Tuesday, 23 June 2015

David Palm's Parallels

Someone not called Sungenis, who is a decided Geocentric, but instead Stephen Hand, a journalist, asked David Palm a question which ended:

... Even if you personally stand with the consensus and think it foolish to embrace geocentrism, is it a possible interpretation of the data? What say you objectively in response in this instance, my brother, and why? You are under oath.

And David Palm answered:

Hey, Stephen, if you want to pursue that answer, I think it's most fruitful to ask if you would consider theories like a spherical earth, the germ theory of disease, and an atomistic theory of matter to be settled science, versus more ancient views?

If you want to pursue the fact he was being evasive, like answering an "is it possible" with "do you mean as if the question were not settled?" and answering a "what would you say under oath in a court room" with "I think it's most fruitful to ask", I suggest that you go to the open letter to Palm, where Sungenis cites this dialogue.

GWW pdf : Open Letter to David Palm for a Public Debate on Geocentrism

I will here rather give my take on the parallels he gave. First I note that as none of them is a total parallel to the question, they are not even parallel to each other.


I will first give my take on a theory like "spherical earth".

It is settled.

It was settled by Vasco da Gama and later. THe later voyages confirming what followed pretty clearly even from Vasco.

It was before him only nearly settled (with flat earth ruled out, but semispheric or other bent earth theories not ruled out), once it was clear that Ganges did not lead directly around to the pillars of Hercules, which would also have settled it if it had been true, but with Eratosthenes showing a discrepancy of angle of zenith same day on different latitudes.

Now, is spherical earth "parallel" to Heliocentrism?

No. We do not have a Vasco da Gama for it. Luke Skywalker is still not a real person. Nor is Princess Leia. Nor are Valérian and Laureline.

The proof from voyage is still lacking for Earth going around Sun each year. Whereas we do have a proof from voyage for Earth being a sphere.

Do we at least have a parallel to how spherical Earth theory was nearly settled previous to Vasco?

Yes and no. Like Eratosthenes proved earth was bent (and assumed the bending made a perfect globe because that is a perfect shape) there is proof some objects orbit the Sun (Mercury and Venus, Mars and Jupiter).

But unlike Eratosthenes, the optic proof we have for Kepler's solar system or universe does not involve any for the body we are here discussing, namely Earth itself. Eratosthenes proved Earth itself had at least to be bent. Kepler did not prove Earth itself had to be circling the Sun. And the proof he had for these other bodies (Mercury and Venus, very certainly, Mars and Jupiter at least probably, by now too a certainty, I suppose) orbitting the Sun was taken over from his mentor Tycho Brahe who believed that Earth was still in the centre. Something which did not satisfy Kepler's taste for perfect simplicity in geometry of the heavens. But something which to this day has not optically been disproven. And I include both annual aberration of star light and annual stellar parallax in the non-proofs.

For stellar parallax, it should be very clear since 63 Ophiuchi has a "negative" - that is inverted - parallax. Something which cannot be explained according to the theory parallax just mirrors the real but hidden movement of earth.

It can be explained so as to concord with that theory only as an error of measurement. Something which is certainly possible - but if so possible also for all other stellar parallaxeis. If the error was even and if the "measured as negative" parallax for 63 Ophiuchi was really a positive one, the corresponding correction would approach alpha Centauri from 4 light years away to 2 only light years away - or closer. Even that would unsettle modern cosmology. And as stars would be closer, they would also be smaller. How much? We don't know.

If we assume for a moment Heliocentrism is true, we don't know exactly how much positive parallax must be counted as corresponding to the "negative parallax" that is "measured". We do know parallax is too small to measure directly and is measured by comparison to "background" - or to general lack of a parallax deviating the measure of annual aberration. Aberration is in angle size 20″.49552 arcseconds "generally speaking" and parallax is "measured" as variations around that value. No parallax exceeds 1".0 arcseconds. So all stars actually are each year measured as moving between 19″.49552 and 21″.49552 arcseconds or actually closer in to 20″.49552, with alpha Centauri and 63 Ophiuchi on opposite extremes. If Earth is moving, and if all of the 20″.49552 arcseconds are aberration and not parallax, parallactic deviations from it should only be measured in one direction, not in opposite ones.

So, if parallax values are correct, Heliocentrism is proven untrue by 63 Ophiuchi, and if Heliocentrism is true, 63 Ophiuchi must have a positive parallax, and 20″.49552 arcseconds must be no pure aberration, and the positive parallaxes that are measured as positive must be larger, and therefore also modern cosmology breaks down.

So, no, parallax is NOT an Eratosthenes type optical proof for Earth moving around the Sun.

Therefore, Heliocentrism is not even as settled as spherical Earth was before Vasco da Gama. And absolutely not as settled as spherical Earth is since then.


Now, germ theory of disease, yes, it is in a sense as far as it goes, settled. We have DIRECT optical proof for existence of these germs, we have proof of their presence (or for healthy gut bacteria absence) during diseases, we have laboratory proofs they produce some of the toxins which have the bad effects, we have proof they prey on cells, we have proof killing off germs ends diseases.

Microscope is a surer tool than the telescope. We know the distance, angles, and what is being moveed and what is not being moved, at first hand, from the methods of manipulation.

However, there was another qualification than germ theory judt being settled. It was to be settled "versus more ancient views".

These would be demonic view and four humours view.

Both of these can still be defended, as long as they are not understood to deny the germ theory.

Some humoural qualities (like if you eat lots of salt and never sweets and have very lean muscles and very little fat, i e if you are humourally "dry"), you are likelier to get cancer than to get germ infections.

