Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit?

Creation vs. Evolution : Responding to Dystopian Science · Part II of Dystopian Science, my answer part A · Part II, part B - CMI on Deeper Waters · HGL's F.B. writings : Carter's Tactics · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : Part III : On Bradley and Bessel · New blog on the kid : Do Lorentz Transformations Prove a Universal Inconditional Speed Limit? · Back to Creation vs. Evolution : John Hartnett Pleads Operational Science · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Steven Taylor on Lorentz Transformations, Speed of Light, Distant Starlight Problem, Creation Week, Miracles

Four or five observations. They are in response to a video mentioned under point four. The reason why I adress this at all is, if the universe is Geocentric and the stars one light day up they are each stellar day doing a circle of 6.28 light days circumference which by definition is 6.28 times the speed of light. So, now I am adressing a video trying to make the speed of light a very absolute absolute.

• 1) Do the Lorentz transformations reflect an idea based on Galilaean relativity, so that no reference frame is privileged? If so, they may be wrong as based on wrong premiss.
  
  
• 2) "If c=infinity everything is contemporary, an infinity of here and now without succession ..."
  
  
  • a) Is this based on the idea that all or most causes of physical events are previous physical events - if God and angels stand for a lot of continuous input in a finite and Geocentric univese, would this not rather be a non-actualised or not necessarily actualised mere potentiality arising from c=infinity?
    
    
  • b) If true as stated, that the c=infinity state reflects how God experiences the reality He created, so it would per se be correct about ultimate reality:
    • i) one could imagine c=finite were a kind of projection so we could experience reality successively;
    • ij) or even (though this is a bit Kantian) that c=infinity is objective reality all the way down and c=finite is only "our finite view of things".
  
  
  
• 3) The speed limit was stated as applying to particles without mass (particles with mass being slowed down by it).
  
  
  • a) Do we know that particles without mass exist? Or could states of fact and experience related to them be misinterpretations of a non-particle mass-less aether?
    
    
  • b) If they exist and have this speed limit - do we know a non-particle aether in which they move would also be subject to this type of speed limit?
    
    
  • c) Supposing it would, could one not imagine that the further out from earth the aether is, as it is closer to God's Heaven, c grows in approach if infinity so aether can move and also transport objects at speeds higher than our telluric or "inner solar system" values for c, if not at higher vectorial speeds, at least higher local ones?
  
  
  
• 4) On a personal note, I came across this video
  
  The Speed of Light is NOT About Light
  PBS Space Time | 7.X.2015
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
  
  which deals with the Lorentz transformation and which I have now tried to answer.
  
  Someone who thinks I am wrong about Geocentrism probably prayed for this. However, the person did not state his objections to me. I'll try to not make this about how that is hurtful to my feelings, though it is.
  
  Perhaps he didn't know the details. But if so, he is acting so that as few as possible get to know my theories while he's "working on" a project of prayer to make me change my mind.
  
  I find this perfidious. If he knows the details, he should argue them with me. If he doesn't, he should honestly state a weak but not totally unimpressive "I think there is an objection you haven't thought of yet, I just don't know what it is myself."
  
  Either way, he should not be keeping me in a social vacuum - nor do so with others, he would for similar motives disagree with. I have proven Geocentrism true if not refuted (since it is directly empirical, and the direct appearance of things, while in a sense non-discriminating information is not completely so, but a default option unless refuted), I have proven it as not refuted by the phenomena of Bradley and Bessel, unless one is limited to causalities of gravitation and inertia, that is related to mass, and I have proven that angelic movers is an option for Christians, since traditionally one of the explanations held for movements of celestial objects. This should not be withheld from the general public year after year, while they try to find a refutation of Geocentrism that I haven't yet refuted.

I think four points will do for now, perhaps save a fifth for later. Oh, sorry, no. I recalled what it was.

• 5) My solution alternative 2bij actually suggests causation within created reality is not real, that God is causing all that is caused directly, but that observed causations are God's habits in associating things. This position clearly differs from the position of St Thomas Aquinas, it is the philosophy called Occasionalism, and two 17th C. Catholic Divines proposed it, only one of them got condemned for the proposal. It was the one who applied this to our free will, so that our decisions are also directly caused by God and in fact not free.
  
  Barring that, barring Calvinism, this Occasionalism, while probably not true (since there are probably better alternatives than 2bij) is at least not condemned as a heresy.

And now, I'll try to take a discussion with the author of the video on whether the idea is based on premisses that I would anyway deny.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Ezechiel
10.IV.2019

Apud Babylonem sancti Ezechielis Prophetae, qui, a Judice populi Israel, quod eum de cultu idolorum argueret, interfectus, in sepulcro Sem et Arphaxad, Abrahae progenitorum, sepultus est; ad quod sepulcrum, orationis causa, multi confluere consueverunt.