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?

Apparent Annual Zig Zag Question about Geo/Helio and Space Crafts

Document commented on:

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

After reading which I contacted Alec:

HGL to contact@evolutionpages.com

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2014 5:13 PM

Subject: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?

You wrote:

"Is there any such evidence for the Earth’s daily rotation? Let’s look at Pioneer 10 and 11, two spacecraft that were launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, to study the asteroid belt, Jupiter and Saturn. After completing their mission they continued on their trajectory out of the solar system at well above escape velocity. Pioneer 1034 remained in contact with earth stations until 2003 when it was some 12 billion kilometres away. You will remember that the Sun has by far the biggest gravitational field in the solar system and for that reason both Pioneers were slowed down by the Sun’s gravity as they flew away from the solar system. However measurements of the spacecraft position and speed indicated that both Pioneers were slowing down more than the models predicted and for several years this effect, known as the Pioneer anomaly, was a mystery. All we need to know about the anomaly is a) that it was tiny (~10-10 ms-2 - a hundred billionth of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface) and b) that it has been explained with perfectly conventional physics35. What is relevant to us is the fact that the anomaly was so small and therefore, in order to measure it, physicists needed to know the position (range and direction) of the satellites with extreme precision. These measurements are made by Doppler measurements and timing of radio signals sent to the satellites and returned to Earth ground stations. There is a daily modulation of the Doppler signals caused by the fact that Earth’s rotation causes a daily change in the relative velocity between the spacecraft and the Earth which physicists must correct for. In fact this daily Doppler modulation is used to measure the direction of the spacecraft from the Earth (its amplitude gives declination and its phase gives right ascension)."

Is there a yearly one?

That is about the question I asked here:

Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534

"If earth is stationary, it ought to remain at the origo of the flight of a rocket (the spiral movement of which is explained by influence of daily movement of universe around earth). If it be moving around sun, it ought to return to it only once a year."

In other words, have the spacecraft been observed as zigzagging by parallactic observation from an earth rotating around the sun?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

HGL to : "geocentrismdebunked"

date : 25/04/14 à 18h42

objet : To Alec

New blog on the kid : Answering Alec MacAndrew
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/04/answering-alec-macandrew.html

Alec MacAndrew to HGL

date : 02/05/14 à 11h22

objet : Re: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?

Of course. See ref 36 in the paper.

Best regards

Alec

Reference 36:

36 Anderson, John D., et al. "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11." Physical Review D 65.8 (2002): 082004.

HGL to Alec MacAndrew

date : 02/05/14 à 18h54

objet : Re: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?

Thank you!

HGL to : help@aps.org

date : 02/05/14 à 19h00

objet : "Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11." Physical Review D 65.8 (2002): 082004.

• a) Can you identify this reference?
• b) Is the paper in question available in the libraries of Paris (especially excepting Georges Pompidou)?
  
  Hans-Georg Lundahl
  
  
• PS, c) is it available online?

[I got the correct adress, but I am not finding the kind mail, right now.]

HGL to : Philip.A.Laing@aero.org ; mmn@lanl.gov

date : 02/05/14 à 20h57

objet : Question passed on to you : Subject: does/did Pioneer 10 a yearly apparent zig zag?

+ identic one with following header:

HGL to : john.d.anderson@jpl.nasa.gov ; Eunice.L.Lau@jpl.nasa.gov ; turyshev@jpl.nasa.gov

date : 03/05/14 à 10h59

objet : On Pioneer .... (passing on a question)

Citing it as originally written to someone else (HGL to Alec -> HGL to you):

You [Alec MacAndrew*] wrote:

"Is there any such evidence for the Earth’s daily rotation? Let’s look at Pioneer 10 and 11, two spacecraft that were launched in 1972 and 1973 respectively, to study the asteroid belt, Jupiter and Saturn. After completing their mission they continued on their trajectory out of the solar system at well above escape velocity. Pioneer 10 remained in contact with earth stations until 2003 when it was some 12 billion kilometres away. You will remember that the Sun has by far the biggest gravitational field in the solar system and for that reason both Pioneers were slowed down by the Sun’s gravity as they flew away from the solar system. However measurements of the spacecraft position and speed indicated that both Pioneers were slowing down more than the models predicted and for several years this effect, known as the Pioneer anomaly, was a mystery. All we need to know about the anomaly is a) that it was tiny (~10-10 ms-2 - a hundred billionth of the acceleration due to gravity at the Earth’s surface) and b) that it has been explained with perfectly conventional physics. What is relevant to us is the fact that the anomaly was so small and therefore, in order to measure it, physicists needed to know the position (range and direction) of the satellites with extreme precision. These measurements are made by Doppler measurements and timing of radio signals sent to the satellites and returned to Earth ground stations. There is a daily modulation of the Doppler signals caused by the fact that Earth’s rotation causes a daily change in the relative velocity between the spacecraft and the Earth which physicists must correct for. In fact this daily Doppler modulation is used to measure the direction of the spacecraft from the Earth (its amplitude gives declination and its phase gives right ascension)."

Is there a yearly one?

That is about the question I asked here:

Has Cassini-Huygens spacecraft earth flyby in 1999 disproven geocentrism
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9120534#post9120534

"If earth is stationary, it ought to remain at the origo of the flight of a rocket (the spiral movement of which is explained by influence of daily movement of universe around earth). If it be moving around sun, it ought to return to it only once a year."

In other words, have the spacecraft been observed as zigzagging by parallactic observation from an earth rotating around the sun?

* He referred to reference 36 which brought me to:

Physical Review D : Study of the anomalous acceleration of Pioneer 10 and 11
Phys. Rev. D 65, 082004 – Published 11 April 2002
John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev
http://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.65.082004

Not answering as far as I have seen since:

John D. Anderson, Philip A. Laing, Eunice L. Lau, Anthony S. Liu, Michael Martin Nieto, and Slava G. Turyshev

With Tom Trinko on Physics of Geocentrism, First 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
Statement from Tom Trinko:
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.
Wednesday 21:00 (supposing my profile is set on Paris time) - Saturday 10:30 sth (on Paris time) is the time for these first rounds.

Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko

TT or Tom Trinko?

I can change if you are a public figure. Private citizens have been given only in initials:

HGL's F.B. writings: Karl Keating had a Status, the Status a Debate
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.fr/2014/06/karl-keating-had-status-status-debate.html

Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl

Uh I don't see any comment related to me on your page. I guess I'm a public figure--I'm not in hiding. But I'm not famous. I do publish articles on American Thinker under my name and unless you're going to butcher quotes of me to misrepresent what I say I'd go with my name.

By the way your arguments are all wrong. I know the math that is used to determine how to get a rocket to space and if the sun orbited the earth then none of our space vehicles would end up where they were intended to go.

Also the whole center of the universe concept is kinda silly. If Earth is the only planet God put men on then we're the center of the universe no matter what the geometry is.

As to satellites well if the sun orbited the earth satellites would be gone in a second due to the changing direction of the suns gravity.

All of your Bible based conclusions are perfect examples of how not to interpret the Bible and the fact you reject the Church's teaching--heliocentrism is fine it doesn't matter to our faith--says you're on the Protestant side of Bible interpretation. And no the Church, as opposed to some in the Church, has never dogmatically defined geocentrism to be tru.

Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko

" I know the math that is used to determine how to get a rocket to space and if the sun orbited the earth then none of our space vehicles would end up where they were intended to go."

Feel free to develop on diagrams, draw, scan, send me back.

[So far he hasn't done so.]

Btw, one of your comments is on that thread. That is why I am changing TT to Tom Trinko.

Your argument was:

"Now if the earth isn't rotating then geostationary satellites aren't moving. But we all know that if put something up in the sky and release it it will fall to the earth. But since geostationary satellites aren't falling to the earth they have to be moving and hence the earth has to be rotating. "

My answer to that - using Sungenis - was:

"Robert Sungenis would answer they are relatively moving as it is really aether that is moving around them.

A parallel would be an aeroplane wing. It lifts both in a test tunnel when air is blown onto its fore and in air when it is itself moving. "

Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl

That's absurd. There is no aether, that was demonstrated a long time ago, and even if there were it would not provide lift. Further if the aether is moving where the satellite is it's moving at the earths surface and should be measurable.

Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko

• 1) The "long time ago" was 100 years ago, the occasion is well known, it is Michelson Morley.
  
  
• 2) There are exactly TWO interpretations of experiment:
  
  
  • a) no aether (absurd enough)
  • b) geostasis, not so absurd, but out of fashion since a few centuries
  
  
  
• 3) movement of aether at earth - cf Coriolis effects of any kind (i e any purported demonstrations of earth moving based on how things move on earth).
  
  Foucault's Pendulum, for instance, makes one circle at the poles in one day, at equator in two days, anywhere between in anymuch between 1 and 2 days in a careful gradation.
  
  How is the latter for "measureable"?

[Five minutes later, when he did not answer:]

Hello, did you swoon or go off to make calculations or what happened?

Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl (later/seen next day)

Uh I have a life. Ok you do realize you have no idea of what you're talking about right?

[Editor's note: A funny piece of intimidation used by some people I do not like. Fortunately he had arguments too:]

for the movement of the non-existant aetherto hold a multi ton satellite up it would have to be exerting a much greater force than anything we see related to corlios forces. It would be lifting cars off the ground. further given that the aether would be moving generaly perpendicular to the nadir vector it's hard to see how multi tons of lift could be generated pointing up.

Also note that many Geo birds have big long floppy solar panels that can't even be extended in 1g without special supports.

If there was a force acting on the satellite it would have to be nearly 1g and it'd bow the solar arrays up if it didn't break them off.

The other problem is explaining why the same aeither motion generates forces in opposite directions for geo birds on opposite sides of the world.

Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko

"for the movement of the non-existant aetherto hold a multi ton satellite up it would have to be exerting a much greater force than anything we see related to corlios forces"

• a) further up its circular motion would be at greater speed and therefore exerting a greater force than on ground
  
  [Ha, I was - as he said later - saying aether was exerting a force, I meant the momentum required in opposite direction was greater to stay in same place. I was carelessly repeating his phrase, to answer his point rather than to clearly make mine.]
  
  
• b) further up gravitation from Earth (on any Newtonian view at least) would inversely be less intense.

" further given that the aether would be moving generaly perpendicular to the nadir vector it's hard to see how multi tons of lift could be generated pointing up."

You are overdoing the parallel with aeroplane wings.

[Here I think I did after all make mine.]

If I get Sungenis right, aether is what the momentum counts in. Meaning that a momentum directly opposed to the westward movement of the aether would be a real momentum even if concretely that momentum with the movement of aether even out to a de facto stationary position. It would not be the same as a stationary position without a momentum.

"Also note that many Geo birds have big long floppy solar panels that can't even be extended in 1g without special supports. If there was a force acting on the satellite it would have to be nearly 1g and it'd bow the solar arrays up if it didn't break them off. "

You are treating aether as if it were a matter weighing down.

If it were that, it would hardly carry the wave movements of light, would it?

"The other problem is explaining why the same aeither motion generates forces in opposite directions for geo birds on opposite sides of the world."

The direction may be "right hand" and "left hand" turning, but it is Westward on either side.

Tom Trinko to Hans Georg Lundahl

You sadly don't know anything about physics right?

[Did he say sth like that before?]

Ok on the floppy wings thing there has to be a force pushing the satellite up that would tend to bow the solar arrays which have a much lower mass to area ratio than the satellite main body.

There is no evidence of this aetiher so basically Sunngenis is just making up something; he might as well make up hobbits.

You didn't explain how if the satellites motion through the aether is left and right it generates and upward directed force.

You haven't explained why if the force is generated by the satellite motion in the aether the force is in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet. the force has to be in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet.

I'm not treating the aether as waying down. You've said the aether generates a force on the satellite. I'm pointing out what the consequences of that are. You and Sungennis tend to simply make up a characteristic of the aether to fix a problem and then forget about the other consequences of that action.

And Michelson Morely showed there was no aether for light.

Hans Georg Lundahl to Tom Trinko

Michelson Morley WOULD have shown exactly that IF heliocentrism had been a proven fact.

"Ok on the floppy wings thing there has to be a force pushing the satellite up that would tend to bow the solar arrays which have a much lower mass to area ratio than the satellite main body."

According to heliocentrics, there is no force pushing upward. There is a momentum pushing eastward.

The point here is a momentum pushing eastward through an aether turning westward would still be a momentum. Even if the overall local effect were stillness rather than motion.

"There is no evidence of this aetiher so basically Sunngenis is just making up something; he might as well make up hobbits."

Hobbits of Tolkien do have a background not made up by Tolkien. Check out folklore. Also, check out Flores (but preferrably skip the "20.000 years before present" part).

"You haven't explained why if the force is generated by the satellite motion in the aether the force is in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet. the force has to be in opposite directions on the two sides of the planet."

It is not. South and North part of the GLOBE the coriolis force is per se WESTward and only per accidens right and left.

Similarily in the height of the satellite, the aether is NOT moving either right or left or up or down, but WEST.

Which means a momentum eastward (identic to Heliocentric explanations for void instead of aether and East turning globe instead of West turning universe) on part of the satellite remains such even if net result is no movement.

" You've said the aether generates a force on the satellite"

I think not. [See my admission above, though.]

I think I said yesterday exactly what I say today: since aether moves westward, the satellite can have a momentum eastward without actually moving from the location.

"You and Sungennis tend to simply make up a characteristic of the aether to fix a problem and then forget about the other consequences of that action."

Well not really, no.

I cannot speak for Sungenis, I have not read his book. For myself I can say that I am taking into account quetsions like how the aether can push a rocket heading out from earth in a spiral ("linear" path of it = spiral path but the movement westward wrongly attributed to the globe turning eastward). I came up with that the satellite had to have a momentum eastward. Which is also what we do find in the records of those sending them up. Without that momentum eastward, it would not have stayed in spot, but spiralled.

Of course the force LIFTING it from earth is the rocketry. And it is getting up to where, on Newtonian principles, earth exerts less gravitation on it. Meaning that a lesser eastward momentum is needed to keep it up.

Some Comments on Geocentrism Not Published, So Far

All tops to be read

HGL commenting under, etc.

CMI : John G. Hartnett

The largest structure in the observable universe, or cosmic variance?

19/06/14 à 10h44, in answer to commenter

"How big must God be? Need to come up with a not yet invented word to replace "big" in the question."

The problem that standard cosmology accepters seem to have if Theist is that they seem to think "the bigger the universe, the bigger the God who created it".

God certainly is present at any point of the Universe, and yet He is not extended in it and therefore not bigger if it is bigger or smaller if it is smaller.

A solution might be Geocentrism and small universe and this just one of the things pointing to it?

John Gideon Hartnett

The Cosmological Principle and geocentrism

June 19, 2014 at 6:37 pm

There is no difficulty here as already explained above. God is describing in the text all that is happening from the perspective of the agents on Earth. When God supernaturally stopped the heavens moving all He had to do (with little effort on His part) was stop the Earth spinning for one day. The passage of time of the one day is not determined by the Earth’s rotation but by the flow of time itself. God must have suspended inertia in the Earth itself to effect this.

That might account for verse 13, except for what Cardinal Bellarmine stated in the 1616 trial (over the book, not the man).

The Moon ALSO stopped.

Even further: modern cosmology has one full circle of the earth in absolute space as a few minutes shorter than one day. Namely, a stellar day. So, stopping the earth would involve some remaining movement of the sun AND – this is what St Robert pointed out – even more so of the Moon.

Sun and Moon would not have stopped still.

But my main difficulty is that you are not at all adressing verse 12. The words of Joshua while he performs the miracle.

This is not a description adressed to whatever understanding or lack thereof an astronomically uneducated reader might have.

It is an order to the angels who are – under God – running the Sun and Moon through the universe.

If the movement to be stopped had been that of earth, the order would have been adressed to the earth.

Commands followed by real divine miracles are not formulated as actual and factual falsehoods about the process.

And you are – for next time if you answer – wrong about certain details of the Galileo process.

One tidbit thereof: “the Church had supported Galileo and his work” … well, Heliocentrism was not all he had been doing!

His telescope was used by Clavius to partly confirm what he had said about the Milky Way – and that part, though Clavius thought he was scientifically wrong, remained uncondemned. His experiments in physics were supported as well. What has come to the fore is that these might have involved an atomism which might have been in conflict with the Dogm of Transsubstantiation. IF that is true, his being tried for a much lesser suspicion of Heresy (it is Corpus Christi feast today) was a way of saving him from the stake. A heresy about the Body and Blood of Our Lord was a much more serious matter. IF Galileo was suspect of anything like that, THEN the trial he was put through saved his life.

John Gideon Hartnett

Cosmology is Not Science

June 19, 2014 at 10:11 pm

In reality, cosmology is what we call historical science, because it tries to reconstruct the past history of the Universe from observations we make today.

Cosmo-GONY is historical. Cosmo-GRAPHY is how the cosmos is contemporaneously.

Like if it has a centre, where it is and so on.

That too is not immediately “observational science” – except if you base it on the observations we do have: earth being still, heavenly bodies moving around earth.