Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity
As we have noted earlier, Isaac Newton did not discover the nature of
gravity. He merely gave us a mathematical formula to calculate its effects.
Although Newton and his devotees usually describe gravity as an attractive
force, the most that can be said for this view is that it satisfies the
appearances. The main problem with viewing gravity as a local force due
to some innate property of matter is that it would not begin to explain how
gravity can operate over vast distances, otherwise known as the "action-at-a-
distance" problem, something Newton hardly addressed, let alone
solved.
Recall in our earlier discussion concerning the makeup of the atom
that there exists a huge volume between the nucleon and the electron. In 1911 Ernest Rutherford, after bombarding very thin sheets of gold with
alpha particles, discovered that even though the alpha particles were 8,000
times larger than the electron, and the metal foil was 400 atoms-thick,
nevertheless, most of the particles penetrated the foil with little problem.
Only a few, perhaps 1 in 1,000, were scattered, some deflected 90 degrees,
others 180 degrees. An obvious interpretation of this phenomenon is that
most of the alpha particles move through the atom as if it were almost
completely empty. The few alpha particles that were deflected had done so
because they hit the nucleus of the atom, which means that most of the
mass of the atom is concentrated at the central point. As it turns out, only a
quadrillionth of the atom is occupied by mass, that is, only
0.000,000,000,000,1%. What constitutes the other
99.999,999,999,999,9%? Hildegard's vision tells us that it is the fourth
element, "air," or what we would understand as a subatomic ether that
pervades the whole universe, yet it does not penetrate the nucleus or the
electron but only the space between the two. In a simple analogy, we could
say that the "fire" of the electron is bathed in a sea of cosmic "air" in order
that it can continue to "burn." As Hildegard describes it: "In each of the
elements there indwells an air that corresponds to its nature."130 Every
cubic centimeter of space, and even matter itself, contains trillions upon
trillions of these little entities, forming an invisible medium throughout the
universe. As Oliver Lodge wrote, quoting J. J. Thomson:QuoteIn fact, all mass is mass of the ether; all momentum, momentum
of the ether. This view, it should be said, requires the density of
the ether to be immensely greater than that of any known
substance.
Yes, far denser - so dense that matter by comparison is like gossamer,
or a filmy imperceptible mist, or a milky way. Not unreal or unimportant -
a cobweb is not unreal, nor to certain creatures is it unimportant, but it
cannot be said to be massive or dense; and matter, even platinum, is not
dense when compared with the ether.131
This subatomic ether performs a number of important tasks, but
probably the most important is that it helps create gravity. As it occupies
the space in the atom, as in Rutherford's experiment, most of it passes
through, but some of it hits the nucleus, yet it cannot penetrate the nucleus
because of the latter's density. This fits the science we already know
concerning protons. They are virtually indestructible and do not decay.
Experiments with the proton reveal that its average lifetime must exceed
10^32 years.132 Although the nucleus is about 10-14 cm in length, its density
is far more compact. No one really knows how dense it is. In any case, the atom moves in whatever direction the ether moves the nucleus. There is no
longer any need to wonder why atoms were designed with mostly "empty
space." They were designed as such to allow them to be penetrated by
even smaller unseen entities to create the phenomenon of gravity.133
As we noted above, modern science has found substantial evidence
that open space is not a vacuum; rather, it is filled with infinitesimal
particles. It was for this very reason that the interferometer experiments in
the course of 50 years all demonstrated positive results for an ether circling
the Earth, but results that were not even close to coinciding with an Earth
revolving around the sun at 66,000 mph. We also noted earlier that Carl
Anderson discovered the positron in 1932. From this discovery various
scientists have understood that space is packed with electron-positron pairs
(or what we have coined as "electropons"), such that the sudden
appearance of an electropon pair when a 1.02 MeV charge is administered
in open space is that the charge is jarring the particles loose from the allpervading
electropon lattice. One scientist, Menahem Simhony, estimates
that the number of electropon pairs in one cubic millimeter of space is 6 ×
10^30, with a binding energy of 27 quadrillion kilowatt hours, yet this
energy is a million times smaller than the binding energy of the atomic
nucleus.134 Hence, the nucleus would remain impenetrable to the
electropons, and thus the electropon sea could move the nucleus. Thus we
have a viable mechanism for gravity. Later we will discover what might
move the electropon sea against the nucleus.
