can even be as slow as a silver pocket watch or hand held mirror reflecting light off a turtle's shell. Some species like the Fitzroy River turtle may average 25 to 26 cm in shell length, which is close to 30 cm and one 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 morning hour, as it moved through 15' of longitude. If a turtle going east from Armenia, with a little mirror and silver pocket watch taped to the photo t-shirt of Einstein on his shell, was riding in the back of a truck, traveling 60 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 reached Constantinople further to the east. So goes some of the speed of light around the earth between the different places. 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 speed, quality, and propagation of light involve questions of magnification, distillation, and amplitude of distribution within the various characteristics of a given plenum. There is something algebraic in it, not so esoteric, and it can become a simple question of essential properties like 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, the altitude of it would overextend the international space station by 470 miles. The ISS has an average altitude of 240 miles in its low earth orbit. The great pyramid of turtle shells of Asia Minor would have a height of 710.14 miles, and it 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 moon's pyramid would only need to be multiplied about 19 times more than that.


If thinking about so many turtle shells as it would take to reach the moon and the sun would be a headache for velocity and order, then just imagine one great tortoise corresponding to the altitude of each pyramid. It would only take a gigantic turtle for either 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 then one of the sun? As fast as the shell of the gigantic cosmic tortoise that fits each one, "c^2" for "carapace squared".

If the whole sphere of the earth and its 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 speed of the turning shells.

Some may object and say there are no turtles this big; and it takes them too many seconds to do anything, even if they are big as the solar system; but as with light the matter is not only a question of size but also attribution of species. If 4,329,600 Fitzroy River turtles in a row between Yerevan and Constantinople are able to keep up with the speed and 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, who was pretending to be 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 they could be anywhere else on earth, come see thy reflection of goofball solemnity ... of equivalence and despair. If the sun floods its banks and flows 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 then returns, folding 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 was 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' would be universal or have an effect in the quiet --- by any chime or inverse squared --- much less have any practical extension in physics. Gravity does not break the silence or ripen a 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 Newtonian 'gravity', or your confounded theories of 'relativity'. Whatever the cause of motion, hidden agency or not, it would be because of something 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




"The anomalies and contradictions in Relativity are endless"(1). Einstein's system of relativity is a patchwork of endless confusion 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 are similar to Galileo's and Newton's suppositions of "universal gravitation" and of perpetual horizontal motion.


For Einstein employed in the world of Copernican denial, "scientific" materialism, and that part of oblivion, E=mc2 added a poetical touch like Haiku: 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)


Applied to the the matter of cosmology, Einstein's work at the root says that all motion is only relative to this, that, and the other, and to where an observer is when something is in motion, and "that nothing is standing still in the whole universe." "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 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 has been to make the Copernican assumption retainable as a valid option in spite of the mountains of scientific and logical facts arrayed everywhere against it. Loaded with mathematical smoke screens and double-talk, its premise is that everything is in motion, and, therefore, it concludes that naturally the earth spins many different speeds at once to orbit the sun.


According to this philosophy, all things are subjective and relative, and there is not anything objectively authentic, simple, nor transcendent such as truth. As Pontius Pilate said to Jesus, "Quid est veritas"? "what is truth"? and as the state said to Winston in Orwell's "1984": "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.


As before, if no one can be certain of the simple authenticity of rest or motion in things, how can anyone be certain of any positive direction in motion? As well, it should be 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 all are also circling the earth from east to west every day.


How is it positive that a motion is not both of the different opposite ways at once, or many different ways at once, if it is not even clear whether it is moving, "vis in moto", or standing still, "vis in situ circumsidentis", in the first place? Whatever could be said or recorded of a motion, if there is no objective authenticity at any level, but only subjective and relativistic perceptions? How can anyone be sure of any given direction or result from it.


If everything in the world is only a matter of opinion, or philosophical preference, what will happen about people who lie almost all the time and mislead the deaf, dumb, and blind? "Quid est veritas"?

