With Stars in a Sphere One Light Day Up, How Big is Betelgeuse?

As some readers of this blog might know, and of other blogs of mine as well, I am Geocentric.

Ergo, I don't believe "parallax" really is parallactically produced by "earth's own movement around the sun".

Ergo, I don't believe we have very good reasons for the distances given to stars, nor for their sizes.

The size of a star is a function of apparent size and distance. The apparent size is a direct given, it can be observed at least by comparison to other apparent sizes. So, it cannot be disputed.

Now, Betelgeuse is supposed to be ∼643 light years away (other measures or alternative readings of measures exist), and I'll suppose instead Betelgeuse is just one light day up. If its parallax is no parallax, there is no parallax to contradict it.

Its radius is supposed to be 955 to 1200 times that of the Sun in French wiki (English saying between 887 and 955).

I'll take 1200 times as the greatest. It probably has something to do with the greatest version of its distance, 643 light years.

643 light years * 365.25 light days / light year = 234 855.75 light days.

This means the radius of 1200 solar radiuses must be divided by 234 855.75 to get the radius if it is one light day up.

We get 0.005 109 519 353 901 3 solar radiuses. So, how long is the radius of the Sun (since its distance is undisputed, its radius is undisputed too)?

696 342 km * 0.005 109 519 353 901 3 = 3 557.972 925 934 339.

The radius of Betelgeuse would be around the distance of flight between Paris and Belushya Guba, Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia. The diameter would be a bit larger than half the diameter of earth.

Biggest object I took a look at through this kind of calculation so far ...

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
St. Front of Perigueux
25.X.2019

Petragoricis, in Gallia, sancti Frontonis, qui, a beato Petro Apostolo Episcopus ordinatus, cum Georgio Presbytero magnam illius gentis multitudinem convertit ad Christum, et, miraculis clarus, in pace quievit.

Are the Times Apocalyptic?

I mentioned in a debate it could be useful to know angels are actually doing a choreography, when it comes to the sign which is upcoming next year.

Revelation 12:1 Sign Will Appear In 2017!
vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOiHtFVn2JA

I got a response that the sign was not angels doing anything, just a natural prodect of ongoing process AND that, unlike the claim made by Vatican Catholic, the sign does not appear the first time.

Here is their description:

"According to non-Catholic astronomers who have studied and looked at how these constellations have moved and will move around in the future, this will be the only time in history things will all line up like this."

I think they are repeating the information bona fide.

Now, the reasoning behind the co-debaters claim this is not the first time is this : all of the planets are moving periodically and so this line up is also periodical.

Fair enough as far as it goes. In an infinite past and infinite future, the line up would be happening an infinite number of times.

But the time is actually limited.

This means, we can meaningfully ask whether the line up has or has not previously occurred since creation.

Now, before we go into this, let us do a little maths.

Venus, Mars, Mercury all have shorter circuits "around the Sun" than history has taken. It is very certainly not that long since Venus was where it will be in the line up, not that long since Mars was where it will be in the lineup, not that long since Mercury was where it will be in the lineup. Can it reasonably be a significant time since they all were together in same lineup?

Now, here is where some maths is useful.

Let us take a case with natural numbers - the ones which, unlike "real numbers" really are numbers. Since locusts only live one season per year as doing the thing they do before our eyes, locusts can be a good simile for starting points.

If one tribe or species of locusts swarms every five years, and one other swarms every six years, they will both be swarming every thirty years.

In year five from last time, only first will be swarming, in year six only second will be swarming, in year ten only first, in year twelve only second and so on. But in year thirty they will both be swarming.

Assume we were dealing with three tribes of locusts. Assume that the third tribe swarms every nine years.

In that case, the three tribes will be swarming together every 90 years.

We do not need to multiply 30 with 9 to get 270, it is enough to multiply each prime factor as its highest exponent.

A - prime factor 5.
B - prime factors 2 and 3.
C - prime factor 3 squared.

Three squared times two times five gives ninety. Since no number of interval years has "three cubed" we do not need "three cubed".

Next question is what happens if there is instead a tribe which has an interval of another number not sharing same primes. Say, every seven years.

Now, seven is lower than nine, so perhaps the interval for the common swarming of three tribes would be lower than ninety? No.

A - prime factor 5.
B - prime factors 2 and 3.
C' - prime factor 7.

Thirty times seven gives two hundred and ten. Between those periods, the tribes of locusts will swarm one by one or two by two, but only after two hunudred and ten years all three together.

So, what happens with planets?

I would definitely say, periods are longer - I just checked that only once every 83 years does Jupiter match the requirements. Last time Jupiter alone behaved like it will behave next year, was in 1934.

Because, the maths I was going to just hint at about planets, and hint that last time the line up was, it was before modern telescopes and such, a youtube user called chisza7 has already done in detail.

His conclusion : once in 7000 years. But here is the video:

How rare is the Revelation 12 Heavenly Sign [23 September 2017] Once in 7000 Years
chisza7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXxVwpcXV0U

Note, I have not come to where he makes the final countdown, I am not sure if "7000" isn't an approximation. I think it is, I think we must be dealing with some multiple of 83 close to 7000.*

83*84 = 6972
83*85 = 7055

No idea which of the rest match up better with the other planets.

If the Vulgate chronology were the correct one, that would mean that "last time" this line up happened was before creation.

If - as I do - we go by Roman Martyrology for December 25, we get these dates:

7216 7216 7216 Second Lineup ? Anno Mundi 7000 6972 7055 distance in years 0216 0244 0161 First Lineup ? Anno Mundi

So, first lineup would have been while Adam was alive, before or after Seth was born.

What if we go by the other LXX based chronology, the Byzantine one?

7525 7525 7525 Second Lineup ? Anno Mundi
7000 6972 7055 distance in years
0525 0553 0470 First Lineup ? Anno Mundi

Either way, if chisza7 is right, it was very long ago.

And since Adam was alive, it would perhaps have been a prophecy to him about what is going to happen now.

But apart from what Adam can have known, next year is probably the first time this great sign will actually appear in Heaven, for another reason.

Adam was probably not using telescopes. We are.

This means we can be watching the whole configuration of stars and planets, even if the Sun is there in the middle of it.

Without the Sun being there, we would not have the apocalyptic sign that the Woman is "clad in the Sun".

With it before telescopes, and matters or filters, we would not have been able to watch the sign in integrity.

And the verse which begins Apocalypse 12 is

And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

Et signum magnum apparuit in caelo: mulier amicta sole, et luna sub pedibus ejus, et in capite ejus corona stellarum duodecim:

To the naked eye, this configuration cannot appear. We cannot look at the sun. If we look at the approximate direction, we look at day time sky, meaning that we miss all the stars because of daylight.

If we look at it on one meridian as sun just has set or on another one as sun is just going to rise, we miss either upper or lower part of the sign.

Either by miracle or by telescopes, the next year the sign is astronomically speaking set to be there in a time when it can also appear.

Therefore, I do tend to think this is Apocalyptically significant.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Lucy, Virgin, Martyr
13.XII.2016

* It could be that instead it is 83 which is an approximation and 7000 which is exact, or both are approximations. In the latter case, previous time (supposing chisza7 got the astronomical maths right) of the lineup, but not of an appearance of the entire sign, may have been when Seth was born, 205 Anno Mundi./HGL PS, sorry, 230 Anno Mundi!/HGL

I Also Find the Flat Earth Refuted

1)Creation vs. Evolution : Since it is My Birthday, I Take Today's Article on CMI as a Birthday Present · 2)New blog on the kid : I Also Find the Flat Earth Refuted

CMI published an article:

A flat earth, and other nonsense
Dealing with ideas that would not exist were it not for the Internet
by Robert Carter and Jonathan Sarfati
http://creation.com/refuting-flat-earth

Ideas do exist whether there is internet or not. Obviously, the previous ways of expressing ideas, before internet was there, were either private expression or certain mass media (including lecturing from ecclesiastical pulpits or from school pulpits) where you are not your own editor. And, indeed, in some of these cases, Flat Earth did exist very well apart from the internet.

Yeshivôth, heard of them?

Now, one of the main Christian (... or half and half so, but not compromising on the verge of clear modernist confirmity ...) proponents of Flat Earth is Rob Skiba II. He is ALSO Hebrew Roots. And that means that "Torah school" and "Yeshivah" are words that mean something to him.

Now, if you go to AD 1200 and continue up to 1300, you will find few or no proponents of Flat Earth in University of Paris. But among Jews "juste à côté" (up till when St Louis IX expels them) and then further East (some only went as far as across Le Rhône into Carpentras), you would probably not have found any proponent of a Round Earth. They had their saying "it is allowed to study Greek philosophy between day and night" or sth like that, namely the short while of evendim. The time between sun touching horizon and first two visible stars (which may in Greek terminology be planets, of course).

If you kill the internet or smother its freedom of expression, you will probably still have Jews proposing Flat Earth in their Yeshivôth, and you will also (as I learned from a video proposing Vedic Flat Earth Geocentrism) have Hindoos explaining the shadow of Earth during Lunar eclipses as being really the "planet Rahu" interposed between Moon and us. This last is also why I disagree with Rob Skiba on his reason why not to embrace Flat Earth fully, he thought Lunar eclipses were the best argument, I think polar region and close by region seasons on the two hemispheres the best argument.

Along with different stars.

Suppose one granted Flat Earthers a torus shaped Earth, with only upper faces qualifying as Earth and only upper faces included in discovered geography. Suppose North is the dimple inside and South is the rim outside. 6 months long day would be easy to explain, if Sun in daily circuit above the torus was during six months on the dimple side, a closer circle (summer half year of Northern hemisphere). But six months long day on South Pole would be more difficult. Take the half year which is Summer on Southern hemisphere. They suppose the circuit is wider and therefore on the outrim side of torus. So wide that dimple (=North) is always cut off from Sun by the bulk of the torus. This means that on the other hand any part of Antarctica would each day (as in 24 hour space) in part have better access to Sun, as Sun was on its side of its part of the torus, but in part worse, since cut off from Sun by not just closer torus but also by other torus bulk.