Simhony's value of 10^30 electropons per cubic millimeter of space is
precisely the same value found by another researcher in the field, Allen
Rothwarf (although the two scientists worked independently).135
Moreover, setting their sights on specifically addressing the gravity
question, Frederick Rothwarf and Sisir Roy combine the electropon pairs
into a second ether composed of particles on the Planck scale, so that there
are "two ethers." Offering a solution to gravity, they write:QuoteThese particles, called partons or gravitons, are assumed to have
a mass equal to the Planck mass136 and to constitute an ether AG,
that transmits gravitational forces at a speed cG, which exceeds
the speed of light c0. Along similar lines, Van Flandern and
Vigier have analyzed planetary and cosmological data to obtain a
lower limit of cG, 2 10^10 c0 = 6 × 10^18 m/s" [i.e., 20 billion
times the speed of light].137
Einstein had limited the speed of gravity to luminal parameters, but
many physicists admit that this limitation simply will not survive in a universe of Planck dimensions, and it is one of the reasons why Relativity
and Quantum Mechanics have never had a successful union.
That gravity is based on an ether-pressure is related to the various
corpuscular theories of gravity originating in the work of Nicholas Fatio de
Duillier (b. 1664) and Georges-Louis Le Sage (b. 1724), and continuing in
modern times to the more advanced theories. For example, astrophysicist
Toivo Jaakkola writes:QuoteA few words about the gravitational ether, and the ether concept
in general may be in place here. The ether hypothesis was
thought to be buried by the Michelson-Morley experiment, but
today it is more alive than ever, in the form of the CBR [Cosmic
Background Radiation]: experiments capable of finding the ether
were not possible in the 1880s, but were possible in the 1960s. In
a sense, the electromagnetic ether has always been observed as
the heat of the Sun (since as pointed out, CBR is reprocessed
photons).
The gravitational ether must be structured much like its
electromagnetic counterpart. Local fields would cause the
ordinary gravitational processes. Corresponding to CBR, there
must be a cosmic background gravitation, CBG, probably with
its specific gravitational spectrum. How to observe CBG? It has
been already observed, as the cosmological redshift effect, z.
Gravitation works via gravitational quanta, gravitons".
Quantized gravitation is also required by the redshift and other
equilibrium effects. Gravitons are gravitational equivalent to
electromagnetic quanta, photons, both those of the cosmic
background radiation CBR and incident photons from galaxies.
Gravitons and baryonic matter interact and are in equilibrium on
the cosmological scale. The graviton-baryonic interaction is the
redshift effect, and the CBR is re-emission of energy gained by
the cosmological gravitons in the redshift effect.
Gravitation on a body is a pressure effect of gravitons flowing
from the background space. As a rule, due to the equilibrium
principle, the flow is proportional to the mass of the body. As for
all concentric flows (e.g., radiation) the surface density of the
graviton inflow follows the familiar inverse square distance
law".The energy of the gravitons is proportional to the
parameter which we call "strength of gravitation," G. Therefore, we obtain for the surface gravity on a spherical body with mass
M and radius R the familiar Newtonian a = GM/R^2.
All the main cosmological, astrophysical and physical facts: the
gravity and Olbers paradoxes, redshift effects and CBR,
gravitation and radiation, and the existence of particles can be
conceived in the framework of this ether concept.138
In summary, Jaskkola holds that:
- The CMB [CBR] radiation shows that ether exists all over the
universe.- The redshift shows that a Cosmic Background Gravitation in the
form of gravitons also exists.- Gravitons interact with baryonic matter (the atomic nucleus).
- Gravitation on a body is a pressure effect of gravitons flowing
from the background space.- The strength of the gravitons is equal to the gravitational constant
G, and the force is measured by the inverse square law.