Some people like to lie for whatever reasons, comme ci, comme ca. And many of them became "good" at it. If doublespeak wins, that would be "good" for them.


According to Einstein as a tennis umpire, a shot could be either way of any direction, or all at once, depending only from where the observer is viewing its progress. So John McEnroe and Jimmy Connors should settle down. 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 with bad eyes would be equal to the best?

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


If there is no central and objective criteria to make anything certain, everything is only changeable and relativistic ... and there is no truth. Is that true? There is no truth. 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)



"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



Verba ita sunt intelligenda ut res magis valeat quam pereat: words are to be understood so the subject may be more effective than wasted is an old rule of law that when explaining a question and answer, it is important and better to clarify rather than confuse.


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 abject 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 at 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, veiled by interferential refractometers, interferometers, and so many papers of abstract scientific materialist arcana and so forth.

Into this peculiar breach stepped Einstein, like "E=MC^2", with his pawn shop bag of paradoxes and 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 imagined that the "explanation must surely lie in some perverse feature of the physical world, which scientists had not suspected."(1)

The radical solution that Einstein proposed to save the appearances was simply to abolish out of hand the aether. However, it may be easier to say good-bye and run away from home than send away other realms. To say that the aether did not exist "was equivalent to scrapping current views of light, electricity, and magnetism," which were well founded at the time.(2) It was desperate like starting everything over again from an unknown begining. The solution at first did not seem feasible, because it simply is impossible for two points in space to be separated by absolutely nothing, but the answer in vacuo, illogical and empty as it was, would be a key paradox of Einstein's later success.

A second paradox was his far ranging theory of equivalence and co-variance, which was his way of saying and playing on the street like "it's all good". He would throw a beat for metaphor of a train and a plane like "E=mc^2, E=mc^2", and "I'm a sucker for pain". Sometimes though it is not "all good". Sometimes it is more like "errare humanum est". A hundred years before Einstein, Beethoven once said that "nothing is more intolerable than to have to admit to yourself your own errors".


As stupid and exaggerated as it can be, the slapstick routine of "ooh, I hate it when that happens" is not so far removed from the uneasy grip in the world of relativity. Like other absurdities, faulty reasoning, false analogies, ridiculous substitutions, allusions, and concealments, the technique of the act in the joke helps create the stage for physical comedy and heliocentric insistence, et cetera. For example, Einstein used literary allusion to compare acceleration to gravity, to support his assertion that gravity and acceleration were equivalant --- or the same difference. It was a poetic turn, not scientific, from the cognitive sense people may get of equivalence through metaphors. "As" and "like" go from on end of the universe to the other, and "as you like it". Albert was a poet, but he did not know it.


For illustration, he would adapt Galileo's false law of falling bodies, and false theoretical formula of universal gravitation, and say that a passenger in outer space, like Martin Short and 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, it was not because he did not take take the ride, and gravity does not cause acceleration more than fire climbs up a matchstick. Overall the weight of objects alone brings them to rest, and some composure, and people experience motion sickness and dizziness from acceleration not gravity, as acceleration comes from forces of impetus and momentum

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

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

But "a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true."(4)

Three illustrations Einstein used to avoid the real difficulties of cause, effect, and simultaneity involved time. One had to do with twins, and another with a train station observer, and then a related sort with clocks, which Herbert Dingle summarized this way:

"According to the Special Theory of Relativity, two similar clocks, A and B, which are in uniform relative motion ... work at different rates. The situation would be therefore entirely symmetrical, from which it follows that if A works faster than B, B must work faster than A. Since this is impossible the theory must be false".(5)

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 depths of relativity it sometimes becomes unclear which is which, "who is on first", and which clock of the three should be ahead. After all, the Earth does fly faster than trains for an astronomical velocity. 


The confusion about clocks is an overdone version of musical chairs, where it should be forgotten that the measures of a musical score are the same wherever they go. The time in the song remains the same within the beat and rhythm and within the octave. A musical bar signature is the same number of beats per measure wherever it could roam in the world of relativity and numbers. If any atomic clocks can keep time only as well as a few perfect drummers drumming, not missing a beat, they will not vary from an original metrical setting due to relative background motions or their own transporation.