Also, their argument that the stars "of other hemisphere" (recall, some of South will be seen from North of equator and vice versa) are invisible because too far away is an argument which has been refuted by the telescope. If you trust that instrument, that is. Which I do - only not as much as I trust the microscope.

The internet has allowed me to "hear" (actually more often read) the Flat Earth case and also refute it - including to those exposing it on their sites (insofar as they did not outmoderate my comments to their readers too).

It’s notable that the article The Flat Earth Myth, as recently as 2013, did not receive any negative comments from flat-earth believers. Why? Because there were hardly any people back then who believed it! Rather, readers were grateful to see that the church had never taught this nonsense. Several honest atheists have even slammed people from their own side who have pushed a bad pseudo-history that accuses the church of teaching a flat earth. [Citing Tim O'Neill, very corectly, in footnote]

Yes, probably a few more Jews have converted to Christian Fundamentalist communities, which are not as doctrinally opposed to Flat Earth as modernist ones or even Trad Catholics are. Some fans of Sungenis (fellow Catholic with a question mark and fellow geocentric) have been somewhat uncharitable to Flat Earthers, it seems he is not quite enjoying the prospect of sharing Heaven with converting Jewry. Or they are not quite doing so. Or were not, until I pointed out that a Catholic Flat Earther would most probably be a former Jew.

And the same happened in reverse, with observers on ships. Indeed, this was explained well back in the Middle Ages by John Sacrobosco (c.1195–c.1256) in his Tractatus de Sphaera (Treatise on the Sphere, i.e. the earth):

That the water has a bulge and is approximately round is shown thus: Let a signal be set up on the seacoast and a ship leave port and sail away so far that the eye of a person standing at the foot of the mast can no longer discern the signal. Yet if the ship is stopped, the eye of the same person, if he has climbed to the top of the mast, will see the signal clearly. Yet the eye of a person at the bottom of the mast ought to see the signal better than he who is at the top, as is shown by drawing straight lines from both to the signal. And there is no other explanation of this thing than the bulge of the water. (Tractatus 1:11)

Well, some of them have presented a calculus of HOW far down things "would" disappear on a circular earth and used fact the views don't match that (i e Chicago seen from Lake Michigan) as proof it is not circular. However, one should note that a torus shaped earth actually would pose same kind of problem to them as a circular one - or one extra problem to anyone, namely if true, the non-disappearance would be greater along the top of the torus, which is not true.

OT prophet Isaiah lived between seafaring Phenicians (Chanaaneans, mainly) and land crab Babylonians. The authors of Talmud Bavli on the other hand seem to have been only in contact with land crab Babylonians, or their heirs. This is shadowed by fact that OT is neutral in wording, while post-Christ Jewry have historically been favouring Flat Earth, and more the more they have been ghettoised.

In fact some of them disliking Flat Earth and others of them disliking Geocentrism and St Thomas Aquinas, are two sides of their anti-Greek prejudice. Obviously not shared by the Catholic Church which heeded "in Christ is neither Jew nor Greek" (i e in their previous opposition, obviously the fact of belonging to either ethnicity does not exclude from the Church).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Audoux
St Philip, ex prefect of Alexandria
martyred by his successor
13.IX.2016

Update, 14.IX, Elevation of Holy Cross Feast:

Just listened to Russell Humphreys, on his non-Geocentric view of the "light years" and how "distant" star light came here very fast.

Gravitational time dilation is supposed to be proven by comparing clocks ticking at ground level and high up in sky-scrapers, as far as a certain diagram of the clip could show.

However, this could also be because ether turns faster out there / up there in a Universe turning around us by the ether. And it could be affecting the clocks without affecting the actual time.

This Geocentric option for it would be somewhat ingenious as a solution even for distant starlight - if needed still, in Geocentrism - because starlight seems according to modern theories of how you measure distance, to be distant any way you look. Imagine how fast the ether would be turning - in RH's theory affecting "speed of time" even! - so many "light years" above a centre of a turning Universe.

Just that, with Geocentrism, you cannot prove the phenomenon observed by Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel in 1838 (and previous years) to be parallactic or functioning in similar ways. In fact it cannot be parallactic in the sense of a landscape "moving parallactically" for your eyes, because you watch it from a train, if Earth is NOT moving with us like a train. And it cannot be proven that it functions in a similar way either, as Bouw and DeLano imagine. So, "the first rung of the cosmic distance ladder" just disappears. Therefore the rest. Therefore the distant starlight problem too.

Now, as on their article, they did allude to an earlier article of theirs, I should link to my response to it:

New blog on the kid : And CMI also felt a need to "refute Geocentrism" ...
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/02/and-cmi-also-felt-need-to-refute.html

I was going to make it part 3 of this series, but it is already part 2 of a larger one./HGL

Later same day:

I checked about Bessel. He was born in Minden. Two facts stand out:

• 1) The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 gave the possession of Minden to Brandenburg-Prussia, and it remained with Prussia until its break-up in 1947. The rule of Frederick I of Prussia (in office 1688-1713) ended the 400-year self-determination or independence of the citizens of Minden. The 40-man unit (Vierziger) was dissolved by the king and the town council was replaced by a town authority consisting of 16 businessmen, 16 tradesmen and eight representatives of the community who were elected for life.
  
  In other words, Bessel was fully part of the Prussian heritage which today's article by CMI deplored in the case of von Trotta. In case anyone should think he was of a Catholic region even so (Cologne was Catholic and in Prussia), let me remind you there was a reformation in Minden:
  
  The introduction of the Reformation to Minden in 1529 created much conflict in the town, leading to the formation of a 36-man unit that took over the role of town regiment. Nicholas Krage announced Minden's new evangelical church order from the pulpit of St. Martin's Church (Martinikirche) on 13 February 1530. There were 128 prosecutions for witchcraft between 1603 and 1684. As in nearby regions, almost all those sentenced were women. Imperial troops occupied Minden from 1625 to 1634, during the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648). Protestant Swedish troops laid siege to Minden and captured it in 1634. Queen Christina of Sweden (reigned 1632–1654) granted full sovereignty in internal and external affairs to Minden.
  
  So, it was, like the Magdeburg or Meideborg where von Trotha was born - he was the culprit of the Herero genocide - a Protestant area.
  
  
• 2) Minden is a place from which Jews were not being expelled during the time when it was fashionable in some German states.
  
  A Jewish community has existed in Minden since the 13th century. There were up to 400 members in the 19th century. After WWII the Jewish community was reconstituted with 40 members. The Minden synagogue which was destroyed in the Kristallnacht pogrom, was inaugurated at a new site in 1958 and is the centre of the Jewish community.
  
  Since the 13th C.? Sounds like they could have been coming there from the France from which St Louis IX expelled them.

Tower of Babel and Moon Landing

One debater who thinks no man has landed on the Moon (and who might be or might just possibly not be right, but if not, there are questions about the Allen Belt and if any of those having landed got cancer), made the point:

"God stopped the Tower of Babel but let man land on the Moon? Yeah, right!"

Point is, I am not at all sure Tower of Babel need to have been very much more innocent than landing on Moon.

The text does not say that the council of evil men was:

"let us make a city and a tower, which may reach to heaven"

BUT

Genesis 11:4 ... "let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven" ...

Now, what is the difference between "a tower reaching to heaven" and "a tower the top of which reaches to heaven"? None if the top remains attached to the tower. But some pretty great one if the top is detachable. If "the tower" was a ramp and "the top" was a kind of rocket.

If Nimrod planned to get way past Moon and over the fixed stars ... well, if so, what God has allowed even if moon landing is true is less than what he was stopping back then.

The thing is, if Göbekli Tepe was the Tower of Babel, it looks very much more like a ramp for rocketry than like a skyscraper.

That is perhaps why the know how was scattered and hence forgotten and why "space exploration" was delayed for some millennia, if my reconstruction about Tower of Babel is the correct one.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St Justin, Philosopher and Martyr
14.IV.2016

As we get close to Good Friday (link, quotes, comment)

NCR : What does science say about the darkness during the Crucifixion?
by Jimmy Akin 03/20/2016
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/what-does-science-say-about-the-darkness-during-the-crucifixion/

Surely the translators of the New American Bible, which we hear at Mass, didn’t render the passage that way!
...
The reason I flinched at Mass was because the translators of the New American Bible rendered Luke 23:44-45 as:

It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the sun.

GAH! No! That’s the kind of eclipse that can’t occur at Passover!

Now, you might think that the NAB translators didn’t know this.

But that’s not plausible, because the fact this wouldn’t have been a solar eclipse is regularly commented upon in commentaries on Luke, and the translators certainly were familiar with and consulted such commentaries in the translation process.

They knew, but for some reason they just didn’t care.

Perhaps their view of science was as dim as their view of Greek grammar (eklipontos tou heliou is "sun failing", not necessarily "eclipse of the Sun", as Aikin mentions with more detail next).*

I am NOT suprised when it comes to modern religion related scholarship.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday of Holy Week
21.III.2016

* I could add that there was no real "terminus technicus" such as "eclipse of sun", there was a habitual locution, "the sun failing", which was very often, but obviously not here, used as terminus technicus for natural solar eclipses. In any scholarly manual from antiquity and in some terminology even from Middle Ages, you will find that what we translate as termini technici for a particular line of scholarship had a gramatical meaning which was more like common language than like a terminus technicus - like when saying "the sun failing" rather than "during a solar eclipse", and same word perfectly usable for the miraculous failure of the sun.

Implications of a Wobble

1) Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism, 2) Creation vs. Evolution : Dr. Jonathan Sarfati takes out one Heliocentric YEC explanation , 3) New blog on the kid : Implications of a Wobble

As it happens, and as RationalWiki notices, there are wobbles.