Halton Arp adds that gravitons are:Quote...very low mass particles with a huge de Broglie wavelength
compared to photons [and thus] have much less interaction with
the intergalactic medium....The photon is transmitted through
the average cosmic false vacuum, material vacuum or zero point
energy field - to use just a few names given to the old fashion
concept of 'ether.' But the graviton interacts with much less of
this molasses and hence moves much faster.139
Reginald T. Cahill adds that interferometer experiments dating back
to Miller in 1925 and the coaxial cable experiments up through DeWitte in
1991 show the presence of gravitational waves. These waves are said to be
the proper interpretation of the periodic and non-random fluctuations in the
same forces measured by the "Stanford University-NASA Gravity Probe
B" satellite experiment that measured a geodetic precession and the Lense-
Thirring 'frame-dragging.' Cahill concludes that the data shows "gravity
may be....well represented in terms of a 'flow' system involving a velocity
vector field....and this formalism is physically indistinguishable from the
Newtonian formalism..."140
How might this ether "flow" system work, mechanically speaking, to
cause the effect of gravity? As we noted previously, the mechanism may
actually be very simple. The ether has a granularity and concentration that
is far finer and far denser, respectively, than ordinary matter. As such,
ether will serve as the interstitial substance that fills the so-called "empty"
space within the atom, as well as the space outside the atom. Since,
however, the ether does not penetrate the atom's individual particles
(protons, neutrons, etc), these atomic particles thus account for a
percentage of the mass of the atom. But since the atomic particles are less
dense than the ether, yet they occupy space in the atom, this means that the
total density within the atom will be slightly less than the density of ether
outside the atom. This imbalance will cause what can best be described as
a partial vacuum in the ether, and the ether will seek to correct the vacuum
by attempting to come to equilibrium. Here is the key: The effort to correct
the vacuum pressure is the cause of gravity. The less-dense ether within
the atom will seek to draw inward the denser ether that is outside the atom,
and this force will continue until a balance is reached, but, in fact, a
balance is never reached, and thus the force of gravity persists indefinitely.
In Newton's case, for example, the apple falls to the Earth because the
larger the mass, the stronger the vacuum pressure. The Earth, which is the
larger mass, will create a stronger ether vacuum pressure than a smaller
mass, and thus the smaller mass (the apple) will be drawn toward the
larger mass by the force of the Earth's greater ether vacuum pressure. The
reason the Earth creates a greater ether vacuum pressure than the apple is
that the more atomic mass an object has, the less interstitial ether it will
possess in its given volume, and thus the greater the imbalance it will have
with the ether outside its mass. The Earth, having more mass than the
apple, has less interstitial ether within its particular volume and thus a
greater ether vacuum.
By the same principle, Jupiter will have more gravitational force than
the Earth because Jupiter, having more atomic mass than Earth, will have
less interstitial ether for its given volume, and thus create a greater ether
vacuum, which then attempts to pull more forcefully the ether from outside
the planet in order to reach equilibrium.
-Sugenis, The Geocentric Universe, p.69-74.
otherwise known as the "action-at-a-distance" problem, something Newton hardly addressed, let alone solved.
Tesla also speculated that "gravity" was caused by flow of ether.And here in this idea of gravity, it is the flow of ether between particles which causes the variations in mass creating this "ether vacuum" pulling those objects with less mass toward it. In a way, it kind of reminds me of Einstein's absurd "space-time warping", as the density of the earth, due to ether flow, is beyond that of all things which rest on its surface, therefore pulling them downward toward it as objects would sink into a basin. At least, that's what I'm getting here from Sugenis.
Scientists long believed in either because light travels in waves, and waves are not considered possible except through a medium of some kind.
Of course, when the Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that the earth stands still, they had to get rid of it, so they came up with absurd completely unproven theories such as the Lorentz contraction and then relativity in desperation to get rid of ether, and they presented these as fact, and built up the mythos and the legend of the fictional personality Albert Einstein.
Of course, now, their theories about gravity are so badly off that they were forced to concoct this notion of "Dark Matter".
A few pages later, Sugenis interprets Hildegard's vision of the "winds" of the cosmos as a means to account for this problem of which "dark matter" is a solution:
Of course, now, their theories about gravity are so badly off that they were forced to concoct this notion of "Dark Matter".
These same winds, as they travel from the outer edge of the universe toward the Earth, create the phenomenon of gravity and inertia for every other celestial body in the universe. Consequently, any celestial body outside the Earth's immediate area will experience disproportional cosmic wind currents and thus move with respect to those currents.
Hildegard intimates that the winds originate both by the energy latent within each celestial layer (based on the principle that fire is included in each of the other three elements: air, water, and earth), yet the largest and primary cosmic wind begins in the layer of pure energy that is in the outer layer of the universe where also the universes most massive stars are located.144 In a fashion easily explainable in terms of modern science, the energy from the outer layer of the universe creates the inward gravitational pressure as it moves the particulate substance in space in symmetric wave motion towards the center of the universe. In this way, every object of the universe will experience gravity and inertia. Hildegard insists that there is neither movement nor force without these cosmic winds. Thus gravity is not a "curvature of space" and inertia is not an inherent property of motion, but both are the result of a well-designed universal machine working on the principle of mechanical cause and effect. Hildegard's vision of universal winds thus replaces the need for Dark Matter, for we can easily see that gravity is not dependent on the presence of matter; rather, it is a pressure force caused by the transfer of some type of electrical or plasma energy into a kinetic energy so that the cosmic winds can carry the waves of gravity and interact with the matter in a closed universe. It is possible that the high energy gamma-ray bursts or X-ray bursts found over the entire perimeter of the cosmos may be the peep holes by which we can verify the existence of this universal energy.
