Propos à une future correctrice, qui veut le devenir et possible éditrice, qui n'a pas voulu le devenir

1) Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Avec Albin Michel, éditeurs, sur la possibilité de publier mes blogs en livres, 2) Propos à une future correctrice, qui veut le devenir et possible éditrice, qui n'a pas voulu le devenir, 3) gm b1 lou : Une œuvre, plusieurs éditions, 4) New blog on the kid : Un métier à ajouter au dictionnaire des métiers?, 5) Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Une femme prétendait me vouloir aider ....

hansgeorg à Georgie-x3

03/10/2014 à 19:27

ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

À [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu] et à Georgie-x3

Pour éditer ensemble un bouquin avec mes essais (ou qqc d'un autre):

• 1) Vous discutez ensemble quoi. Dans le cas d'un bouquin de mes essais, par exemple lesquels devaient être ensemble.
  
  
• 2) Georgie-x3 copie de mes blogs à un programme word les morceaux choisis.
  
  
• 3) Georgie-x3 fait, sur le programme word:
  
  
  • correcture d'orthographe
  • revision de cohérence (si elle trouve un point de vue ou un fait incohérent, me contacter avant de finaliser la procédure)
  • mis en page en grandeur adaptée à la diminution qui suivra dans les photocopieuses (18-20-24 points pour un résultat en 9-10-12 points, à la limite)
  • lien donnés dans le texte comme clicables ne le seront pas sur papier imprimé
    
    les url des liens doivent être abrégés, par exemple par ppt.li ou par tiny.cc ou par tinyurl.com ou par petitlien.com (o-x.fr ne marche plus!)
    
    il doit y avoir une note pour le premier lien comment utiliser les liens abrégés
    
    
  • contrôle du nombre des pages pour éviter qu'il y ait juste une page de plus par rapport aux pages dans un cahier d'imprimérie, chaque tel ayant par exemple 8 pages et il doit y avoir une feuille vide à la fin et au début et avant la feuille vide au début il doit y avoir une "page de titre"? "vignette"?
  
  
  
• 4) avant ou après l'étape suivante Georgie-x3 envoie le résultat à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]
  
  
• 5) [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu] après l'envoi ou Georgie-x3 avant ...
  
  ... fait la mise en page pour les cahiers d'impression, donc un original pour chaque recto et verso d'un cahier d'impression
  
  New blog on the kid : Il vous est arrivé de plier un papier?
  http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2013/12/il-vous-est-arrive-de-plier-un-papier.html
  
  
• 6) [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu] imprime les cahiers d'impression en copies doubles faces, en A3, en autant d'exemplaires que souhaités.
  
  Une carte de copies en copy-self coûtait 25 euro ou moins pour 500 copies une face, blanc et noir, A4. Un cahier d'imprimérie est double face A3 = 4 copies sur la carte. Et il est de 8 pages A5. Double face A4 est de 2 copies sur la carte, et devrait être de 8 pages A6 (l'exemple dans lequel on doit diminuer les points de grandeurs des lettres - points typographiques - à la moitié pendant le travail, autrement ça sera division par "la racine carrée de 2", soit par 1,414, donc 13-14-17 points pour donner 9-10-12)
  
  
• 7) [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu] les plie
  
  
• 8) [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu] les relie et coupe là où il faut.

Voilà, prêt à vendre. Et une petite édition ne fait pas mal dans la poche quand aux investissements!

Georgie-x3 à hansgeorg

05/10/2014 à 11:23

Re : ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

Mais je ne peux pas faire ce genre de choses, déjà parce que je n'ai pas encore mon diplôme et ensuite parce que je serai correctrice et non éditrice. Je ne peux pas décider de ce que la maison d'édition choisit de publier, l'éditeur me donne juste les livres qui sont sur le point d'être publiés pour que je les corrige mais c'est tout. Ce n'est pas moi qui fait la mise en pages ni rien de tout ça et on ne peut rien faire tant que nous ne sommes pas employées dans une maison d'édition

hansgeorg à Georgie-x3

05/10/2014 à 13:42

Re : ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

"déjà parce que je n'ai pas encore mon diplôme"

Pour faire ça, il n'y a pas de besoin de diplôme. Il y a besoin de savoir-faire.

"ensuite parce que je serai correctrice et non éditrice. Je ne peux pas décider de ce que la maison d'édition choisit de publier, l'éditeur me donne juste les livres qui sont sur le point d'être publiés pour que je les corrige mais c'est tout."

À moins de te faire toi-même, seule ou avec [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu], éditrice.

Si c'est VOTRE maison d'édition, oui, alors vous décidez ensemble de ce que vous éditez.

"Ce n'est pas moi qui fait la mise en pages"

Avec mon propos, ça serait toi ou [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]. J'AI donné le lien où je décris le savoir-faire nécessaire.

"on ne peut rien faire tant que nous ne sommes pas employées dans une maison d'édition"

À moins de VOUS ériger en maison d'édition avec un AUTO-EMPLOI.

Est-ce que j'hallucine ou tu viens juste d'expliquer pourquoi il y a trop peu d'entrepreneurs et trop de chômage de nos temps?

Georgie-x3 à hansgeorg

09/10/2014 à 18:32

Re : ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

Je comprends mais je n'ai pas envie de gérer une maison d'édition ^^

hansgeorg à Georgie-x3

10/10/2014 à 11:10

Re : ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

Même pas une petite?

C'est pour ça qu'il y a peu d'emploi en France.

C'est pour ça que des millier se mettent a travailler pour Peugeot et se trouvent au chômage quand Peugeot délocalise!

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Pour Peugeot et Semblables
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/09/pour-peugeot-et-semblables.html

Georgie-x3 à hansgeorg

11/10/2014 à 13:15

Re : ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

Non parce que j'ai d'autres buts dans ma vie que de la passer à bosser dans un bureau

hansgeorg à Georgie-x3

11/10/2014 à 15:27

Re : ceci à été envoyé aussi à [nom omis, elle n’a pas répondu]

précisément pour ça, avoir son entrprise et y travailler tant qu'on veut est une bonne solution

Avec Albin Michel, éditeurs, sur la possibilité de publier mes blogs en livres

1) Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Avec Albin Michel, éditeurs, sur la possibilité de publier mes blogs en livres, 2) Propos à une future correctrice, qui veut le devenir et possible éditrice, qui n'a pas voulu le devenir, 3) gm b1 lou : Une œuvre, plusieurs éditions, 4) New blog on the kid : Un métier à ajouter au dictionnaire des métiers?, 5) Correspondence de Hans Georg Lundahl : Une femme prétendait me vouloir aider ....

I

HGL à site Albin Michel, éditeurs, copie à St Nicolas du Chardonnet

11/10/14 à 21h36

Je viens de mettre une vidéo avec Bernard Werber.

Il dit qqc sur le métier de romancier, qui pourrait être valable et pourrait ne pas l'être.

En fait, je suis aussi romancier, et je prends mon temps - un peu davantage que j'aime mais ce ne sera pas à Bernard Werber que ça déplait.

PAR CONTRE, si je me plaint de ne pas être pûblié, c'est que je suis en premier ligne essayiste.

Je fais des essais - dans le sens exacte de l'anglais essay, pas dans le sens d'ébauche - et il y en a qui sont déjà des monographies, par les essais sur les mêmes sujets. Comme géocentrisme.

Il y a aussi des essais qui iraient fort bien en florilège.

Je ne demande pas qu'Albin Michel me publie, ni évidemment qu'il ne me publie pas. Je demande que des gens cessent à prier et bavarder aussi entre eux pour que je sois confronté avec la même niaiserie irrélévante fois après fois, que je n'eusse pas à me plaindre, que ça prenne du temps de faire un bon roman.

Mais ce n'est pas mon roman qui est ce que j'aurais voulu avoir déjà publié!

En plus il est fan fiction sur des univers mélangés dont les héritiers de CSL, JRRT, et Enid Blyton ont encore du copyright, donc je ne sais même pas si j'aurais le droit de publier le roman commercialement - à différence des essais.

Hans Georg Lundahl

II

HGL à site Albin Michel, éditeurs, copie à St Nicolas du Chardonnet

3/10/14 à 20h53

précisons, en écoutant b w parlant de "2025" je comprends trop bien qu'il écrit sur des fourmilières

Mon mail avant-hier était provoqué par le soupçon* qu'il y a des réseaux** qui prennent des détours pour me faire passer un message, et que les prêtres à St Nicolas du Chardonnet prient pour que je reçoice ce même message.

Hans Georg Lundahl

* Soudain et impulsif, même.

** Considérant les idéologies de moi-même et de BW, ça serait d'ailleurs pas impossible qu'il appartienne à des réseaux dont le but réel serait à abuser de mes faiblesses sociales comme sdf pour me faire "douter de moi-même" et par là de la foi - y compris ce qui l'oppose à ceci:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM9aWXVq5UI

III

site Albin Michel à HGL

16/10/14 à 12h41

RE: Je viens de mettre une vidéo avec Bernard Werber.

Bonjour,



Pour nous faire parvenir votre manuscrit, nous vous invitons à suivre la démarche exposée sur la page dédiée de notre site Internet : http://www.albin-michel.fr/manuscrit.php

Belle journée,

L’équipe web
Editions Albin Michel
01 42 79 10 00

IV

HGL à Albin Michel

16/10/14 à 18h22

RE: Je viens de mettre une vidéo avec Bernard Werber.

Je viens de regarder, il y a déjà un hic:

aucun manuscrit par e-mail n’est accepté

Or, la première publication de mes essais reste celle sur mes blogs, donc une publication par vous serait une républication de chaque essai, ET la manière la plus facile de vous transmettre les essais serait de vous translettre les urls précis (urls de message, pas juste de blog) dans l'ordre qui est envisagé par moi.

Les imprimer et envoyer serait théoriquement possible mais en même temps dur, vu ma situation financière. 10€ sur le compte environ. Pas de passeport avec lequel justifier un retrait, pas de code pour la carte bleue.

À moins de faire une dérogation la règle "aucun manuscrit par e-mail n’est accepté" est déjà un obstacle majeur quant à la républication de mes essais par vous.

Hans Georg Lundahl

V

Albin Michel à HGL

17/10/14 à 09h46

RE: Je viens de mettre une vidéo avec Bernard Werber.

Bonjour,



Nous vous informons qu’en effet, les manuscrits complets doivent être envoyés par voie postale au service dédié. Aucune exception ne peut être faite.



Bien à vous,



L’équipe web
Les éditions Albin Michel
www.albin-michel.fr

VI

HGL à Albin Michel

17/10/14 à 12h48

RE: Je viens de mettre une vidéo avec Bernard Werber.

Fort bien de m'informer là-dessus, j'espère que vous n'allez pas bloquer d'autres éditeurs - déjà professionels ou débutants - qui voudront ne pas partager votre politique sur ce point?

Hans Georg Lundahl

David P. Barash thinks I might have been hasty judging him as an enemy

1) New blog on the kid : David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me, 2) The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church, 3) Correspondence de of Hans Georg Lundahl : David P. Barash thinks I might have been hasty judging him as an enemy

HGL to David P. Barash

11/10/14 à 15h12

Having written about you, I owe you a notification

1) David P. Barash - an Enemy of Christianity and of Me
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/10/david-p-barash-enemy-of-christianity.html

2) The Doctrine of Total War was Condemned by the Catholic Church
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-doctrine-of-total-war-was-condemned.html

3) the blog as such is New blog on the kid
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com

4) and if you should want a debate on any point:

If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

Btw, have you been involved in any kind of intrigue making me some kind of licit target for psychology or psychiatry?

Hans Georg Lundahl

David P. Barash to HGL

11/10/14 à 17h04

Re: Having written about you, I owe you a notification

Dear Hans, you don't owe me anything, except perhaps to be a bit less quick in identifying me as your "enemy."

David

David P. Barash, Professor of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle
most recent book: Buddhist Biology: ancient Eastern wisdom meets modern Western biology (Oxford University Press, 2014)
website: www.dpbarash.com

An observation or two

He wants a future in which children are indoctrinated with Heliocentrism and Evolution Theory even more intensely than now. I want a future, if that is still possible before Doomsday, in which my children will not be forced to hear those things before class by a teacher who gives them no option or adequate opportunity to object. So, do we want different things or same things for my children, if God should grant me a family?/HGL

PS, noted lack of direct answer to the question: "Btw, have you been involved in any kind of intrigue making me some kind of licit target for psychology or psychiatry?" or is that just me?

Speculation on how King David composed - correspondence with Michael Levy

HGL to Michael Levy

by a contact page on the blog he linked to

On Thu, October 2, 2014 8:53 am

Do you think King David tried out melodies on his harp and then chose certain ones that were both beautiful and easy to sing?

I know, that when I was in Sysslebäck, I had a Missal with some neumata (neumoi) on a score, I translated it to modern notation, tried it on a guitar I had borrowed and had an antiphon.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Michael Levy

03/10/14 à 17h58

Re: Contact Form Email

Hi Georg,

Thanks for writing! In answer to your questions, almost certainly so - this is how new music has and always will be composed. Spectacularly, it is actually possible to hear some of the actual melodies David once wrote, according to the life's work of the late Suzanne Haik Vantoura!

Vantoura managed to decipher the musical meaning of the mysterious accents (the "Te Amim"), which were attached to the oldest surviving texts of the Hebrew Bible, after realizing they actually represented transcriptions of chironomy gestures - chiromomy was an ancient form of musical notation practiced in ancient Egypt, whereby specific hand gestures represented specific changes in pitch. Here is my detailed blog on the subject:

Michael Levy - Composer for Lyre : THE ORIGINAL 3000 YEAR OLD MUSIC OF THE BIBLE REVEALED?
http://www.ancientlyre.com/the_original_3000_year_old_music_of_the_bible_revealed/

Best wishes,

Michael

HGL to Michael Levy

04/10/14 à 15h58

Re: Contact Form Email

Thank you very much!

Hans Georg

Asking an Erudite for Optical Proof

From : Name: Hans Georg, Status: other, Grade: other, Location: Outside U.S., Country: Sweden

Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 11:52 AM

To:/Subject: Ask-A-Scientist Question

Has optical confirmation been given for Earth rotating Sun?

The option that stellar parallax as observed from or near Earth has done so is hampered by the fact it depends on an astrophysics in which, unlike older theories (Medieval and Early Modern) stars etc. are just bodies and just moved by physical powers.

One more purely optical might be observing apparent zig zag of a space mission from an Earth shifting place in and out of origo of it, or observing independently same stellar distances by parallax oberved from Mars.

Has any such thing been done?

From : Ask-A-Scientist

31/08/14 à 19h21

To: Hans Georg (etc.)

Your question is incomplete, or we do not understand the context. We cannot answer your question as submitted.

Your question is incomplete and you need to provide more information. The problem may be one or more of the following:

• 1) You have not provide enough background information so we understand what you already know.
• 2) Your question is too vague to address and we need specific guidelines to address your request.
• 3) You have not provided enough information to understand what you are requesting.
• 4) In submitting your question, you have left out one or more of the following: status, grade, location, country which is important for our scientists to adjust their answers.
• 5) We need to know why you are asking this question, so we can justify the time and effort to reply. The reason for the question is not clear to us.

Please re-word or elaborate and re-submit at our web site. Do not reply to this message.

From : Name: Hans Georg, Status: other, Grade: other, Location: Outside U.S., Country: Sweden

"At 05:25 AM 09/01/14, you wrote:"

Question:

It has come to my attention that if one could imagine angels were somehow moving not just planets but also stars around space, parallax as observed from Earth or from near to Earth would NOT be proving either that Earth moved around the Sun, nor how far the stars were. In a Heliocentric perspective, the 0.76 arcseconds observed as to alpha Centauri would be of a triangle with apex in star and a side along Earth's orbital axis around the Sun (known distance). But in a Geocentric perspective, the apex would be on Earth and a side along the star's own axis of movement (unknown distance).

So ... has Heliocentrism been optically confirmed in some other way?

Have stellar distances been confirmed by observing parallax from Mars?

Has Earth getting in and out of a locality in space been confirmed by observing Earth from the space probes? Or by visually observing the probes going in an apparent zig zag, as Earth were itself moving in and out of the place from where the straight line would look like a straight line?

And why would this question be answered differently if I were nine years old and in grade three or when I am (as is the case) 45 and have studied at university (though not astronomy)?

NEWTON / Nathan A. Unterman

02/09/14 à 11h42

Re: Ask-A-Scientist Question

Angels fall outside of our domain.

From me to NEWTON / Nathan A. Unterman

02/09/14 à 13h07

Re: Ask-A-Scientist Question

Angels were NOT what I was asking about. They were part of the occasion, since you asked for the occasion.

What I WAS asking about, as you will find by rereading the question is:

• have stellar distances as "measured by parallax" been confirmed by parallax on Mars (whether Geocentrism or Heliocentrism are true, Mars would have a parallax)
  
  
• has movement of Earth in and out of a place, the supposed reason for observed parallax according to Heliocentrism, been confirmed by either seeing Earth as filmed from Apollo 10, or by observing Apollo 10's straight line outward in an apparent zig zag due to observer moving in and out of place?

That and that only is my actual QUESTION.

Hans Georg Lundahl

From: "DO NOT REPLY"

date : 04/09/14 à 16h00

objet : NEWTON Ask A Scientist Program

[replying to my second above, the one in which I state I have studied at University though not astronomy and am 45, just so it be noted ...]

You need to enroll in an astronomy course. We can not answer because your background is too limited.

[No shit! I thought their service was supposed to be mainly for guys still in compulsory school and gals as well! They haven't taken University courses in Astronomy either!]

Inter nos latinistas dictum

Mihi videtur illi aliquid carere de primordiali educatione antequam de hac re disputandum sit: sicut lectura, exempli gratia, alicuius Riccioli, Jesuitae et Astronomi. Pagina ducentesima quadragesima septima exordiens, finiens autem pagina ducentisima quinquagesima est caput primum sectionis II libri IX, quæ sectio II intitulatur De Motoribus et Motis Cælorum, quod autem caput I intitulatur An Cæli aut Sidera Moueantur ab Intelligentijs, An verò ab intrinsecò à propria Forma vel Natura.

Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

HGL's F.B. writings : 1) At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion], Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : 2) Can Someone Help the Bewildered Man Out?

HGL to SO

Wednesday 27-VIII-2014, 09:54

HGL's F.B. writings: At Leaving the Group Creationism [the discussion]
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2014/08/at-leaving-group-creationism-discussion.html

SO to HGL

Wednesday 11:21

Ye it has occurred to me that EVERY belief system is a "closed system of thought", that is why, if you had read any of my other contributions to the FB page, you would have realised that I reject all beliefs.

I maintain the view that there is NOTHING of which we can be certain, even this statement.

That's MY starting point. However, a lack of certaintain does not need to mean a complete state of ignorance. Experience with the world tells us that there are certain features of the world which appear to be repeatable and regular; these allow us to make predictions, and allow us to check these predictions. We also learn that our brains ou wired to form hypotheses or conjectures about the world, and check whether these have any validity. We also learn that sometimes this process fools us, so the methodology is by no means foolptoof. However, it appears that this methodology is all we have, we are adrift in a sea of uncertainty, and we only have this faulty methodology to steer us.

