Author Topic: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill (Read 6558 times)

cassini · « **Reply #15 on:** July 21, 2019, 04:24:44 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch on July 20, 2019, 09:18:24 PM

Good docuмentary.

I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton. I have a copy of Principia, but I'd like a critical guide through it.

The Principia:

‘Rumours of the coming masterpiece had flowed through Britain the first half of 1687,’ writes Westfall. ‘When the young Swiss mathematician, Nicolas Fatio de Duillier (1664-1753), arrived in London in the spring, he found intellectual circles aflutter with expectations of the book, which would, he was assured, remodel natural philosophy [no, resurrect pagan philosophy]… Almost from the moment of its publication, even those who refused to accept its central concept of instant action at a distance recognised the Principia as an epoch-making book.’[1]

The Royal society of London published Isaac Newton’s tome amid universal praise. Supposedly a work of pure physics and mathematics, it was of course a pot-pourii of plagiarised physics, astronomy and mathematics used and made comply with a new cosmology determined from his incomprehensible alchemic studies and conclusions. In order to hide his secrets, or its incomprehensible physics, Newton deliberately made his Principia undecipherable in many places. Indeed it is on record what he told his friend William Derham: ‘And for this reason, namely to avoid being baited by little Smatterers in Mathematicks, he told me, he designedly made his Principia abstruse.’[2]

‘Newton’s major work, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, was published in 1687 [Edmond Halley paid all the costs] and all the indications are that the publicity channels of that period were carefully orchestrated to ensure that it appeared with the maximum impact … This is remarkable in view of the fact that it is certain no one understood it at the time, and it is doubtful if anyone has ever understood it since. “Across the channel John Locke [3] set himself to mastering this book. Since he wasn’t a mathematician he found the demonstrations impenetrable.” It is far more likely that he found them so because they were impenetrable. “Not to be denied he asked Huygens [the Dutch mathematician] if he could trust the mathematical propositions. When Huygens assured him he could, he applied himself to the prose and digested the physics without the mathematics.”[4] In other words Locke’s acceptance of Newtonian physics was not based on mathematical proof but blind trust. This was indeed a new and streamlined scientific method.’[5]

Besides Huygens and Locke, other famous names voiced their inability to make neither head nor tail of the Principia. According to Westfall, Gilbert Clerke (1626-1697), a mathematician and philosopher who had published a number of minor works at the time, wrote to Newton saying he despaired of understanding the Principia. Professor Morris Kline, a modern writer on mathematics informs us: ‘the Principia is extremely difficult to read and is not at all clear to laymen, despite statements to the contrary. The greatest mathematicians worked for a century to elucidate fully the material of the book.’[6] Many others in the wake of the Principia did their calculations that showed Newton’s maths were useless.

‘Elsewhere in Kästner’s Anfangsgründe, he launches a direct attack on Newtonian mechanics. In section 237, he says, “Kepler found from the observations that the planets go in ellipses around the sun, which lies at the focus of these ellipses. Regarding this, Newton showed that this would happen if the planet were driven or pulled around the sun by a force which varied inversely as the square of the distance. I consider his proof of this to be inadequate.” He proceeds to derive Newton’s “inverse square law” from the principle of elliptical motion. He then says, Newton had assumed a conic section, and derived his law from that (as Abraham Kästner [1719-1800] had just done), but he had not shown that an inverse square “force” would produce conic section motion.’[7]

Had Kepler’s ellipse been the true orbit of planets, such problems might never have arisen. Interestingly, when scholars like Kästner, Boulliau, Ward, Streete etc., found fault with Newton’s universal gravitation maths, none of them questioned the truth of elliptical orbits in a heliocentric Solar System. Did none of them ever hear of Domenico Cassini’s and the Paris observatory’s findings that orbits are Cassinian ovals and not ellipses? Here again we see their Keplerian, Newtonian heliocentric certainty was built around the false idea that orbits are ellipses. Is that science or scientific jugglery?