If a few people can count together like a drum, "one Mississippi, two Mississippi, three Mississippi", etc., as perfectly as a metronome, their 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.


The role of the observer figures 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".(6) 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 ..."(7) To say that train stations are moving as well as the trains is an observable contradiction, yet one that followed 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 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 long ago had died and been buried. Something in confusion about light and the hundreds' place.

But according to relativity it is just as true to say that the earth has moved away from the spaceship, as it is to say that the spaceship has 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."(8)

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. That is to say, Paul simultaneously could "be both dead and alive", and Peter simultaneously could "be both dead and alive" ... at the same time, of course, between them in either relative case, when Paul arrives home.(9)

In 1918, Einstein attempted a resolution of the twin and clock paradox by invoking his principle of co-variance. Not far different from hypnosis and old-school Galilean invariance from years before, 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."(10)

"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 ..."(11)

However, Einstein's "assumptions cannot be justified in a purely logical way", and the principle of equivalence running as the key thread throughout the theory of relativity "is not an observable truth: rather it is a purely arbitrary and desperate assumption ..."(12)


Shrinking rods were another of Einstein's 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  conclusively shown that the Earth is not rotating or moving, Fitzgerald, Lorentz, Poincare, et al., and Einstein attempted to side-step the unthinkable, to them, conclusion that the earth was not a spinning ball 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.


Referring himself back to Fitzgerald's theater of the absurd, Einstein simplified "every material object" to rods and then used more abstruse and useless mathematical arcana to sell the idea again, including it "in his equations just as if it were as real as 1 + 1 = 2."(13) 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 have been 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."(14)


Not only is the rotation of the Earth undetectable, so is reality; and naturally, therefore, many people who study relativity feel a 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 into daydreams.


But, after all, which is more logical?


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


B) real rods that are not affected by speed?


A) train stations that move?


B) trains that move?"(15)



Einstein's putative instruction that everything is in motion and nothing is 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 admit that some things never change. As a cunningly wise man from the past observed in one of his notes, "truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress".


"The old commonplaces of philosophy, the same from the beginning of time ... always the same, always the same, from the beginning of time, and never any other."(16)



Math and logic do not change, for the correct answer or the wong one, as much as entity is absolute. Like the development of ontological necessity and forced moves in chess, mathematics consists of many necessary and logical truths, like the congruent angles and sides in whatever size triangles, and 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",(17) and assets always equal liabilities plus equity.


Fiat justitia et pereat mundus, vel ruat coelum: justice be done and let the world perish or the heavens fall, and it is fairly obvious that 4 + 4 = 8 and d = rt and pi = C/d at all times and places, everywhere for all 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 self-sufficient and transcendent in a unique way, even another order of excellence 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 not only to look 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 categorical divsion; and of the indivisible and the infinite, there is only one proper kind per se, the actual one, and then another that is spoken of by analogy, the potential.


Zeno the fool had another relative paradox that one day a man discovered that he could not leave his room. To reach the door, he had first to walk half to halfway across the room. After that he had to walk half of the remaining division, and then half of that, and half of the lesser half. He discovered, as he tried to leave the room, that there were infinitely many of these halfway points to cross, so that he could not even reach the means of them except for some part of the division --- and he realized no one can perform infintely many acts in a finite 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 the hall of projection. If there are two separate measures, some other space must separate them, as much as between any two amounts, there must be another. The third from betwixt or between must be a distinction from the other two, as much as a fraction, and since there must be a further separation whenever one separation is present, because one separtion cannot cover all of the space, and space is full 3-D, the number of separations is endless. This would mean that time and space are infinite, and also that a man can never leave his room.


"I bought a bourgeois house in the Hollywood hills
With a trunkload of hundred thousand dollar bills
Man came by to hook up my cable TV
We settled in for the night my baby and me
We switched 'round and 'round 'til half-past dawn
There was fifty-seven channels and nothin' on"


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

As much as TV is reality, for equivalence or a nightmare, 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."