All this might be an illusion, and the reality might be something completely different, but if it is, we have no way of knowing, and to hold such a view invites madness. Therefore, we must work with what we have, and that is uncertainty.

I don't know how any other person could come to any other conclusion than this.

HGL to SO

Wednesday 14:11

Saying "our brains are evolved to develop hypotheses" presupposes evolution to be true.

By the phrase "developed". It also presupposes conscience to be a product of entirely the brain.

I have a hunch of how even other materialistic persons could come to other conclusions than you: since materialism breaks down into your position, some will take less consistent versions of materialism, at least as far as epistemology is concerned.

As for me, I am not a materialist. I think our brains are part of but not all of what God gave us to find out the truth among options. I also believe God clearly marked out the truth among other options.

I know very well why I would rather be Catholic or Orthodox than Protestant or Muslim or Jew. Meaning in each case a religious believer - a secularist would of course feel free to have a preference for his non-believing cultural attachment independent of this question.

Apostolic Succession.

That is also a parallel to why I would rather go by the Hebrew tradition than by Babylonian or Hindoo or Greek Paganism or Norse Paganism or Egyptian Paganism :

A clear succession of a genealogy and a clearheaded view of where the rest of humanity came from.

Egyptians had a theory that shepherding nomads were the creatures of Seth, an evil divinity. The Hebrews (from which come Jews and Samarians on non-Christian sidealleys and Christians on the main way) had a genealogy in which they were included as clearly shepherding and in which Egyptians were included as cousins ... and a story - not completely told in Genesis, but Sepher ha Yasher (or the book so called) confirms the views of Josephus which Western Scholasticism thrived on - how non-Hebrews and even some Hebrew tribes evenually (such as descendants of Lot) came to be idolaters.

As to astronomy. If I believed as you, about ultimate uncertainty of everything, I would see no reason to call Heliocengtrism more certain than the Geocentric alternative. Since I believe an Eternal and Infinite Spirit created us in His image and stars for His glory, I can also find it credible he placed us where a normal person normally equipped as through the centuries would be better equipped than anyone elsewhere to find out even by reason how the universe is. This means Geocentrism is default since it is wysiwyg version of Cosmology.

YOU believe parallax is an illusion of the same type as when trees rush by the train you sit in. I believe parallax is a proper movement of the star - and whether it is ensouled or only carried by an angel makes very little difference as to how come it is able to have a proper movement such as the 0.76 arcseconds yearly of alpha Centauri. So it is I and not you who is taking our observations the most realistically.

SO to HGL

Wednesday 16:31

When did I say "our brains are evolved to develop hypotheses"???

If you READ what I said, I mused that "We also learn that our brains ou wired to form hypotheses or conjectures about the world" (sic) and this is a completely different statement.

I was merely observing that this is what happens. We DO form hypotheses, AND we can check them out. This happens all the time, it's what we do. I make no assumption about how this process got to be there, I am just observing that this APPEARS to be the case.

The point I am making is that this procedure is all we have, THERE IS NOTHING ELSE. What you might consider to be logic, or science or anything else is merely an outgrowth of the basic hypothesis-test-confirm-or-reject process, which as far as I can tell seems to be inbuilt in all humans, and in animals as well. I see my cat doing it all the time, and I conjecture (but am not certain) that the same sorts of behaviour applies to other creatures as well.

I also think that you completely misunderstand me - just because we can't be CERTAIN of anything, that does not mean we cannot be more confident that some descriptions of the world are MORE LIKELY to be accurate than others. I will discuss Bayesian reasoning with you if you like.

Finally, you have completely misunderstood the issues concerning SN1987A. This is nothing to do with parallax.

I find your concern with medieval notions of whether stellar bodies have souls or are being pushed around by angels somewhat perplexing. The medievals who believed that the stars were being moved by intelligences, debated as to whether the moons, stars, sun & planets were themselves living beings. I have no idea why, when we send rockets to Mars, put men on the moon, and have probes exiting beyond the reach of our solar system, you would even think that planets need angels to move them around. We might not know the root cause of gravity, but we know sufficient about it to know HOW it functions, and that no angels are required to move things around. Gravity acts equally on ALL bodies of any size, a fact which can be confirmed experimentally, and the fact that we can calculate trajectories round the planets to meet up with with comets tells you that it works. If you deny this, then you are not being honest - either with me, or with yourself.

For those who did not read our discussion on SN 1987 A:

Instead of a movement of say 0.76 arcseconds being interpreted as a parallactic illusion due to earth's supposed movement and this being a known distance (the distance is known, only difference is whether it is Earth - Earth around Sun or Sun - Sun around Earth) therefore involved in the triangle - which it is not if it really is the star that is moving - in this case the "known distance" is supposed to be calculated by speed of light times time between one light showing up (the supernova) and another one showing up eight months later (the ring, supposedly lit up by the nova and not anything like independently). In this case, though the angels would not be moving anything around, like the 0.76 arcseconds of alpha Centauri, they would be lighting up the ring with an eight month delay and that also would mean no evidence of its distance, since delay would not be related to speed of light.

"Gravity acts equally on ALL bodies of any size"

I missed answering this one.

Gravity does indeed work on a pen also, and yet the pens movement on the paper is decided by a will and not by gravity. Because to my fingers the pen's gravitational pull toward centre of the earth is not strong enough to be an obstacle.

My point is that whatever the gravity might be of any planet toward the Sun, or of the Sun itself even towards either centre (place of Earth) or periphery (dome of stars), God can have given the angel moving it enough might over matter to make that move as easy for it as moving a pen is for me. And this does not involve any contradiction in terms.

HGL to SO

Wednesday 18:07

"We also learn that our brains [are] wired to ..."

OK. Developed may have to go, but you are at least attributing this process to the brain.

"The medievals who believed that the stars were being moved by intelligences, debated as to whether the moons, stars, sun and planets were themselves living beings."

Debated as to whether, not concluded that. A difference.

St Thomas and Bishop Tempier concluded that they were NOT themselves living beings. Thereby perhaps preparing humanism as this position (especially since denying angels have some kind of bodies as well) makes man the highest life-with-a-body. But the denial of life to a star did not involve denial of an angel moving it.

"I have no idea why, when we send rockets to Mars, put Men on the Moon, and have probes exiting beyond the reach of our solar system, you would even think that planets need angels to move them around."

Well, one reason is that the mechanism given by materialists has been tested in MIR or somewhere where gravitation of earth is lesser, on water drops orbitting knitting needles of plastic which were charged with static electricity - to mimick the gravitational part of the process Newton and Laplace gave - and the resulting orbits are on video, I counted ten to twenty orbits per water drop. Not 7200. Not 4.5 billion. And the Earth is clearly older than fifteen years.

Another reason is, I do not understand your problem unless (as I think) you are holding something back.

1) Angels pushing about celestial bodies does NOT equal these being alive. You could have taken the space craft collected evidence, if you had liked, as a denial of celestial bodies being living organisms with souls. You cannot as easily argue from the evidence thus collected that they are not moved by angels.

2) You may be synthesising Modern Times as much as you synthesise Byzantium before the times of Photius with Sorbonne around 1277 into a non-extant generation called "the Middle Ages".

Celestial bodies being pushed by angels rather than ensouled by them may have been as minoritarian as Indocopleustes in one of the surroundings and still be totally mainstream from 1277 to 1700 (or maybe even beyond in some countries). And modernity may well be totally successful in putting men on the Moon while being totally wrong in considering celestial bodies as BOTH lifeless in themselves AND devoid of any kind of living movers.

"We might not know the root cause of gravity, but we know sufficent about how it functions ..."

Not really. The falling of bodies and even (supposing the Moon landing to be true) the attractive force being proportional to each mass acting and inversely proportional to distance between masses in the square and dealing with inertias proportional to mass acted on does NOT equal the theory of Newton and Laplace need to work, and least of all that it would work so flawlessly as to need no living regulator like God or an angel. You know the water drops and the knitting needles, ten to twenty orbits, in the medium 15 orbits per drop before it attached itself to the needle.

You also forget a Christian could return the point: we know sufficiently about angels to know they could do it and that graviation of the Newtonian type is not required.

The calculus of planetory orbits involves a vicious circle of demonstration between masses and theory where only orbits are observed directly.

SUN is the mass most relevant for the theory and it has not been studied through trajectories of spacecraft flying by or landing.

The theory may work very well on one side of its predictions, while at the same time being erroneous on another side. If accurate technology is here coupled with inaccurate theory of what makes it work, it would very much not be the first time in history.

Besides, the space craft are so easy to fake photos of (watch Star Wars if you do not believe me) that their trajectories are definitely not easy to check unless you are involved in NASA. And some of the guys who are so most directly have such an anti-Christian bias, they could reasonably be suspected of faking.

On another side, here is what I wrote about myself if I were an agnostic Pagan (acknowledging I have not been so as an adult, so I haven't tried it out):

New blog on the kid: If I were a Pagan
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/if-i-were-pagan.html

HGL to SO

Thursday c.16:20

As I sneeked on the thread I left, I can add, fancy you living on Mykonos and not knowing Baruch is canonic with Orthodox - and therefore presumably (as is indeed the case) with us Catholics.

Since the chapter ends with a reference to Incarnation you can imagine why Christ-rejecting Jewry wanted to stamp the book as un-canonical. And unfortunately theirs is the canon followed for OT by Protestants, mostly.