-Sugenis, p. 79
Let Sungenis explain how the sun, 93,000,000 miles out, is IN the firmament...according to scripture. And let him explain how the sun travels a half a billion miles in orbit around the earth EVERY SINGLE DAY. Also, let him explain how the firmament, described in scripture as a dome/vault/tent, can cover a globe earth.
Don't worry, whatever Sungenis comes up with will be ridiculous as he scrambles to try to hold together the model that justifies his movies and books.
Sungenis did explain this, and it was posted recently here on CI.Imaginings in the sphere of Sungenis' mind is not proof that earth is a globe. Scripture says earth is set on pillars but Sungenis says earth hangs in space. I suppose he has an outrageous hypothesis for this, too. Sungenis suffers from diabolical disorientation.
Imaginings in the sphere of Sungenis' mind is not proof that earth is a globe. Scripture says earth is set on pillars but Sungenis says earth hangs in space. I suppose he has an outrageous hypothesis for this, too. Sungenis suffers from diabolical disorientation.
You said "let Sungenis explain". And I mentioned that he did. You suffer from shifting goalposts.It's not possible he made a lick of sense. Can you remind me what he said? I don't think I saw it.
Let Sungenis explain how the sun, 93,000,000 miles out, is IN the firmament...according to scripture. And let him explain how the sun travels a half a billion miles in orbit around the earth EVERY SINGLE DAY. Also, let him explain how the firmament, described in scripture as a dome/vault/tent, can cover a globe earth.
Don't worry, whatever Sungenis comes up with will be ridiculous as he scrambles to try to hold together the model that justifies his movies and books.
Imaginings in the sphere of Sungenis' mind is not proof that earth is a globe. Scripture says earth is set on pillars but Sungenis says earth hangs in space. I suppose he has an outrageous hypothesis for this, too. Sungenis suffers from diabolical disorientation.Okay, okay, this isn't about Flat Earth, this is about his interpretation of Hildegard von Bingen's visions of the creation. In her visions, the Firmament is one of the "spheres" containing the universe where these sixteen great stars are fixed. The problem here, is that he accepts the modern belief that stars are massive balls of plasma and gases hanging freely in "space", yet, Hildegard states, quite explicitly, that these sixteen stars are set in the Firmament "like nails in a wall."
In her visions, the Firmament is one of the "spheres" containing the universe where these sixteen great stars are fixed.
What of the other stars? The movement of some can be observed. (Not just the "wandering stars" aka planets)Here's some excerpts what he has to say about the stars:
Barnard's star for example:
https://earthsky.org/upl/2017/06/barnards-star.gif
The Fourth Day has arrived and God has made additional "lights" to fill
the heavens. Although the "two great lights" are not given names, it is
obvious they are the Sun and the Moon. The other lights are called "stars."
All of these lights are said to be placed in the "firmament of the heavens."
This is an important point since neither in Genesis nor in any other book of
Scripture is the Earth said to be "in the heavens." This is because Scripture
dictates that the Earth is motionless and is therefore in the center of the
universe and not part of the heavens. Conversely, secular cosmology (e.g.,
the Big Bang) insists the Earth is as much a part of the heavens as any
other celestial object.
As noted earlier, the creation of these additional "lights" in the
Firmament is coincident with the modification of the original Light of the
First Day. In this way, the additional lights made on the Fourth Day could
take over the rhythm of the night/day sequence. If we use our reason to
determine what occurred, the secondary Light (that was separated from the
original Light as the Firmament stretched out) was then made into the Sun
and the stars on the Fourth Day.
[...]
Essentially, as the original Light from the First Day was spread out by the
stretching of the Firmament, it left many and varied bits of "light" along
the way, or what we today call "stars." These would account for all the
stars in and outside of our Milky Way galaxy, and thus make up 99% of
the universe's stars.
[...]
