with a headache

cramped living conditions

There was a wizard who went to the doctor day complaining of headaches. "It's because I live in the same one room apartment as two of my brothers," he said. "One of them has six goats, and the other has five little pigs. The smell is terrible."

"Well, couldn't you just open the windows?" asked the doctor.

"Certainly not", he replied, "my bats would fly out."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlPAVm8Gl6M&feature=related

 

 

 

Winston says that 2 & 2 are 5, and Winston gets a cookie. Who, therefore, does not want a cookie too?

Whereas, a heliocentric syllogism for the sake of errors, delusions, skepticism, cynicism, disorientation, scientific abuse, chaos of motion, anxiety, escapism, and, of course, heliocentrism and a cookie:

Major Premise: Due to the apparent great size, heat, glare, and impressionable effects on Earth of the Sun and of sunlight, it is self-evident that the Earth is moving because of the Sun, and it is orbiting the Sun in space.

Minor Premise: No interferometer, or interferential refractometer, or any scientific experiment whatsoever has ever been able to detect any rotation or spinning of the Earth in space at all; and the Foucault pendulum is driven, damped, and tuned. It even seems to have a little gyroscoped communist setting hidden away inside the bob.

Conclusion: Therefore, with an undetectable yet most powerful and unaccelerated motion, the Earth is moved by the effects of Newtonian gravitation from the Sun, the cause of which remains unassigned, and solid matter shrinks in the forward direction of motion -- and time rather dilates, it does not "fly" as the geocentric Romans used to say, "tempus fugit".

Neither aether nor absolute and authentic rest exist anywhere, since everything, including the Earth, is in motion, and everything is only relative. Yet somehow the speed of light is constant. A great constant indeed, although it can be squared.

Also, when General Relativity is fully considered, and remaining valid, it could be that a minor mistake has been made, and the Earth is orbiting Sirius, Saturn, Jupiter, or Regulus, instead of the Sun, but under no circumstances is the Earth orbiting a crescent Moon or clouds, especially not the little clouds.

And it is okay that gravity is the weakest of fundamental forces, weaker than what is experienced directly, and of no significant or practical measure in real physics. Weaker than the littlest kitten's paw. In fact, gravity is not even a lateral or vertical force. The way gravity acts is incredibly passive, and it is not even really an active force, as much as it would be merely a coextensive attribute of things, things in quale quid, like division or multiplication by one, if not zero. 

The Gradual Acceptance of the Copernican Theory of the Cosmos

Heliocentrism did not begin to become widely accepted until after the "Principia" (1687), the Inglorious Revolution (1688), the foundation of the Bank of England (1694), and the French Revolution (1793) and War of the First Coalition (1793-1797) followed by the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815), and the Communist Revolutions of 1848 and Foucault's pendulum (1851), Darwin (1859) and Karl Marx's publications of 1848, 1867, 1885,  and 1894, the Communist Manifesto and volumes I, II, and III of Das Kapital.

As great as its social development and impact became, however, only 200 years after the "Principia", Copernicanism hit a serious bump in the road with the Michelson-Morley interferometer experiments of 1887. A bone rattler and only the same old problem as before, since it already is evident that the earth is not moving, how can it be orbiting the sun?

Not only has it been falsely presented that heliocentrism is scientifically valid, it also has been falsely presented that geocentrism and common sense are somehow ignorant, unscientific, anti-modern, and "medieval". Under the unremitting influence of modernist and "scientific" materialist propaganda, the grand deception has gotten so rotten that most people today ignorantly identify geocentrism with superstition and the myth of the flat Earth, not understanding that geocentrism is modern, scientifically valid, and classical as Caesar and Cicero, and not anything to do with stupid myths of the flat Earth.

Historians generally have marked the beginning of the modern era from the fall of Constantinople in 1453 or the discovery of the Americas in 1492, and except for few the Renaissance was still geocentric in worldview, and none of the educated believed or advocated the myth of the flat Earth. The voyage of Columbus that reached the Americas in 1492 did not prove to Ferdinand and Isabella, Pope Alexander VI, or to any of the well advised that the Earth was round. They already knew that. They just did not know that the Americas would be there in between Europe and China.

The famous voyages of discovery did not prove more than verify that the Earth was round. Columbus, Vasco da Gama, John Cabot, Giovanni Verrazzano, Jacques Cartier, and Magellan, and the circumnavigation of the globe completed by Elcano merely helped them obtain a clearer idea of its dimension and what was out there. Elcano completed Magellan's voyage around the Earth in 1522, 21 years before the publication of Copernicus's "De Revolutionibus", and port authorities already knew as well as the ancients and medieval monks that the Earth was in the form of a sphere; and they also correctly recognized that it was not moving; and that the Sun and the Moon and the stars were orbiting it, from their spheres.

None of the Renaissance navigators believed anything so heinous as the Earth flying in space to orbit the Sun. The suggestion would sound practically psychotic, and they did not say that the body of the Earth overall was flat. Like Cabeza de Vaca, de Luna, and Menendez, from Florida to Texas and Mexico, they all understood correctly that the earth was well centered, densely compacted together as a perfect sphere, representing an elemental collection within its domain at the center of the ecliptic. All the effective navigational charts and nautical almanacs they used to survive and sail around the world were based on a very clear and definite fixed-Earth assumption. That way also it was conclusive that it was at the center of the cosmos, since there is only one ecliptic.

A little historical perspective from England in view of the the progress of heliocentrism over the Seven Seas may help.

For example, King Henry VII, who sponsored the voyages of John Cabot to America, and Henry VIII, Thomas More, and Erasmus*, and the whole majority of the warp and woof of their day were all of a Ptolemaic perspective. Society continued this way in the soundness of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, common sense, the Bible, and geocentricity even until the days of Walter Raleigh, Captain John Smith, and the Virginia Colony of Jamestown 1607. When William Gilbert published "De Magnete" in 1600, there was nobody in England who was so ungrounded in presence of mind that he actually thought that the Earth was spinning away and flying in diurnal rotations except him, and a very small circle of readers of Thomas Digges.

Digges was the first in the climate to propose a physically infinite universe, which is as impossible as 2 and 2 are not 4. In England at the time, only Gilbert and Digges, and at the most a few odd dabblers in arcana and the occult, had adopted Copernicanism. To say that the natural physical universe is infinite is such a basic confusion and distortion of terms, like Newton's "absolute space", that it cannot be kept long without some defense from ignorance. The natural and physical order is everywhere divided in parts, and infinity, which has no beginning and no end, and transcends all counting numbers, cannot be attained by any duality or multiplication.

Rather the country was as geocentric as Aristotle, Hipparchus, Ptolemy, St. Brendan, Madoc Gwynedd, Owain Glyndwr and the Pope. The leading English scientist Francis Bacon wisely rejected the theory of heliocentrism, and it is safe to assume that Shakespeare did as well. A clever man with a good eye, and widely read, there are no indications anywhere that he entertained any revolving Earth ideas. Instead it seems clear from the record that he was a traditional English Christian and a Catholic sympathizer.

When the first European settlements in North America, from Quebec City 1535, St. Augustine, Florida 1565, Jamestown, Virginia 1607, Cuper's Cove 1610, and Plymouth Colony 1620, were being founded, the world was still largely in one place. The errors of Copernicanism were more remote and retarded to develop than most people realize. At that time in l'histoire, dans l'Age des decouvertes et exploration, l'influence of Copernicus was still only peculiar and negligible and for difficult translation.

On the continent, Copernicanism was not doing much better than in England, where it never really took off until it caught strange wings from Newton. Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) wrote the first defense of Copernicanism, "Mysterium Cosmographicum", in 1596, and it did not go over any better than "De Revolutionibus". He added "Astronomia Nova" in 1609 and "Harmonices Mundi" in 1619, and the first of three volumes of "Epitome Astronomiae Copernicanae" in 1617, the second edition in 1620,  the third in 1621. Kepler was Protestant but none of prominence like Luther, Melanchthon, or Calvin agreed with any theory of heliocentrism, because such ideas were contrary to the bible and common sense.

Rene Descartes was fascinated by heliocentric cosmology and included his own theory of vortices to explain gravitation in the first manuscript copies of his book, "The World", in 1633, until he discovered that Galileo had been condemned with heresy for teaching Copernicanism in the same year. Galileo's situation in Italy was a debacle, and in older age he privately confessed in a letter to a friend that he had changed his mind and abandoned the heliocentric position.

Descartes contributed to the growth of subjective idealism, if not skepticism, in European philosophy, but heliocentrism did not really find its counter-intuitve game until after Newton's "Principia" of 1687. With a strong position among Enlightenment philosophers of the 18th century, and the expansion of the Judeo-Masonic British Empire around the globe, the scene began to change in favor of heliocentrism. Until those days, the greater weight of society had not felt sufficiently the motivation to entertain such grandiose mechanistic fantasies as heliocentrism would employ.

Cardinal Bellarmine had written Galileo that the Copernican system could not be defended without "a true physical demonstration that the sun does not circle the earth but the earth circles the sun", and yet to this day there has not been any adequate demonstration for it. The official Church opinion in 1615 was that heliocentrism was "foolish and absurd in philosophy, and formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture."

 

What the Michelson-Morley interferential refractometer experiment of 1887 discovered is that there is no rotation or movement of the Earth, and the supposed motion of the Earth has no effect on light. Of course, the supposed rotation of the Earth, which does not really exist, has no effect on the wind or the shadows of eclipses either, and an interferential refractometer to observe and measure what is already obvious is not required. There is not much better than good eyes and common sense to recognize that the land does not fly away from the wind.

If it were only comedy, it would have been better, because what scientific experiment will ever be able to detect any rotation of the Earth, which is so immediate and obvious, when no one can ever notice it moving at all in the first place? To confirm heliocentrism's idiotic situation, it becomes apparent that without a patronage system and powerful throne of confusion hidden behind it, it could not make it across the street. An occult or escapist fantasy, heliocentrism is not honest science or any derivative of common sense. 

"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth."

Buddha

 

 

The Copernican dilemma (1)

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, is one of the oldest fallacies, yet for the sake of the telescope modern science would say, "post Copernico, ergo propter Copernico". Therefore, certain eccentricities, great distances, and changing views of the stars would prove the motion of the Earth in orbit around the Sun. 

The "deep slumber of decided opinion" created by heliocentric relativity may not seem easy at times to answer, but in regard to Gamma Draconis, Polaris, Sirius, Saturn and all the other stars, it is not difficult to know that a star cannot move away from itself, or be in two or more different places at once, or transit at two or more speeds at the same time, and cannot transit at once in two or more different directions, and per se cannot translate its starlight directly from a place where it is not, or from a time and hour when it is not

For example, from a lost fragment of Clostridio of Minoa, recovered in caves at El Toro of Minorca, we have, "in orbium coelestium proprium, sol motum per gradatim, semper interest duo circulos, et sic pro omnis astris". In its own celestial sphere, the sun is moved by steps, always in between two circles, and so for all the stars. With some sense of duality, and one or the other from time and space, he wrote of the Sun in the seasons, "forma pulchritudinis, duo duo, et signaculum dierum omnia", the form of beauty, two by two, and a sign for all the days.

The Sun represents a combination from one place at a time. Like the rest of the stars, it cannot move away from itself without coming apart, as much as it cannot be going six different speeds. 

"The light that reaches us from above ... comes straight and true to our eyes, because each tender wavelet is linked to the other, receiving and transmitting the luminous ray."(1) They are not "light-years" away for the sake of any distance, but are there in the sky by the same principles of geometry as here on Earth. The science of geometry does not change from here to there, from one side of a view or the other, not even for parallax, so how is it that the sun orbits a point in space, for so many years, yet supposedly the cosmos has no center, and there is such odd nonsense about "light-years"?

Nothing looks the same from every perspective, but how can starlight be from any millions of years ago in a passing night, when the illumination progresses thirty degrees across the sky in two hours, or sixty degrees in four? If the species is old, the night is still young.

 

The angular position and direction of velocity describe the present orbit and location day by day: and space adds up with identity as well as time. Since the astronomer and the stars are under the same umbrella of time and space, it is the same day and hour from here to there; and however great the distance may be, if the light from a star were from some other time, like "from ten million years ago", the star would have to be in different places at once.

"All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowldge"(2), and it is as impossible for it to be a new moon and full moon at the same time, as it is for starlight to be from "ten million three hundred thousand years ago", yet distilled in arc minutes from a particular place circa diem.

From one intercept to the next, one divisible speed per littlest unit and arc of time, from where it was to where it will be, the volume of simple evidence in astronomy also accounts for actual positions not merely apparent ones. The one place before equal to its volume, where it was, and the one place now equal to its volume, and the one place to follow, where it will be, equal to its volume, add up for some actual part of reality. It is as simple as the time frame in a glass window in the ceiling, for three steps of past, present, and future, as the heavenly lights go circling around the Earth.

 

But since the Earth apparently is not moving, there must be a confusion of appearance, a mistake of visual perception from one side or the other, to help justify the theory of heliocentrism.

 

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful, is the cause of half their erros"(3), and heliocentrism today has the sun going six different speeds at once, which is impossible. At any given time, it always is only one measure of distance away from the Earth and at one point in the sky. A simple body that can have only one direction of progress in space, conformable to the whole, the sun is never in two different places at once. 

As from earlier notes about the Earth, by the sign at "Go Karts R Us", the explanation of the scene today would attribute 560,000 mph to the Sun for going around the galactic core, and 827,670 mph in view of the cosmic microwave background radiation, called the CMB for short, then an estimated 43,200 to 45,000 mph towards Lambda Herculis and also an upwards movement at about 90 degrees to the plane of the Milky Way at 15,658 mph. In addition, for simultaneous speeds, it flies 1.235,000 to 1,410,000 mph with the Milky Way around a localized group of distant galaxies, and for the sixth velocity it goes around 2,184,000 mph with the Hubble flow around the "Great Attractor", which does not yet have a specific location in any normal sense, except very, very far away.

 

 

So when NASA supposedly sends a satellite to Jupiter or Saturn, when does it start having many speeds at once too, instead of the one? If a satellite is always in one place at a time, how can it supposedly begin to go many speeds at once ... like Jupiter and Saturn, which also are in one place at a time before the background of more distant stars?

 

If any star is in different directions, as much as different speeds, at once, when should it not start coming apart or degenerating? The sun cannot return to the east and to the west in the sky at the same time and not begin to fail the course. From high noon, it cannot begin to set in the east and the west, for the logic of astronomy is in procession one step at a time. The same relation holds everywhere in logic, which would not be so if not for a center, as much as an origin.

Good eyes then are enough for specifics, and "light-years", and how to deliver the mail, where "in the end, the Newtonian and Einsteinian systems are mere mathematical representations of physical forces for which neither system provides real physical answers."(4) 

 

One sees that the proofs and the math in the "Principia", for example, are unreadable and absurd nonsense, Q.E.D., quod erat demonstrandum. As Aldous Huxley remarked, "if we evolved a race of Isaac Newtons, that would not be progress. As a man he was a failure; as a monster he was superb."(5) ... and crated for alchemy and the insane high over Cambridge, the sun has the same angular diameter in the sky as the Moon, 30 arc minutes, which equals half a degree of the ecliptic. Since there are 360 degrees of the ecliptic, for 2pi radians around the Earth, there are 720 arc steps of the Sun and the Moon per orbit. "Because they are always rolling in their courses (aei eilein ion) about the earth"(6), there is a zip code and an address, circle by circle, for the transits in the sky.

 

"The days have not been bigger than the cosmos, of course, and the cosmos has not been less than the longest day", said Agricola's obscure uncle, an augur in the days of Romulus and Remus. "Dies non fuerant maiores quam universalis, et cosmos ipse non fuerat minor quam dies diutissime. Enim omnissima una correspondeat et una cum catholica, in saecula saeculorum". For everything corresponds with one and one with everything.

 

Never underestimate the impact of a good circle, or the sign of three crows in myrtle, and the stars have a natural quality of haecceitas. Each one is boxed in by a box of itself that translates geometric space in simple 3-D coordinates, of two interlocked interior squares, that form six corners of the six centers of the sides of a box. Like a hexagonal diamond in 3-D, there are the two corners in the center to the sides, and the two corners above and below, and the two corners to the front and back: every point is a corner and ever corner has a point. Around these six corners can be drawn two circles to represent the two extensions in space of a star. The inner circle corresponds to the the star itself existing in real time, and the second circle corresponds to the rays of starlight.

In 1838, Friedrich Bessel observed the first recognized instance of stellar parallax in measuring the distance to the star 61 Cygni of the constellation Cygnus. He reported a parallax of 0.314 arc seconds and that this would also indicate the star was far enough way that it would take light 10.3 years to travel this distance. The paradoxical if not absurd "light-year" would appear again in a German popular astronomical article by Otto Ule in 1851. Yet looking at the stars is a question of where and when, for azimuth, altitude, and ascension, and a matter of genera and species in space and time within the scope of any given day. The solar day and Cartesian mathematics of the sphere, and of rest and motion, are defnitive enough for astronomical observations circa diem.

Each new day obviously is a little different for the astro-weather, and no matter the distance or aberration, as much as where is when, and when is where, now is now; and it is abusrd to say the distance starlight travels is millions of years away for here or there, when they all go around the Earth in a single day. 

For instance, astro-science by the errors of heliocentrism would say that Gamma Draconis lies around 154 light-years away, and that a light-year is equivalent to about 6 trillion miles, but Gamma Draconis circuits the Earth in one orbit one day at a time. However far away, it only is one complete distance away, little by little at once, any given time, and goes through the sky from one place to the next. Tomorrow night is not today, tonight, or yesterday as much as each day and its evil is sufficent unto itself. "Ipse sufficit diei malitia sua",(7) and so for Saturn and Gamma Draconis. 

 

As "it is impossible to affirm and deny simultaneously the same predicate of the same subject"(8), a star like Venus is not "light-years" away for the distance either, as it orbits the Sun that orbits the Earth.

People at times have even confused Venus with an approaching airplane because it can appear so bright. Thinking it was an enemy plane, anti-aircraft batteries have opened fire on Venus; and in one instance, a fatigued Air Canada pilot thought it was another aircraft headed in his direction, and went into a nosedive to avoid an imaginary collision. It caused a terrific commotion for the passengers, but what was not imaginary was the hour, and the star really was at that angle at the time, and specifically in that corner of the sky, as when other people have seen it and thought it was a plane.

Such confusion always has occurred on only one of the seven days of the week, and during one of the 24 hours of the day, and at a given specific angle, within the simple three dimensions of geometry. The distant light they were seeing at the time was in the actual celestial position addressed by their view. If the confusion had been at another hour that day, they could not have had the same mathematical coordinates in view. They were not seeing the star from "light-years ago". They were seeing the light in real time and as it was corresponding to real space. As with Venus, so with Jupiter, Saturn, Regulus, Spica, Aldebaran, Gamma Draconis, Polaris and all the other stars, et cetera.

The confusion about "light-years" and that starlight in transmission from a given position of the sky would be from another time for sake of the distance is false. If the insistence of the heliocentric vanity of "light-years" must continue, then how old and far away is east from west, north from south, up from down, and six cosmic directions of six from the middle, and division or multiplication by one, and how old and far away is geometry, or the basis of common sense and the astro-weather?

 

A coureur des bois once asked, "are we human because we gaze at the stars or do we gaze at them because we are human?" If solipsistically speaking, pointless really, "but do the stars gaze back? Now that's a question."(9) 

Science may be unable to verify higher powers of observation in the heavens, and the age of geometry, but they have been able to conduct experiments with light to get some idea of the nature of its motion and that there is no clear evidence that any light is affected by the supposed rotation of the Earth.