Geocentrists have to imagine that the stars and galaxies all wobble in (what appears to us) synchronicity while Earth stays still. Since these stars and galaxies are millions of light years apart, however, their wobbles must all occur in the same pattern, but at different times according to their distance from Earth so that the light from these different objects reaches us at exactly the same time making it look simultaneous (for example, the apparent wobble of a star 10 light years away would actually be our observation of its wobble 10 years ago, in synchronicity with a coordinated wobble of another star somewhere across the universe 5 light-years in another direction, but that second star only wobbled 5 years ago). [In footnotes:] Well, of course, the geocentrists can claim, contrary to all the evidence, that stars are really only little mysterious points of light only a few light years away. (Remember, "nothing in astronomy makes sense except in the light of heliocentrism".) The argument still works, we're saying that stars are making this strangely coordinated dance, instantly changing so that their light will appear on Earth in synchrony. Even if the separation is a matter of as little as days, it is still demanding thousands of ad hoc changes which just happen to look like it is really the Earth which is changing its motions.

RationalWiki : Geocentrism
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Modern_geocentrism#Modern_geocentrism

Chandler's Wobble is just one of three, I think the one going fastest - once every eight days, unless I misrecall.*

Now, parallax (which is another movement of the Heavens, also neither exactly daily nor in periods observed by astronomers for thousands of years), varies, not just between three quarters of an arc second and "zero visible", but also into the negative, as with 63 Ophiuchi. Aberration (another of the recently discovered movements) probably varies exactly insofar as parallax is measured as minuscule variations on presumed standard annual aberration. But in the wobbles, apparently, especially Chandler's, there is hardly any variation, and apparently it all lines up very neatly.

This could be due to one of three things:

• light might have no finite speed, so even if the wobble is in a star as far away as the thirteen point five billion light years presumed for some stars (and those presumed to be furthest away among visible ones), the wobble is immediately seen on earth, precisely as with the "closest stars" at "4 light years' distance" or as with a very close star c. 1 Astronomical Unit distance, and as with planets, while the Universe wobbles;
• or, light has a finite speed, distances are as thought so Earth is wobbling : simultaneousness of wobble is because wobble is in the one body we inhabit;
• or, light here also has a finite speed, but all stars are equally far away. Sirius and alpha Centauri and 63 Ophiuchi wobble simultaneously seen from us, because they have the same distance from us.

There is a problem for this last option: even if all stars are same distance, planets are closer, including Sun, Moon, comets, asteroids, satellites of planets.

But, supposing as I do that angels are carrying the stars and planets, if not vertically above Earth (that might be due in part at least to relative densities of nuclear matter and ether - Aristotelian theory of gravity updated - or to gravitation of Sun, giving partial credits to Newton's or Einstein's theories of gravity), at least horizontally in their different heights above us (and perhaps some verticality in Tychonian orbits as well) : thus they could show the wobble at same moment by moving it in each their own little mirror or lantern with a number of delays between them, as I will presently explain.

Or the wobble could be a fraud.

Supposing the wobble is no fraud, supposing also light has a speed, which, though very great, is finite, one could nearly (not quite), pose the following two equations:

wobble + geocentricity = stars at same distance

wobble + stars at now commonly supposed distances = heliocentric models of some sort

There is however a little problem with the "stars at same distance" solution, as already noted, being that objects closer to us than stars also show wobble contemporaneous to them, and they are not same distance as stars, nor as each other.

The solution for a geocentric would be to suppose that angels guiding planets (in the large sense as large objects between us and the stars) do the wobble-displacement in time, not with when angels further away and up are actually doing it, but when light from their displacement is reaching down. When a star in Virgo wobbles, its light reaches the level of Mercury a little later and Mercury wobbles in time with the light on its level, each having an angel who is very observant of timing. For angelic beings such fine tuned and speedy reactions are no real problem. Think of the superheroes like Superman and Flash as clumsy and weak compared to angelic beings.

However, as I realised while writing the draft, this solution is also open to a large universe scenario. Which is why the equations will not quite be absolute.

The real reasons against a universe as large as commonly posited, or larger than say stars being in a radius around Earth of for instance a light day (still very large universe, commonly assumed distance to Pluto is 30 light minutes, unless it was Neptune), the real reasons are these:

• not parting from Heliocentric assumptions, via parallax, there is no necessity for a much larger universe;
• there are objections of fittingness against stars being further away than a light day or two, since of they were as distant as four light years or more (even that "smallest stellar distance" is 1461 times the distance of a lightday), it would normally have taken four years after their creation before Adam and Eve would have seen even alpha Centauri;
• apart from being deduced from Heliocentrism, one false system, the hugeness or rather infinity of universe, was alongside the heliocentric topos one of those rejecting Medieval cosmology (Kant, Wright and others).

But the reasoning "from fittingness" for accepting an infinite universe (for which 13.5 billion light years is culturally a recent standin, whatever scientific merits or demerits it might have for one accepting Heliocentrism) is the following reasoning : "God is infinite, therefore he has to express Himself in an infinity of universe or universes" - as if everything that was in God could be adequately expressed even in an infinite number of infinitely large universes! And each existing from eternith past to eternity future!

So, if God can be content with a universe 13.5 billion light years across, He can also be content with a very much smaller one, twice one or two lightdays across.

St. Juliana of Norwich had a vision in which God showed her everything He had created - and it was no bigger than a nut.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton said he liked to adress the universe with diminutives - and it had never seemed to mind.

Ha! Noted I made an explanation involving no rotating ether, as in Greek Mythology or like the Hebrew view familiar to Flavius Josephus or whoever wrote Book of Henoch (whether it be or be not worthy to be considered even locally as canon is a question the Pope may take up with Ethiopian Copts, if and when they apply to be Uniates, and as to Antiquitates, no one ever pretended it was canonic : I refer to story of Abraham realising there was one God, philosophically, before that one God actually called him).

If we take an ether rotating westward, the view of Aristotle basically and of scholastics, though instead of ether they had solid orbital spheres between stars and Earth atmosphere, the wobble is either the largest (I think it is larger than 25 arc seconds) an independent movement of each and every star and planet in it, and second largest, after periodic orbital one for any planet (including Sun and Moon, etc)* - or else ether has an elasticity which causes the wobble due to circular movement contracting and rebounding. I do not know and do not pretend to know which it is of these two. Unlike Heliocentrics who do pretend to know it is neither.

Before I quit, if there be an ether, what is the Biblical word for it?

Sungenis and Bennett (two Roberts) think it is "firmamentum, stereoma, raqqiya" and this was of course created on day two. I think it is rather "coelum" in the pair "coelum et terram". Coelum, ouranos, hashamayim. It was thus created in the beginning.

If ether is also the substance of light, and visible light is ripples in ether, this would be very fitting.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Annunciation Feast, 2015

* I was wrong. The 433 days, at the poles, show only 9 metres displacement, an angle smaller than 0.75 arc seconds. And thus somewhat difficult to measure.

Chris Ferrara the Conspirator

1) New blog on the kid : Chris Ferrara the Conspirator, 2) HGL's F.B. writings : Debate with John Médaille on Geocentrism, 3) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Getting Back to Tom Trinko on Geocentric Satellites and Some Other Things, Especially Whether Literal Belief is Protestant, 4) With David Palm and Sungenis, 5) With David Palm, Sungenis, Robert Bennet and Rick DeLano, 6) Christopher Ferrara Bumps In And I Get Angry, 7) Aftermath of the Quarrel, 8) Diatribe with Robert Bennett (Two Teas), 9) HGL's F.B. writings : Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel I), 10) Continuing Debate with Mark Stahlman and John Médaille and Others (sequel II), 11) Where I Get a Dislike to Mark Stahlman

I had commenced a philosophical discussion involving David Palm and Robert Sungenis. Per a mail adressed to the two of them.

The latter got a few more involved. I did not object.

One of these few more is however Christopher Ferrara. I leave to my readers whether his opening words of an "endless war" mean he took our rather peaceful discussion - at least on my own and David Palm's part - as an "endless war". However, what is abundantly clear is that he:

• 1) proposes a "truce", and proposes it be binding on all involved by their voluntary gentlemen's agreement;
• 2) then asks the participants in a discussion I started and involving me to keep this secret.

I find such a gesture totally worthy of the creeps who run the Modern World to its ruins. That it comes from one purported opponent of them, and not from an abortionist or evolutionist, if anything makes it worse.

Here are the two letters:

I

Christopher Ferrara to Robert Sungenis et al. including me

12/03/15 à 03h41

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

I suggest that you end this seemingly endless war with a truce containing the following terms:

1. To hold to the heliocentric is not heresy per se.

2. Yet, the Copernican principle and modern cosmology in general are clearly, expressly and avowedly motivated by a philosophical aim, stated as such, by leading physicists such as Wolfson, whom I am reading now. That aim is to prove that that the Earth is nothing special, which is an indirect proof of the nonexistence of God. We inhabitants of Earth are just the incredibly fortuitous outcome of a long series of mutations occurring on a planet in a random location at the edge of a humdrum galaxy. They cannot abide a central earth for that reason, and they say so. You may say that God’s majesty does not depend on the location or the uniqueness of Earth, but the propagandists for the Copernican narrative know the public mind and know what works in terms demystifying the Universe and thus eliminating the need for God. It is naive simply to assert that their propaganda is of no consequence.

3. Thus, modern cosmology—part science, part philosophy driving the science (as it does evolutionary theory)—threatens to erode the Faith, as does evolutionism, even if it cannot be called formal heresy.

4. Catholics are free to argue for some version of the geocentric model precisely in order to counter the pretensions of modern cosmology, whose “dark matter,” “dark energy,” string theory, multiverse, balloon-like expanding Cosmos (the only way to avoid a center of the Universe with all of the problems that entails for the Copernican narrative) and other gimmicks are no more or less contrivances than the ether that even the modern cosmologist is, at this very moment, trying to sneak in the back door under a different name.