And since stars being either themselves endowed with souls (as per older view) or moved by angels (as per view promoted by St Thomas Aquinas and not opposed by Tempier, as per view cited by Riccioli in support of Geocentrism) is a truth, it is hardly to the point that the other Biblical passages are not exact synonyms to the one in Isaiah commented on by Tertullain (was it?).

Tertullian is obviously the spelling, but it was you who cited the man [on the discussion thread, not this correspondence], if it was he or another.

HGL to SO

Thursday c.18:20

Oh, in case you were anything like prone to state I made the Riccioli reference up, here is the exact quotation:

New blog on the kid : What Opinion did Riccioli call the Fourth and Most Common One?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

SO to HGL

Somewhere between that and the next:

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Can you tell me what is supposed to the point of all this? You cannot seriously expect anyone to accept at face value the contention that you believe that stars, planets and other objects in space are being manipulated by angels?

Is this some sort of intellectual exercise to try to get inside the mind of those writing in the 1st millennium or what?

The problem is here, I simply can't get my head around what you are trying to do here.

HGL to SO

Friday 13:13

I) The namedropping done by Riccioli refers, for the position I share, mostly to second millennium.

Suárez and the Coimbra Jesuits hardly have any kind of claim to be first millennium!

II) It is NOT my fault you pretend to take my words facietiously as if even that would dispense you in honour from giving a answering argument.

Suppose I were facetious. In fact I am not, but that is beside the point. Suppose I were. Would not that at least be a good chance for you to check if your beliefs could be proven to the satisfaction of someone NOT raised as you were?

One thing is certain. I once believed as you do. I then became a Christian. I have had occasions galore to defend Christianity intellectually, and it does not feel anything like bad to take St Thomas Aquinas' (or St Augustine) or any other premodern into my argumentation.

You see, I do not think rational thought started in a minute portion of mankind after Newton made it possible by "dispensing" you from needing angels to explain celestial movements.

If you can't respect that, so much the worse for you. That is at least not my fault.

With Brian Horne on Charles Williams

Correspondent

Brian Horne, chairman of Charles Williams’ Society

HGL to Brian Horne

13/06/14 à 15h48

Was Charles Williams a member of Golden Dawn?

I have, in France, come across that allegation./HGL

Brian Horne to HGL

13/06/14 à 18h52

Re: Was Charles Williams a member of Golden Dawn?

No, Williams was never a member of the Golden Dawn. He did, however, join the Fellowship of the Rosy Cross, a Christian esoteric society founded by A E Waite, In, I think, 1917 and remained in it for some years. Brian Horne

[Not sure if adress given was private or as chairman]

HGL to Brian Horne

15/06/14 à 13h23

Re: Was Charles Williams a member of Golden Dawn?

Thank you very much.

I think that is more reasonable. Had he left it before joining the Inklings?

Reason I ask is that some Catholic Trads over here have been doing some guilt by association.

Owen Barfield and Charles Williams being esoterics, they were Luciferians, them being Luciferians, the Inklings were so too, including CSL and JRRT.

Of course, Catholicism is a bit unlike Anglicanism insofar as we are required to stay out of things like not just Freemasons (any obedience, Scottish, Established, Grand Orients alike) but also Rosicrucians and Odd Fellows and Good Templars.*

Some seem to take this so far that if A was a Rosicrucian, B a Steinerian, C and D their friends and known authors and E a known reader of C and D, then F being a Catholic must avoid E like the plague even if he also claims to be a Catholic.

But even in front of them, it might do some good to document A was not Golden Dawn but Rosy Cross.**

Hans Georg Lundahl

* A Church law and one I approve of.

** Since Aleister Crowley was Golden Dawn. I did already respond that so was the much more innocent Yeats.

Brian Horne to HGL

16/06/14 à 15h24

Re: Was Charles Williams a member of Golden Dawn?

Dear Hans Georg, I think it is now fairly well known that CW was not a member of the Golden Dawn and, anyway, everything fact will be brought into the open in the very near future when Grevel Lindop publishes his biography of Williams. Grevel is an excellent scholar and his research has been meticulous. It should come out next year.

My own view of Williams membership is very similar to Williams first biographer Alice Mary Hadfield and Anne Ridler both of whom knew him well. He was interested in esoteric myths and rites but remained steadfastly Christian in his fundamental beliefs. By the time he went to Oxford in 1939 he was hardly involved at all and none of the Inklings - apart from Owen Barfield - were remotely interested in these matters. I also think Williams himself had lost all interest in esoteric ism in the last years of his life. The unconvincing picture of Simon the Clerk in All Hallows' Eve is testimony to this.

I hope this helps.

As ever, Brian Horne

HGL to Brian Horne

17/06/14 à 09h08

Re: Was Charles Williams a member of Golden Dawn?

Thank you!

Wonderful, I hope indeed it will!

One esoteric and - if wiki is right in Nevil Coghill - one homosexual involved on his academic merits (NC did after all make an edition or translation of Canterbury Tales) in a company of some ten persons at a place like Oxford University (which had excluded Belloc a generation earlier), I cannot think that is incriminating, except to a few hot heads.

Hans Georg Lundahl @ my blogs:
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/p/blogsbloggarbloggi.html

Debate Under a Post of Phenomena - Cut Short

Blog post of Carl Zimmer/Phenomena commented on

Phenomena: The Loom (by Carl Zimmer) : The Old Old Earth
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/07/14/the-old-old-earth

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 14, 2014

I would like to know on what grounds Fracostoro immediately ruled out the Flood of Noah.

An argument about the Flood making other kinds of impact or simply a preference of what Aristotle appears to have thought over what is true according to our faith?

“The world is not eternal,” declared the Jesuit priest Benito Pereira in the 1570s. “From its beginning to those days no more than five thousand six hundred years have elapsed.”

The traditional view. Obviously the exact time scale cannot easily be proven from evidence available visibly in nature to us now. St Thomas even went further, arguing that it is only through faith, not through reason that we know Aristotle was wrong in thinking the world eternal.

Some treated Noah’s Flood as a real geological event, but merely as the most recent of many great cataclysms. And for all the vigor of the Counter-Reformation, no one was burned at the stake for such claims.

The vigour of the Counter Reformation was hardly the same as that of the Inquisition against Albigensians.

An Isaac de la Peyrere had proposed a theory about pre-Adamites. Burnt at the stake? No. Forced to recant by Pope Alexander VII? Yes, very definitely.

R Wells

July 14, 2014

Your faith. Not “our faith”. Some of us persist in depending upon the notion that facts and science explain the natural world, just as Fracostoro did.

Joel Duff

July 14, 2014

Thank you for bringing this paper to our attention. Fascinating stuff. I wasn’t familiar with Fracostoro but great to see some perspective from this time period. What you have written here works quite well with what I have read of 17th century natural theologians especially their correspondences. Clearly, there was rising tension but this context from the 16th century helps makes sense of both their concerns but also some free exchange of ideas without the polemics the would come to characterize many 18th century works.

Ross Marks

July 14, 2014

“I would like to know on what grounds Fracostoro immediately ruled out the Flood of Noah”

The bible record of Noah’s flood does not provide sufficient time for shellfish to have grown.

Obi

July 15, 2014

I love to hear about how many people figured out ideas hundreds of years before the public accepted it. As usual the church stopped the progression of human society with the demonization of scientific breakthroughs. Sad.

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 15, 2014

Not sufficient time?

In what area? In some areas a lot of them would have been washed in from a larger area, I think particularly of Grand Canyon.

It can hardly have been the motive of Fracostoro, since he hardly had access to shellfish fossil chalk formations that size.

Brian Foulkrod

July 15, 2014

“I think particularly of Grand Canyon.”

I need not ask where that location came to mind, I’m familiar with the person pushing it, and not a single utterance he has ever made is based on fact.

Comments about scholars centuries ago stating what has become proven fact by making veiled comments about the man with a museum that treats the Flintstones as if it were a documentary is not worthy of debate.

David Bump

July 15, 2014

Thank you! This is very interesting. It seems a lot of what we think we know about the past (and other things) are over-simplified or just plain wrong. When I was young, it was oft-repeated that Columbus had to convince people that the world was round, not flat. Turns out Washington Irving made that part up and it got spread around as truth. Actually the problem was that Columbus had calculated the Earth was a smaller sphere than the more accurate figure the experts had.

Some people seem to think “the Church” “stopped the progression of human society with the demonization of scientific breakthroughs” when it actually supported a lot of research and, as this article points out, only leaned on people when they got away from pure scientific research. Far more leading Protestants were burned at the stake (not to mention many more followers) were burned at the stake than the scientists (or natural philosophers) who were even told to recant an idea.

Another common misconception may be that Darwin came up with evolution out of the blue, or made a sharp departure from Lamarck’s version. There were actually several people who proposed evolutionary ideas many years before Darwin, and Darwin rested the weight of biological change on a multi-generational version of the idea that environmental pressures and “use” could directly mold living things to fit.

Let’s not get the idea that everyone had decided early on that the Earth was practically eternal, though. The idea of the Earth being under 6,000 years old continued to be popular for some time — Bishop Ussher didn’t try to pin down the year (he didn’t try to be more accurate than that) until the 1600s.

If I may, I’d like to share some notes that may help give a contextual overview:

• 1200s – Aquinas (Aristotle & Bible, 6 day creation, global Flood), Roger Bacon, Marco Polo
• 1300s – Ockham, Wycliffe
• 1300s-1400s – John Hus
• 1400s – Gutenberg
• 1400s-1500s – Columbus, Leonardo da Vinci, Amerigo Vespucci, Erasmus, Copernicus, Martin Luther, Zwingli, Henry VIII
• 1500s – Calvin (_creatio ex nihilo_, 6,000 year old world, fixity of kinds, Noah historical, Flood global), Knox, Tycho Brahe, Mercator, Foxe’s _Book of Martyrs_
• 1500s-1600s Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Bacon (6-day creation, nature a second book of revelation), Galileo, Johann Kepler (discovering the working of creation is like “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”)
  
  List of commentaries on Genesis shows, “To a man, there was absolutely no doubt that the Bible…was the only trustworthy record of earth’s six-thousand-year history.”
  
  
• 1578 Guillaume de Salluste (1544-1590), French Huguenot, publishes _La Semaine_ — epic poem on the creation week — “World not Eternall, nor by Chance compos’d; But of meere Nothing God it Essence gave” — “possibly the most popular poem in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries — was translated into eight different languages.”
• 1611 King James’ Authorized version of the Bible published
• 1614 _History of the World_ by Sir Walter Raleigh. “Ralegh had full confidence in the Bible (the Geneva version) as a trustworthy and reliable source.” Dated creation 5031 B.C. Flood 2242 B.C. **proposed “that the flood had been placid”** — reasoning that the precise description of the location of Eden must mean that it had been preserved.
• 1620 “Francis Bacon’s _… Novum Organum Scientiarum_ (Sets forth the principles and method of science. Bacon accepted the Biblical account of the creation of the Earth in six days.)]
• {1620-1630 Johannes Kepler’s Somnium (1620–1630).[21] Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan consider the latter work the first science fiction story.[22][23] It depicts a journey to the Moon and how the Earth’s motion is seen from there.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_fiction
• 1624 Lord Herbert of Cherbury: _De veritate_, foundation of theory of English deism. Herbert “never rejected the Bible but he considered it to be a man-made record… disregarded the teaching of Jesus’ … resurrection…”
• 1644 Descartes’ _Principia Philosophicae_ (“Cogito, ergo sum”), Roger Williams’s _Queries of Highest Consideration_ on “separation of Church and State.”
• 1650-1800 “Modern Era” — “Enlightenment or Age of Reason”
• 1650 James Ussher — Earth’s age = 5,994 years
• [1661 “Robert Boyle..._The Skeptical Chymist_, with definition of chemical elements”] Robert Boyle “devoted his life to the furtherance of both science and theology… one of the founders of modern-day chemistry.” “the Bible was Boyle’s constant companion” and he was encouraged by James Ussher to study biblical languages.
• 1662 Book by Bishop Edward Stillingfleet, “a historical defense of the reasonableness of Christianity.” Denounced concept of eternality of matter. Six 24-hour day creation. (But a local Flood — only universal to mankind — possibly most of Asia…) “Yet he was in total agreement with the majority of the historians of the 17th century that this biblical catastrophe occurred some 1656 years after the creation of Adam.”
• 1662 Charles II “granted a royal charter to the Royal Society of London.” “As a group, they believed that God was the omnipotent Creator and that they, through their scientific endeavors, could reveal to the world the grandeur and the beauty of His creation.”
• [1663 “Robert Boyle: _Concerning the Usefulness of Experimental Philosophy_.”]
• 1681 Jacques Bossuet’s _Discourse on Universal History_ – “biblically based… history was portrayed from a divine perspective.” Earth created in 4004 B.C.
• 1687 _Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy_ by Isaac Newton [(_Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica_)]
• 1695 Books by John Locke ["John Locke: _The Reasonableness of Christianity_."] and John Toland, controversial, “committed…to the importance of reason within the Christian faith. But…edging closer…toward…atheism.” _Essay Toward a Natural History of the Earth_ by Dr. John Woodward(1655-1728) “based on a complete confidence in the trustworthiness and historicity of the Bible.” Global Flood “accounted for the stratification of the earth.” “Genesis…the most plausible of scientific hypotheses concerning marine fossils, differing species of trees and the American people.”
• 1728 Posthumous work of Newton’s: Divine creation of the world in 3999 B.C. (5,626 years)
• 1738 “John Wesley’s evangelical conversion; George Whitefield follows him to Georgia as ‘Leader of the Great Awakening.
• 1746 “Denis Diderot… _Pensees philosophiques_” deist turned atheist, organizer and chief editor of _Encyclopedia_. Intended to raise Reason “to a cult status.” Believed “The universe was self-originating and self-perpetuating…mankind was nothing more than a mechanism…of natural processes.”
• 1748 Benoit de Maillet — Earth’s age = 2×10^9 (2 billion)years (book published 10 years posthumously, although some copies had circulated earlier) “our universe arose out of a vortex… swirling ashes, water and dust from a sun that had just burned up.” Based on the supposed rate of lowering of the ocean water level, concluded the Earth was covered in water 2 million years ago. “First modern uniformitarian.” saw life as an eternal potential of nature, gradually changing from marine plants to human beings. Even Voltaire considered it “scandalous and bizarre… dangerous.” de Maillet attempted to harmonize it with Scripture by describing the six days as “only a metaphorical expression.”
• 1770 D’Holbach’s _The System of Nature_ “a highly-charged attack on supernaturalism…’the Bible of Atheism’” Even Voltaire reacted against it.
• 1774 Comte de Buffon — Earth’s age = 75,000 years
• 1789-1799 the French Revolution (1793-1794 Reign of Terror)
• 1793-1795 Thomas Paine’s _Age of Reason_. “a scathing attack on the Bible” — much impact in England and America. Promoted deism — “Paine believed that only in the study of nature or natural religion could one find the true and trustworthy understanding of God.”
• [1794 Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather): _Zoonomia, or the Laws of Organic Life_. (Proposed evolutionary history of life)]
• 1795 James Hutton’s _The Theory of the Earth_ — A deist ancient-Earth creationist, believed in “omnipotent God” but “gave no credence to the Scriptures…Noachic Flood.” Theory of “uniformitarianism…the basis of modern gology.” “The concept of a worldwide catastrophe was discarded, not because it was disproven, but because it did not fit the new naturalistic paradigm.”
• (based on notes from _The Faces of Origins: A Historical Survey of the Underlying Assumptions from the Early Church to Postmodernism_ by David Herbert, M.A., M. Div., Ed. D.; D & I Herbert Publishing, London, Ontario, 2004, and [in brackets] _The Timetables of Histo ry_ (The New Third Revised Edition), by Bernard Grun,)

[Most of above have really very little to do with the question. Separation of Church and State, though also erroneous (condemned by Pope St Pius X) is quite another question than Erasmus Darwin's book, which is on the index, unless he wrote another one that is - or at least which was on the Index last edition.]

gina rex

July 15, 2014

The article does demonstrate that some people would be super intelligent wherever and whenever they might have lived and that the intelligence of the mass of humanity has not improved with time.

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 16, 2014

@ Brian Foulkrod, I think you mean either Ken Ham or Kent Hovind.

Either way you are wrong, I have been pushing this myself for quite a while and I have had to look into the claims that ALL TIME PERIODS are represented in Grand Canyon.

They are not. Apart from very little Palaeocene or Miocene just “on top” (on top as on top or sideways on top?) the huge thickness of the layers, pretty unique on Earth, covers Palaeozoic / Pre-Cambrian marine fauna. Usually precisely shell fish.

My point, which I hope some other people than you get, was that Fracostoro was NOT dealing with the thickness of shell fish layers that Grand Canyon represent.

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 16, 2014

@David Bump:

“1681 Jacques Bossuet’s _Discourse on Universal History_ – “biblically based… history was portrayed from a divine perspective.” Earth created in 4004 B.C.”

How Anglican of him to agree with Ussher! Well, he was conciliatory with Anglicans.

Normally the Roman Martyrology follows St Jerome. Christ born 5199 Anno Mundi. Or 2957 Anno Diluvii.

Calvin did not change that except by preferring Masoretic text over Septuagint for exactitude of facts.

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 16, 2014

@ gina rex:

I definitely concur the average intelligence has not improved over time.

As to some people being super intelligent whenever or whereever they live … who do you mean? Me for being still Creationist in a world gone mad with old earthism or someone else?

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 16, 2014

@ author of article:

“Perhaps it was the fact that crabs and seashells live in the ocean, which was sixty miles from the city.”

You mean the sea, right? The Mediterranean Sea was perhaps sixty miles from Verona, but the Atlantic Ocean or Indian Ocean quite a bit further away.

See = Lake
Meer = Sea
Ozean = Ocean.

[Carl Zimmer would seem to be German.]

Mike Hopkins

July 16, 2014

If memory serves, one reason why the flood of Noah was rejected was the shelled animals were not on the mountains but rather _in_ them.

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 16, 2014

OK, Fracostoro was not a super genius about the mechanics of sedimentation.

Thanks for settling that!

Mona Albano

July 16, 2014

Hans wrote, “I have had to look into the claims that ALL TIME PERIODS are represented in Grand Canyon.”

Whoever said that is no scientist — perhaps you were listening to a “straw man” caricature of geological knowledge. The Grand Canyon contains striking examples of the Great Unconformity, where 250,000,000 to 1,200,000,000 years are missing from the geological record.

See The Great Desert : GRAND CANYON - THE GREAT UNCONFORMITY
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/science/treiman/greatdesert/workshop/greatunconf/

Mona Albano

July 16, 2014

Also, “There are fourteen major unconformities exposed within the Grand Canyon.

See Written In Stone...seen through my lens : The Great Unconformity of the Grand Canyon and the Late Proterozoic-Cambrian Time Interval: Part I - Defining It
http://written-in-stone-seen-through-my-lens.blogspot.com/2012/01/great-unconformity-of-grand-canyon-part.html.

This is a most fascinating article. I rejoice that people in earlier centuries could look at geological buildup and erosion and perceive that deep time was needed for it to happen.

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 17, 2014

“The Grand Canyon contains striking examples of the Great Unconformity, where 250,000,000 to 1,200,000,000 years are missing from the geological record.”

If you believe they are years, yes.

I believe they are biotopes. And most biotopes would be missing in most places at any time.

Steve Dutch

July 17, 2014

When I visited Verona a few years ago, in addition to all the culturel treasures, I was struck by the huge ammonites in the paving stones. Some were two feet across.

Dimensio

July 17, 2014

I am fascinated by this article, but I am more fascinated in the fact that people today still insist upon a discredited “Biblical” timeline, supported through willful ignorance and “cherry picking” of (often quote-mined) data points, rather than observable reality.

Toad coder

July 17, 2014

The funniest part about anyone defending the Noah myth, is that Christianity straight up stole the story from Mesopotamian civilizations, which existed outside of the young earth time frame.

Hans Georg LUndahl

17-VII-2014

[Comment lost, the button was pushed and an error message was announced, thus not published. It was also completely lost, because I had been used to getting my comments published, for some while, and I had taken no back up.]

H G Lundahl

17-VII-2014

[Comment similarily not published, but not completely lost either. I was aware of problem reemerging and had taken a backup. However, it is identical to parts of my last one. See that one.]

David Bump

17-VII-2014, in response to toad coder

Well, Toad, that’s the theory, because we have older copies of the Epic of Gilgamesh than anything written in Hebrew, but then, look up “ghost lineages” and you might see how just because we have older examples of one thing, that doesn’t mean that something else actually came before it.

Hans Georg Lundahl

18-VII-2014, not published*

@Dimensio:

If the fact that we YECs exist fascinates you, why not get a few facts about us straight?

I do not recognise your description of us as anywhere near accurate.

If you are interested in "our self descriptions" plus some assessments of your side, why not visit:

Creation vs. Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/

I think its last message up to now includes and links to other message including an answer to "Toad coder" as well.

For those arriving later:

Creation vs. Evolution : Well, how about Mark Isaak? Too lazy to do his homework?

http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2014/07/well-how-about-mark-isaak-too-lazy-to.html

[full link to the precise message I mean]

@David Bump

With oral traditions we have LOTS of ghost lineages, where, unlike "strata from diverse periods" we really have a chronological succession.

* I frankly do not quite know whether the culprit behind the bug (similar both days) was a bug - very unlikely, since I was in two different libraries - or else sabotage from librarians - still pretty unlikely, since in two different libraries, but somewhat less impossible, since there could be collusion - or finally, most likely or least unlikely (the situation as such is not likely, so forget about finding what is "most likely," as in positively likely and more so than the alternatives, shall we!) deliberate sabotage from Phenomena blog - blogger, webmaster, etc.

I do know, if this is from Phenomena, it is not the first time that I have been pro forma allowed to debate, but in reality stopped right before I could turn the debate to my favour, in a game played with very great sensitivity. It happened with my Natural SCience teacher too, the one in ninth grade, who was and is a staucnh evolution believer and who was on occasion not interested in letting me have a real chance, but was interested in pretending he had given me one.

Tom Trinko, Third Rounds, Broadening Discussion on Aether

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

At least I am trying to, as you can see from my response.

Illustrating a pont raised below [But see also diagrams message, now].

X - - > - > - - > X'                                                                                                                                                                         O

Tom Trinko

Vendredi/Friday/4th of July 21:44

No I didn't get it because it doesn't make sense. Sorry.

I understand that if you believe in a mythical aether then the motion of the aether would cancel the motion of the satellite.

Unfortunately for you the aether would not cancel the motion of the satellite towards the earth, downward, caused by the force of gravity, which means the satellite would soon fall to earth.

Basically east west and up down are orthogonal so the east west velocity of the satellite will only determine where on earth the satellite will fall. Given that the geostationary satellite is stationary above a point on the earth gravity will cause it to fall down to that point on the earth unless the aether exerts and upward--not westward--force on the satellite.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Saturday, 5th of July

No, you did not get it.

You did not get that aether ONLY cancels the local movement part of the eastward momentum.

It is the eastward momentum the balances out gravitation to an orbit (through the aether, but locally cancelled out) around earth.

As to mythical, a scientific theory does not become a myth when abandoned.

Let us see.

According to everyone light is a fact. According to modern physics gravitation is a fact (in Aristotelian ones, heavy objects being heavy means them having a predominant tendency down to the middle of the universe, the centre of the earth, light objects being light means them having a tendency upward to the periphey of the universe, towards stars and Heaven beyond them).

If there is no aether, then gravitation and light are action at a distance, and for light also wavemovements in a void.

I have discussed - years ago - the concept of wavemovements in a void, and the science expert who was, as an Atheist, defending modern science, said photons could fix that. Here the action at a distance part would also be fixed. It is less easy to fix gravitational action at a distance problem by gravitons.

Photons first: yes, a wavemovement would be conceivable as photons are emitted in waves rather than continuously. But if so, it should be theoretically possible to have a continuous (high or low) rate of emission of photons, and we do not find that.

Gravitons next: if a graviton moves from earth toward the sun, how would that make sun move closer to earth? If one thousand times as many gravitons move from sun to earth, how would that draw earth closer to the sun?

Remember, if gravitons are emitted from the masses concerned, they are moving right opposite the way they are supposed to work the attraction.

For close range forces, this is even more conspicuous: if electrons and protons (supposing these to both exist though neither has been observed even under electronic microscopy) are moving in a void, where is the substrate transmitting their forces of attraction from one body to other?

Here you see perhaps why aether was a very usual model in scientific worldviews until of course Michelson Morley showed this entailed Geocentrism.

And this means, some Geocentrics would be such, simply because aether makes sense scientifically.

One more: westward movement of aether would be a curved movement. Around earth.

Eastward momentum of satellite would in each moment be a straight momentum. In a tangent from earth, unless gravitation were counteracting it. It is thus in each moment the momentum of the satellite which counteracts the gravitation of the earth.

HGL adding

on Sunday 6-VII-2014

I think YOUR position on why Sungenis must be wrong on Geostationary satellites is that:

satellite has eastward momentum, vector arrow eastward, aether imparts equal westward momentum, vector arrow westward (same length), earth imparts momentum down to its centre, by gravitation, arrow down. W & E arrows cancel, arrow down is NOT cancelled, so, acceleration takes place downwards to the ground.

My understanding of Sungenis' explanation (if he doesn't agree, it may unconsciously even be my improvement on it) is rather this:

There is an eastward arrow for the vector of satellite's momentum, there is a downward arrow, for the vector of earth's gravitation, BUT there is no westward arrow.

Aether imparts NO acceleration to the West.

It only displaces the space in which these vectors work out.

Therefore the eastward vector and the downward vector can balance out in a series of balanced vectors which, in empty space, would be of orbital type.

Except that empty space would have no way, without aether, to transmit the pull of eartyhmass onto satellite mass (and, extremely slightly, the reverse), and the aether that is transmitting it is displacing itself. That is at least one theory.

Tom Trinko Sunday 22 :25

Uh no that makes no sense. If you add an eastward vector to a downward vector you bet a vector pointed down and to the east at some angle which will vary with time as the Satellite accelerates down. Given that we're assuming the earth isn't rotating here then what would happen would be that the satelite would follow a roughly parabolic trajectory and impact the earth to the east of the normal sub satellite point.

You can't balance a downward force with a eastward momentum vector over a stationary earth. Math doesn't work.

Hans Georg Lundahl Monday 7/VII/2014

The orbit you assume to be there is a very high version of the parabolic trajectory.

The Sungenis theory as I understand does not deny the orbit as such. It only says it is displaced, because the coordinate system of space - the aether - is displaced.

And that orbit and displacement balance out into a more or less stationary position.

Added a few hours later by HGL

Maybe you simply are mixing up the vector question with the geosationary question. How a downward vector is accounted for while same hight is acheived is a bit tricky. Here I am spelling it out step by step:

I) What the vectors (acc. to Newtonian physics) make for an orbit:

a) Imagine you have one satellite "above" earth. Draw it above on paper or on whatever material your mind can follow (including your memory, if it is good).

b) Identify a spot as centre of earth, draw the line between it and the satellite. Divide the line into four equal "units".

c) Imagine the satellite is moved by exactly ONE vector (in an otherways stationary universe, like during the long day of Joshua). Draw a line to the right, meaning eastward. Mark off three units.

d) Identify the spot of the third unit as new position of satellite. Draw a line from it to centre of earth and remember, this line is FIVE units long.

e) But in order for the satellite to move "due east" (in an orbit) it should be only FOUR units above the centre of the earth. Identify that spot, then dot the lines of the triangle that are outside that cake slice. NOW you have identified the action of gravitation as the vector responsible for satellite being one unit lower than expected. And still exactly as high as it was to begin with.

II) Now, this was a satellite "during Joshua's long day". It was neither Geostationary according to aether and Geostasis, nor according to empty space and turning earth.

III) How to make a satellite geostationary (outside Joshua's long day), there are two models.

a) Empty space remains in place, so satellite really moves locally that curve, but earth eastward also, at same angular speed. Turning of earth neither affects the gravitational vector of the satellite, nor the eastward momentum vector. Therefore orbit of satellite is real, though from the dot on earth it is seen as stationary, because that dot also moves in an orbit around the centre of the earth, that orbit having a turn of same angle in same time.

b) Turning aether moves westward, at same speed as satellite orbits eastward. Aether affects neither vector. It is only that its turning cancels out, locally, the eastward turning of the satellite. Here too the satellite has a real eastward orbit, but in a space that (as it is aether and not empty) displaces itself at same angular speed in opposite angular turn. Leaving the satellite in same local position.

[IV] There is one problem with this restatement of Sungenis without looking at his book.

Can aether be truly non-vectorial and yet cause movement?

As in the movement it imposes, if I am right, on spacecraft spiralling outward with the "linear" outward / upward movement and the "circular" daily movement of the aether.

Or in the movement it imposes on winds of passage, which, once set in motion by the moving aether, are very vectorial, as any sailor would agree, or the one it imposes indirectly at least on oceanic currents, like the ones used by Christopher Columbus between Açores and Hispaniola and by Thor Heyderdahl between Perú and Polynesia.

That is the problem with my theory. Does it suggest any solution to you?, for if so, you might be right I understand no physics compared to your grasp of the subject.

Tom Trinko
early in the morning Paris time
8-VII-2014

Ok nothing you said makes sense with respect to anything we know to be true.

We agree that the geostationary satellite stays staionary above the earth.

We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving.

But if the earth isn't rotating then the satellite can't be stationary.

Hence the satellite will fall.

The simple fact is that either the aether exerts an upward force on the satellite or the satellite will fall.

Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did.

Hans Georg Lundahl
9 :07 Paris time

"We agree that things that are stationary in a gravitational field fall down The only way for a satellite to be stationary then is for the satellite to be moving."

OR for the gravitational field (a k a aether) to be moving.

"Your "vector" discussion was kinda useless since I have no idea why you arbitrarily set the vector magnitudes the way you did."

I gave no magnitudes for the vectors. I gave distances.

And I gave them in PROPORTIONS to original distance, which I am not trying to find out, because any original distance will work.

It is the vector eastward that is a vector upward. Nothing else on either theory. And that SHOULD have been obvious if you had not balked back from the discussion with a misunderstanding of what I did so stupid as to give the impression it was deliberate.

But perhaps geometry was not your best part of maths?

Tom Trinko
Tuesday c. 21 :20

Uh perhaps if you knew vector math you'd know that the magnitude of a vector is the length of the vector ie what you call the distance.

Here's what Augustine says about people like Sungenis: " 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

Uh where did this upward vector come from? You said that the aether exerts no force on the satellite so there is only a downwards vector due to gravity

Hans Georg Lundahl
Wednesday c. 9 :20

No, if you had paid attention, you would have seen that the eastward vector of the satellite is really also an upward vector.

What I called the distance was NOT length of the vector, but a theoretical distance it could get east IF the eastward vector had been the only one. So, you are the one who lacks understanding of math, it is not me that St Augustine is ashamed of so far.

Resumé of vectors / distances: Original position, satellite is four units (distance) above centre of earth. Theoretical eastward distance (if eastward vector had been the only one) - let us cut that travel short three units east of original position. What is it height now? Remember, it is the new position and its distance to the centre of earth that is the height. You have two sides, one of four units, one of three units, so satellite will be now five units above centre of earth. Remember, the diagonal on the diagram is the perpendicular of the satellite. WHY is the satellite in its new position ONLY four units (like before) above centre of Earth in reality? Because of the downward vector of gravity. Which proves that the eastward vector, rightly considered, is an upward vector. Because tangential = up.

Btw, there is no such thing as Volume two of St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis. There is such a thing as BOOK two. Volumes refer to material objects, and how many such you divide his work in or how many works you assemble in one such varies from edition to edition.

So, referring to a Volume for any work ONLY makes sense if you define the edition. I therefore assume, you are not talking about St Augustine of Hippo's On the Literal Meaning of Genesis an Incomplete Book, but of book two in his other work On the Literal Meaning of Genesis in Twelve Books.

Exchange

Seen from here Thursday morning

Tom Trinko

Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing.

As to vectors you can insult me all you wish but what you're doing is wrong.

First if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so.

Second you still haven't explained what counteracts the downward pull of gravity. You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite.

In any case the simple fact you keep ignoring is that if we look up and see the satellite stationary in orbit above us and we are not moving then the satellite will fall down unless you apply a force to the satellite.

Hans Georg Lundahl

"Irrespective of the source Augustine condemns what Sungenis is doing." Or what you are doing. You see, that quote is not the only, nor even the most general quote from even just that work on relation between Bible and secular knowledge. Have you tried to see same work, book one, chapter one?

As you mentioned Sungenis, I sent him our conversiation, and he gave this reply:

Quoting mail from Robert Sungenis

"Hans, excuse me for getting to this so late. I think your explanation is good. Let me just add that, in the geocentric version, the Geostationary Sat is traveling 7000mph against the space, because space is traveling 7000mph around the fixed Earth. So the same equations that are used to send the Geo Sat up in the heliocentric system are going to be the same in the geocentric system."

Back to my own words

"if by east you don't mean perpendicular to the nadir vector you should say so." I do very exactly mean strictly straight angles to the nadir. That is the VERY REASON why any eastward vector is also an upward vector, since tangential.

"You say the eastward vector is also an upward vector which means the aether must be exerting a force on the satellite." No, it means that the satellite is exerting a force on itself. Inertia.

When we travel "due east," we travel on a circle on the globe that has axis for centre, like equator, and we take one of two available turns. But in each moment "due east" is also a vector tangential to earth's circular surface. This means that if that vector were all there were to our moves, we would be travelling upward, because we would be travelling tangentially.

Do you realise now, WHO of us two or you one it is who merits the scorn of not knowing anything about the universe?

Tom Trinko
Thursday 10/VII/2014, 23:00 Paris time

Yes sadly not only don't you understand the universe you think you do.

First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself.

Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required. Now in reality with the satellite orbiting the earth gravity exerts that force which constantly changes the direction of the satellites velocity vector. However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector. If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth. Hence when gravity acts on the satellite it pulls it straight down.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Friday 11/VII/2014, 11:00 Paris time

"First inertia is not a force and the satellite doesn't exert it on itself."

Forces in that strict meaning are things exerted on others. Inertia would be the corresponding thing, but exerted on oneself.

"Second in order for the eastward vector of the satellite to be constantly changing direction a force is required."

The force that would do so if it were not geostationary is gravity.

It is precisely because the eastward vector is NOT constantly changing direction (except in relation to a rotating aether that changes the direction back) that it is a tangential and therefore upward vector.

"However if the satellite is stationary above the earth that means that relative to the earth the satellite has no component of velocity perpendicular to the nadir vector."

It has, as already explained above, previously, a component of velocity in relation to the rotating aether.

" If it did then the satellite would not be stationary above the earth."

It is not stationary per se, but orbiting through an aether which is itself orbitting the other way round at same speed. So, it is only stationary per accidens.

I agree it would fall down if stationary per se.

Would you, before answering again, go through our discussion, the protocol on my blog, because I begin to fear you are about to lose memory of part a) of my argument while arguing against part b) and of part b) of my argument while arguing against part a). It reminds me of a behaviour - in their case presumably deliberate - which I have seen in not so nice persons around my life. You know, Jews, Communists, Atheists, No Popery Prots and some others like that?

[Sent him the three so far extant blogposts that are protocol of our discussion.]

EPILOGUE

Saturday Morning 12/VII/2014 I found the end of this discussion:

Tom Trinko

Uh I would like it if you'd post the following:

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.

Hans Georg Lundahl

No problem, will be posted.

No apologies needed. From my p o v.

Done: [linking to first message, where I put the statement on top of it all.]

With Tom Trinko again, Second rounds

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

HGL to TT, added after last of previous

Quite other question: how come you made a proviso like the words: "unless you're going to butcher quotes of me to misrepresent what I say"? Is that your standard misanthropic misgiving about any stranger these days, or has someone been giving me a reputation, perhaps even without showing you what it is based on?

Here is how your words have been treated:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First Rounds
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/2014/06/with-tom-trinko-on-physics-of.html

TT to HGL, Dimanche/Sunday 20:03

No reason to suspect you of intentionally butchering my words. However I wanted to give fair warning that if that was your intent it would be ill advised. Sorry if I offended you. And by the way being cautious in an age where people do butcher words is not misanthropic.

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

As to the satellite issue even though the earths gravitation is less at geosychronos orbit it would still bring a satellite to the ground quickly. and of course if the satellite has eastward momentum it won't stay stationary over the earth

HGL to TT, Monday
[il y a 25 minutes ago]

"By the way Augustine clearly condemns Sungennis's misuse of the Bible ...."? Ghaaaaaa!

I condemn you misuse of St Augustine.

So does Sungenis. If you want to spell his name with two (three) N, it is the older Italian from Sangennisi you think of. His own Americanate form is Sungenis. With one (two) N.

Here is my refutation of that kind of misuse, go to my blog (linked to below) and search the beginning of that quote, i e the words "usually even". See what you find:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Search usually even
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/search?q=usually+even

Since other articles came up too, look here:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Distant Starlight Problem - Answered by Geocentrism
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/11/distant-starlight-problem-answered-by.html

"As to the satellite issue even though the earths gravitation is less at geosychronos orbit it would still bring a satellite to the ground quickly."

Unless it has an eastward momentum.

" and of course if the satellite has eastward momentum it won't stay stationary over the earth"

Unless, as already said, the eastward momentum is within a westward turning aether.

Exchange

on Monday evening

Tom Trinko

And since of course there is no evidence for the aether your whole argument is without merit.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Except that there is doubly evidence for it:

• a) by these effects (which can all be considered variants of Coriolis effect)
• b) by the wavelengths of light in aether
• c) by the Sagnac effect (as noted by Sungenis).

The only supposed evidence against it is a NON-Geostatic view of Michelson Morley, and that begs the question, you are arguing in circles.

Tom Trinko

Actually what you are doing is inventing an aether so you can reject all scientific evidence. There is no basis for the aether other than your need to figure out some way to support your bad Bible interpretations.

The Sagnac effect does not require an aether

The way science works is that you need to show something exists. You are arguing that since you claim I can't show the aether exists then it must exist.

Hans Georg Lundahl

No, I am not arguing that.

I am arguing that there are effects the cause of which is aether, and therefore it exists.

That is the way LOGIC works.

Btw, lear some logic instead of making a fool of yourself by wrongful analysis of my argument.

Tom Trinko

Uh you haven't shown any effect that can only be attributed to the aether and not to more well grounded concepts.

what you're doing is saying that this aether you're making up could explain certain things. You've not shown that aether is the explanation.

You reject Michaelson Morely because you reject, based on the bible not science something that Augusting condemns, the earths motion not because you've shown that the earth doesn't move.

Hans Georg Lundahl

• a) I am not making aether up;
• b) I am not rejecting Michelson Morley results;
• c) Michelson Morley were "making aether down" because, not only were they correctly accepting their results, but INCORRECTLY accepting Earth's supposed orbit around the sun.
• d) Augustin - who is a saint - was NOT condemning the use of Holy Writ as an authority in science. Read what he wrote in context instead of staring yourself blind or hypnotic on one single quote.

And, supposing no one had thought of aether before me, supposing I did not have Michelson Morley either very explicitly disproving IT or disproving Heliocentric tenets, supposing my take on Michelson Morley were original, as also the Coriolis effects.

That would NOT make my interpretation wrong and the aetherless and Heliocentric one right. How much is SCIENCE - as they call it - making up?

They made up electrons, for one, to account for their effects. Could be effects of sth else, no? Or have you directly observed them? In electronic microscopy, for instance? N O T. You cannot study electrons in electronic microscopy any more than you can study photons with a normal microscope. You can intensely study the supposed effects of either, but that is not direct observation.

Tom Trinko
(night to Tuesday, Paris time)

No one made up electrons. They proposed a theory and then tested the theory.

You've proposed a theory but there is no experimental evidence that your theory is right and a lot that it is wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
(Tuesday, Paris time)

I have proposed a theory and shown how available experimental evidence fits it.

And the theory of electrons fitting the observations is precisely NOT a direct observation of the electrons themselves.

If you have any evidence my theory is wrong that is NOT YET answered by me, feel free to mention it.

Or rather than proposing a theory of my own, I have reproposed one rejected too hastily by Michelson and Morley, since they were Heliocentrics.

Tom Trinko to me
Mardi/Tuesday 20:46 (Paris time, presumably)

Irrespective of the source of the theory the fact that there is no experimental evidence for it and no math to define it--you wave your hands about the force the aether imparts to the satellite but you're just saying it is exactly right to keep the satellite from falling with no equations showing why the force should be what you need it to be--means you're not doing science you're making up stories.

Me to Tom Trinko
Wednesday morning

"Irrespective of the source of the theory"

Thank you.

"the fact that there is no experimental evidence for it and no math to define it"

There is. Aether is getting aorund the universe same speed as the stars. Note I am not sure if this is slowing down or rather not when getting close to earth. That is the math of speed.

"--you wave your hands about the force the aether imparts to the satellite"

C'mon, you really have to make a strawmannus maximus, don't you? I already clarified I did not say that aether imparts any force to the satellite, I said it is where the momentum of the satellite counts in. That is different. And I did not wave my hands at all, I also clarified very clearly that if the satellite had had no eastward momentum to start with, the westward movement of aether would not be evening it down to keepining its spot in space. Rockets that go far beyond earth orbits are, due to only upward momentum and westward movement of aether spiralling daily around us. That is a set of very definite mathematical models.

"but you're just saying it is exactly right to keep the satellite from falling"

I said the westward speed of the aether is exactly right to keep an eastward heading satellite in spot (if it is heading eastward at the right speed of course). As for the maths for momentum and gravity evening out to a kind of orbit, that is taken from the maths of the heliocentrics. I am not saying their equations are wrong. I am only saying they do not reflect reality as best they could. That is very much NOT the same proposition. Which is of course why, if, as I, after Sungenis before me, have tried to show, the equations (implied in description) can be seen from the other side, then they cannot prove which side is the right. What CAN prove which side is the right one is our senses. Like eyes and inner ears. God gave us them. For free. Plus a Bible with passages to support that side.

"means you're not doing science you're making up stories"

Telling stories is not automatically lying. Doing science is not automatically being incorrect. Or correct.

"with no equations showing why the force should be what you need it to be"

Again, I take the eastward momentum of a geostationary satellite to be what it is to the Heliocentrics who say that it is turning and earth is turning at same angular speed. I only take the same momentum as taking place in a westward moving aether, in a westward turning universe. As to the technicalities of turning the equations around, I leave it to them. The thing is, if there were no aether, if there were only empty space, this could not work at all, and geostationary satellites would fall to the ground as you say. But the presence of aether explained things - like light having wavelengths for one. Its absense only serves to:

• a) explain Michelson Morley without arriving at Geostasis as to annual orbit;
  
  
• b) give you the above argument against Geocentrism.

It goes against, for instance, Aristotle's Natura abhorret a vacuo.

So, introducing the aether again also gives a substrate for qualities not directly derived from the geometry and arithmetic of protons and electrons in space. As in "empty space".

It also serves as one possible model on glorified bodies. Could they be same bodies as we have, minus the nuclei and the mass? Every quality, though coded in number of protons etc. would be realised throughout the aether in that body. That is one more use of aether, if you are a Christian.

If your concern is sucking up to the Atheist majority of Scientific community (or semi-Atheist if you count a pseudo-Catholic like Ken Miller into the lot, I am not quite sure pure Atheists would be singlehandidly in majority), that is your outlook, not mine. As far as I am concerned, the basic philosophy of the most important reality was given us in a book that is full of stories. And no, Christ did not leave his Church "without a book, but with a Magisterium", He left it with a complete Old Testament (Septuagint canon, like RC, Roum Orth or Ethiopian version of it) and a complete New Testament relevant exegesis of it (given in the Crash Course between Resurrection and Ascension). This one did not include a Heliocentric turning around of Joshua's miracle, nor and Old Age relativisation of Genealogy based and day=day based Biblical Chronology.

Tom Trinko thinks I forgot my argument from earlier on
Wednesday 18:26

Uh you really don't know anything about science do you?

If the aether doesn't impart a force to the then the satellite will not stay up. It will fall down under the force of earths gravity.

My answer, Thursday
repeating previous answer.

Except through the momentum eastward of the satellite through space. WHICH IS where the westward movement of the aether comes in: in Sungenis' theory (and he has done the equations too, or left them to a better expert) this momentum counts through the aether. Not through empty and therefore inert space. Got it this time?

Tom Trinko
Jeudi/Thursday 20:17

Uh no since you're not making sense. Even if the satellite somehow had an eastward momentum it would fall to the earth, though not straight down. Essentially gravity acting on the satellite will cause the satellite to accelerate towards the earth irrespective of eastward momentum. The only way to keep the satellite up is to provide a force equal and opposite to that of gravity. And I've seen Sungennis's equations and they're either misinterpreted or wrong.

Hans Georg Lundahl
4th of July

"Even if the satellite somehow had an eastward momentum it would fall to the earth, though not straight down."

And if the eastward momentum is big enough, the satellite "falls" so "not straight down" as to completely miss earth and stay in orbit again and again. That is how Heliocentrics say that satellites work. That is also how they say that Moon works around Earth and Earth around Sun. Who is not knowledgable on physics now?

"Essentially gravity acting on the satellite will cause the satellite to accelerate towards the earth irrespective of eastward momentum."

Yes, and the eastward momentum would push the satellite off at a tangent irrespective of gravity of earth. The concrete movement of the satellite is not irrespective of either. It is a balance between the eastward momentum and the downward momentum.

"The only way to keep the satellite up is to provide a force equal and opposite to that of gravity."

Provided by the eastward momentum. NOT by the aether.

"And I've seen Sungennis's equations and they're either misinterpreted or wrong."

Care to give an example? The very fact you cannot decide which of the two they are suggests you are not able to see if they are right or not. Sungenis' point is that the equations of the Heliocentrics are, not wrong, BUT misinterpreted.

Still 4th of July

Tom to me

19:24 - 19:29

Uh eastward momentum being perpindicular to the nadir vector cannot balance gravitational forces.

As to Sungennis's equations I was saying some were wrong and others were misrepresented not that I was unclear as to which they were.

I'm not going to bother with an example because I'd have to dig up my notes and it's not worth the time since if you don't understand why eastward momentum can't counter act a downward force it would be impossible for you to understand the problems with the equations.

Me to Tom

20:10 - 20:15

"Uh eastward momentum being perpindicular to the nadir vector cannot balance gravitational forces."

In that case, how do you account for planets orbiting sun in your Heliocentric worldview and physics?

"As to Sungennis's equations I was saying some were wrong and others were misrepresented not that I was unclear as to which they were."

My bad, could you give an example of each?

"it's not worth the time since if you don't understand why eastward momentum can't counter act a downward force"

But YOU are saying it can.

It is only, that if space is void, eastward momentum can only exist with an eastward movement, either with a place on earth, destroying the non-motion of earth, or from a place on earth, destroying the geostationary quality (some geocentrics have duly argued these satellites are frauds, partly by effects from landbased emitters, partly by effects of normal satellites).

BUT if space is an aether turning westward, the eastward momentum could be as real if exactly counterbalanced in speed by the westward movement of the aether to a net sum of geostationary non-movement.

Did you get it this time?