For example, French astronomer Dominique Arago (1786–1853) devised an experimentum crucis to test his wave theory of light propagation, and analyzed light beams traveling through glass, water, and air, and was able to verify that light travels slower in denser mediums. He ascribed this to an undulatory theory of light and assumed that, when all other things would be equal, light waves of a given kind should have a uniform speed through the aether.

But since the Copernican theory was that the earth moves around the sun, if the earth was thus moving against the aether, then the aether should impede the velocity of light at least a little, just as did glass or water or dense and obstructive clouds of air. Arago was able to demonstrate, however, that whether the light beam going through the glass was pointed in the forward direction of earth's supposed movement in space or in the opposite direction, there was no effect on its speed going through the glass. And he was able to verify well enough that a light beam pointed toward or away from the earth's supposed orbit had the same refraction in glass as the refraction of starlight in glass. He found, it appeared, that in whatever way he tested the coincidence of light, it always showed the Earth to be at rest in the aether.

All the evidence seemed to confirm that the Copernican hypothesis was, in fact, simply wrong.(10) Assuming that all other things would be equal, according to their kind, light waves have a uniform speed through the aether, and he was unable to disover by any experiments with light any evidence of the earth's supposed daily flight in space around the sun.

In the years 1811 to 1812, he also observed one distant star regularly through a telescope, and in that time he noticed that the star would sometimes appear to move toward the Earth and then away. If what he was seeing was true, it could be better explained according to geocentrism and old-fashioned epicycles than heliocentrism; but Arago reasoned that the focal length of his telescope would have to change in viewing the star over the course of a year, because of the theory of a "moving earth", since the speed of light coming from a receding star would be different from that of an approaching star.

However, he observed no difference in the coincidence of starlight in the telescope, and thus was not required to change the focal length at all. The star only appeared a little bit smaller, as it appeared further away, and it seemed to be an indication that even if the stars were very far away, regardless of whether the Earth was moving, the star, seen through a telescope, actually is where it appears to be.

However, if not for the telescope, post hoc ergor propter hoc, it could be for stellar aberration. If funny things like epicycles are reinterpreted as elliptical wrinkles of time, space, and light, due to terrestrial rotations to orbit the sun, then maybe a platform for heliocentrism can have its literature, its parallax, its light-years, and its math, but qui custodiet ipsos cutodes? Who watches the watchmen themselves, who teach these things, and write them down for arc seconds and millions and millions of miles?

 

In the seventeenth century astronomers like Pieroni, Hooke, and Flamsteed observed stars like Gamma Draconis and Polarisand noticed they would shift their positions mysteriously in the sky during the year, and hypothesized that an instance of parallax from stellar aberration or eccentricity would prove that the Earth orbits the Sun. James Bradley studied Gamma Draconis during 1725-1728 and noted an aberration that was almost parallax, and theorized that the star was not actually moving back and forth in the sky, but the appearance was from its light that was hitting a moving Earth. Separating the light from the star, could add a confusing sense of justification to the Copernican view, but without taking the Sun as fixed, Bradley would not have detected the aberration in Gamma Draconis, and why should the only proof for heliocentrism be in an interpretation of circumpolar stellar aberration?

All long exposure star trail photography demonstrates they are orbiting the Earth within a gradual range of circles; and when they shift over time, it is from circle to circle.

Of course, all locations around the Earth correspond to actual positions, with coordinates in degrees, minutes, and seconds or arc, that parallel the stars corresponding to actual positions in celestial space. There are only six cosmic directions, and eight cardinal points of the compass in terra, and eight quadrants in 3-D space around the Earth. Therefore, when a star is in the east at midnight on Tuesday, it really is there, and when it is Tuesday it is Tuesday all day.

"Chacun voit midi a sa porte", everyone sees noon at his door, and if each one follows his own star, the 360 degrees around the Earth in whatever angle of direction are still from now. It always is sunset or sunrise somewhere around the world, for one day time and night time over half of the world. So the time of a star and its position are always within the hour of one of 24, or 1/6 of 1/4 of the face of the Earth, in a circuit of 360 degrees around and around.