5. Geocentrism is not per se a crackpot theory. Even atheist cosmologists such as Krauss admit that the CMB data suggest either that Earth is indeed at the center of the universe or that the Copernican model has to be rethought completely. You may say Krauss is wrong, but’s an argument, not a per se demonstration that geocentrism is crackpot stuff. If he (and others) can see the problems for the Copernican narrative, Catholics should admit them and also admit that geocentrism is still arguable on the basis of empirical evidence that suggests Earth is centrally located. Krauss calls this “crazy” only on the basis of his a priori assumption that it can’t possibly be true, because, as Wolfson puts it: "Do you really want to return to parochial, pre-Copernican ideas? Do you really think you and your planet are so special that, in all the rich vastness of the Universe, you alone can claim to be “at rest”? On purely philosophical grounds, we should reject the notion that Earth alone could be at rest relative to the ether.” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1009-1010). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition. ” Wolfson, Richard (2003-11-17). Simply Einstein: Relativity Demystified (Kindle Locations 1005-1009). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.

Further, if serious problems remain for the geocentrist theory, they are no more serious than those confronting the opposing cosmology, whose continuous ad hoc additions border on the ridiculous. A universe whose constituent matter and energy are 95% undetectable? Really? Any Catholic geocentrist is entitled to reject that claim on the same philosophical plane as their opponents reject geocentrism. What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied. And even if some semblance of an evidential argument can be concocted for the missing 95%, that argument hardly renders geocentism per see untenable.

6. To eliminate endless bickering over various conspiracy theories unrelated to geocentrism, the geocentrist proponents of such theories should simply admit that they are mere speculation, are unproven, are not worth pursuing to the detriment of more important issues, and should be definitively abandoned.

7. All parties should devote themselves to defending the Church against truly massive threats to the integrity of her liturgy and her doctrine, above all the astounding ongoing general eruption of neo-Modernism lamented by leading Churchmen, including Msgr. Pozzo, Archbishop Lenga, and Bishop Schneider during the run-up to the next session of the preposterous “Synod on the Family.”

In short, enough already. And, frankly, the notion that geocentrism threatens the Faith of anyone in the Magisterium is hard to take seriously in the midst of a situation in which leading Churchmen everywhere appear to be abandoning fundamental dogmas of the Faith while the Pope presides over a Synod whose controllers are clearly attempting to overthrow the teaching of John Paul II only 33 years ago—an effort which, were it to succeed, would destroy confidence in the entire Magisterium overnight.

In view of the above, can’t we all just get along?

Chris

II

Christopher Ferrara to Robert Sungenis et al. including me

12/03/15 à 04h22

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard.

Now, I feel that the two letters fulfill very exactly the criteria for my resuming them as above, again:

• 1) [He] proposes a "truce", and proposes it be binding on all involved by their voluntary gentlemen's agreement;
• 2) then asks the participants in a discussion I started and involving me to keep this secret.

And I will later, if not stopped by bad intrigues, from pseudo-rightists like Ferrara or from open leftists like Mayor of Paris, perhaps even today disclose the full correspondence.

But now, I will also give the exchange this caused between me and Ferrara:

Me to Christopher Ferrara and Robert Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 12h48

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

"This should go without saying, but out of an abundance of caution: I do not give anyone permission to quote me from any email in any forum. These are private remarks, and I ask that you respect my wishes in this regard."

No, your caution was NOT abundant.

Now, as to permission, that is a moral quandary.

Remarks as far going as yours and asking for agreements, are such that I consider the public held in the dark if it cannot have them.

In other words, Ferrara, I consider your social method to be that of Freemasons or of Jews from the Synagogue, and totally unworthy of a Catholic.

Do I make myself clear on this?

Hans Georg Lundahl

Christopher Ferrara to me, cc to Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 12h59

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

The “public” has no right to know of private conversations between Catholics. If you cannot respect that principle, then this is the last email I will send.

[Note how he put "public" in quotation marks - as if the concept did not exist for him.]

Me to Christopher Ferrara, cc. Robert Sungenis et al.

12/03/15 à 13h20

Re: On "Sungenis Looses What He Has Bound on Joshua 10"

Christopher A Ferrara!

I did not consider this email exchange totally private in the first place.

I did not myself invite you. If you did not note, I was the one who took the initiative to this discussion.

If you wish to absent yourself, do so.

However, a private conversation is private insofar as it touches private matters, not insofar as private persons agree on what reaches the public. Or especially that it do not reach the public. Chesterton and Belloc would not have liked your idea one bit, and I consider them better Catholics than you.

Hans Georg Lundahl

In case someone thinks the other team of US Catholics are playing open, like Chesterton and Belloc would have liked, how about checking on Mark Shea's blog, where a few days ago there was an article about Karl Keating's The New Geocentrics, under which article I posted links to answers? See if it was just temporary - unless you prefer suspecting my sloppiness - or if it is still down.

So, if you are curious what this exchange started about, it was an essay by David Palm. But this is a longer correspondence, and it will also involve my answer to the 7 proposals of Christopher Ferrara.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St Gregory I
12-III-2015

PS And now, Mark Shea has even blocked me again.

I tried to post this reply:

"had little trouble pointing to the Crusades and the Inquisition as evidence of why Catholics where not Christian but popish followers of a predatory manmade cult irreconcilable with True Americanism" Actually, 19th C. Protestants might typically have been more upset about Inquisition and less or not at all about Crusades. I mean the kind of Protestants who had "crusaded against Popery" under Cromwell or Gustavus Adolphus.

Under this post:

Catholic and Enjoying it : News Flash!: Americans Fought in the Crusades and Conducted Inquisition
February 20, 2015 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2015/02/news-flash-americans-fought-in-the-crusades-and-conducted-inquisition.html

And I found out I was again blocked. Meanwhile, I had under another post of his, concerning Willy Herteleer, expressed:

• What he positively said was correct;
• but his inculpation of Pewsitters may just concern one "news clipper";
• and wondered whether the ground where Willy was buried was not reserved for bishops. To this latter I got a satisfactory answer, it was not. Both bishops and princes, i e both bishops and laymen are buried there, and Willy being a layman is not in any way an obstacle to his getting buried there. I wanted to thank for the answer, but couldn't since I was - blocked.

Which probably goes some way to explaining why the post under which I had posted a link to a reply to Karl Keating was gone from the blog too./HGL

What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?

I mean on the reason why heavenly bodies and the heavens as such do move? Here is the work we are dealing with:

Titre : Almagestum novum astronomiam veterem novamque complectens observatiobus aliorum et propriis novisque theorematibus, problematibus ac tabulis promotam in tres tomos distributam / Auctore Ioanne Baptista Ricciolo...
Auteur, Collaborateur : Riccioli, Giovanni Battista
Adresse bibliographique : Bononiae : ex typographia haeredis Victorii Benatii, 1651-1665
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/titleinfo/140180

Relevant part:

Pars posterior tomi primi.
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/structure/141030

Relevant section with page view:

Liber nonus. De Mundi Systemate
Sectio secunda de motibus caelorum
CAPVT I. An Caeli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura. P. 247
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

And I quote, but not in full:

I Prima Opinio fuit, cælos moueri à propria forma, seu ab intrinsecò, ne forma illa esset otiosa & inferior formis elementorum ...

II Secunda Opinio fuit eorum, qui cælos & Astra moueri quidem à propria forma dixerunt, sed quæ esset anima Intellectiua, au etiam sensitiua & vegetatiua ...

Tertia itaque Opinio fuit, cælos moueri à Deo ipso Immediatè. ...

The discussion thereof goes on to next page:

Next page : 248
http://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/141308

Where we also find:

III. Quarta Opinio, eaque communissima, est; cælos & sidera moueri ab Intelligentijs seu ab Angelis, tanquam assistentibus, & immediatis causis effectiuis, non autem tanquam ab animabus informantibus cælum, atq. adeò moueri ab extrinsecò principio, sed creato.

He goes on to enumerate St Thomas Aquinas, "Ferrariensis" (probably Francesco Silvestri, O.P. who wrote a commentary on Summa contra Gentiles and was Master General of the Dominicans the last three years of his life, 1525-28), Saint Bonaventura, Duns Scotus, one of the two Guillaume Durand (uncle or nephew), Argentinas (not searchable since obfuscated in search engines by Argentina), Gregory of Rimini, John Capreolus, Albertus (the same as already cited for another view, God alone as extrinsic cause?), Nicolas of Cusa, Sancinas (who ever that is), John of Ianduno (I suppose).

Ex recentioribus Conimbricenses [ = the Coimbra Jesuits (with their commentary on Aristotle)], Rufius, Toletus [Francisco de Toledo, Jesuit], Suarez ...

I will not go on to cite the rest of this list. I will comment on Suarez, from wiki:

According to Christopher Shields and Daniel Schwartz, "figures as distinct from one another in place, time, and philosophical orientation as Leibniz, Grotius, Pufendorf, Schopenhauer, and Heidegger, all found reason to cite him as a source of inspiration and influence."

I say this because, having landed in a debate on Geocentrism and giving angels moving heavenly bodies as my alternative explanation for certain movements, I was met with the claim this opinion was always very marginal. OK? Riccioli calls it "the fourth and most common opinion" and among its adherents he enumerates Aquinas and Bonaventura, two Saints, Scotus and Cusanus, two very learned men, the Coimbra Jesuits and Suárez ... and a Dominican who was Master General of the Dominicans. Marginal? If you can call that "marginal", I do not know what qualification you have to speak about history. None equalling mine anyway.

Since the man brought up as "evidence" this was marginal that it was proposed by the flat earther (very marginal indeed in Byzantium of his day) Cosmas Indicopleustes, I may venture to add that none of those cited were Flat Earth believers. Especially the Jesuits were fully aware of cosmographic implications of Vasco da Gama.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Augustine of Hippo Regia
28-VIII-2014

A long due PS:

Will you make it Magellan, I had a habit of confusing this one with Vasco, since I enjoyed a joke around an Oxford table about a Portuguese eating haggis. "I feel like a Gastronomic Columbus," he said. C. S. Lewis answered "wouldn't Vascular da Gama be more appropriate?"/HGL

PPS: right now, as per 12.IX.2019 and previous days, the links get "502, Proxy Error". They were up and functional when I wrote the article, though./HGL

Did Kepler (or if it was Newton) think God's thoughts after him?

In a sense, yes. For one thing, God beforehand knew, and in that sense "thought" every error that would ever be believed by fallible creatures, even errors that have only been believed by mere novel figures, like Eustace Clarence Scrubb thinking he could find a British Consul in Narrowhaven, because he was at sea and had not grasped it was in another world, or Gandalf, Aragorn and a few more believing that Sauron's men, orcs and ringwraiths held Frodo captive, because of that depersonalised, but very astute and cruel, wreck of a human person showing them the mantle and mailcoat of Frodo. God even knows all possible errors that are not even realised in novels.

And so, of course, God knew the errors of Kepler and Newton too - or at any rate of Newtonianism (it is a bit dubious if Newton shared the errors of most Physicians attached to Newtonian physics).

God did neither predetermine who should believe what error, nor ignore who actually does so. God watches every move, of every angel, man, beast, plant, mineral or even atom, but does not take away free will, except on limited occasions, rather arranging the other circumstances (animals, plants, minerals, water, atom, aether, time, timing and other circumstances of any coincidence) so as to make the will of each man yet capable of reaching salvation as free as possible.

But God, though not predetermining what we actually choose, did predetermine what was possible to choose, and so He did predetermine and formulate in advance what moves would be possible, either naturally, or by miracle, or by diabolical deceptions.

If a chessboard has eight by eight squares, no willing on part of any player will let him move ten squares in a single direction, even diagonally the limit is eight, without getting outside the board, nor straddling squares.

God made the chessboard of our free thought and our free will, but that fact does not predetermine the moves of the players - our selves, our guardian angels, our tempters like Devil, World or Flesh, or those of God Himself, though He made the chessboards with a view on what moves He was going to make.

Nor are the moves predetermined because God watches the moves we make now and will make tomorrow since eternity past. And because he sees - and in the better case arranges - what side will win, the white or the black, the "chessgame" about each act or the "chessgame" about our eternity.

So, in a sense every one who is in error - including Kepler and Newton - every and all are thinking God's thoughts after Him. But God thought these errors as errors, so the one who sees them as errors rather than believing them is even better thinking God's thoughts after Him.

In another sense also they were thinking God's thoughts after Him : namely insofar as they are partially true.

If Copernicus was partially right about Venus and Mars orbitting Sun, Tycho Brahe was more true in adding this was not so about Earth, but rather Earth was the centre that the Sun orbitted.

If Kepler and Titus and Bodes were partially right about Venus and Mars orbitting Sun so that they form elliptic orbits with Sun in one of the two foci, Riccioli was more right in stating that with Sun and Earth it was the inverse, Earth was (and remains) in one focus of the annual orbit of the Sun.

If Titus and Bodes were partially right about Venus and Mars forming a series of distances to the Sun of the orbits, a Geocentric accepting that would be even more right in saying but in the case of Sun and Earth it is the opposite relation of centre and orbit, of "circled" and "circling" body (or would you say "of ellipted and ellipting body", as per Kepler?), and of course Mercury is off either way, as Einstein ventured to explain with relativity, though I forgot the details.

And supposing Newton was partially right about Mass of Sun attracting, while previous movement was tangentially projecting Venus and Mars, which I am less sure about, Sungenis would in such a case be more right to say that Sun in its turn was attracted to the centre of Mass of the whole Universe, which providentially was the place where God placed Earth.

God does not need a discursion through simple steps to a more complex conclusion, but if he had needed that, Kepler, Titus and Bodes, and possibly also Newton would have been taking for the "final outcome" what was rather "next to final sketch", with an inversion to Geocentricity added. This inversion being of course conducive to very decorative patterns in the planetary orbits, if these are taken with Earth as a reference frame, which they should. You see, since God is a Catholic and not a Calvinist, He set the place in which the angels worship him more on decoration than on simplicity. Exactly as the Catholic Church (excluding Vatican II errors) is wont to do with places where we worship. Along with angels.

Two little additions, so as not to get confused about cosmology or metaphysics. One is, the movements here described or briefly alluded to are only abstracts, ignoring the daily movement of the Universe. The concrete movement of any celestial body any day is very close to a perfect circle - since the varying (and concretely as said florid) distances from Earth are those of orbits taking a longer time by far than a mere day. The other is this - whatever the nature of "gravitation" as it is called (no one doubts apples fall to the ground) the celestial bodies have have gravitational reasons to get where they are getting, but these would probably not be sufficient to get them there unless they were directed by angelic beings, in fact by good and unfallen angels (Satan being the "fallen morning star" was probably ex-conductor of either Venus or Mercury - and has been replaced as such, being himself now bound in Hell). In the case of a bicycle, its surface of contact, its speed, its weight, all contribute to getting it forwards, but without a driver, it would very soon have the steering wheel start wobbling and thus fall to the ground. Whether or not this is the reason, I think angels are in fact conducting the heavenly bodies, since this is how the Bible in three places (or only one of them if you rely on a Protestant Bible) describes them. But I think the consideration of why the orbits stay as they are would be enough to prove there are angels too.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Vigil of St James and
St Christina, Virgin and Martyr
24-VII-2014

Who of them said it? According to this site it was Kepler:

An "unorthodox" Lutheran, Kepler had a deep love for Christ and the inspiration and authority of Scripture. He is frequently quoted as saying, "O God, I am thinking Thy thoughts after Thee."

Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler
by Christine Dao
[Citing recommendation: Dao, C. 2008. Man of Science, Man of God: Johann Kepler. Acts & Facts. 37 (3): 8.]
http://www.icr.org/article/science-man-god-johann-kepler/

Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien

1) Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds, 2) With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds, 3) Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether, 4) New blog on the kid : Was Not Doing My Best Either - Should have Referred to Tolkien, 5) Diagrams for Geostationary Satellites (Either Cosmology), 6) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Heliocentrism and Positive Claims Demanding Positive Evidence

As Tom Trinko asked me to post such an admission on the blog with our discussion, I must on my part admit I was tired and irritated and forgot to or even neglected adding an explanation which would have helped him, perhaps.

But before going into it, I will ask you first to consider these two statements by him:

His Quote from St Augustine, in context (with my highlights):

By the way Augustine clearly condemns Sungennis's misuse of the Bible—and endorsements by saints for geocentrism— when Augustine says:

" Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. [1 Timothy 1.7]Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2

His admission:

I Tom Trinko have not really been spending too much effort refuting Hans for the simple reason that life is too short to spend the time necessary to refute every point raised by someone who knows nothing of what they are talking about.

As such I apologize for not having spent the time to explain in detail why Hans is wrong.

So, was it hard or easy for him to prove me wrong according to what, along with even non-Christians, he knows, and that from experience? The issue he took a stand on and did not convince me in was geostationary satellites.

Obviously it is not like proving a Biblical or would be Biblical flat earthist* wrong by appealing to journeys made by the thousands. It is not as if denial of thousands of calculations based on Heliocentric assumptions were the same thing as thousands of journeys taken together proving the Round Earth geography even without assumptions. And here it shows. When Tom Trinko cannot prove his point, he thinks life is too short for him to get into detail and he resorts to making assumptions about who of us who is ignorant - and exaggerated such.

But this does not mean I have a right finally to omit my improvment of the discussion, though it comes, for reasons of fatigue and irritation, after the discussion is already over.

Here it is.

I am not sure Tom Trinko has read Lord of the Rings. I have.

At the near end there is a scene in which Elrond and Gandalf and Sam and Frodo go off in ships, in the Grey Havens. At a certain point, the "bent road" of earth's "now" round surface (here: of water, of the sea, of the Atlantic) starts sinking below the ships, and the ships go on straight forward.

I do not think this scene happened. But it is an interesting model - like so much else in fiction, when it is worth reading.

Supposing it had happened, restating it in terms of physics would imply that the ships were unaffected by earth's gravity.** Not unaffected by gravity directly and therefore light, therefore indirectly affected by the gravity as heavier air pushed them up, since air was affected by gravity, no, rather unaffected by gravity either way. Meaning the speed westward they took while sailing was the vector - in Newtonian terms - of their trajectory after leaving the curved water surface behind too.

This means their trajectory is a great model for any trajectory of any object getting either due east or due west without gravity.

But this in its turn means that such a vector by the fact of being straight east or straight west is obliquely up, in the tangential way. And this in its turn means that this is the direct effect of the inertial vector of a satellite too, as long as you do not mix in gravity.

This means, that just as for the ships to have, in Tolkien's fiction, stayed on the bent road of the real surface of the sea, they would have needed gravity, so also, for a satellite to orbit anywhere, rather than take off tangentially, it needs gravity. This means that gravity is involved when satellite stays same height, since the eastward vector is involved in a potentially tangential raising of its height.

I might be adding a scan of this, showing a comparison where satellite would be going if obeying only eastward vector and where it actually goes, obeying also gravity. I have already drawn it.

And this remains true when the daily turning of whatever turns daily geographically cancels the orbital angle. For this I have not yet drawn any diagram. Whether it is thus geographically cancelled because the locations on earth are turning eastward same speed (Heliocentric model) or the aether which is turning westward same speed (Geocentric model as I take it along with aether) - this cancelling of motion considered in relation to localities is another matter yet.

This means that the real discussion that is worthwhile is whether aether can conceivably be non-vectorial in its movement, and yet cause atoms or agglomerations of such moving with aether to be vectorial in their movements along with the aether.

That aether needs be non-vectorial is, since if aether simply was a westward vector at any point, though turning by its attachment to earth, the westward vector of the aether and the eastward vector of the satellite would be cancelling, and gravity would be only relevant vector left, thus pulling geostationary satellite down. But if aether is non-vectorial, its movement is cancelling the local movement of the satellite as relative to earth, but at same time the satellite is really moving eastward through the aether, just as the aether is moving westward with it, so that the vectors have a due result of same height and real orbit, namely through aether.