[1] R. Westfall, op. cit., p.469.

[2] Richard Westfall: Never at Rest, p.459.

[3] The philosopher John Locke (1632-1714), Freemason and alchemist, a friend of Isaac Newton, said to have influenced the Masonic structure of America.

[4] R. Westfall, op. cit., p.470.

[5] N.M. Gwynne, op. cit., p.13.

[6] Morris Kline: Mathematics in Western Culture, Penguin Books, p.230.

[7] Peter Martinson: Empiricism as Anti-Creativity, 2007.

Struthio · « **Reply #16 on:** July 21, 2019, 06:02:41 AM »

Quote from: Stanley N on July 20, 2019, 10:41:11 PM

Why do you accept Popov's papers?

I read them. It's basic vector calculus.

Struthio · « **Reply #17 on:** July 21, 2019, 06:31:35 AM »

Quote from: cassini on July 21, 2019, 04:14:31 AM

1820 Decree states: ‘The Assessor of the Holy Office has referred the request of Giuseppe Settele, Professor of Astronomy at La Sapienza University, regarding permission to publish his work Elements of Astronomy in which he espouses the common opinion of the astronomers of our time regarding the Earth’s daily and yearly motions, to His Holiness through Divine Providence, Pope Pius VII. Previously, His Holiness had referred this request to the Supreme Sacred Congregation and concurrently to the consideration of the Most Eminent and Reverend General Cardinal Inquisitor. His Holiness has decreed that no obstacles exist for those who sustain Copernicus’ affirmation regarding the Earth’s movement in the manner in which it is affirmed today [non-violent], even by Catholic authors. He has, moreover, suggested the insertion of several notations into this work, aimed at demonstrating that the above mentioned affirmation, as it is has come to be understood, does not present any difficulties; difficulties that existed in times past, prior to the subsequent astronomical observations that have now occurred. [Pope Pius VII] has also recommended that the implementation [of these decisions] be given to the Cardinal Secretary of the Supreme Sacred Congregation and Master of the Sacred Apostolic Palace. He is now appointed the task of bringing to an end any concerns and criticisms regarding the printing of this book, and, at the same time, ensuring that in the future, regarding the publication of such works, permission is sought from the Cardinal Vicar whose signature will not be given without the authorization of the Superior of his Order.’[1]
[1] Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo references: W. Brandmüller and E.J. Greipl; eds., Copernico, Galileo e la Chiesa. Fine della controversia (1820). Gli atti del Sant’uffizio (Florence: Leo Olschki, 1992), pp.300-301; translation from Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science,

‘The most excellent [Holy Office] have decreed [1822] that there must be no denial, by the present or by future Masters of the Sacred Apostolic Palace, of permission to print and to publish works which treat of the mobility of the Earth and of the immobility of the sun, according to the common opinion of modern astronomers, as long as there are no other contrary indications, on the basis of the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Index of 1757 and of this Supreme [Holy Office] of 1820; and that those who would show themselves to be reluctant or would disobey, should be forced under punishments at the choice of [this] Sacred Congregation, with derogation of [their] claimed privileges, where necessary.’[1]
[1] Finocchiaro's Retrying Galileo references: A. Fantoli: Galileo; For Copernicanism and for the Church, p.475.

Thank you, cassini.

The decree says that the Holy Office must not deny permission to publish certain heliocentric works. So that's what you meant by "anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED."

No punishment though for those who try to stop heliocentrism by showing how ludicrous the "proofs" are.

Struthio · « **Reply #18 on:** July 21, 2019, 07:40:50 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch on July 20, 2019, 09:18:24 PM

I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton.

Ernst Mach's book Die Mechanik in ihrer Entwickelung can be found on archive.org. The PDF download link is here.

An English translation The Science of Mechanics can also be found on archive.org. The PDF download link is here.