For as of 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."(18) Therefore, E=MC^2 and the theory of relativity are not something that Einstein or natural science can actually know for a fact, because the basis of the instruction is unqualified by infinity. The formula and the picture are on the scale of an indeterminate supreme genus. The implication of it all is on the magnitude of an unbounded plane, intuentes abyssos, looking into the abyss.


And for "E", what kind of energy are they talking about? "M" implied of what substance and form of mass, and the presence and velocity of light would be absolutely constant, yet it multiplies to the square to accelerate? 


Passage over complete and 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.(19) Einstein should have just written, "infinity = infinity", for the sake of the magnitude, and left the whole world of physics at that. 


Infinity = infinity, but that which is completely and actually infinite is not balanced in the extremity 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, 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 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. 

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

Peter suggested that the paradoxes of infinity could be conjugated away by choosing a milder reading.(20) Yet if “n” were infinite and the number of dead men would not be greater than “n”, for one, two, or three steps away, it would be absurd, to be separated from infinity by one, two, or three steps of a dead man. Or if the dead men were only as great in the completion, but not more than "n", then the number of them would have been impossible to count that far … from the first to the last, since infinity never ends. Actual infinity is named more properly complete infinity, whereas potential infinities are not so complete for extent but are finalized by divisions and, therefore, could never become an actual infinity, properly speaking. 

The sore predicament of Einstein and the scientific materialist community, in view of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and the apparently authentic immobility of the earth, was 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 it is a bottle of aspirin and not a bottle of air?

The ancient Greeks 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 that describe a thing: the formal, material, efficient, and final. These are the reasonable causes and ends without which things like the ship of Theseus and museums would not be. Can an object remain itself only formally? What sort of attribution is there in only a formal identity? Could the ship of Theseus remain itself forever, only formally, even if all the original materials had been completely replaced?

Some will say yes, some will say no. But for those who say yes, would the ship of Theseus then be infinite for the form of it? If it can seem to go on forever ... formally? If they painted E=MC^2 on the starboard or port, would that help substantiate the argument of formal permanence in the ship of Theseus? As the fitted wood on which E=MC^2 would be painted wears out with the years, and is replaced in perpetuity, what does that 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 it is only an argumentative statement of a philosophical preference. Except for endless nonsense, it is not logically correct as much as it is not clear which energy is in the definition of the form, if not the matter or the end: something only natural, or preternatural, or 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 valid, except as purely formal arguments in favor of an unsound and disorganized philosophical preference. These so-called laws that go together are not considered within the order of real material efficiency and applied science. Rather it is how they play with metaphysics and paradox, in the realm of philosophical preference, yet pretend that they are conducting natural empirical science with objective facts.


For them it is not a material fact in the question. It is 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 and efficiently for a label any better than the false Law of Conservation of Energy, or the ship of Theseus burned up and gone with the wind, what about the formal and teleological significance?

Formal predication and philosophical preference can be far ranging, of course, and some minds can be lost in the cosmos. 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 for 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 trueness of pure form, some people could say so, 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 purely formal implications of E=MC^2 and the "Law of Conservation of Energy"? What sort of premise and formality or thing is it?

Of course, it is redundant, circulus in probando, waiting there for its tautology, and it is the central scientific materialist premise at work in disguise: that the Sun most certainly does not orbit the earth! It is a negative formality and premise vis-a-vis geocentricity.

The only practical purpose of E=MC^2 is to be a negative premise and fallacy to confuse the facts against geocentricity. That is its subtle teleology, and it all goes back to Copernicus and Aristarchus of Samos, who were both wrong and without any reasonable scientific proof whatever to begin. Plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose, and less distantly, E=MC^2 goes back to Galileo's sophomoric law of falling bodies, where d=1/2gt^2, and Kepler, and Newton's law of universal gravitation by the inverse squared.