On the other hand, why one might think aether would be vectorial to a Geocentric believing it, when aether turns westward, so do equatorials winds and oceanic currents.

This Tom Trinko refused to discuss. Life is short and I known really nothing about the universe and so on. Which does not dispense me from making reflections about it.

I would say that it is possible the uppermost atoms and molecules moving in the aether and with the aether westward do so without being vectorial either in themselves or in relation to the aether. But should an atom or molecule under it - directly, as it is not the case, or really indirectly, as is the case - attached to earth collide with its westward movement, the atom or molecule or whatever other body it may be, would immediately be vectorial in relation to the less moving, more earth attached of the two bodies. And the fact that there are infinitesimal intermediates between uppermost waters in the universe and the surface of earth which is attached to a non-moving and non-turning centre, does not very much interefere with the principle, only modify it in detail.

For we do know that winds of passage and equatorial streams in the Oceans are really vectorial. Even if the turning of the aether that causes their turning is not. But this problem, to Tom Trinko was uninteresting detail compared to the conception that an eastward vector would not be tangential and therefore would not be an upward vector.

And even this was not interesting enough to him to defend in detail against my presumably dishonest reasonings (and therefore normally easily exposed reasonings) about vectors being tangential when they are horizontal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
[V Dim. après Pentecôte]
V:th Sunday after Pentecost
13-VII-2014

*I think "Biblical" means either denying the modern geography as well as cosmography or accepting a round earth with the geography: I can as round-earthist point to the four corners, not forming a flat, but a so called non-Euclidian rectangle, whereas the most up to date maps of flat earth society with North Pole in Centre and South Polehaving become a rim seem more three cornered than four cornered to me, and thus un-Biblical.

** Tolkien's choice of the words "bent road" for the trajectories normally affected by gravity and straight road for the one not so affected, may imply he was thinking in terms of an Einsteinian model of gravitation, where gravity bends (or curves) space.

Observations sur un Père Barnabite

J'allais faire une remarque sur une plaque commémorative, mais ça peut attendre à demain.

Aujourd'hui on fête St Antoine-Marie Zaccaria. Il était le fondateur des Barnabites. Comment donc pas penser au Père Père Redento Baranzano?

E - rue du collège [sur un plan* de Nessy:]

Emplacement du collège fondé par Eustache Chappuis en 1549 et où François fut élève. Le Père Redento Baranzano, religieux barnabite, y défendra quelques années plus tard les thèses de Copernic et les idées de Galilée, alors mises en question par l’Église. François de Sales, évêque, le soutient en 1617 quand il est rappelé par ses supérieurs à Milan, et obtient qu’il revienne dès l’année suivante à Annecy poursuivre son enseignement.

Vrai dedans est que le savant Barnabite fut rappelé à Milan chez ses supérieurs, et ensuite soutenu par l'évêque de Genève (résidant à Nessy, justement, puisque Genève même était occupé par les Calvinisants).

Et, qu'il était Barnabite et qu'il s'appelait Redento Barenzano est aussi vrai, ainsi que l'emplacement de ses mots devant étudiants.

Mais:

• il ne défendait pas la thèse de Galilée comme vraie, il défendait - ainsi que Copernic - que l'idée de celui-ci était possible. C'est différent, vrai et possible.
• quand il s'agit de la vérité (plutôt que juste la possibilité) de l'héliocentrisme, la Sainte Église ne l'avait pas remise en question, mais condamné (toutefois, en 1616, sans une quelleconque censure contre son défenseur humain Galilée, comme l'a attesté St Robert Bellarmin)
• St François de Sales n'a nullement défendu la thèse du Barnabite, comme une description de la réalité qui soit vraie, il a soutenu qu'il avait besoin des Barnabites qui parlaient bien le français. Celui-ci avait réussi à faire comprendre son système philosophique bien curieux et ça en langue française - quel exploit linguistique!

Donc, le texte est assez peu correct historiquement.

À part les fautes directes, il convient de noter encore quelques choses, auxquelles ne pense pas le lecteur modernisant.

• les supérieurs à Milan étaient contre Barenzano parce qu'il était soupçonné d'être héliocentrique. Or, eux, et non lui-même, c'étaient les successeurs dans l'ordre du Saint Antoine-Marie;
• la thèse, même comme hypothèse sur le philosophiquement possible ("si la lune est faite du fromage ..." de nos classes de philo) était curieuse et en fait inouie à Nessy;
• la thèse héliocentrique n'était donc nullement une thèse "par défaut" que l'Église ou quiconque d'autre avait à respecter ou remettre en question, elle était une thèse inouie, qui remettait les thèses "par défaut" en question.
  
  Ceci nous mène à une autre observation:
  
  
• St François de Sales était bien plus tolérant dans son jour vis-à-vis un Barnabite suspect d'Héliocentrisme, que certains modernistes le sont de nos jours, vis-à-vis un laïc suspect du Géocentrisme (et qui se confesse en fait Géocentrique).
  
  Et à ce temps là, un Géocentrique comme St François de Sales pouvait avoir la culture et la curiosité philosophique de comprendre la possibilité philosophique de l'Héliocentrisme. De nos jours, les Héliocentriques ont assez mal à comprendre même la possibilité (à part la facticité) du Géocentrisme.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Antoine Marie Zaccaria
Fondateur des Barnabites
5 - VII - 2014

* Plan d'à Nessy par la Diocèse
http://www.diocese-annecy.fr/rubriques/haut/haute-savoie/4eme-centenaire-de-la-visitation/plan-annecy-visitationweb.pdf

Parcourir les rues et ruelles du vieil Annecy, c’est un peu suivre François de Sales et Jeanne de Chantal dans les rue de la“Nessy” du XVIIesiècle les jours demarché (mardi et vendredimatin) où se côtoient paysans, commerçants, artisans, ménagères, touristes... Microcosme de la société appelée à la sainteté, avec ses haltes spirituelles, ses églises ( la cathédrale Saint-Pierre aux Liens, les églises Saint-François, Saint-Maurice, Notre-Dame de Liesse), son château et ses vieilles prisons.

Answering two points raised by Dr Neville Jones PhD et al.

FreeLists : [geocentrism] Re: Virtual/created reality?
From: "Dr. Neville Jones"
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 21:26:09 +0000 (GMT)
http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Virtualcreated-reality,2

the two points that I originally made:

1. That capsules could only be smashed against the Moon when launched as they were;
2. That NASA could not have navigated to the Moon if the stars were moving?

Before giving my answer, briefly, I will say that the point was answered by others on the list in such a way as to make it less than necessary to choose between Geocentrism and believing the story as if mutually exclusive:

• Answer by Robert Bennett (PhD too, I believe)
  http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/navigation-to-the-moon,2
• Answer by Philip, whoever he may be
  http://www.freelists.org/post/geocentrism/Shooting-the-moon,1

Here are now my own answers to the points

"1. That capsules could only be smashed against the Moon when launched as they were;"

Answered by Robert Bennett, retrorockets were able to slow down the movement.

"2. That NASA could not have navigated to the Moon if the stars were moving?"

If I am correct about the aether, the rockets (once escaping the big pull of gravitation of Earth, supposing that is how "gravity" works, and once escaping the friction in the atmosphere where movement is slowed down by static Earth) would be moving in spirals - upward/outward as per momentum of launch and at same time along with aether.

And aether would be moving along with stars. Net effect: rocket would not be moving in relation to stars and stars not in relation to rocket.

Another side of this is Geostationary satellites having an Eastward momentum in a Westward moving aether. As I detailed in a letter exchange with Tom Trinko.

So, therefore there is no actual need for a Geocentric to discredit NASA. That said, some who have done research have also found some.

Reality Reviewed : Grissom, Chaffee and White researched by Dr. Neville Thomas Jones, Ph.D.
http://www.realityreviewed.com/Grissom.htm

And my own contacts with NASA (per email and per combox) have not really convinced me they are the "honest" ideal of objective scientists. You know, answering inquiries, even if answer given might discredit (or be misconstrued as discrediting) their own scientific theories and all that.

In fact, this includes my experience of communicating with Carl F. Hostetter, a Tolkien fan, who would normally be interested in Geocentrism. You know that letter (quoted in a page "on top of" this blog, i e you reach it by clicking one of the buttons between uppermost blogpost and the title space) where The Professor thought a global but static earth was easier to imagine "to his fancy, if not to his reason" than a flat earthed world. Or the part of Silmarillion where Sun and Moon get angelic movers. Quite in concordance with standard Scholastic cosmology, even if the scholastics did not accept any thousands of years of "treeshine" between first moment of creation and the Fourth Day with its creation of Sun and Moon. But that is of course where Tolkien's love of mythology comes into the picture. And he made his own one very attractive.

You see, on FB, Carl F. Hostetter lists NASA as his employer.

That might - if true - make him a bit more prone to be averse towards Geocentrics than logic and other parts of reason warrant.

And of course, scientists are not machines. In fact this is a reason why those concerned with other minds "malfuncioning" should not be credited as scientific, but that is beside this immediate issue. Even if I did not at all present my Geocentric material as an attack on the Moon Landing, a NASA employee who had gone through some screenings about Geocentrics and Moon Landing deniers (after Neville Jones raised his point) might feel, through a game of association, insulted by even Geocentrics. If he believed Neville's material about Grissom, he would feel an urge to quit NASA. If he did not, he would feel irritation at Neville. If he knew it was true but was posing (I am not saying this is the case, of course, I do not know if the failed flight was accident or murder), he would of course pose as much as possible as not believing the case. And, by a slip, either in his honest or in his possibly not quite honest rejection of Neville Jones, he would include Geocentrics in general in that rejection.

Other NASA people - is Phil Plait one of them? He is actually the guy whom I rather think of as deliberately avoiding the issue after a debate with me that took some weeks - would often enough be [Classic Western] Atheists. To them, angelic movers of Sun, Moon, Mars and Venus, are a big no-no, exactly as much as a similtaneous supernatural creation of these on Day Four.