During the Fourth Day, God completed the molding of the Light of
the First Day into the Sun and stars. During this time, the Firmament has
been circling the fixed Earth once per day and it has now completed its
second revolution. During the Fourth Day, it is on its third revolution
around the Earth. Naturally, as the Firmament rotates around the Earth on
the Fourth Day, it carries the stars and the sun with it, which is the same as
we see today.
[...]
Lastly, modern science itself admits that we cannot be certain about
the distance to the stars. The only empirical method (that is, one that is not
based on a theory that lacks scientific proof) of determining the distance to
the stars is stellar parallax, but it can estimate distances only to about 300
light years.67 Even then, stellar parallax is based on the assumption that
vast distances separate the two stars being viewed in the telescope.
Although we presently work from the assumption given to us by modern
astronomy that the stars are very large and very far away, there is no proof
for that conclusion. The stars could be very close and smaller than
presently believed. Even with the finest optical instruments, the stars and
galaxies remain as mere points of light through our telescope lenses. No
one has ever obtained a finer focal point, which means either that they are
very small or very far away. 68
Sugenis, pp. 36, 37, 38, 42.
Okay, okay, this isn't about Flat Earth, this is about his interpretation of Hildegard von Bingen's visions of the creation. In her visions, the Firmament is one of the "spheres" containing the universe where these sixteen great stars are fixed. The problem here, is that he accepts the modern belief that stars are massive balls of plasma and gases hanging freely in "space", yet, Hildegard states, quite explicitly, that these sixteen stars are set in the Firmament "like nails in a wall."Ok, not familiar with this. I'll be watching.
The problem I have here is Sugenis's presupposition that stars are what modern scientists say they are while Hildegard's vision of these 16 in particular do not appear to support that claim.
Okay, okay, this isn't about Flat Earth, this is about his interpretation of Hildegard von Bingen's visions of the creation. In her visions, the Firmament is one of the "spheres" containing the universe where these sixteen great stars are fixed. The problem here, is that he accepts the modern belief that stars are massive balls of plasma and gases hanging freely in "space", yet, Hildegard states, quite explicitly, that these sixteen stars are set in the Firmament "like nails in a wall."
The problem I have here is Sugenis's presupposition that stars are what modern scientists say they are while Hildegard's vision of these 16 in particular do not appear to support that claim.
Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.
Yeah, so it appears that Sungenis is reading his interpretation into it. His big debate with Skiba had him interpreting Scripture the same way, but I think Skiba beat him, citing Hebrew scholars in his favor while Sungenis was merely gratuitously claiming his interpretation of "in" with "in the firmanent". That book about FE by Hendrie also exposes some shoddy dishonest stuff from Sungenis. So between Skiba and Hendrie, I've lost a bit of respect for Sungenis' intellectual honesty. If Hildegard did describe them as "nails in a wall", that does rule out "firmament" as being some metaphor for the "expanse of space". Sacred Scripture's description of the firmament does in fact clearly suggest that it's solid.
Job 37:18
Especially since the Firmament is taken by Sugenis to be of a tremendous density (10^94 g/cm^3) in Hildegard's "foam-like structure of space". It is a far cry from her visions to say that these stars are free-floating in the cosmic tides of "space" when she explicitly says they are "fixed" within such a dense mass as the Firmament.
Obviously, if the firmament has such a tremendous density (10^94g/cm^3) one wonders how anything could move through it. A mere teaspoon full would weigh hundreds of millions of tons. As we noted earlier, however, science itself has found the answer since the discovery in 1923 of deBroglie waves. Material objects, from things as small as the electron to as large as stars, move in wave motion through the firmament.
-Sugenis, p. 66
2/5
Dr. Sugenis lays out his interpretation of Bl. Hildegard von Bingen's visions of Creation and grounds it in his own "brand" of geocentric-modern science. I didn't really care for it. As I thought the author stretched too many of Hildegard's visions to fit his own conceptions of the universe. I think this is a problem with a lot of Conciliarist-"Catholic" authors these days, as they do good in throwing out the heresy of heliocentrism, but then turn around and still utilize the occult Masonic cosmology being pushed by NASA and mainstream science (look into Jack Parsons and the Kabbalah). I'll admit that many of the things that got into the hard science of the matter, specifically the mathematics, went way over my head. But, this does not preclude my understanding of the core problems of Dr. Sugenis's thesis. Accepting the model that the universe is what modern science says causes problems when you attempt to apply revelatory knowledge to such presuppositions. Just like the "theistic Evolutionists", it falls into a rut which forces one to choose between the literal interpretation of the inerrant word of Scripture and going with an "allegorical" interpretation like some sort of Protestant heretic in order to make it "fit" an already erroneous cosmology poised to destroy faith in God and His Church.