All the same, the same for all, it can be inferred logically "that there is only one thing from the premise that concepts which employ negations do not 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, that it does not orbit anything else? Not clouds or the full moon in Scotland, or Jupiter, Saturn, or Aldebaran. Of course, the system that scores accumulations of billions and billions and billions of tax dollars for faked trips to the moon and Mars does not say that the earth goes seven and dozens of astronomical speeds all at once to orbit clouds or the wind or any of them.






“I hadn't really noticed that I had a hearing problem. I just thought most people had given up on speaking clearly.”

Hal Linden



Three Card Monte is like relativity, where they always talk about a "vacuum", but a complete or perfect vacuum as they 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. Yet what there is of space must be quantitized and free space always has some geometric structure.(1)

"Space is not a complete vacuum"(22) and not without continuity of a plenum; and there is more room for fools, of course, and suckers for pain, for at least their 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 being wherever it is in the first place, also by what it contains and does not contain in three inevitable dimensions.

Space is a great composite in three's that may be 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 more than 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. As King Lear answered the fool, abyssum abyssi invocat. "Why, no, boy; nothing can be made out of nothing. This is nothing," and for the edge of a cliff.

Any vacuum they would like to use for scientific proof of a theory of relativity will be qualified by some mass of air, or aether, some presence and volume of space, and all the common interrogatives in predication of some sort. Horror vacui is nothing to analyze without actual prepositions of being and relation, ens inquantum ens, which means being at least as much as being, as there would be a vacuum, or any possible light, otherwise there would be no way to test it and know anything about it. Being qua being, qua pro quo --- qua qua quo quo --- there is not any sort of when, where, 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 a void of a void and its perfect vacuum, for any real scientific purpose, as they use the unqualified term "in vacuo" in relativity.

"For what is nothing causes nothing," and it is impossible to think or talk about what does not exist more than it is impossible to know an infinite number of things. "The infinite as infinite is unknowable" and nothingness is even more so.(2) An assessment of nothing will be critical of nothing. As much as a waste land cannot be produced by itself, it cannot follow nothing, or be nothing, for as St. Augustine pointed out in his work "De Trinitate", BK I, "nothing ever makes itself or begets itself."(3)

Any vacuum is an effect that cannot be produced by itself, as much as a thing cannot produce itself, and common sense will prove that no effect whatsover can be produced by nothing at all. Nothing as nothing cannot produce anything, not even the emptiest space possible of whatever sort. If there is no cause, there is not even the strange ontological effect that would include the greatest vacuity of an empty agency. Nothing that is so empty that it could not be more empty can have not and have not without some immanence of not having.


What there is instead is a plenum and an "always" of some sort. Something like the immanent and highest form of substance exists, even above the mind of a Buddhist monk in a luxury car commercial. "It is better to travel well than to arrive", and if there is not primary substance, there are not the secondary ones and others that follow, in species and genera. Nothing that is empty of the world like the Buddha can have not and have not without first the essential terms of its own adherence to begin. "For the spirit of the Lord has filled the world, and he who contains all things, retains knowledge of every voice." Quoniam spiritus Domini replevit orbem terrarum et hoc quod continet omnia scientiam habet vocis.(4) The speed of light, therefore, always and only operates ultimately in some context that is qualified by a simplified plenum, never in an unqualified or absolute vacuum.

Even a fool, when he hears of a 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 is yet more simple, if sometimes a little complicated. Therefore, 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 being, or a state of being, than which nothing more simple can be conceived, and the greatest simplicity, therefore, exists both in the understanding and in reality.

However, if the dead would bury themselves, 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 convenience, since they claim to know the speed of light?

If by dreams they know and see 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 vision, and of water in the eye, 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 dark 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 rain drop 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; and how would the speed of light be constant, and independent of the motion of its source, if it is divisible from many points, and affected by gravity, which does not move anything; and if all points of motion are not light, what about all the invisible changes in the dark? Things thrown in obscurity, many times totally without light, also go as fast as the speed of light, and the same speed as before, when they are set on fire. 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, how does someone with really bad eyes measure the speed of light as well as someone with hawk eyes? Again, what about clouds? What is the constant speed of light around the heavy and strange edges of storm clouds, when the weather is volatile and darkness of a strange quarter moon is closing in?