But the big challenge of Moon landing to a Geocentric is survival on a Moon that moves around us at high speed. If it happened, of course it proves, if not completely Newtonian physics, at least a limited aspect of them, that things fall to the ground because of gravity and that six feet from the surface of the moon, the head of a man on the moon would experience virtually none from Earth but immensely more from the Moon. If it happed it also proves the possibility of the Heliocentric explanatyion of our sensation of stilness. Neil and the rest (if they spoke truly) experienced the Moon as being still under their feet on the ground, much as we all experience Earth as still under ours on the ground. However, neither proves Geocentrism wrong, the first would prove an Aristotelian proposition either wrong or fraught with exceptions, the latter does not prove that the obvious explanation while being applicable to us on Earth must also be applied as the true one to us on Earth. The real big challenge is the speed, and I have previously calculated that in a Geocentric universe the men landing on the Moon would temporarily be experiencing a speed if anything lower than the total speed of Earth through space. I calculated for the speed of "daily rotation" plus "yearly orbit", it was the same speed as that of Moon in a Gecentric universe. And there the gravity is less high, about one sixth, I have gathered.

So, there is no physical impossibility in the Moon landing, even if Geocentrism is right.

But there is no physical impossibility in faking it either. When I see pictures purportedly from Moon with a pyramid reflection in the face shield, I am not saying "wow, are there pyramids on the Moon, is this leaked and did NASA want to silence this?" I am rather saying: were the Moon landing pictures faked where there are Pyramids, i e in the Egyptian desert?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Memory of St Paul and
St Ostian of Viviers
30-VI-2014

On Karl Keating's Course

1) "Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ...", 2) On Karl Keating's Course, 3) Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate, 4) Ross Hoffmann Made an Answer, an Answer too I Gave

All I know about it so far is what Robert Sungenis has quoted him as saying:

Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Anatomy_of_a_Smear_Campaign-1.pdf&wmode=opaque&chrome=true

Or:

Anatomy of a Smear Campaign
http://galileowaswrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Anatomy_of_a_Smear_Campaign-1.pdf

Includes on p. 13 this quote:

Keating: Sungenis writes: "Karl Keating knows nothing about dynamics or coordinate transforms. All he knows is what he has been taught by the science textbooks in high school." This is an interesing example of fantasizing, since Sungenis knows full well what I have written in reply to him before about my educational background. I'll repeat that here, so you can judge whether his characterization of me in the preceding paragraph is correct. Of course I had some science in high school‐‐didn't we all?‐‐but that wasn't where my science education ended. My undergraduate work was done at the San Diego campus of the University of California. At the time it had three constituent colleges. I was resident and registered in Revelle College, which was the science school. It boasted half a dozen Nobel Prize laureates. With MIT and CalTech, UCSD was one of the three top schools for math in the country. I was a math major. It was a requirement to take a lot of hard science courses, particularly physics. One such course was directly on point regarding Sungenis's hobbyhorse, geocentrism. The course was a mathematical investigation of the Ptolemaic theory and the geocentric theories that flowed from it. We used the actual ancient data and worked through complex equations to see whether, with ever finer data, the geocentric theory "saved the appearances." (The answer was No.)

My own reaction, previous to reading Sungenis' reply (I am even shutting down so as not to peek) is the following:

How would working through complex equations ever possibly be able to solve that question?

Why formulate a question like "does the geocentric theory save the appearances" at all? Geocentrism is not ONE theory, it is ANY theory which saves the appearance of Earth being still by means of accepting this as a fact in itself.

The reason would perhaps be to confuse Geocentrism with Ptolemaic system.

Saying that accepting excentrics as centres for perfect circles (if we abstract the near perfect circular movement per day) which obviously do not have earth as its centre will not save the appearances as well as accepting elliptical near perfect cirles will. And the one focus for any major body except Earth (still), Sun and Moon (Earth or wobbling point close to centre of Earth, inside it for Moon, in one focus of elliptic near perfect cirle), will have Sun in one focus of elliptic near perfect circle. But not a point not the Sun as centre of real perfect circle.

If we understand "aphelium of Earth" as "apogaeum of Sun"* and "perihelium of Earth" as "perigaeum of Sun", the Sun will move around Earth variously at distances like 152 097 701 km and 147 098 074 km and any between them.

152 097 701
147 098 074
004 999 627
km difference between perigee and apogee

365.25 approx year in days
182.625 approx half year in days

So on any day between apogee and perigee we will have sun moving around (4 999 657 km : 182.625 days = ) 27 376 km** closer or further off per day, which is at any day insignificant to the total radius of the daily movement. Hence Aristotle's empiric statement that all heavenly bodies move in perfect circles. Which was just NEARLY right.

But getting back to the forms of the non-daily movements, they are not perfect circles. Even around excentrics. In that detail Ptolemy is wrong. However, other systems of Geocentrism - historical or new - are not built around that assumption. So, if we integrate data given by Heliocentrics like Kepler (elliptic orbits) and by refined observations (Mercury not behaving according to the laws of planetary movements predicted by Kepler, hence Mercury's irregularity), along with Tycho Brahe's major identification of Sun (or rather a wobbling point close to its centre, perhaps) as moving excentric centre and Galileo's identification of smaller objects having Jupiter for immediate centre, I cannot for my life see how the equations of Keating at San Diego campus could possibly rule out, optically or geometrically, Geocentrism.

What I can very easily see, however, is that if he puts in a physical or mechanical assumption of causes being limited to, for actual movements, inertia of mass and graviational attraction of other mass, and, for apparent movements, parallactic appearances plus gravitational bending of light, yes, then he will get difficulties in supporting Geocentrism. But those will not be the difficulties of saving the appearances, but rather of saving the current explanations.

If you now go to Stephen Tempier, you will not find "angels move heavenly bodies" on the index of condemned notions.

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

And if you go to St Thomas Aquinas commenting on Job, you will find him affirming it:

[In eodem bloggo] : Terra et Astra secundum Aquinatem in Commentario de Hiob capite xxxviij
[in quo et datur uinculum in situm de corpore thomistico]
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2014/05/terra-et-astra-secundum-aquinatem-in.html

Which will involve the disappearance of that kind of difficulty. Pretty immediately - unless you think St Thomas was wrong, unless you think it has been validly demonstrated that angelic movers must be excluded. I for one do not, and more importantly, I have St Thomas on my side. As well as - even more importantly than that - the book of Job, the book of Baruch, the Canticle of the Three Young Men in the Furnace.

My own studies were not scientific. My main subject (I never took a licence, but in this subject I intruded to postgraduate level) was ... Latin. In Lund, South Sweden, with lots of Brigittine studies and with a Tertiary Dominican for one of the Latin teachers (now professor, the "Docent"), that meant an emphasis on Medieval Latin. What I learned to do at University was reading St Thomas.

Any further problems or questions, Mr. Keating?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St John the Baptist's Vigil
23/VI/2014

* Taken from current version of:

La Wikipédie française : Terre
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terre

** Unless I got a Roman Numeral wrong in the answer. Divisions ideally use Arabic numerals for dividend and divisor with its multiplication table up to V, then Roman Numerals for answer.

"Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ..."

You know, I saw once this wonderful, beautiful film with Terence Hill:

English Wikipedia : My Name is Nobody
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Name_is_Nobody

It is great not to be Polyphemus!

1) "Nobody believes in Geocentrism these days ...", 2) On Karl Keating's Course, 3) Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate, 4) Ross Hoffmann Made an Answer, an Answer too I Gave

Answering Alec MacAndrew

I used to be good at grasping fairly simple physical explanations when "small" (say, five to ten). You know descriptions of how razor machines and such work. Perhaps they are approximations. I must admit that much of the physics and maths are beyond my level of being able to calculate graphs or analyses to double check. But this does not mean that concept is beyond me. I will partly defend Sungenis based on concept. Then I will pass on to my own explanation, which is not my own, but which I have from St Thomas Aquinas.

Sungenis* speculates about the physics at his hypothetical centre of mass, relying on purely classical mechanics. He claims that there is no reason that the Earth should not coincide with the centre of mass, and in his ball-universe model, indeed there isn’t, temporarily. But he fails to recognize that there is nothing to keep the Earth there.

IF it is centre of mass, earth would be stuck as firmly in there as a ball stuck in the centre of earth if it is hollow. Unless other bodies fell in towards the centre and ousted earth.

One other aspect is also part of it: other bodies cannot oust earth from the centre, because they are involved in a daily orbit around earth. Their velocities sidewards would - on his view at least - be too great for any one of them to fall inwards and oust the earth from the centre.

That is Sungenis' point.

The centre of mass of a system is a point in space and there is no reason to identify it with a particular body – no physical body has to “act as the centre of mass” or “be it” or “occupy it”, all phrases that Sungenis has used in various places in the past, and which show that he fails to understand the concept.

I think you have failed to understand his point. Earth is heavier than air, which is heavier than diffused molecules of hydrogen. If Earth is in the centre of gravity, it will not be ousted from it by its atmosphere, nor by interstellar matter, since none of these are heavy enough. It could only be ousted from there by an equally heavy or heavier body. Since centre of Mass is also centre of gravitation. But the available options would not be getting inwards since already in orbit all of them together around the earth.

I take the point about "no gravitation" as meaning "no gravitation any one direction more than any other direction". Not as meaning "no gravitation inward."

the gravitational field is not zero at the centre of mass (it can be zero in certain symmetrical systems, such as a uniform spherical shell or a spherical ball of perfectly uniform density, or a two body system of exactly equal masses - but it is not generally so)

The point of Sungenis would, as I understand it, be that by daily rotation around earth all other bodies form virtually a symmetrical system around it. So, if the question of "certain symmetrical systems" seems marginal to Alec MacAndrew - he puts it in parentheses - it is rather more like a central theme to "the Sungenis version of Newtonian physics."