The book has sections about the achievements of Gallileo, Huygens, and Newton, followed by criticism of Newton, starting at Chapter II, Section IV, page 201.

cassini · « **Reply #19 on:** July 21, 2019, 08:07:55 AM »

Quote from: LaramieHirsch on July 20, 2019, 09:18:24 PM

Good docuмentary.

I'd like to hear about Isaac Newton.

Isaac Newton was born to his widowed mother on 4^th Jan. 1643 [Gregorian calendar], a year after Galileo died. When he was about four-years-old his mother, for financial reasons, got married again to an Anglican vicar. Both then abandoned Isaac, leaving him to be reared by his grandparents. This left him psychologically scarred for life. At school, Newton was a loner, often bullied, but a bright boy, excelling at Latin, the language of the learned, and maths, always an easy subject for the young Isaac. One of the first books that he read, we are told, was The Mysteries of Nature and Art by John Bate. This work inspired Newton to be a great natural philosopher. Curiously, Isaac had a fascination for the sun from an early age. He would make and collect precision sundials and preferred their accuracy to the clocks of the day. When he was 18 years-old, Newton went to Trinity College Cambridge where he studied logic, ethics and rhetoric. These were Aristotelian at the time, and reflected the geocentric view of course. There he remained for the next twenty-eight years, first as a student, then as a lecturer. By the time Isaac Newton and the Royal Society of London were finished however, Trinity College had abandoned the geocentric order and adopted a heliocentric one instead.

These days, if not for the last 300 years, Sir Isaac of the Royal Mint is nearly always portrayed as a learned theist, a staunch Christian philosopher, a Biblicist who devoted his life’s work to God. What is not made clear however, is that Newton’s god was the Pythagorean and masonic ‘Great Architect of the Universe.’ Nevertheless, books and articles abound with pious utterances about him and many other such accolades gathered from his theosophical beliefs. The most famous of course it that given to him by the English poet Alexander Pope:

‘Nature and Nature’s Laws lay hid in the Night. God said,

Let Newton be! and all was Light.’--- Alexander Pope

‘And all was light,’ but whose light, Lucifer’s?

Isaac Newton carefully researched those things of interest to him. He believed everything could be rationalised and reasoned out. For him it was simply a question of studying something very thoroughly before discerning where the truth of the particular subject lay for him. One of the subjects investigated by Newton was Christianity, even learning Hebrew so as to translate the Bible for himself like the good Protestant he pretended to be.

‘As can clearly be seen from voluminous manuscripts that survive, Newton had early in his life reached the conviction that a massive fraud beginning with the fourth and fifth centuries had perverted the legacy of the early Church, and that central to the fraud was the Scriptures, which he believed had been corrupted to support the doctrine of the Trinity. “In Newton’s eyes, worshipping Christ as God was idolatry, to him the fundamental sin.”[1] To this it can be added that he did not even have the courage to make his views public, as would surely have been incuмbent in any man of principle who saw his compatriots engaged in what he believed to be “the fundamental sin” of idolatry even if martyrdom had been the result. He not only refused to make his “important discovery” public, a phrase used by one of his friends who shared the same views - in order to preserve appearances and to avoid damage to his career and popularity, he even continued to commit the “fundamental sin” himself until just before he died. Westfall tells us: “No one considered Arians[2] a threat to the state. They were a threat rather to the moral foundations of society. Newton was well aware that the vast majority of his compatriots detested the views he held – more than detested, looked upon them with revulsion as an excretion that fouled the air breathed by decent persons….His heterodoxy allowed him every concealment… As long as he was willing occasionally to take the sacrament of the Church of England [is not a sacrament, only a symbol of Christ’s divinity] the law required nothing of him at which he need balk. Only on his deathbed did he venture to refuse the sacrament.”’[3]

Westfall shows that ‘Sir Isaac Newton hated and feared Popery.’ Koestler shows that he was: ‘A crank theologian… who held that the tenth horn of the fourth beast of the Apocalypse represented the Roman Catholic Church.’[4] Newton’s exhaustive studies of the ancient religions led him to believe the old Vestal Cult as the original true religion.

[1] Richard Westfall: Never at Rest, Cambridge University Press, 1983, p.314.

[2] Those who deny the divinity of Christ: first promulgated by the priest Arius.

[3] N.M. Gwynne: Sir Isaac Newton & Modern Astronomy, quoting Westfall, pp.7-8.

[4] A. Koestler: op. cit., p.536.

‘Newton also proposed that the religion ‘most ancient and most generally received by the nations in the first ages [i.e. after Noah] was that of the Prytanea or Vestal Temples.’ These temples, he explained, were circular structures with a burning flame at their centre that represented the Sun. In De Revolutionibus, of course, Copernicus had radically relocated the sun at the centre of the solar system, ‘this most beautiful of temples,’ whilst Vossius has considered the ancient cult of the Vestal fire as having represented the Sun. Newton believed these Vestal temples proved the ancients had originally understood the heliocentric universe as ‘rediscovered’ by Copernicus.’[1]

[1] David Boyd Haycock: The Long-Lost Truth. Chapter 6: The Newton Project.

More if you want it L:asramie.

forlorn · « **Reply #20 on:** July 21, 2019, 09:43:25 AM »

Quote from: cassini on July 20, 2019, 01:18:29 PM

This is a brilliant video. It shows us how the Earthmovers used Albert Einstein to find a way out of the M&M test that showed the Earth is not orbiting the sun.

Can you elaborate on the M&M test(this one, I believe?) and how it proves the Earth is not orbiting the Sun?

Struthio · « **Reply #21 on:** July 21, 2019, 11:02:30 AM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 21, 2019, 09:43:25 AM

Can you [cassini] elaborate on the M&M test(this one, I believe?) and how it proves the Earth is not orbiting the Sun?

Watch the video!

forlorn · « **Reply #22 on:** July 21, 2019, 12:17:00 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 21, 2019, 11:02:30 AM

Watch the video!

I'd rather not listen to a man who thinks the Twin Towers were nuked and that satellites make crop circles.

Struthio · « **Reply #23 on:** July 21, 2019, 01:11:18 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 21, 2019, 12:17:00 PM

I'd rather not listen to a man who thinks the Twin Towers were nuked and that satellites make crop circles.

Here advice by Thomas á Kempis:

Quote

If read you must, then read on, letting the love of Truth be your guide. Don’t ask who wrote it. Just pay attention to what’s said.

Cera · « **Reply #24 on:** July 21, 2019, 03:03:44 PM »

Quote from: cassini on July 20, 2019, 01:18:29 PM

This is a brilliant video. It shows us how the Earthmovers used Albert Einstein to find a way out of the M&M test that showed the Earth is not orbiting the sun. Einstein's theories were based on frauds and have been falsified many times. I especially liked the moving illustrations that show without any doubt that stellar aberration and parallax can be attributed to either heliocentrism or geocentrism so were never proofs for heliocentrism as claimed up to this day..

Now it is over 100 years since science itself admitted geocentrism was never proven wrong. We know why science and scientists will never acknowledge geocentrism as a probability, but why didn't the Catholic Church takle on board these findings also? For centuries the Church has been ridiculed over its defence of biblical geocentrism, so why didn't churchmen respond when science had to admit the evidence was more for geocentrism than heliocentrism?

Well I will tell you why, for hadn't Pope Pius VII with his imprimatur for heliocentric books in 1820, put the Catholic Church behind heliocentrism 'as understood by modern astronomers' as a truth. Indeed this same pope decreed that anyone trying to stop heliocentrism as understood by modern astronomers would be PUNISHED. In other words, to admit the 1616 decree of Pope Paul V was never falsified, that would have shown the Church contradicted a true teaching of previous popes at the highest level.

