Author Topic: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity (Read 3571 times)

Tradman · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2021, 04:33:54 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on December 28, 2021, 03:51:40 PM

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.

Ok, not familiar with this. I'll be watching.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2021, 05:45:47 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on December 28, 2021, 03:51:40 PM

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.

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

Quote

Thou perhaps hast made the heavens with him, which are most strong, as if they were of molten brass.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #17 on:** December 28, 2021, 05:57:47 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 28, 2021, 05:45:47 PM

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

And Sugenis outright says it is based upon my paraphrase of him here:

Quote from: DigitalLogos on December 27, 2021, 09:41:54 PM

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.

Earlier in the book, he applies deBroglie waves as a means to explain how anything could move through something as dense as the Firmament (which, again, he places at the very outer reaches of "space":

Quote

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

I made a point of ordering Matthew Fox's translation 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.

cassini · « **Reply #18 on:** December 29, 2021, 11:21:27 AM »

“For great is the power of God alone, and he is honoured by the humble. Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability: but the things that God hath commanded thee, think on them always, and in many of his works be not curious. For it is not necessary for thee to see with thy eyes those things that are hidden. In unnecessary matters be not over curious, and in many of his works thou shalt not be inquisitive. For many things are shewn to thee above the understanding of men. And the suspicion of them hath deceived man, and hath detained their minds in vanity.” (Ecclus 3:21-26).

‘On the nature and position of the Earth there should be no need to enter into discussion… It is sufficient for our information to state the text of Holy Scriptures, namely, that “He hangeth the Earth upon nothing.” (Job 26:7). There are many, too, who have maintained that the Earth, placed in the midst of the air, remains motionless there by its own weight, because it extends itself equally on all sides. As to this subject, let us reflect on what was said by the Lord to His servant Job…. Does not God clearly show that all things are established by His majesty, not by number, weight, and measure? For the creature has not given the law, rather he accepts it or abides by that which has been accepted. The Earth is therefore not suspended in the middle of the universe like a balance hung in equilibrium, but the majesty of God holds it together by the law of His own will, so that what is steadfast should prevail over the void and unstable…. By the will of God, therefore, the Earth is immovable. “The Earth standeth forever,” according to Ecclesiastes (91:4).’ – St Ambrose.

cassini · « **Reply #19 on:** December 29, 2021, 11:39:21 AM »

St Augustine wrote: ‘the Holy Spirit, Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things, that is, the essential nature of the universe.’ Now the ‘essential nature’ of the universe is ‘what causes it to do what it does,’ the immaterial quality that defines something as the kind of thing it is.

The above quote has been used by popes and others for decades to try to tell us the Bible does not, cannot, reveal a geocentric universe. Now whereas 'gravity' can come under this rule, surely not the obvious visible movements of the sun and stars as St Augustine and all clearly saw/see rotating around the Earth. Imagine them in their desperation using the geocentrist St Augustine's words to tell us man cannot believe what he sees. Finally, there was Kepler, who once thought magnetism might account for the movements of celestial objects, but decided against exploiting the idea.

Not even Hildegard knew the cause of what we call gravity. There are four theories for gravity, Newtons matter attracts matter, the physicist George Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) had also completed an alternative thesis to the very same advanced level as Newton’s - a pushing force theory for moving celestial bodies. There then was René Descartes’s ‘vortex theory.’ This formulator of analytic geometry explained that planetary motion is the result of vortices or whirlpools sweeping the planets around the sun, not unlike Einstein’s surface curled space whirlpool theory.

cassini · « **Reply #20 on:** December 29, 2021, 11:49:19 AM »

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.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #21 on:** December 29, 2021, 04:18:42 PM »

I finished the book last night, here's what I posted on Goodreads as a review:

Quote

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.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #22 on:** December 29, 2021, 04:30:24 PM »

Quote from: cassini on December 29, 2021, 11:49:19 AM

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.

Yes, electromagnetism does indeed seem to be the factor which determines the movement and attraction of things. I certainly am one who is starting to think that there is more merit to the "electric universe" position than previously thought.

Dankward · « **Reply #23 on:** January 05, 2022, 02:55:37 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on December 27, 2021, 08:05:41 PM

Tesla also speculated that "gravity" was caused by flow of ether.

Scientists long believed in either because light travels in waves, and waves are not considered possible except through a medium of some kind.

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

Quote

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".

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

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #24 on:** January 06, 2022, 06:56:31 PM »

My initial impressions of what Bl. Hildegard presents from her visions in the Book of Divine Works, versus the interpretation of Dr. Sugenis, shows me that I was correct in thinking that he is stretching her visions to fit his own cosmology.

I am reading the Robert Cunningham translation edited by Matthew Fox, so citations will correspond with that edition. The translation appears to use "circle" and "sphere" interchangeably in a similar sense to that of Aristotle.

Here, in summary, is what Hildegard says about the universe (Vision Two: 1):
1. The universe is like a wheel and is in the form of an egg. The "shape of the world" referenced by Hildegard constitutes the entire universe, not just earth.
2. The universe above the earth is composed of six circles
3. The first, a circle of luminous fire
4. The second, a circle of black fire, half the size of the first
5. The third, a circle of pure ether as large as the first and second circles put together
6. The fourth, a circle of watery air, which is the same size as that of the first circle
7. The fifth, a circle of sheer white clear air which "looked to be as tough as a sinew of the human body." It is the same size as the second circle and corresponds to the Firmament.
8. The sixth, a circle of thin stratum of air, which "seemed to raise up high" and is the residence of the clouds.
9. At the center of the wheel is a human figure, representing the dominion of Man in creation.

Further, Hildegard states that "All six circles were joined together without a wide space between them." At the circuмference of the wheel are various beastly heads; "a leopard, a wolf, a lion, and a bear." These exhale their breath into the pure ether, which permeates through what are the constellations of the Zodiac. Their breath is directed toward the earth, represented by the human figure.

The planets, contrary to Dr. Sugenis's interpretation of residing beneath the circles of luminous and black fire, the ether, and pure air (Firmament), in the expanse below; are, in fact, divided among the various circles of creation and reside within them. Three are in the luminous fire; one in the sphere of black fire; and the other three in the pure air below.

There are also sixteen major stars, which are set within the outer circuмference of the wheel between the four beasts (the four winds).

The stars themselves reside in the third circle of ether and fourth circle of pure air (Firmament), which corresponds to Genesis 1:14-15, 17 which places the stars in the Firmament, which, again is said in Scripture to be solid (Job 37:18) and Hildegard supports this in Vision Two: 6 and 7, where she speaks of the circle of pure air holding back the circle of watery air (waters above the Firmament): "The circle of watery air is meant to show that the waters flow above the firmament." (V2:6); "Under this circle of watery air is seen another circle of sheer white clear air, which has the same tensile strength as a sinew in the human body...this circle prevents flooding by the watery circle through its force and tension. For such flooding might otherwise submerge the Earth in a sudden and overwhelming precipitation." Not unlike Gen. 7:11.

The universe is said to be fixed in its shape, and is not set to change "and cannot be increased by anything new. It rather remains just as God has created it." (V2:2) As the universe is said to be like an egg, called "world-egg" (V2:3), it is a multi-layered structure not unlike a nesting doll and similar to the conceptions of the ancients. The world (i.e. universe, not just the Earth) is said to be "round and rotating". (V2:3)

The first circle is that of light, and is superior to that of the black fire, which is said to be "a judgment fire...produced for the punishment of evildoers." Most likely, as even Dr. Sugenis notes, it will be the same fire used to cleanse the world at the End of Time.

The third circle of pure ether is there to "restrain the upper and the lower zones so they should not exceed their proper dimensions." It further contains lightning "out of a flaming fire [those above] when the fire belches forth its flames." I speculate that this layer of ether above the Firmament and clear waters is where lightning phenomena, such as "elves", may originate. But that's beside the topic.

That's about as far as I've gotten so far in Bl. Hildegard's vision, as I just received the book today. But, what I've read so far does not correspond to what Dr. Sugenis makes it out to be, as something supporting modern cosmological assumptions.

Incredulous · « **Reply #25 on:** January 06, 2022, 09:50:09 PM »

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?

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #26 on:** January 06, 2022, 10:13:21 PM »

Quote from: Incredulous on January 06, 2022, 09:50:09 PM

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?

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.

cassini · « **Reply #27 on:** January 07, 2022, 05:04:16 AM »

Quote from: Dankward on January 05, 2022, 02:55:37 AM

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

"However, Michelson’s experiment produced a zero effect."

Oh there is lots more about the M&M test. It was conducted to demonstrate the either exists by way of light coming from an orbiting Earth.

The Michelson and Morley Failure

Try hard as he did, Michelson failed again and again to find the 30kms/s. interference fringe he believed was inevitable if the Earth orbited the sun. So sure was he that the Earth really did move through the ether that he thought there must be some fault in the experiment. Michelson called in the help of a colleague, the American chemist Edward Williams Morley (1838-1923) so that both of them could conduct a definitive experiment. Nothing would be overlooked with both scientists carefully double checking every aspect of the test. Nor could the instrument be faulted, because their technology was made to the highest standard of accuracy. In July of 1887, having improved the equipment as well as was technically possible, Michelson and Morley conducted a definitive test.

‘At noon on 8th, 9th and 10th July, and at around 6pm on 8th, 9th and 12th July, Michelson walked round with the rotating apparatus calling out results while Morley recorded the observations. They were deeply disappointed, for no effect remotely resembling the expected speed of the aether was found. Once more the experiment produced a null result.’----Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.37.

Now what do you think they mean by a ‘null’ result or as Dankward says 'Michelson’s experiment produced a zero effect.' The dictionary describes ‘null’ in many ways, including nil, or of no value or significance, to their way of thinking no doubt. In fact, this costly and intricate test discovered movement above five kilometres a second, far shorter than the required 30 kilometres per second predicted, but some sort of movement nevertheless. Michelson believed this was a valid demonstration, and even with a margin of error due to human or mechanical shortfalls he believed the 5kms a second interference did show the existence of ether and that it was not altogether dragged along with the Earth as Freshnel’s theory had speculated.

Morley then called in Dayton Miller to help repeat the process in 1904 and 1905. They built an even bigger interferometer, but again they found no interference above 3.5 kilometres per second.

Now inertia can be caused either by the universe moving around the Earth, or by the Earth moving arouind the sun. with a geocentric Earth the test would show the daily inertia but no orbital inertia. The rotational inertia would be much less that an orbital inference. They did not find their heliocentric inference so they called it a nil result. In effect it showed a geocentric result.

And if you think the 'nil' ploy was bad, you would want to see the ad hocs made up to explain why no orbital Earth was found.

DigitalLogos · « **Reply #28 on:** January 07, 2022, 08:50:24 AM »

Vibes of Cosmos has a new video today which kind of reminds me of what Bl. Hildegard saw, which again supports the idea of a localized, "terrarium-universe" unlike that of what Dr. Sugenis or modern scientists believe. She did see that the earth was a ball, and not flat, so that's worth noting as well.

Charity · « **Reply #29 on:** December 28, 2022, 08:24:40 PM »

Quote from: DigitalLogos on December 28, 2021, 05:57:47 PM

I made a point of ordering Matthew Fox's translation 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.

Matthew Fox! I certainly would not trust any translation by this individual. Please look into his background. i think you will be duly shocked -- I mean really shocked -- by what this ex-Catholic priest promotes.

Author Topic: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity (Read 3571 times)

Tradman

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

Ladislaus

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

DigitalLogos

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

cassini

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

cassini

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

cassini

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

DigitalLogos

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

DigitalLogos

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

Dankward

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

DigitalLogos

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

Incredulous

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

DigitalLogos

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

cassini

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

DigitalLogos

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity

Charity

Re: Sugenis - Hildegard and the Cause of Gravity