If there is great darkness over the face of the deep, where did the constant velocity of light go? If where a man walks it is total darkness under his feet, what obscurity is traveling faster than light? What is more and remains ahead of scientific 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 traveling than light, if the velocity of light is absolutely constant, which means something like the indivisible and infinite? 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 simplest and most extensive common denominator of "is", irreducible in the most aethereal form of "to be". For instance, there is not any void without some place for it to be, some where for it to be the empty void of an abyss, otherwise it could not ever be when of where that may be called as much as a vacuum in space --- and there is never any sort of 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(5). Forms are not merely outlines: they represent the invisible necessity between being and becoming, as much as the mathematical necessity for simplicity, and there is no space, place, time, or motion or way into nihilism without involving an existential attribution of 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 dependent for lack of elements and for the imperfect possession of not having whatever 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 in an absolutely absolute void or vacuum, at least for the form, and to speak of the speed of light as "constant in a vacuum" is naive. If a given vacuity of space possesses "C", and "C" is light, already it is twice not empty. It contains light, and where there is light there is place for it, and such places must have already been, ens inquantum ens, and contained something formal of being, for any illumination to occur, because light does not create dark places or corners. It only illuminates them.

The logic of space existent in the nature of being itself and geometry are before light. It goes without saying that numbers and other things in the dark are still the same numbers. They have the same identity, and if there are any three, there is always one in between; and there cannot ever be one without at least two sides; and, as they say a good definition for a shin is an instrument for finding furniture in the dark, expatiation always remains the same in the dark as in the light.

Not being the most general category, since being as being is greater and before it, and there are many places where there is no light, but there simply are not any places where there is not "is" or "are", at least in the simplest sense of mass and presence, "C" is not totally constant. From wherever it is, dark can run without light, but nothing exists, no matter how obscure, that does not have at least some logic and math, some geometry before it, some essential property of separation, even if it would remain forever without light. In the simplest sense of mass and presence, energy contains being and being contains energy, before and after light. There may or may not be light, but there must be logic, and that way all the things that are different make sense.

As simple perfections are, the simple perfection of being, only as being, ens entis inquantum ens, is the most general form of perfection common to all things in ultimate simplicity. If something general exists, that is the most simple component of existence, it must be genuine per se, and nothing that exists would be alien in all of existence to it. Being is categorically expositive in an excellent way, and expositional per se, 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". Being, ens entium inquantum ens, cannot not be, and with being there has always been logic and at least 1,2,3 and without being there has not been anything that is.

If the most general, extensive, and common element possible exists, 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, 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.(6)

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

Any and all opposites, "are", and obviously are part of being. 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 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 its past and its future, like one side and the other of a coin; so likewise there cannot have been any most simple present without its future and its past. There is not a slice or corner of time at which being cannot not be, therefore being must be, and that way also must be "then" for eternal simplicity.

And of all properties and attributes that are within being, with everything that it is and could be, there can only be one absolute and supreme being, of course. There cannot be two of them, since it would not make any sense to say that there could be two or many absolute and supreme beings. 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 highest order; and that being must certainly be, since "being" itself, encompassing all its orders, is a uniquely simple category of mathematical necessity, in its total extent, and has no opposite in 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.(7) So it is with the greatest simplicity of being and the scope of nothingness; and unqualified nothingness as an absolute vaccum of nothing must always be predicated of total nihilism and the 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 skirt 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 refractometerss have shown.