The positive I took away from Sugenis's book is introducing me to Bl. Hildegard's visions as well as the very handy appendix included which lists out a significant number of quotes from the Church Fathers in support of geocentrism.
I don't really recommend this book to Catholics seriously searching for a true cosmology rooted in the Faith.
The ultimate theory for gravity would be electromagnetism:
‘There is in addition its gigantic gravitational pull, a force or tension more than what a million, million steel rods, each seventeen feet in diameter, could stand. What mechanism transmits this gigantic force?’--- Sir Bertram Windle.
Electromagnetism could, no bother. Place a coin on the ground. Under the coin you have the whole Earth’s mass supposedly pulling on the coin. Now get a tiny magnet. Place the little magnet over the coin and up it goes. If Newton’s theory of gravity is true, and it is determined by the ‘mass’ of the two bodies in question, then the pull of this little magnet’s attraction is thus calculated to be 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times stronger than Newton’s ‘mass’ gravity of the whole Earth. Is that the power needed to move all bodies in their orbits? But, like Newton, try as physicists did for hundreds of years, none could not find such an electromagnetic connection involved in the orbits of the universe.
Now, what does Genesis tell us: ‘Day 1: In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters. And God said: Be light made. And light was made.
So, what is light. Today, science knows what light is, describing it as within a certain portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Accordingly, when God first created light, he in effect must have created electromagnetism to provide light throughout ‘heaven and Earth.’
Now physicists have searched for that 'light' created by God when He created the universe. Einstein tried and failed. There was an astronomer however who unknowingly found a direct connection, Domenico Cassini. But he was an anti-Newtonian geocentrist so his work is hidden. Cassini discovered thev sun and planets move in Cassinian ovals. He didn't know that Cassinian ovals are directly related to positive electromagnetic waves. Stellar aberration shows that the stars also travel in these magnetic waves. In other words all such movements in the universe are related to the LIGHT created by God on the First Day.
Tesla also speculated that "gravity" was caused by flow of ether.Light is not a wave, it only shares characteristics of a wave. Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium. You can let light or other EM waves traverse through a vacuum.
Scientists long believed in either because light travels in waves, and waves are not considered possible except through a medium of some kind.
Of course, when the Michelson-Morley experiment demonstrated that the earth stands still, they had to get rid of it, so they came up with absurd completely unproven theories such as the Lorentz contraction and then relativity in desperation to get rid of ether, and they presented these as fact, and built up the mythos and the legend of the fictional personality Albert Einstein.In 1881, Albert A. Michelson performed an experiment in an attempt to prove the existence of aether. Aether was a hypothesized material that fills the region of the universe. Scientists knew light is a form of wave, and because all other waves require a medium to propagate, they formulated the aether hypothesis, in which light can propagate. However, Michelson’s experiment produced a zero effect.
Of course, now, their theories about gravity are so badly off that they were forced to concoct this notion of "Dark Matter".
Probably another victim of diabolic disorientation and love of this world, considering he also is one of those "hermeneutic of continuity " conservatives when it comes to Vatican II.
I will never trust Sungenis again after he came out recently to lecture that the Fatima Consecration of Russia was done.
I suspect he's been tampered with?
Light is not a wave, it only shares characteristics of a wave. Electromagnetic waves don't need a medium. You can let light or other EM waves traverse through a vacuum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality
In 1881, Albert A. Michelson performed an experiment in an attempt to prove the existence of aether. Aether was a hypothesized material that fills the region of the universe. Scientists knew light is a form of wave, and because all other waves require a medium to propagate, they formulated the aether hypothesis, in which light can propagate. However, Michelson’s experiment produced a zero effect.
More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_%22failed%22_experiment
I made a point of ordering Matthew Fox's translation (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/943011.Hildegard_of_Bingen_s_Book_of_Divine_Works) of Bl. Hildegard's Book of Divine Works just so I can read her visions myself in context. Because it's clear that Sugenis is attempting to stretch her visions to fit his version of geocentric-modern cosmology.
Sungenis suffers from diabolical disorientation.
Truly one of the most outlandish assertions I've ever run across on CathInfo..
.Indeed, it certainly is!
That's a high bar, my friend. :laugh1: