Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 106862 times)

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #255 on:** April 16, 2014, 07:46:02 PM »

Quote from: [url=http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=29601&min=240#p2

HERE[/url] cantatedomino]THE EARTHMOVERS: But whose light? To answer this question we must turn to Bacon’s ‘epoch-making’ book, the Advancement of Learning, written in 1605. This book reeks with Rosicrucian nuances and refers to God as ‘the Father of Light,’ a metaphor of St James’s but twisted to comply with Hermetic, Gnostic and cabalistic tradition.

It was out of the Hermetic tradition that Bacon emerged, out of the Magic and Cabala of the Renaissance as it had reached him via the natural magicians . . . Bacon’s science is still, in part, occult science. (Francis Yates: The Rosecrucian Enlightenment, p.119.)

Dodd then reveals that Bacon was without doubt the real father of English literature, not only with his own writings but including those he compiled under the name of Shakespeare, containing as they do a multitude of styles ‘depending on whether he was addressing a king, a great nobleman, a philosopher or a friend, composing a state paper, extolling truth or discussing studies.’ A point well worth pondering on is here alluded to by Dodd, the fact that there was never a Shakespeare in the making.

This same technique is used by +Fellay and his cronies, to tailor their words to suit the ears of their audience -- in order to create in their mind some desired effect more than any normal communication going on from one mind to another. As TheRecusant has said recently (Issue #11, p. 2):

Bishop Fellay is pro- or anti-modernist Rome, rather that he is capable of being both or either, of changing his position without hesitation and with never so much as a blush, according to whatever his own short-sighted goals require. Take heed. Once again, as if it were needed, he has provided us with startling evidence of how his own words are as good as useless in indicating what he will do or say next. When he talks, he does so in order to create an impression in the mind of the listener, not to communicate something objective from one mind to another, much less to lay out or establish anything for which he will feel bound to give an account in the future should someone remind him of his own words. His dictum that nobody can criticise the April 2012 Doctrinal Declaration because they don’t necessarily understand what he himself meant by it, and his complaint that we “are not in [his] head!” ought to be truly frightening to anyone with a basic understanding of philosophy. It amounts in practice to a denial that words have any objective meaning or that statements or sentences can be understood by a third party without reference to their author. If that is not the very last word in modernist thinking, then I don’t know what is.

Consider the implications for one moment: if that were true, then nobody could ever know the teaching of the Church. There could be no Catholic teaching, since any writing from the more recent Popes down to the Church Fathers and even Scripture itself would depend upon “being inside the head” of the author. If, on the other hand, words do have objective meaning, a meaning which stands alone and is not dependent on any intellectual caprice of their author, then what Bishop Fellay wrote and offered to bind himself to last year cannot be defended by any Traditional Catholic worthy of the name.

A further drop in the bucket is found in the scandalous words of Fr. Themann (who certain members here cringe at the thought that he might be neo-Modernist!) when he said, wrote, decreed and pronounced that "Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand."

I leave the import of the implications to settle in where you can think it over, if you dare.

As for the following, yes, it is a matter of historical record that the so-called William Shakespeare 'miraculously' emerged out of nowhere, with no schooling, no history, no pedigree, no past --- hey, sounds a lot like Barack Obama, don't it!?!?

{Yes, it's "playwright" not "play write." Likewise, millwright · plowwright · ploughwright · shipwright · wainwright · wheelwright, &c.-wright.}

Quote

For did not Shakes-Speare spring into being fully armed at all points as a [playwright] in the world arena, as though he had never served a laborious apprenticeship to the craft of the quill? (A. Dodd: Francis Bacon’s Personal Life-Story, p.433.)

Come on! This is child's play! Leaving the nose intact, the forehead, the eyes, the ears, the cheekbones, the fatty drag lines above the mouth, and the skin, but iron this guy's hair out straight, add in a receding hairline, pluck his eyebrows and eyelids, shave most of his goatee off, change the get-up to another outfit, and flip the photo left to right a.k.a. mirror image, and you get the following portrait, no question*:

{Note: in those days, the painter could have been given the instructions to set up a MIRROR into which he would look at the original painting, and THAT would be what he paints; see every detail in the bags under the eyes and the expression in the smirk. Francis Bacon SMIRKS at us, from 400 years ago!!}

Quote

Lookalikes: Bacon and Shakespeare

It was Francis Bacon, who in 1611 edited the Bible of the Protestant King James I (an initiated Freemason) whom he knew personally:

That he did revise the manuscript before publication is certain . . . He returned the manuscripts for printing twelve months later (1610) steeped throughout in that ineffable beauty of style which neither king nor divines could have created – only the hand of Shakes-Speare, the supreme master of English prose. (p.433).

Thereafter Dodd explains the reason for Bacon’s anonymous authorship of both Shakespeare’s works and the James I Bible:

The Reformation did nothing to aid free thought . . . Puritans and Romanists alike were united in their persecution of philosophy and their hatred of secular knowledge for the common people . . .

Ever since Italy had been darkened by the shadow of the [great] Inquisition, men had begun to devise means to communicate with each other, and with their public, in a style which should be intelligible to themselves without giving offence to Rome. Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters . . . to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether. (Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.)

It seems to me that a serious use of double writing is going on in the halls of the Menzingen-denizens as we speak. Only those who show themselves both able and willing to undertake this task, clandestinely, are allowed to advance within the ranks of the Society, and those who perhaps had reached a degree of seniority before the Revolution took full control in 1994 with +F's election, such as +W, obviously, are sidelined (Bishop Tissier), transferred (Fr. Scott), marginalized (Fr. Girouard, Fr. Pfeiffer), sanctioned (Fr. Chazal, Fr. Altamira), muzzled (Fr. Arizaga, Fr. Cardozo), suspended (Fr. Pivert) and ultimately expelled (&c., &c.).

We ought to be glad (so far!) that they haven't been killed. Although, in the case of some, the Leaders simply wait for them to die off, such as Fr. Hector Bolduc and Fr. John Peek, God rest their souls.

Quote

Why have the Gentiles raged, and the people devised vain things? The kings of the earth stood up, and the princes met together, against the Lord and against his Christ. Let us break their bonds asunder: and let us cast away their yoke from us. He that dwelleth in heaven shall laugh at them: and the Lord shall deride them. Then shall he speak to them in his anger, and trouble them in his rage.

But I am appointed king by him over Sion his holy mountain, preaching his commandment. The Lord hath said to me: Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt rule them with a rod of iron, and shalt break them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

And now, O ye kings, understand: receive instruction, you that judge the earth. Serve ye the Lord with fear: and rejoice unto him with trembling. Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him. (Psalm 2)

*Where are the critics? Bring 'em on!

.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #256 on:** April 23, 2014, 06:58:50 PM »

.

No critics? Okay, then we shall proceed apace with the program...........

There is a subtle twist to the plan which the Menzingen-denizens are using on the faithful of today, even while it is based on the deception that Francis Bacon used on the authorities of his day.

The "serious use of double writing" to which I referred,
being practiced by +Fellay and his henchmen
does not use the same devices that the earlier version did.

It is not so much a free expression open to men of letters[/b]..

[/size]

(like the earlier version was)

..such that the authorities might assume
their doctrines to be orthodox (when they're not)
while the public for whom these doctrines were designed
might readily perceive their real (unorthodox) drift ..

-----

.. as it rather is a clandestine expression of these
secretive deceivers (the current leaders of the Society)
such that the public might be persuaded to assume
these doctrines to be orthodox (when they're not),
while the authorities for whom they were designed
may perceive their real (unorthodox) drift. [/size]

The reason for this twist is simple. In the days of Francis Bacon, the authorities whom he was wont to deceive were prone to orthodoxy, however, the authorities of today to whom +Fellay appeals are prone to heterodoxy; likewise, the public whom Francis Bacon hoped to rouse up against the authorities were those who were prone to corruption, while the public whom +Fellay hopes to deceive are the SSPX Faithful who are prone to orthodoxy.

Quote

Open revolt was impossible. They matched their wits against their persecutors and were able to say pretty nearly what they liked by a system of disguised writing. The use of double writing in serious literature was the only method of free expression open to men of letters . . . to write in such a manner that the authorities might assume their doctrines to be orthodox while the public for whom it was designed might readily perceive its real drift. Except by resort to this old and time-honoured device, the spirit of independent thought would have perished altogether. (Gertrude Leigh: Passing of Beatrice, p.X, quoted by Dodd, op. cit., p.27.)

It seems to me that a serious use of double writing is going on in the halls of the Menzingen-denizens as we speak. Only those who show themselves both able and willing to undertake this task, clandestinely, are allowed to advance within the ranks of the Society, and those who perhaps had reached a degree of seniority before the Revolution took full control in 1994 with +F's election, such as +W, obviously, are sidelined (Bishop Tissier), transferred (Fr. Scott), marginalized (Fr. Girouard, Fr. Pfeiffer), sanctioned (Fr. Chazal, Fr. Altamira), muzzled...

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #257 on:** April 24, 2014, 05:01:35 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Chapter Thirteen: 1571-1630: Johannes Kepler

Johannes Kepler

Johannes Kepler’s obsession with a cosmos built around the Pythagorean solids and musical harmonies . . . was in keeping with the traditional Neoplatonism, with the revival of Pythagoreanism, with the teaching of the Paracelsians, Rosicrucians, astrologers, alchemists, cabbalists and Hermeticists who were still conspicuously in evidence in the early seventeenth century . . .The Keplerian cosmos is the crowning achievement of a type of cosmic architecture which began with the Babylonians and ends with Kepler himself. (Arthur Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.262.)

Johannes Kepler was born in southwest Germany in 1571 into a Lutheran family. He was the eldest son of an army officer and a mother who was charged repeatedly with practicing witchcraft. He was a sickly child, getting smallpox at the age of four that left him prone to nearly every disease and blemish, including myopia and multiple-vision; hardly the credentials you would think helpful to the astronomer and calculator who is now revered as the first to determine accurately the mathematical orbits of planets. Throughout his life, poor Johannes would also suffer with things like the runs, piles, boils, dermatitis, mange and worms. ??!!!!!!!

Although he came from a poverty-stricken and troublesome family, his mother encouraged his intellectual interests, especially his obsession with cosmological geometry. In 1584 he entered the Protestant seminary at Adelberg but fell out with certain tenets of the new reforms. Refusing to convert to Catholicism, Kepler remained in religious ‘Limbo’ thereafter. In 1589 he won a scholarship to the University of Tübingen, where he studied philosophy and religion. It was here he came under the influence of Michael Maestlin (1550-1631), one of the earliest astronomers to have picked up the baton of heliocentrism passed down by Pythagoras, Copernicus, Rheticus and other Protestant contacts.

[Michael Maestlin, in his own copy of Copernicus’s The Revolutions, added a note saying he had heard Osiander was the one who had written its first preface.]

The link between Rheticus and Kepler as bold pioneers of Copernicanism was their shared commitment to geometry. The editor of Kepler’s complete works suggests it was Rheticus’s Copernican vision of the “celestial harmony” of spheres “geometrically defined” that ignited the program of research to which Kepler devoted his life. In the First Account, Rheticus had approvingly cited the pseudo-Platonic maxim “God ever geometrizes.” And in 1596 Michael Maestlin, Keplers’s teacher in Tübingen who arranged for the co-publication of that work with the Cosmographical Mystery, added a marginal note asking; “What would Rheticus have done had he noticed the geometry of God as regards the five regular solids that Kepler discusses?” (Dennis Danielson: The First Copernican, p.204.)

When a position as a lecturer of mathematics - that included astronomy - and morals became vacant at the University of Graz in Styria, Austria, Kepler applied for it and got it. This appointment also called upon Kepler to provide astrological predictions, something that suited Kepler just fine. It was only then that Kepler began to study the subjects of astronomy and astrology in earnest, even making predictions as to his own future. Yes, Kepler was into the family mysticism in a big way.

[Kepler], with strongly cabbalistic, mystical and metaphysical inclinations, was the only notable figure of seventeenth-century science who keenly reacted, and for theological reasons, to Bruno’s cosmological speculations. (Fr. S. J. Jaki: The Ash Wednesday Supper, p.33.)

In his 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicuм (Mystery of the Cosmos), Kepler expressly states that his conviction of the heliocentric position was based on faith, on ‘metaphysical’ grounds. Moreover, the overtones of animism and the importance of the sun in Kepler’s metaphysics indicate the pervasive influence of Hermetic philosophy.
[/size]

cantatedomino · « **Reply #258 on:** April 24, 2014, 05:16:07 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Hence the sun is a certain body in which resides the faculty, which we call light, of communicating itself to all things. For this reason alone, its rightful place in the middle point and centre of the whole world, so that it may defuse itself perpetually and uniformly throughout the universe. All other beings that share in light imitate the sun. (J. Kepler, quoted by J. Trusted: Physics and Metaphysics, pp. 47-8.)

Arthur Koestler writes:

The gist of them [Kepler’s beliefs] is that the sun must be the centre of the world because it is the symbol of God the Father, the source of light and heat, the generator of the force which drives the planets in their orbits, and because a sun-centred universe is geometrically simpler and satisfactory. (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.263.)

Kepler, we find, was an out and out Pythagorean, having a fascination for numbers and their meaning. He was convinced, with just cause, that God created the world in accordance with the principles of perfect numbers. Consequently, he believed there was an underlying mathematical harmony in the cosmos that was reflected in the movements of the planets. (See: Sir W. Damplier: History of Science, Cambridge University Press, 1949.)

Starting at the beginning, he asked himself why were there only six planets, and what, if any, are the connections between them. This question also led Kepler on a wild-goose chase. Tycho de Brahe had submitted the relative radii of the orbits of the planets at about 8, 15, 20, 30, 115 and 195. This totally irregular sequence fascinated Kepler who spent years trying to find some magical order in them without success.

At first this mixture of astronomy and the occult led Kepler to believe in the theory of ‘five regular solids:’

In this theory - which Kepler believed provided a link between the past and the present [a precursor to Einstein’s space-time?] - the cosmos consists of the five Pythagorean solids (the five kinds of three dimensional solids of which all the faces are identical; the tetrahedron, the cube, the octahedron, the dodecahedron and the icosahedron) into which the orbits of the planets fit perfectly - which they don’t, and more so now that there are more planets to account for. By using the five solids to make separating spaces between six spherical bowls of various thicknesses, the bowls would define the six orbits.

The scheme of regular solids

As further data showed this scheme to be unsustainable, no matter how much he thickened the shells to fit the facts, Kepler, to his credit, admitted he was wrong. In his book on heliocentricity, he says:

For it is my opinion, that the occasions by which men have acquired knowledge of celestial phenomena are not less admirable than the discoveries themselves . . . If Columbus, if Magellan, if the Portuguese when they narrate their wanderings, are not only excused, but if we do not wish these passages omitted, and should lose much pleasure if they were, let no one blame me for doing the same. - - - Mysterium Cosmographicuм.

In 1598 Kepler decided to leave Gratz for fear of being confronted by the new authorities there. For two years he journeyed through Germany to Prague, the city where Tycho de Brahe was then working. Anxious to pursue his obsession with astronomy and astrology he asked Tycho to employ him. Like all the Copernicans before him, Kepler wanted access to the most accurate astronomical data to be had, and, as is usual, this data was to be found only in the work of the ‘sensible’ astronomers, the geocentricists. Tycho sent Kepler a wonderful letter, writing: ‘Come not as a stranger but as a friend; come and share in my observations with such instruments as I have with me.’

Kepler obviously took the Danish astronomer literally and joined him at the observatory at Benatek Castle in 1600. Tycho was busy at the time observing the planet Mars, ‘the difficult planet,’ as they called it, because no matter how hard they tried no circular orbit could be plotted that fitted the observations. Kepler, assigned to a mere servant’s job, assisting in compiling the vast amount of data recorded - all of which had to be hand-written - soon began to doubt Tycho’s invitation to share all his secrets.

Tycho was aware of Kepler’s ideas, for Kepler had sent him a copy of his Mystery of the Cosmos. Who knows, but perhaps at the time the one-eyed de Brahe knew Kepler was a sleepwalker, more interested in creating fantasies rather than building proper astronomical knowledge, and recalled what Aristotle used to say of such ideologically minded Pythagoreans:

They do not with regard to the phenomena seek for their reasons and causes but forcibly make the phenomena fit their opinions and preconceived notions and try to reconstruct the universe. (Hector McPherson: The cosmological ideas among the Greeks, Popular astronomy, 1916. p.362.)

In a fit of rage Kepler accused Tycho in a letter of treating him like a servant, hiding important data from him. Tycho, perhaps seeing in Kepler some promise, was patient with him. Kepler, realising his only hope of fame and glory lay with the Tycho's data, repented and wrote the following in an apologetic letter:

Most Noble Tycho; How [do] I enumerate or rightly estimate your benefits conferred on me? For two months you have liberally and gratuitously maintained my whole family and I . . . You have done me every possible kindness; you have communicated to me everything you hold most dear . . . I cannot reflect without consternation that I should have been so given up by God to my own intemperance as to shut my eyes on all these benefits; that, instead of modest and respectful gratitude, I should indulge for three weeks in continual moroseness towards all your family, in headlong passion and the utmost insolence towards yourself . . . Whatever I have said or written . . . against your excellency . . . I declare and confess to be groundless, false, and incapable of proof.

Nevertheless, Kepler left the castle, returning to Germany. Here he fell into hard times, suffering from sickness and poverty. On hearing of his plight, Tycho again extended a hand of kindness, inviting him to return to the observatory and continue his work.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #259 on:** April 24, 2014, 05:29:36 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

In 1601, soon after Kepler’s arrival, Tycho fell ill with a ‘mysterious’ malady and died. At last Kepler had it all, all of de Brahe’s life’s work. It was then he got the job as Imperial Mathematician to Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia. The Emperor, though, considered Kepler more as an astrologer than astronomer, and accordingly the Sleepwalker was kept busy providing horoscopes for the whole royal court.

By Kepler’s time, in the two models of the cosmos remaining, it was accepted that Mars orbited the sun and did not have a direct one-on-one orbit with the earth. This alone made the orbit of Mars difficult to plot.

The geocentric and heliocentric models of the seventeenth century
with the planets orbiting the sun in circles in both systems.

For ten years, Kepler, true Pythagorean that he was, worked away trying to reconcile Tycho’s data with his own ideas. It was during these years that Kepler deducted the ‘discoveries’ that are now accredited to his name. It began when Kepler despaired of ever finding any worthwhile circular orbit for Mars. The reasons for this were many. Another problem for Kepler was that the true distances of the planets from the sun and earth were unknown at the time, and the angles of view lacked consistency due to their ‘looping’ appearances as seen from the earth as they orbit the sun. Kepler figured, quite logically, that the first orbit that must be determined properly was that involving the earth and the sun. Only then can one begin to plot the path of other bodies.

Fortunately, with the earth and sun, what you see is what you have, no apparent loop-the-loops, just a simple one-on-one geocentric orbit. Only when this orbit is determined can the orbits of the planets be measured with precision and accuracy.

Diagram of the geocentric trajectory of Mars through several periods of apparent retrograde motion. Astronomia nova, Chapter 1, (1609).

Examining the sun/earth/Mars/star system of lines and angles known and recorded by Tycho’s naked-eye observations, Kepler traced out an orbit for the sun/earth. This orbit, Kepler found, could be taken as an eccentric circle, slightly oval. By inverting the angles he then plotted an orbit for Mars (Kepler used forty laboriously computed points). What he found of course was that Mars’s orbit about the sun also deviated slightly from a circle. The next step for Kepler was to describe this oval curve or orbit mathematically. He confesses that this task nearly drove him mad. Obviously he was desperate to find something tangible and coherent to fit his metaphysical beliefs.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #260 on:** April 24, 2014, 05:46:43 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

In 1609, Kepler, in his Astronomica Nova (New Astronomy), said he had finally figured out that the planets move around the sun in ellipses, in which the sun is located at one of two foci. [Ellipses are flattened circles whose geometric properties were first explained by the Greek mathematician Apollonius in the First Century BC.]

In his Book on Mars appeared the ‘Triumphant Diagram,’ the ‘sketch of “Victorious Astronomy” to show his delight and to emphasise the importance of the proof.

“Victorious Astronomy”

Finally Kepler found the true orbit sandwiched between an eccentric circle that was too wide and an inscribed ellipse that was too narrow. Both disagreed with observation, the circle by +8´ at some places, the inner ellipse by -8´. He suddenly saw how to compromise half way between the two, and found that gave him an orbit that is an ellipse with the Sun in one focus. He was so delighted with his final proof that this would work that he decorated his diagram with a sketch of Victorious Astronomy. At last he knew the true orbit of Mars. A similar rule holds for the Earth and other planets. This is his first law. (E.M. Rogers: Physics…, p.267.)

Arthur Koestler believed Kepler’s ellipse came to him in a dream, and we have no reason to doubt it, and knowing the Sleepwalker’s occult tendencies, as to who or what prompted that dream, we could make a good guess at. What is not widely known however is that Kepler did not find an elliptical orbit with precision, but settled on a compromise that concurred with his fantasy, with his dream.

Traditionally the basis for ancient geometry was calculating in terms of conserved area (product). With Johannes Kepler’s ‘First Law’ however, we find a radical departure from the classical, for it switched to conserving length, not area, the combined length of the focal arms (AC + BC in our illustration above) is always the same.

So, it seems then that Kepler’s ellipse was actually no more than an unproven hypothesis, a theory awaiting proper verification, but what’s new in the great ‘proven’ heliocentric fraud? After Newton however, the makeshift curve was elevated to an established fact, supposedly discovered by Johannes Kepler’s ‘brilliant observational ability.’

cantatedomino · « **Reply #261 on:** April 24, 2014, 05:51:32 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Kepler’s ‘Second Law’ appeared alongside his ‘First Law.’ It states:

That a spoke from the sun to the planet sweeps out equal areas in equal times (necessitating varying speeds during this orbit).

Kepler knew that the sun rotates on its axis and this led him to suggest it was this constant rotation with a force (gravity) that somehow pushed the planets (and earth) in elliptical orbits around it, traversing equal areas in equal periods of time. To achieve this equal space-time ratio, he said the planets would have to travel faster around the sun when nearer the sun and slower when further from the sun.

Kepler’s 2nd law as depicted in any textbook

The earth, Kepler said, moves along the boundaries of equal areas in equal times, that is, it moves from A to B in the same time as C to D and that consequently, both shaded areas shown are equal in area (see fig above). Morris Kline writes:

Kepler was overjoyed to find that there was a simple way to state the mathematical law of planetary velocities. Apparently God preferred constant area to constant speed. (M. Kline: Mathematics and the search for Knowledge, pp 77-78.)

But again Kepler lacked verification for his area law, there being no maths devised to measure curved space in his time. So, are Kepler's 1st and 2nd Laws true laws? According to every book on the subject the answer is yes, of course, absolutely, proven numerous times. The truth, however, is almost beyond belief, for it is no, not at all, for they have never gone past approximations. Soon there will be born the brilliant astronomer Domenico Cassini who will test Kepler’s Laws and show us something very different.

For the next ten years Kepler worked under the patronage of Emperor Rudolph II of Bohemia, skipping from astronomy to astrology and back again. During this time he published Tycho’s observations in table form, naming them the Rudolphine Tables in appreciation of the Emperor’s patronage to him. Now one might be led to believe that anyone who made the discoveries Kepler is supposed to have made would have been famous and wealthy. The facts are that in his time, Kepler’s two ‘laws,’ while very interesting, merely attempted to quantify the appearance a little more accurately so there was no great reward in that for Kepler. Throughout, fame and fortune eluded him, often because of his ‘heretical’ beliefs to both Protestant and Catholic theology. It was then that his wife and a son died.

Moreover, in 1610, as if Kepler hadn’t enough troubles, the Emperor himself fell into difficult times financially and could not afford to pay the small salary for Kepler’s services. Made redundant, it was time for him to look for yet another job or starve.

For two years Kepler sought work without success. Things began to improve however when he attained the position of provincial mathematician at Linz in 1612. Here he married again, had more children only for misfortune to visit him once more when he lost two of his sons from this marriage. But more than that, for it was here in Linz that his mother was accused of being a witch and put on trial. Kepler, probably because of lack of funds, defended her himself and successfully saved her from a burning at the stake.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #262 on:** April 24, 2014, 06:56:20 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Kepler’s Third Law

It seems that Kepler too never considered his ‘laws’ to be that important. In a sense this is true, for they were after all only attempts at measurements, and only approximate ones, and not causes that might confirm the true order of the universe. And that is why he placed his third [set of] planetary calculations in his book Harmony of the World (1619), intermingled between the metaphysical and physical, a law Kepler had always suspected existed.

This idea lay in his total belief that the entire universe and everything in it, from metaphysics, epistemology, politics, distance and movements, corresponded to musical intervals only audible to the soul situated in the centre of the sun. All movements within the cosmos contributed to a harmonic relationship, the ‘music of the spheres’ as he called it. The paths of the planets, he believed, went up and down like the scales of a music sheet. Now whatever about the music, Kepler did discover there was harmony, a real harmony, if the figures he dug out of de Brahe’s observations were/are correct. They suggested that:

The squares of the periods of revolution of any two planets are as the cubes of their mean distance from the sun, or in simpler terms, the relationship between the planets’ sidereal (the time it takes them to orbit the sun), and their distance from the sun.

This observation of Kepler’s was without doubt a great find. In essence, he revealed that there is, irrespective of their size and distance, a harmony, a relationship, a wedding, between periodicity and distance - or if you like between time and space - in the movements of the irregular celestial spheres. The Third law is wonderful in a quantitative sense in that it establishes an equivalency between entities raised to different powers.

Here then are figures as presented in a typical textbook today, but included is the assumption, never demonstrated, that the earth shares this orbital harmony with the sun and not the sun with the earth:

It was Kepler then, who, albeit using Tycho de Brahe’s work, found a real ‘secret’ or truth of the universe at last. Note however, this find does not confirm the planets’ heliocentric elliptical orbits are laws, as one might be led to think, only that there is order and harmony of a kind ruling the movements of the universe, whatever they may be.

In 1618 the Thirty Years War began in Europe with destruction and death everywhere as Catholics and Protestants battled with each other. When Linz fell to the Catholic Duke Maximilian of Bavaria in 1620, things got even worse for Kepler. For the last ten years of his life his health deteriorated. Nevertheless, by 1627 he had completed a list of all Tycho’s tables and presented them to the world at the Frankfurt Book Fair, if you bought a copy that is. His final days were spent trying to get more books published, and he ate well only when he managed to get paid for something or other. Johannes Kepler, a tragic figure, died in 1630.

Today, although falsified by Domenico Cassini as we will see, Kepler’s first two theories are still offered as true laws.

Now this [Kepler’s first two ‘laws’], as Kepler put it, was “the sort of thing nature does.” With this ellipse, the orbit made physical sense, supporting his conviction that a force residing in the sun moves the planets. What was more, if the area rule was correct, this model agreed “to the nail” with the long-trusted heliocentric longitudes of his vicarious hypothesis. This one shape of orbit, and only this shape, got the planets to the right place at the right time. The man who had said of himself ‘There was nothing I could state that I could not also contradict,’ had discovered a piece of incontrovertible truth. (Kitty Ferguson: The Nobleman and his Household – Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler – The strange friendship that revolutionised science, Review, 2002, p.320)

cantatedomino · « **Reply #263 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:08:53 PM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

The science shelves of modern bookstores are packed with this easy sell: ‘This one shape of orbit, and only this shape, got the planets to the right place at the right time.’ Sounds great when one has the floor and is trying to put an exciting book together, but remember; chances are that the Fergusons of this world, like most of us, never actually recorded the paths of planets; that is, checked out the data for accuracy. Had they done this, as the brilliant astronomer Domenico Cassini and the Paris Observatory did later that century, they too would have found something far different. The hard fact is that Kepler’s First Law was based on an approximation, one long falsified by true science.

Try to find the planets accurately with Kepler’s First Law and you will find at times empty space, with the sun and planets somewhere else. This is why Newton, when using Kepler’s ellipse had to invent the ‘PERTURBATION’ theory, a supposed attractive action that tries to explain why the sun and planets deviate from their supposed elliptical orbits we have been led to believe by the Earthmovers is the ‘incontrovertible truth.’

Try to find the planets and sun with Kepler’s and Newton’s formulae and all you will achieve are approximations. But this suits the Masters fine, for this way they could avoid having to present accurate data, figures that could be checked as true or false by the empirical method. What they claim is but another greased pig of equilibrium used to attain their goal, ensuring they could never be pinned down by precision, thereby avoiding having to abandon their so called proofs. Arthur Koestler suspected this as we see from his comments:

His laws are not of the type which appear self-evident, even in retrospect; the elliptic orbits and the equations governing planetary velocities strike us as “constructions” rather than “discoveries.” In fact, they make sense only in the light of Newtonian Mechanics. From Kepler’s point of view, they did not make much sense; he saw no logical reason why the orbit should be an ellipse instead of an egg. (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.334.)

This is a brilliant observation, and it endorses our own findings. Koestler then remarks: "Not the least achievement of Newton was to spot the three laws in Kepler’s writings, hidden away as they were like forget-me-nots in a tropical flowerbed." (A. Koestler: The Sleepwalkers, p.40.)

Could Koestler be hinting at how neo-Gnostic-Hermetic, cabbalistic-Rosicrucian-Luciferian Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ works, and how their ‘secrets’ are handed down by symbols, allegories, codes, mind-controlling formulae, secret knowledge and by word of mouth throughout the ages? In fact it was not Newton who implemented the ellipse as the basis for his theory of gravitation as we will see, but the well-established Freemasons within the Royal Society of London. They, being initiated, would have no trouble ‘getting the message’ and seeing its worth.’

cantatedomino · « **Reply #264 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:14:15 PM »

Quote

QUOTE (Binx @ Feb 17 2013, 07:54 PM): A few years down the timeline from Fr. Arminjon, C. S. Lewis makes a similar observation in his February 26, 1943 lecture, "The Abolition of Man." I've placed an excerpt below, and

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition3.htm

is a link to the entire lecture.

I have described as a 'magician's bargain' that process whereby man surrenders object after object, and finally himself, to Nature in return for power. And I meant what I said. The fact that the scientist has succeeded where the magician failed has put such a wide contrast between them in popular thought that the real story of the birth of Science is misunderstood. You will even find people who write about the sixteenth century as if Magic were a medieval survival and Science the new thing that came in to sweep it away. Those who have studied the period know better. There was very little magic in the Middle Ages: the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries are the high noon of magic. The serious magical endeavour and the serious scientific endeavour are twins: one was sickly and died, the other strong and throve. But they were twins. They were born of the same impulse. I allow that some (certainly not all) of the early scientists were actuated by a pure love of knowledge. But if we consider the temper of that age as a whole we can discern the impulse of which I speak.

There is something which unites magic and applied science while separating both from the wisdom of earlier ages. For the wise men of old the cardinal problem had been how to conform the soul to reality, and the solution had been knowledge, self-discipline, and virtue. For magic and applied science alike the problem is how to subdue reality to the wishes of men: the solution is a technique; and both, in the practice of this technique, are ready to do things hitherto regarded as disgusting and impious—such as digging up and mutilating the dead.

... The true object is to extend Man's power to the performance of all things possible. He rejects magic because it does not work; but his goal is that of the magician. In Paracelsus the characters of magician and scientist are combined. No doubt those who really founded modern science were usually those whose love of truth exceeded their love of power; in every mixed movement the efficacy comes from the good elements not from the bad. But the presence of the bad elements is not irrelevant to the direction the efficacy takes. It might be going too far to say that the modern scientific movement was tainted from its birth: but I think it would be true to say that it was born in an unhealthy neighbourhood and at an inauspicious hour. Its triumphs may have-been too rapid and purchased at too high a price: reconsideration, and something like repentance, may be required.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #265 on:** April 24, 2014, 07:20:42 PM »

Quote

Posted by: cantatedomino Mar 2 2013, 11:22 AM:

It is time to put the microscope on Galileo. To begin I repost the sermons of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer on the Heresies of Science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLV7WubXbFM&feature=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BliYFww5v64&feature=youtu.be

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #266 on:** April 25, 2014, 10:48:32 AM »

Quote from: cantatedomino

Quote
Posted by: cantatedomino Mar 2 2013, 11:22 AM:

It is time to put the microscope on Galileo. To begin I repost the sermons of Fr. Joseph Pfeiffer on the Heresies of Science.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/MLV7WubXbFM[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/embed/BliYFww5v64[/youtube]

...like that?

(P.S. This "Mar 2 2013, 11:22 AM" was not a post on CI - unless it was deleted.)

.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #267 on:** April 26, 2014, 08:57:07 AM »

Looks nice, Neil.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #268 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:13:34 AM »

The Earthmovers author asked me to add some updated material to this section of the serialization:

THE EARTHMOVERS:

In the same year, 1610, Kepler received a letter from Galileo seeking his approval (and praise) for discovering four moons about Jupiter portrayed in his Starry Messenger. Kepler replied with a short published reply, Conversation with the Starry Messenger. He confirmed Galileo’s findings but then went on to ‘do a Bruno.’

Bruno, recall, was one of the first to see that a heliocentric worldview opened cosmology up to conjecture that can only be described as science fiction. Kepler deduced that, given the moon was created to shine for man on earth, the four moons of Jupiter had to be put there for ‘aliens’ on Jupiter.

But this was only the beginning of Kepler’s thoughts. Around 1611, he distributed a work entitled Sominum (The Dream), that was published after his death. In it he attempts to take a trip to the moon by way of occult fantasy. Under the guise of an Icelandic boy called Duracotus, whose mother Fiolxhilde is a witch, Kepler studies astronomy, visits Tycho Brahe, and returns home to his mother, a competent cosmologist. She then tells him she too has knowledge of the heavens, given to her by daemons she herself can summon, and who can transport her anywhere on earth. She proves this to her son by calling on a daemon to speak with them. He tells them of fellow daemons who live on the dark side of the moon who can transport humans to and fro by way the dark funnel created by an eclipse.

Getting humans to Levania, ‘fifty thousand miles’ through the aether, however, was no easy job. They had to protect them from the forces necessary to push them up to the heavens, from the cold out there, and from lack of air. Then there was the heat of the sun, deadly to the daemons, and they avoided this by living in the darkness, travelling to earth only when the shadow of an eclipse allowed. The daemon explains to Duracotus and Fiolxhilde how the earth and stars looks from the moon. Duracotus then asks to be transported to the moon where he confirms the earth does indeed orbit the sun.

We see then that Kepler, no matter how he expressed his beliefs, was, like Bruno, one of the fathers of modern cosmic belief. The heliocentric system, unlike the geocentric reality, opened up the belief that, because there are billions of stars (suns), there has to be other worlds, other earths filled with life, even intelligent life, thus demoting man to the first evolving grain of stardust.

Meanwhile Kepler sought work without success. Things began to improve however when he attained the position of provincial mathematician at Linz in 1612. Here he married again and had more children, only for misfortune to visit him once more when he lost two of his sons from this marriage.

Another unfortunate consequence for Kepler was that, having included in his book The Dream the character of a 'mother' who conjures up daemons to convey Kepler's own theories of space flight and how things might look from the moon, his own mother was accused of being a witch. Kepler, probably because of lack of funds, defended her himself, and in court he explained it was all a work of fiction he had used to demonstrate how he envisaged the earth, sun and stars from the moon. He successfully saved her from a burning at the stake as they eventually accepted this and freed his mother. This narrative was put into book form and published in 1634 by Kepler's son, Ludwig Kepler.

cantatedomino · « **Reply #269 on:** April 26, 2014, 09:18:46 AM »

THE EARTHMOVERS:

Chapter Fourteen: 1564-1613: Galileo’s Heliocentrism

Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

In 1609, Galileo looked through a telescope at the moon. It was a moment of such significance for the world that it has been compared to the birth of Christ, for, as at Bethlehem, it was a moment when the impossible entered human affairs. - - - Brian Appleyard, Understanding the Present, Doubleday, 1992.

What a statement! It is worth meditating on!

He has changed our view of the world and our place within it. But in the end, Galileo, a believer in God to the end of his days, also changed the Catholic Church itself. In 1992, the Vatican admitted those who had judged Galileo were wrong to assert the literal truth of the Scriptures. - - - Channel 4 TV’s Galileo’s Daughter, Dec. 2003.

To emerge from history with a reputation that can, in any way, be compared to the birth of our Lord God and Saviour, Jesus Christ, must show you the impact this man named Galileo Galilei has had on human perception. If we study the many sources purporting to record the true advancement of human knowledge and understanding of both the sacred and profane sciences throughout these last 350 years, we will find it was Galileo’s inspiration leading the way rather than the teachings of the Church founded by Jesus Christ.

Is it any wonder then that whereas in 1633, in a world that was absorbed in scholastic Christianity, it was Galileo on his knees abjuring the Copernican heresy; in 1992 we find the man occupying the Chair of Peter, in effect, on his knees, apologising to the heretic instead. Why should this be?

Well, whereas Christ, by His Incarnation, birth, life, priesthood, death and Resurrection, redeemed man from the effects of his own fallen nature by opening up the way again to all truth, Galileo was the instrument which set in motion the means whereby that Christian faith and philosophy would finally succuмb to heresy and deceit.

This in turn has led the world into an era of intellectual redundancy, degraded paganism, secular materialism, conciliar humanism, Church anarchy, and the Christian apostasy in which we find ourselves today.