"Words will not fail when the matter is well considered", and "Being" cannot be explained or known by anything better for everywhere than the most simple moment of the present and the greatest simplicity of ontological necessity itself, et cetera.(8) Therefore, the refined authenticity of the plenum, ens inquantum ens, is prior to any empty vacuum of a sphere, and E = MC^2 is merely more scientific materialist propaganda ... to say that the Sun does not orbit the Earth. Whatever an instance of the speed of a light may appear to be, or actually be, it is not measured and manifest in a total vacuum more than the tendency of the medium; and it is not independent of its source or the motion of its source. Light, rather, is of mediated agency and dependent on context for illumination, and the way that it is not necessarily constant.

Natural energy that science knows a posteriori is not perfectly continuous, which would be constant, therefore, neither is light. In 1900 Max Planck rediscovered that energy is not continuous, finding that instead of being disposed along a continuum, in any amount that one could calculate, energy is only available in small and various packets of distribution --- that he called quanta --- and these quanta, of course, must be intercalated and added together of some kinds.

Aristotle's categories defined 10 genera with as many species as possible to follow. The analysis of categories formed the backbone of Aristotle's philosophy of science, and the method has exerted an unparalleled influence on the systems of many of the influential philosophers in the western tradition. Any sort of quanta will logically have to fall in with some kind, as it falls within some type of definition and context that fits a pattern of energy.



1. The Four-Fold Division

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


2. The Ten-Fold Division

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 closely alined with energy in whatever most discrete quality. Out of all this, again, the greatest categorical division in kind will be between the infinite and the finite. After that three primary sorts can also be added:

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 order of distinction for cause and effect is all important to the facts.

And for Einstein's troubles of theory, here, there, and everywhere about atomic clocks and the supreme genus "when", should Judeo-Masonic NASA have to go to the Moon to figure out what day and time it is, and which way the Moon is actually going 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 natural space itself is not "absolute", "unbounded", or "infinite"; and the Earth does not have an equatorial bulge or squeezed-in polar caps, and is not an oblate spheroid; and some could figure that out with only a library card and no big budget from the government.


Energy being in quanta, which is all kinds, is well to know not only for physical science and logic but also for etymology, since in the history of words there may be many clues that are hidden to better awareness. For instance, an 11th century traveler between France and England could notice the similarity in sound and sense between Norman "quand", "when", and Anglo-Saxon "kind", another type or class. They sound a lot alike, and they both involve a measure of this or that, both referring 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 without a "when" and "quanta" in their kinds. 


Even the TV show "Quantum Leap" was not "absolute", "unbounded", or "infinite" in time and space, however much they may have tried for that extra season; but it was only natural energy generated in its kind and its channels. Broadcast on NBC from March 26, 1989 to May 5, 1993, for a total of five seasons, the kids grew up and graduated, as "all things have their season, and in their times all things pass under heaven." (9)


Even the greatest television cannot be without little kinds of when, natural sorts, any more than commercials and 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."(10)


Which also means that all natural orders of space and time, and all channels, no matter the magnitude of scale, are not "absolute", "unbounded"  or "infinite", because what is newly contemporary is not infinite, unbounded, or absolute; and what is less than new and secondary is not either. Subsequent orders are mixed results in quality, in quale quid; and the partial 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."(11) Beyond that sort of nature, potential infinity is a question of metaphysics and poetry, transcendence and even theology, not inductive empirical analysis. Albert was a poet, but he did not know it. Relativity is abstract and far out, like a literary chaos, as if up were down and one way were the other way, and so on for a few dozen, and the land of the lost was home. Daniel Boone, for instance, lacked such an education in science and theory. After a life trekking the wilderness frontier, he claimed “I've never been lost, but I was mighty turned around for three days once.” 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.” 


"What we think we become", and even though E=MC^2 is not practically scientific, it has been so popularized today that it cannot be without its natural sorts: little packets or bottles of energy perhaps and expressions of sunshine. Since the equation cannot go of itself into actual infinity except by metaphor, even by the greatest confusion, if it were accepted to the limit as a poetic ode to chaos, or a quantum leap in haiku, the jokes 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.


Old pond...
mirror of ancient calm

Einstein jumps in
water's sound.

Infinity = infinity, 
not E = MC^2                                       

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?
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.





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?