Furthermore, Sungenis’s claim that the stars have “gravity [that] will affect how the Sun and Earth react to one another, especially if the Earth is put in the center of that gravity” [my bolding] is wrong, not just because the gravitational field at the Earth of all these stars is vanishingly small compared with that of the Sun, as we have seen, but because gravitational fields of individual bodies are vector-additive—that is, they can cancel each other out if they act from opposite directions—so that if the Earth were to be at the centre, these already minuscule gravitational fields from the stars would tend to sum to zero.

That particular claim is probably behind Sungenis' words about Earth having "zero" gravitation.

Along with definition of "gravitation" as a force tending to acceleration. Question is whether the "zero gravitation" would mean a force - possibly gigantic - preventing accelaration in any one direction, that is how I think Sungenis takes it, or zero force at all. That is how I think Alec MacAndrew takes it.

For my own part, I do not know if gravitation toward centre of mass or cancellation of gravitational directions would take over. I tend to the first one, supposing that Newtonian physics are at all true and even if they are partly false.

Let us sketch up a few scenarios, shall we.

Scenario 1:

There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it.

Corrollary:

Nothing happens.

Scenario 2:

There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth.

Corrollary:

Nothing happens.

Scenario 3:

There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth. There is also the Moon.

Corrollary:

Nothing happens.

Scenario 4:

There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth. There is also the Moon. There is also some sort of gravitation.

Corrollary:

Supposing the gravitation is strictly Newtonian, the most massive object will plummet down into the centre of gravity and stay there. Earth will in that case simultaneously be fried and pushed to the side. Moon will fall into this as well, but Sun will be in the Middle.

This will increase the gravitational pull toward the middle and the Sphere of Fixed Stars will collapse. This is the reason why Newtonian and Mechanistic explanations tend to avoid a Sphere of Fixed Stars. Newton to Olbers, one tried to pretend universe had - at least as a disc of stars with greater tightness - an infinite extension, however unthinkable and counterintuitive and impossible THAT is, so one could pretend the gravitational pull on each stars by each other star was everywhere (not excepting any outer borders even) balanced out by an equal gravitational pull from the other side. After Olbers and through one (but not only possible) explanation of red shift, one now instead sees the inward force of gravitation balanced by an outward thrust from the Big Bang.

Supposing instead the gravitation is Aristotelian, there are two kinds of mass (correponding to light and heavy elements in Aristotle): leptomass and barymass.

Earth is less massive in total mass than the Sun. BUT the Sun may have a surplus of leptomass over barymass. In that case it will not plummet down to the centre of gravity. Even the Moon might have a slight surplus of leptomass over barymass and will not plummet down into it. Earth may be, not indeed the most massive body, but the most massive body with a surplus of barymass over leptomass. This is how Aristotle, Lucretius and a few others motivated Geocentricity physically.

The Fixed Stars would of course be the ones which had the greatest percentual surplus of leptomass, hence they would be furthest up and out. This poses a bit of a problem whether they stay in place at all or whether they expand, further and further up, through their positive lightness.

In either case their staying in relative places would require a Designer. Either for designing a limit beyond which even lightness cannot expand or for mixing precisely enough barymass into the Stars for them to stay at a fixed distance from Earth, or else for the Stars to stay in their angular places relative to each other while their whole sphere is expanding.

Lucretius who did not think there was a God was not very attentive to his own Geocentric astronomy.

Scenario 5:

There is Earth and there is the sphere of fixed stars (roughly) symmetrically around it. There is also the Sun and it is bigger and hotter than Earth. There is also the Moon. There is also some sort of gravitation. There is also rotation.

Corrollary:

In this case even Newtonian gravity might not be incompatible with Geocentricity.

Now - precisely at scenario 5 - look at Alec's resumé of Gary's answer to Robert:

Sungenis has already been shown by Gary Hoge, that there are no observable motions in the universe that could offset the overwhelming gravitational attraction of the Sun, moon, and planets on the Earth.

Is the daily motion of the Universe around the Earth "observable" in MacAndrew's language? It is any way observed, the colloquial terms for those very common observations being "day" and "night".

Is there a problem with this theory? Well, where does the rotation come from. Not how we observe it, we observe it as day and night, but where it comes from.

Lucretius thought Moon and Sun and stuff were just gliding around because they were lighter.

Aristotle and St Thomas find that God can explain the rotation - as in observed daily rotation of the Universe around Earth - as efficient cause thereof.

Newtonian laws of movement?

Problem is, a circular movement is not a uniform movement. Therefore even without any friction, it would not be generated and then automatically ongoing, since changing direction is a kind of acceleration. And each body would be changing direction.

Conservation of angular momentum?

Can it be derived from Newton's laws of motion? As it is experimentally observed, it is usually concerned with solid circular objects rotating around their centres. Not with objects separate from each other rotating around common centres in the void. Even two stones united with a rope (or three with three ropes, like the Bolas of Argentinian Gauchos) as being united by a rope (or three) are in a sense solids. Every observed instance on earth sooner or later stops.

Back to Sungenis' theory now.

If we make a model of the solar system, and use bodily arms between sun model and earth model, so that earth on model is moved by arm from the sun on model, we can indeed fixate earth and this will make sun on model revolve around earth precisely as earth would otherwise revolve around sun.

My take on Sungenis' is that his take on Mach is that this happens in dynamics of Solar System according to Classic Newtonian Model, if and when Earth is for instance fixed into the Centre of Gravity.

My problem with that (and I suspect if Sungenis read this in Mach it is there in Mach) is that this does not take into account that in Newton's model Earth is not moved around the Sun by a physical arm, a body of metal shaped as an arm. But rather by the evasive (and regularly so) equilibrium between its two movements. The one being the movement sidewards and tangential through inertia, the other being the movement inward and radial through gravitation. And both movements or theoretical such equalling out into a movement which is insofar accelerating as it is changing direction.

Now the fixation of earth on a model would make the mechanic arm in the sun move the sun around the earth instead of other way round. But the fixation of Earth in a place in the Universe would involve its lacking a sideways movement relative to the Sun and its lacking an inwards movement relative to the Sun and therefore no movement making an equilibrium between them would arise either.

A movement of the Sun around Earth as per year - apart from this being an abstraction since the main movement of the Sun around Earth is per day, but if we supposed for a moment Earth was rotating so only yearly movement were to reckon with - would in a Newtonian model require this movement to be the result of Sun's sideways movement, determined by its inertia determined by its mass, and the Sun's inwards movement into the Earth, determined by Earth's (or some centre of gravity's situated around it) superior attraction.

However, the Newtonians do find a consistency between the Sun's Mass as used for it being close around Centre of Gravity for Earth and the same as used for it being close around Centre of Gravity for the orbits of Kuiper Belt or Jupiter, Venus or Mars.

For Sungenis to be correct in the main would require that exactly as much inferior as the Earth is by itself to the Sun, so much superior is the Earth with the Centre of Gravitation to the Sun, when it comes to exerting gravitational pulls. Improbable? Yes, if the explanations are purely mechanistic. Possible? Exactly under one precise condition, if a God with a sense of humour made it so.

But this was, as said, ignoring that according to Geocentrism as usually understood, indeed defended by Sungenis himself, as well as me, the main movement of the Sun around the Earth is its daily movement. Its yearly movement is a movement in relation to the Zodiac. This in its turn remaining true whether Sun and each star are every day going West around us and Sun being slower than the stars or Heaven is going West, carrying the Sun with it, while Sun is going East making a full circle around the Zodiac per year.

This would add the further quirk that it is NOT the movement of the Sun which corresponds to what Earth would have been doing if Sun were centre of its system. And yet the correspondence is somehow there.

Now, one can ask oneself, if Geocentrism in Newtonianism is so improbable, why not ditch Geocentrism?

Well, is Heliocentrism in Newtonian explanations very much more probable? If it is sufficiently probable to function without God, maybe there is no God. Then - without God that is - Geocentrism is pretty certain to be impossible.

Could now the Heliocentric and Newtonian system function without God regulating it? Newton did not think so. Laplace is famus for having said he found this hypothesis superfluous. However his cosmology is famous for being less easy to read and check up on (these days at least) than his very famous cosmogony, in which the solar system is supposed to have began as a whirling disc of gas and matter, which then condensed into the planets. That cosmogony (and its prequel in Big Bang) I knew by age eight, before being a Christian, and having momentarily forgot about God. I learnt all this in MARS** where I was the most junior member.

But is this very probable? Look at this:

[ISS] Don Petit, Science Off The Sphere - Water Droplets Orbiting Charged Knitting Needle
SpaceVids.tv·
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyRv8bNDvq4

How many orbits did you count per droplet before the equilibrium of inward and sideward movements changed from orbitting to frankly inward movement and droplet attached to the knitting needle? Not billions, right?

Well, I think the mechanics for movements of heavenly bodies must include, not just a design going on from creation, but also present movers, at least as regulating the movements and stopping collapse by gravitation. And if there are movers capable of that, they are also capable of effecting the quirks - which are very decorous - of Tychonian Geocentrism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Marc / Friday of Easter Octave
25-IV-2014
Also 59th Birthday of
Robert Sungenis

* Alec's attack here cited is on:

“Here Comes the Sun”
How the new geocentrists persist in scientific and logical errors
by Alec MacAndrew
http://www.geocentrismdebunked.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Here-Comes-the-Sun-Alec-MacAndrew.pdf

** MARS-bulletinen / Malmö astronomi- & rymdfartssällskap
Malmö astronomi- & rymdfartssällskap (utgivare) Malmö : Malmö astronomi- & rymdfartssällskap (MARS), 1966-1980 Svenska.
http://libris.kb.se/bib/1548270

M A R S == M=Malmö, the location, third Swedish city after Stockholm and Gothenburg, A=astronomi- needs no translation, S=-sällskap = society, but what about R=rymdfarts-? Well, it seems the society was originally also about space voyages. Even though Malmö hardly is Cape Canaveral. Did not quite reckon on that in 1966 when the society was founded. I was an active member 1976, after my grandpa's death. By then I was eight. But 1980 when I came back to Malmö, not only was I a Christian but the society was no longer (or not very much longer) in existance. Its traces now is this bulletin preserved in libraries.