Now we are talking about the Church of Pope Saint Pius X, a pope fighting the effects of that U-turn as it created Modernism in different spheres. He had his man appointed to the Vatican Observatory, yet the Jesuits in that observatory never said a word except confirm all the heliocentric cosmology. This was a time when Monsignor Abbe Georges Lemaitre the cosmologist was pals with Einstein who was the one who admitted Geo is a viable as helio. So, why did Fr Lemaitre ignore what would have stopped so many centuries of criticism of the Catholic Church and science?

That is what is at stake here in this video. I would love to have tied JP2, admirer of Einstein and his Relativity, to a chair and made him watch it.

Great points. Also a great response to King W's comment that "Lets promote conspiracy theories so by this means we will convert the world to Catholicism."
The very term "conspiracy theory" is a psy op created to discredit those who shine the light of truth into places of darkness. True Catholics love the truth, regardless of how unpopular it may make us. Carrying King W's thought to its logical conclusion, Francis is doing a great job converting the world by making it easy for them to accept.
See, for example: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge
The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
That all changed in the 1960s.
Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.
The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.
The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

forlorn · « **Reply #25 on:** July 21, 2019, 04:56:39 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 21, 2019, 01:11:18 PM

Here advice by Thomas á Kempis:

Except, with videos on subjects you have very little knowledge in, it's hard to tell if the narrator is talking utter rot or not. You have to have some trust that they aren't just lying to you. When someone's willing to run around saying the twin towers were nuked against all reason, I can't trust that he's telling me the truth.

forlorn · « **Reply #26 on:** July 21, 2019, 05:23:57 PM »

At what point in the doc does he get on to proving the Aether? As far as I'm gotten he's still listing quotes carefully cut to leave out the parts where they mention the main conclusion is that the Aether is not real. One quote even goes "The only other conclusion is the Earth is stationary", dishonestly leaving out the main conclusion entirely.

Struthio · « **Reply #27 on:** July 21, 2019, 05:36:58 PM »

@forlorn

Given your prejudice against Sungenis and your "very little knowledge on the subject" plus your unwillingness to watch and follow the video, I recommend you avoid to read this thread and also to comment.

Discussion with folks who bring your preconditions typically is acid and sterile.

forlorn · « **Reply #28 on:** July 21, 2019, 06:36:14 PM »

Quote from: Struthio on July 21, 2019, 05:36:58 PM

@forlorn

Given your prejudice against Sungenis and your "very little knowledge on the subject" plus your unwillingness to watch and follow the video, I recommend you avoid to read this thread and also to comment.

Discussion with folks who bring your preconditions typically is acid and sterile.

Your precondition being that you want him to be right so you're going to ignore his inability to back it up. I don't have ill will, I'm watching the video and willing to have my views challenged, it's Sungenis who has ill will by completely ignoring that his cited experiments did not prove that the Earth was stationery - they proved that the Earth did not move in relation to a hypothesised Aether. His refusal to mention that key fact is incredibly dishonest way of misleading the viewer, and deserves calling out.

Struthio · « **Reply #29 on:** July 21, 2019, 07:34:25 PM »

Quote from: forlorn on July 21, 2019, 06:36:14 PM

Your precondition being that you want him to be right so you're going to ignore his inability to back it up. I don't have ill will, I'm watching the video and willing to have my views challenged, it's Sungenis who has ill will by completely ignoring that his cited experiments did not prove that the Earth was stationery - they proved that the Earth did not move in relation to a hypothesised Aether. His refusal to mention that key fact is incredibly dishonest way of misleading the viewer, and deserves calling out.

You just show that your prejudice makes you blind. The light-carrying medium is proven by the experiments of Sagnac and of Michelson & Gale.

Why not use your reason and watch the video?
Why insist in staying uneducated?
Why keep trolling this thread?

Author Topic: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill (Read 6558 times)

cassini

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

cassini

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

forlorn

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

forlorn

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Cera

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

forlorn

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

forlorn

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

forlorn

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill

Struthio

Re: New Sungenis film: The Fool on the Hill