And demons may at times act as "guardian angels" to germs, just as they may do so to germ carrying vermin. Apollo was, like Belzebub, called "Lord of the Flies". Demons can certainly lord over both flies and bacteria. Not meaning they can change their natures, but meaning they can guide where they fly off to. Perhaps give some extra energy. Some Orthodox have made experiments where germs die in labs if sign of the Cross is made over them - "from right to left" - but as the experiment was done with an Orthodox believer that means "as my Church has taught me". When negative results (bacteria not dying off) were registered for sign of the Cross made from left to right, this was probably not done by Catholics, it was probably done by Orthodox too and this means "as my Church did NOT teach me". As far as I know, the experiments have not been verified from Roman Catholic labs to test if our Sign of the Cross will have same effect if done by a believing Catholic.

So, though germ theory is settled, it is not settled versus more ancient views. This case was not a parallel for the simple reason that the modern view does not actually contradict the more ancient ones.


An atomistic view of matter settled science? Which level of the atomistic view? And settled about how much of matter?

In electronic microscopy (which is one step removed from the certainty of the normal optical microscope) we have seen water molecules as one big bulb surrounded by two smaller ones, and chemistry has identified the bigger bulb as involved in oxygen molecule and the smaller ones as being involved in hydrogen molecule. You mix oxygen and hydrogen and you light it, there is a short explosive fire, and there is after that water. Oxygen, hydrogen and nitrogen gas can all be tested on a lit match. Take gas from each bottle into a test tube or sth, oxygen will make the flame burn higher and quicker, nitrogen will extinguish it quickly, and hydrogen - as it is in the test tube mixed with air - will give this explosion resulting in water. Look at each gas in electronic microscope, oxygen and nitrogen molecules will be two bigger bulbs and hydrogen two smaller ones, and water will be one of the bigger sizes joined to two of this smaller size. THAT much is settled.

Is it equally settled science that hydrogen has one nuclear particle called a proton, while oxygen has eight and nitrogen seven of them? Plus oxygen and nitrogen also having other nuclear particles called neutrons? Plus each of the "bulbs" - atoms - having as outer wall, what the electronic microscope reflects, very much smaller electrons, one for each proton in all of the molecules here considered (no ions were so far considered)?

Well, at least electrons have never been actually observed. They are what electronic microscopy are supposed to be observing with.

One has observed traces of what is supposed to be electrons in Wilson chambers.

And the theory also states there is empty space:

  • a) between nucleus and electrons
  • b) between the "outer walls" observed in electronic microscopy and those of next not cojoined atom observed in them.

This part of empty space has obviously not been directly observed, one has only observed:

  • a) that one hasn't observed anything inside the outer wall of an atom, the one that is observed in electronic microscopy, which is then supposed to mean one hasn't observed anything between electron and nucleus - but one hasn't directly observed these either, in place in the atoms;
  • b) and that one hasn't observed anything by electronic microscopy between two separate molecules watched in it.

I think it is at least too early to vindicate the "empty space" part of the atomistic view of matter against the "aether" view of space and thus of what is between the molecules observed in electronic microscopy.

Here we have a theory not completely vindicated in itself, and certainly not in its largest contrasts as against more ancient ones. Aristotelian view of space as extended matter and of non-existance of any space that is just empty cannot be ruled out without first ruling out aether, which, as said, we haven't done.

And this is a parallel to the non-proof from physical considerations of Heliocentrism. We could say that an interplay of gravitation (from the two masses and distance of two bodies) and inertia (from own mass of a moving body plus its previous movement) is too rudimentary to allow for Geocentrism on a Tychonian model. But we have not proven this is how the universe works any more than we have disproven aether. So, if we might just imagine allowing God for the daily movement and angels for periodic movements of each heavenly body, would this mean anything we observe had to be wrong? No. Angels would even give an explanation for "parallax" and "annual aberration" that is compatible with Geocentrism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
St John's Eve or Midsummer Eve

Update, St John's Day : dialogue with Stephen Hand on FB includes him prompting me to summarise the position, here are some relevant passages from our correspondence:

Stephen Hand
Sir, why is Flat Earth muddled with the question at hand?

Would you kindly state your position on geocentrism here as points? 1. 2. 3. Etc. Thank you.

Was I really so unclear, or are you not the Stephen Hand who interviewed David Palm?

He tried to muddle geocentrism issue with three supposed parallels, and I try to unmuddle the issue, by taking a careful look at each supposed parallel.

Point 1 we have a Vasco da Gama proof for earth being round, we have NO Vasco da Gama proof for Earth going arooun the sun. We had an Eratosthenes proof for Earth itself being at least curved, but we have no Eratosthenes proof for Earth itself circling Sun (though we have such for Tychonian orbits if Earth doesn't).

2 Microscope beats telescope in clarity and access to minute clues about causality. Germ theory does NOT contradict old wisdom, heliocentrism by contrast does.

3 Atomic theory (here we come to closest parallel) is itself not fully proven, just as Heliocentrism isn't.

Which of above poins if any was really unclear?

Perhaps I really did write mainly for readers who already know I am Geocentric. Was my position really ambiguous to someone reading this article of mine as the first item of me they read?

Stephen Hand
I am the same. I simply want to make sure I understand you completely. Thanks.

I thought you were clear, but others, new to these questions and working their way through these problems have asked for point by point propositions when possible on the side. So I asked. I appreciate your helping.

No comments:

Post a Comment